Northern Ireland Assembly, 16 February 2026

430 contributions from 69 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Today will see the first Members' Bill of the mandate introduced to the Assembly, and it will be followed by others in the next few weeks. Thus far, eight Members' Bills have been given approval to progress towards introduction in the Assembly, and a number of others await my consideration. However, Members will know that, from the outset, I have stated that we must avoid the position of the last mandate, when the sheer number of Members' Bills coming forward within a tight time frame was to the detriment of the scrutiny that the Assembly and Committees could give to both Executive and Members' Bills. We cannot see the system flooded again, and I have repeatedly communicated to Members that it will not be possible to progress the majority of Members' Bill proposals put forward in this mandate. There will not be enough time available to conduct proper scrutiny.

Next month will mark a year until the Assembly is dissolved for elections. I have been pressing the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the timing of the introduction of the Bills in the Executive’s legislative programme. The delay in Executive legislation coming forward will mean that we will again see significant congestion in the number of Executive Bills coming back to the House from Committees in the final months of the mandate, if not more so than last time. Therefore, we are reaching the point where we will have as many Members' Bills in line to be introduced to the Assembly as we can properly deal with in the next few weeks, and I will review the position in relation to how many further Members' Bills can realistically be accommodated.

Finally, I have been engaging with officials and reflecting on a range of issues that arose from the last mandate to consider how Members can be given additional support to strengthen the legislative culture in the Assembly. I will be reviewing advice over the next few weeks, but I expect that I will be informing Members of the introduction of a number of new measures to ensure that the Assembly is able to give proper consideration to when and how it legislates and that it is fully informed when it does so.

Let us move on.

Matter of the Day

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Declan Kearney has been given leave to make a statement on the High Court ruling that the ban on Palestine Action is unlawful that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. Other Members who wish to be called should stand. All Members will have three minutes.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Friday's High Court ruling is hugely significant. It vindicates the position of thousands of activists, including the brave hunger strikers, that highlighting genocide is not a crime. State suppression of the Palestinian solidarity movement has failed in its attempt to silence those exposing Israeli war crimes, which have been aided and abetted by the British state. Instead of pursuing an appeal, the British Government must now lift the ban on Palestine Action without delay and bring their anti-democratic crackdown on Palestinian solidarity activists to an immediate end. The British Government should, with immediate effect, quash the convictions and end the prosecutions of those brought before the courts under that outrageous, draconian and now deemed unlawful legislation.

Friday was a positive day for decency and humanity. We must continue to speak up for the besieged people of Gaza and never allow any world power to undermine that basic right. The British Government now have to fundamentally change their position on the rights of the Palestinian people. They should end their complicity in the illegal occupation of Palestine, the ongoing genocide and the annexation and get on the right side of global humanity and international law.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

The High Court decision in London last week confirmed what everybody had known for some time: the ban on Palestine Action was unlawful and disproportionate. Keir Starmer and his Government have acted like some of the most brutal dictators in the world by arresting almost 3,000 people in Britain for having the temerity to hold a sign, wear a T-shirt or simply declare their support for a peaceful civil disobedience organisation. I commend those who have stood up to the repressive British Government and refused to back down, despite the arrests and the heavy-handed approach from the police and the state.

People on these shores were not immune from harassment and repression for holding a sign or wearing a T-shirt. What about the so-called defenders of free speech on the unionist Benches in the House? They did not utter a word; they were tight-lipped in their support for Keir Starmer and his clampdown. Clearly, in anybody's eyes, using a tin of spray paint is not a violent act. I recognise the role played by my party colleagues in Derry, including Eamonn McCann, a former Member of the House, who were threatened with arrest and suppression because of their support for Palestine Action. Máire Mhic an Fhailí, who is a constituent of mine, was stopped and interrogated at an anti-racism demonstration in Belfast and put in the back of a police jeep for having a Palestine Action T-shirt.

The British Government need to drop their appeal in the case and instead put Keir Starmer, David Lammy and the genocide enablers in the dock for their war crimes and support of such crimes. Despite the establishment's attempts to silence and misrepresent the solidarity movement, people are going nowhere. Their sights are on the Republic of Ireland's upcoming football matches with Israel. Football and politics have always been connected and gone side by side. It has usually been up to those at the grassroots across the world to stand up for what is right. I call on the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) to pull out of those matches. If it does not, the players will need to lead the way, and I hope that they do, backed by people across the island who have no time for apartheid Israel.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

The irony will not be lost on many people in Northern Ireland when Sinn Féin lectures them and says that the British should:

"get on the right side of global humanity".

Tell that to the hundreds of innocent victims across Northern Ireland whose loved ones were killed by its barbaric Provo wing. Tell that to those who have empty places at the dinner table and still suffer the consequences of a long war of terror imposed on them by members of Sinn Féin's armed wing.

The courts are a pillar of our democracy. Their independence should be closely guarded. However, judicial independence does not place the courts above scrutiny, particularly when decisions affect national security. I believe that, in this instance, the High Court overstepped its remit when it ruled that the ban on Palestine Action was unlawful. There is now a pending judicial review (JR). The judgement was not simply a technical legal exercise; it touched directly on national security assessments made by Ministers who had access to classified intelligence, security briefings and operational advice that the courts do not fully see and cannot fully test in open court proceedings.

There is a constitutional balance to be struck in all of this. Parliament makes the law. The Government, who are accountable to Parliament, make national security judgements based on sensitive intelligence. The courts then review the process and its legality, but they are not — I repeat it clearly — an intelligence agency. They are not elected to weigh up security risks in the way in which Ministers are. The Terrorism Act 2000 — something that Sinn Féin knows about very well, given the number of former terrorists in its organisation — allows for proscription not only where there has been violence causing injury or loss of life but where there has been serious, politically motivated damage that is intended to influence government policy. That threshold exists precisely because we should not wait until such escalation results in violence.

With regard to Palestine Action, we are not discussing peaceful protest or the use of a tin of spray paint, as Mr Carroll said, but coordinated, repeated attacks, including industrial sabotage that targets defence-linked facilities, causing significant property damage and deliberately seeking to disrupt operations tied to national security. That must be our central focus when discussing such matters.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

It is interesting that people here describe Palestine Action as some form of peaceful organisation. Before I talk about the serious attack on a policewoman, I remind Members that Palestine Action attacked two Royal Air Force aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. Royal Air Force aircraft at Brize Norton are probe-and-drogue refuelling aircraft, which, as everybody knows, Israel does not have. Everybody will also know that, at the moment, those probe-and-drogue refuelling aircraft are specifically supporting NATO air operations in the Baltic, over the Black Sea and in eastern Europe. In order to realise what has been going on

[Interruption]

— it is not particularly funny to have to listen to that across the Chamber — we have to ask these questions: who is behind Palestine Action, who funds it and who directs it? Questions have already been asked about defence industry companies. We have talked about attacks on Elbit Systems, which is an Israeli-owned company. It is also doing an awful lot of work to support Ukraine, however. We have two clear examples — one of aircraft that have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in Israel or the Middle East being attacked and one of a defence company that is supporting Ukraine being attacked — so we have to ask these fundamental questions: exactly why is Palestine Action doing that, who is directing it and who are its fellow travellers?

The most egregious thing, however, was the attack on Sergeant Kate Evans. Sergeant Evans had her spine fractured with a sledgehammer. Please tell me what peace activists go around using a sledgehammer to attack somebody and fracture their spine? What message does that send to the good members of law enforcement organisations across our nation, be they in the police or wherever they happen to be? It is that the justice system does not support them. What does the ruling say to those who put themselves on the line every day to protect us? What does it say about the justice system?

I will say no more, because the Government are now, I imagine, progressing towards an appeal. I hope that they stand firm and deal with the issue, because the ruling is something that cannot be allowed to stand. You really have to ask what the motives are of people who support the like of Palestine Action and what it does.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The judgement is one that I am deeply troubled about. Palestine Action is guilty of serious offences, including the attack with a sledgehammer on a female police officer that left her with serious injuries to her back. That might be Mr Carroll's version of free speech, but it is certainly not mine or that of unionism. The court has, effectively, suggested that it is not enough for an organisation to meet the statutory test for proscription. Instead, Ministers are told that they should weigh up so-called mitigation factors, including the group's size, its presence in the UK, the threat that it poses and even diplomatic considerations in the global fight against terrorism. Let me be clear: terrorism is not negated by geography, terror is not softened by scale, and the law should not become a balancing exercise whereby barbarity is excused because it is inconvenient to confront.

At a time when we see continued Palestinian terror violence glorified and justified on our streets, the ruling sends precisely the wrong signal: that proscription is negotiable. If the judgement stands — I trust that it will not — it will not take much imagination to see the consequences for Northern Ireland. What is to stop a judicial review arguing that the IRA's proscription should be reconsidered on similar grounds? The Government must urgently appeal the ruling and reassert that terrorist organisations are proscribed because of what they are, not because of how politically awkward it is to say so.

It is no surprise that Sinn Féin has brought this Matter of the Day to the House. Its Members are cheerleaders of the terror that we have seen the length and breadth of this country for the past 40 or 50 years. Now they believe that they are the righteous ones to stand up for Palestine Action. Given their history, their stance and their continued glorification — Mr Baker sits there smirking away; my goodness, that is the state that Northern Ireland has got into. We have terrorists in suits sitting to my left who glorify murder and killing, and it is no wonder that they are sticking up for their bedfellows in Palestine Action. Shame on the House; shame on Members on my left-hand side; and shame on anybody who supports that group.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

The interpretation of the law and the rulings of the courts have never been a strength for some Members. Let us be clear about what the court ruling did and did not do. Palestine Action remains an illegal organisation and a proscribed terrorist organisation; the courts have made that clear. There are Members on my left and straight ahead of me who stand up in the House to praise the work of a proscribed terrorist organisation.

It is rather surprising that some Members who claim to take every opportunity to stand up and speak up for the rights of women have remained silent when the opportunity to speak on this issue has arisen. I will read into the record some of the actions that Palestine Action has been involved in: a female police sergeant was left unable to drive, unable to shower and unable to dress herself as a result of an attack with a sledgehammer by Palestine Action. It is no wonder that the SDLP and Alliance Benches have remained silent on the issue. Those parties take every opportunity to claim that they stand up and speak up for the rights of women, but that terrorist organisation attacked a female police officer with a sledgehammer. Where are the remarks from the party opposite on that attack? Nowhere to be seen.

My party warmly welcomes the fact that the Home Secretary will appeal the judgement. Let me be clear: it is for Parliament to set the law and for government to ensure that it is policed. The courts in this country will never set the law. Politicians voted to proscribe that organisation as a terrorist organisation — that is what it is; that is what it remains — and those who champion a terrorist organisation should be ashamed of themselves.

Members' Statements

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I rise with deep sadness and concern following publication of the latest NISRA figures on alcohol-specific deaths in the North. In 2024 alone, 397 people died from alcohol-specific causes: that is 397 lives cut short and 397 families devastated and left with an unbearable absence in their homes. Such deaths now account for 2·2% of all deaths registered here. The trend is deeply alarming. Since 2014, the number of alcohol-related deaths has increased by more than 80%. That is not a stable situation; it is a worsening public health crisis that is unfolding in plain sight.

The figures show stark inequality. Over the most recent five-year period, there were almost four times as many alcohol deaths in the most deprived areas compared with the least deprived. We know what that means in real terms. Communities that already face hardship carry the heaviest burden of addiction, illness and loss. Men continue to be disproportionately affected — almost two thirds of those who died were male — but the rate among women has risen sharply over the decade. Most of those dying are in midlife, between 45 and 64 years of age. Those are people who should still be at the heart of their families and communities.

As Sinn Féin spokesperson for addiction and suicide prevention, I want to be clear that alcohol dependence does not exist in isolation; those deaths are inseparable from the reality of co-occurring mental ill health, such as depression, anxiety and deep trauma, that too often goes untreated. Many people who struggle with their mental health turn to alcohol to cope. Over time, harmful alcohol use worsens mental health — it deepens isolation and increases the risk of suicide — and there emerges a cycle that people and families feel trapped within. Therefore, when we speak about alcohol deaths, we are also speaking about mental health services, waiting lists, crisis support and the absence of accessible care that treats addiction and mental ill health together rather than separately. What is needed now is urgent and sustained investment in community addiction services, early intervention, family support and properly resourced mental health care that recognises the reality of co-occurring addictions.

Today, I acknowledge the families who live with the pain of those losses every day: the grief, the questions and the sense of what might have been had help come sooner. The people who died were not statistics; they were loved, valued and needed, and their loss must compel us, collectively, to do much better.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

There is good news and an answer to prayer in that we found out today that the trial for the murder of Chloe Mitchell is scheduled to start on 9 March. I welcome the exemption of the upcoming trial relating to Chloe's murder. I spoke recently to Chloe's father, George, and I know how much that decision will mean to the wider family. It is right that their search for justice is not further delayed. I know what that family has gone through, trying to prepare for a trial for the murder of their daughter and sister without knowing a start date.

I place on record my thanks for the collegiate and combined work of all the elected representatives of North Antrim. We came together to help a family in need and were able to deliver results. That speaks volumes for the work that we can do in our constituencies and in this place. I thank all the elected representatives for coming together. I also thank the Justice Minister for meeting, along with Sian Mulholland, the Mitchell family last week. The family was really thankful for and appreciative of the Minister taking the time to go and hear their story and about how the delay was having a massive impact on their health. I thank, and give credit to, the Justice Minister for that meeting.

I welcome the resumption of talks between the Department of Justice and the Criminal Bar Association and the clear commitment to continue that engagement into this week. It is vital that heads come together to resolve the strike action and stop the delay in criminal court cases.

The Mitchell family is only one family caught up in the delay; there are many more who do not know when their trial will start or how they can prepare for it when they do not know a date. It is really important that we come together to find a resolution to the delay.

I have sympathy for the Criminal Bar Association; it has warned for so many years about the stress, strains and issues that barristers have been crying out about. It feels as though the Department has not been listening. I appeal to the Justice Minister to meet the CBA, get around the table and resolve the situation for all the families who have been caught up in such heinous crimes.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

I, too, will speak about Chloe. I have just come from the court, where I was with her family. A court date has been set — 9 March — and the relief is absolutely palpable. Setting a trial date is important, and I recognise that today is an incredibly emotional day for the family. I told them that I would speak about Chloe in the Chamber so that her name would be on the record.

Chloe was loved and cherished. She adored make-up and clothes. I have seen her bedroom, including the make-up and the wardrobe. Her hair was her pride and joy. She loved her family and especially loved her role as an auntie. She needs to be remembered for who she was, not for how she died. Chloe was the baby of the house and was absolutely adored. That shines through in every statement that the family have made and in every meeting that I have had with them. Let her legacy be that other families get their day in court. I welcome the continued contributions by the Justice Minister and the CBA to allow that to happen. I pay tribute to the family — Jordy and Georgina and Chloe's brother and sisters. Their strength and dignity through what they have faced has been unbelievable. No other family should have to walk the path that they have had to walk, and no other family should have to fight for justice in the way that they did.

The family want me to put on record their thanks to all who supported their fight for an exemption to the strike action. I thank my fellow MLAs and the MP for North Antrim, who agreed to send the joint letter and meet the CBA on the family's behalf. That meant an awful lot, and it shows that we are stronger when we work together and realise that politics does not have to be the defining thing that we talk about: humanity can shine through. The family also want to put on record their thanks to Inspector Jock McToal for going above and beyond in what he did to support the family. I thank Jock for the support that he has shown to me in his role as well.

Georgina Mitchell told the Justice Minister and me that every day that her daughter's trial was delayed, she felt that she was failing Chloe — that she was failing her daughter. I say this directly to Georgina: every day since Chloe passed, you have done nothing but fight for Chloe, as you will on every day ahead. You should be incredibly proud of yourself, because there is no way that you have failed your daughter. We continue to stand with the Mitchell family as they fight for justice.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Munich security conference at the weekend further highlighted the critical situation of the world that we live in, especially in Europe. Russia is continuing its wanton destruction of Ukraine, focusing its ballistic missiles and drones not on Ukraine's armed forces but on its power infrastructure. It is doing that to destroy the resolve of the Ukrainian people, as the Russian army cannot advance more than a few kilometers in the presence of Ukraine's strong defences. The Russian navy is confined to a few ports on the Black Sea, terrified to put to sea because of the Ukrainian control of those places, and the Russian air force is limited to launching missiles from well inside its airspace and can barely defend against Ukraine's counter-attacks, particularly those happening now on Russia's oil sector. The Ukrainian people will not be defeated by Russia.

Our Prime Minister, realising that hype and spin no longer cut it, is tackling the Treasury to increase our defence spending by up to £18 billion, but he must do more, accelerating our spending on defence and security to reach the total of 5% of GDP that many of our friends and allies in Europe already spend. Indeed, the European Union has agreed a €90 billion loan package to Ukraine; it did so in the European Parliament last week. That was a strong indication of the importance that Europe places on the survival of Ukraine and on waking up and defending itself. Well, it was not all of Europe. While there were 473 votes for the Ukraine support loan, there were a few notable exceptions. Sinn Féin's MEPs, Kathleen Funchion and Lynn Boylan, were joined by such paragons of democracy and freedom as Alternative for Germany, the Freedom Party of Austria and the Rassemblement National in opposing it.

Members should not be so surprised by Sinn Féin's affection for the far right. After all, it was 86 years ago that the Nazis provided a submerged lift to Seán Russell, a fascist supporter of the IRA much venerated across the isles. The freedom-loving people of Ukraine, and those of us in Europe and in the Assembly who do not want to be dictated to by fascists such as Putin and his fellow travellers, deserve much better, particularly from elected representatives in the European Parliament. Slava Ukraini.

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

Abbey, Abbey, Abbey. I am proud to speak about the victorious Abbey team who, on Friday night in the Armagh BOX-IT Athletic Grounds, won the MacRory Cup final replay. That is an extraordinary achievement, given that Abbey was 10 points down in the drawn match. The Abbey players and management team carried the hopes and dreams of so many on their shoulders. Coaches before them cleared the path, and some of them got to the mountaintop. Gerry Brown, Val Kane, Tony McMahon, Jim McCartan, Dr MacDonald and Pat Mooney. A special mention goes to Jody Gormley, whose initials the players wore on their jersey sleeves and whose character and legacy inspired this great victory.

I pay tribute to Abbey's coaches and management team: Dan Gordon, Kevin McKernan, Sean Gallagher, Mark Grogan, Robbie Hannan and Stephen Dyas. I also pay tribute to all the teachers and the principal of Abbey Christian Brothers' Grammar School, and to the players' parents, clubs and communities. They all played a part in this wonderful achievement. I give a special mention to the Dromintee club, which had six players on the starting team and seven on the squad. That is just amazing. In the ilk of Jody Gormley, the players demonstrated a defiance and a refusal to accept defeat. It is a monumental achievement for each of the players and for the management team. Each of them can feel very proud of it and take huge confidence from it. I wish them well as they progress to the Hogan Cup and the finals on Saturday week.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Comhghairdeas

[Translation: Congratulations]

to Abbey Grammar in Newry on a superb win in the MacRory Cup final replay last Friday night in the Athletic Grounds. It certainly lifted the spirits of everybody across Newry, south Armagh and south Down, particularly the clubs of the boys who participated in what was a fantastic game and a fantastic win: the pride of Dromintee, Cullyhanna, Crossmaglen, Newry Shamrocks, Saval and many more clubs across our council district. The win that we saw on Friday night, which is the first in over 20 years, will be celebrated for a long, long time. It has certainly made our community immensely proud of the boys, their coaches and teachers and the whole community, all of whom are delighted for them.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

In a poignant tribute, the team dedicated their win to the late Jody Gormley. They held him in such high esteem and recognised him in their matches, and he undoubtedly inspired this great win for the team, which was a win for our whole area. Maith sibh

[Translation: Well done]

to Abbey Grammar and everybody who was involved. We wish them all the very best as they go forward to the Hogan Cup.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I pay tribute to a dear friend and colleague Mr Bert Johnston, who passed away peacefully at the South West Acute Hospital in Enniskillen yesterday evening. I pass on our sympathies to his dear wife, Olive; his sons Mark and Paul; his grandchildren; the wider family circle; and all others who knew him.

Bert was one of this world's gentlemen; a man who was always courteous and compassionate to all with whom he came in contact. He was well known not only in Fermanagh but throughout Northern Ireland and much further afield for the successful upholstery business that he ran from beside his home in Ballinamallard, which continues to flourish. He also had a successful political career as a DUP councillor for Erne North for 38 years and served as the last chairman of Fermanagh District Council before the Fermanagh and Omagh councils amalgamated.

Bert served as a councillor for the DUP from its earliest days back in 1976 and 1977. He never wavered in his commitment and loyalty to the party. He stood strong in his belief, despite the challenges that there were back in those early days to even be associated with the Democratic Unionist Party. He was a founding member of the local community association in Ballinamallard and had a heart and a genuine love for his constituents and his home village. My colleague Deborah Erskine referred to him as "Mr Ballinamallard", who paved the way for all who came after him: that sums it up well. He also became an MBE for his commitment and dedication to his work among the community and was held in high esteem by all who knew him.

While he was successful in business and in a long political career, his success was founded in his strong Christian faith. He knew the Lord Jesus Christ as his own and personal saviour and, day by day, was guided in all that he did by his strong and unwavering faith. Today, we can surely say that heaven's gain is earth's loss. While he is with the saviour whom he loved and served, we — his family, friends, the community and all who knew him and mourn for him today — can say in the words of 1 Samuel 20:18:

"thou shalt be missed, for thy seat will be empty."

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

Last week, the all-party group on international development had a moving event with members of the Sudanese community in Northern Ireland. They said that they feel forgotten, so I said that I would read some of their words to the Chamber. This is what they said:

"Distinguished Members of this Chamber, we write to you today in the hope that you can support the people of Sudan through their current plight in order to speed up the turning of a new page to a better, safer and sustainable future. To set the scene, it is estimated that around 12 million to 13 million people have been forcibly displaced since the onset of this conflict in April 2023. Many of these people have had to seek refuge elsewhere within the borders of Sudan, whilst relatively few have had the resources and means to exit the country. For those fortunate enough to escape, they need to be more fortunate yet to escape without lashing, overwhelming trauma that taints their day-to-day life. The most conservative estimates stipulate that over 150,000 people have died during this conflict. As is usually the case, the real number is likely far greater. What is most heartbreaking is that sexual violence is being used as a tool of war to try and break the resolve of any who resist the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia's will. They talk and boast openly on various social media platforms, such as X, WhatsApp and Starlink. With regards to the media in the Western hemisphere, the silence on this conflict is deafening. You need no lesson in your own history. Today, we allude to the Troubles of this island only to try to put into perspective what is required to bring about the end of a gruesome conflict. International parties gathered here, across the water and in many Chambers in unison with the relevant local parties, with a sustained effort to try and mediate, compromise and bring about a lasting and beautiful peace, which, as you know, culminated in the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement in 1998. An imperative factor of this peace was and remains disarmament of the paramilitary forces involved in the conflict. As many of you already know, we fear that the British Government are playing an opposite role in the deadly crisis in our homeland of Sudan. There is mounting evidence that British-produced weaponry, ammunition and vehicles of war are finding their way into the hands of the RSF militia in Sudan. British arms companies have been granted single export licences repeatedly since the onset of the conflict, sell weaponry to the UAE, who themselves have diverted much of this weaponry to the RSF in Sudan via various channels: through Chad, Libya and Somalia. Evidence of the same has been provided to Committees on arms export control, such as weapons in the hands of the RSF."

At last week's meeting, members of the Sudanese community here spoke at length about the importance of providing more aid to civilians in Sudan. Over 33 million people, which is more than two thirds of the populace, need basic support.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up, Kate.

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

I will speak about the future of rail across this island, in particular what that future means for the west: for my home town of Strabane and for Omagh, Dungannon, Fermanagh, Donegal and, of course, the maiden city of Derry. The all-island strategic rail review represents a significant and long-awaited step forward. For the first time, we have a shared, cross-border vision for rail development until 2050. It is one that is grounded in sustainability, regional balance and economic growth. It must not leave out Fermanagh, however.

Strategies alone will not deliver much-needed change. Vision must be matched by political will and by real investment on the ground. For communities in the west, this moment matters so deeply, because, for generations, towns such as mine and counties such as Tyrone have been left outside of the rail network, resulting in their being cut off from the opportunity, investment and connectivity that other places rightly take for granted.

That is why I place on record the tremendous work of Into the West. Its advocacy, research and unwavering commitment have kept the vision of rail for the north-west alive. Its work has not simply been nostalgic. Rather, it has been forward-looking, evidence-based and rooted in the clear belief that having a balanced regional economy is essential for the future of this island. Into the West has shown what is possible, and it is now for the Executive to latch on to that vision. Central to delivery must be stronger rail connectivity to places such as Derry, which is our regional economic and education hub in the north-west.

Connecting to the maiden city of Derry and extending that connectivity to Strabane, Omagh, Dungannon, Fermanagh and, of course, Donegal would transform how people live, work, study and do business across the entire western corridor. The benefits of rail investment are clear. Such investment would drive regional economic growth and regeneration; expand access to education, healthcare and employment; unlock the tourism potential of Tyrone, Fermanagh, Donegal and Derry; reduce congestion and emissions, in line with the climate responsibilities that many speak passionately about in the House; and deliver genuine, practical North/South cooperation.

It is not about restoring the past or what once was. Instead, it is about building a fairer, more connected future for all our people. The all-island strategic rail review has opened the door to that future, but people in the west will judge success not by reports or announcements but by track laid, stations built and trains running in those communities that have waited the longest. It is time to act and time to deliver for people.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Ba mhaith liom fearadh na fáilte a chur roimh ard-fheis Chonradh na Gaeilge i mBéal Feirste ag deireadh na seachtaine seo chugainn. Is mór againn gur roghnaíodh Béal Feirste le hArd-Fheis na bliana seo a óstáil, nó tá an chathair ar thús cadhnaíochta in athbheochan na Gaeilge.

Choinnigh pobail i mBéal Feirste, agus pobail in áiteanna eile sna Sé Chontae, choinnigh sin an teanga beo in ainneoin cruatain, leatroim agus géarleanúna. Thóg muintir na cathrach seo Gaeltacht Bhóthar Seoighe. Thóg siad Gaelscoileanna, chruthaigh siad acmhainní agus d’fhorbair siad bonneagar nuair nach raibh a leithéid ann. Tá torthaí an tsaothair sin le feiceáil go soiléir inniu: tá an Ghaeilge faoi bhláth i ngach aon chearn de Bhéal Feirste.

D’imir Conradh na Gaeilge ról lárnach in athbheochan na teanga ón bhliain 1893 go dtí an lá atá inniu ann. Neartaigh a fheachtais agus a dhíograis an Ghaeilge ar fud na hÉireann. Inniu, tá an t-aos óg chun tosaigh ag coinneáil brí agus fuinneamh faoi fhás na teanga. Is é ‘An Ghaeilge in Éirinn Aontaithe: Éire Nua a Thógáil do na Glúnta atá le Teacht’ téama ard-fheis na bliana seo. Is tráthúil tábhachtach an comhrá é, nó tá an mhian chuig Éirinn athaontaithe ag cruinniú nirt ar fud an oileáin.

Caithfidh Éire nua a bheith cuimsitheach. Caithfidh gach duine dá gcónaíonn inti a bheith páirteach ina dearadh. Beidh an Ghaeilge lárnach sa tsaol chomhchoiteann atá le teacht. Is cuid dár gcultúr comhchoiteann, í is linn uilig í. Ceanglaíonn sí daoine, ní scarann sí iad. Cuireann sí leis an chiall atá againn dár ndúchas, dár bhféiniúlacht, agus don dáimh atá againn le daoine eile.

Mar sin de, guím gach rath ar ard-fheis Chonradh na Gaeilge ag an deireadh seachtaine, agus tá mé ag tnúth le bheith páirteach sna himeachtaí sin. Go gcoinní Conradh na Gaeilge leis ag imirt tionchar ar ról na Gaeilge i dtodhchaí an náisiúin.

[Translation: I extend a warm welcome to the Conradh na Gaeilge ard-fheis in Belfast later this week. It is significant that Belfast has been chosen, as the city is leading the revival of the Irish language. Many communities in Belfast, and communities elsewhere in the Six Counties, kept the language alive despite oppression and persecution. The people of this city built Gaeltacht Bhóthar Seoighe. They built Gaelscoileanna, created resources and developed infrastructure where none existed. Today, that work is paying off: Irish is thriving in every part of Belfast. Conradh na Gaeilge has played a key role in the revival of the Irish language from 1893 to the present day. Its campaigns and its commitment have strengthened the language across the island. Today, our youth are to the fore in driving forward the momentum in the growth of the language. The theme of this year’s ard-fheis is? ‘The Irish Language in a United Ireland: Building a New Ireland for the Generations to Come.’ It is a timely and important conversation to be had, as the ambition for a united Ireland is growing across the island. A new Ireland must be inclusive. It must be shaped by everyone who lives here. The Irish language will be central to our shared future. It is part of our shared culture, belonging to us all. It connects people rather than divides them. It deepens our sense of place, our sense of identity and our sense of belonging. I therefore wish Conradh na Gaeilge every success with its ard-fheis at the weekend and look forward to participating in the programme. Long may it continue to influence the role of Irish in the future of the nation.]

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I will highlight a matter of urgent concern for our fishing communities, particularly those in my constituency of Strangford and in south Down. Once again, their livelihoods are under threat as a result of action taken by the Isle of Man Government. New Manx immigration rules mean that any vessel operating with crew members holding a UK transit visa or a UK skilled worker visa cannot fish commercially in Manx territorial waters. If such a vessel does so, its owner is deemed to have committed an offence. In practical terms, crew members must now hold an Isle of Man visa to work in those waters. To secure such a visa, the employing business must be registered in the Isle of Man.

The change will have a huge impact on local fishermen and businesses. For many years, our fleet has faced real and persistent difficulties in recruiting local crew. As a result, around 70% of those working on vessels registered in Northern Ireland are overseas workers. They work hard and contribute to our coastal economy, yet the new approach takes no account of that reality and places compliant vessels at a serious disadvantage. The consequences are evident: Northern Ireland vessels, despite having lawfully purchased licences and fished the waters for generations, will effectively be shut out from operating within the Isle of Man's 12-nautical-mile limit. That will be felt most sharply in the scallop and nephrop sectors, both of which are central to the viability of our trawl fleet.

The challenge is not the first that our fleet has faced in Manx waters. Two years ago, exclusion zones were introduced that prevented Northern Ireland’s trawl fleet from accessing key fishing grounds. Those measures were presented on environmental grounds, but many in the industry believed that they disproportionately favoured Manx vessels. We now see a similar outcome achieved by different means, this time through immigration rules rather than fisheries policy.

There has been little meaningful consultation, limited notice and scant regard for the economic circumstances of our fishing industry. The change comes at a time when the sector is already under severe pressure: fuel costs remain high, labour shortages persist and regulatory demands continue to grow. Many vessel owners operate on tight margins; removing access to traditional fishing grounds places their businesses in genuine jeopardy. I have written to the Minister responsible for fisheries, Andrew Muir, setting out the concerns and calling for urgent engagement. The Minister must bring industry representatives together without delay and open direct discussions with the Isle of Man authorities to seek a resolution. I have also written to the Isle of Man Government.

Our fishermen are not asking for preferential treatment; they are asking for fairness, recognition of long-established fishing practice and firm support from the Minister.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Timothy, you have two minutes.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

As Members are aware, questions for written answer must be answered within 10 days, yet the Health Minister has time and again shown contempt for that rule. I could cite many examples, but, for the sake of time, I will give two. A question on his plans for a palliative care strategy tabled on 24 September 2024 was answered on 12 January 2026: in not 10 days but 475 days. A question on cancer screening tabled on 5 September 2024 was answered on 11 December 2025: in not 10 days but 462 days. Other questions went unanswered for a full year until a freedom of information request was submitted to his Department.

The response to that FOI request reveals something that should shock and concern every MLA. In response, the Department stated that it does not retain draft answers and emails between officials, which are routinely destroyed. There is no audit trail of what the Minister saw, when he saw it or who caused that delay. Under section 46 of the code of practice issued under FOI law, public bodies are expected to keep proper records of key decisions and processes. That is why I have referred the response to the Information Commissioner. If Ministers can sit on questions for over a year, and then destroy the trail, accountability in the House becomes meaningless.

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 questions and long-winded introductions will not be permitted.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement on the twenty-fourth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in special EU programmes sectoral format, which was held at Monaghan Peace Campus on 23 January 2026. As Minister of Finance, I represented the Executive and was accompanied by Minister Givan. The Irish Government were represented by Minister Jack Chambers TD, who is responsible for the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation. The statement has been agreed with Minister Givan, and I make it on behalf of us both.

The Council offered condolences to the family, friends and work colleagues of Mr Paul Beattie, the Special EU Programmes Body’s (SEUPB) managing authority director, following his sudden passing on 13 September 2025.

The NSMC received a report from the Special EU Programmes Body chief executive on the closure of the 2014-2020 PEACE IV and INTERREG Va programmes. Ministers noted that all EU expenditure targets to date have been met, and both programmes are currently forecast to achieve full expenditure in line with total programme allocations. The Council was also updated by the Special EU Programmes Body chief executive on the progress of the 2021-27 PEACE PLUS programme. The Council was advised that calls have opened for all 22 of the programme's investment areas and that, in total, 145 projects have been approved for funding. That represents a commitment of €1 billion, 94% of the programme value. Additional steering committees will be held throughout this year to allocate further funding.

Ministers noted that the body had produced a business plan for 2026 and a corporate plan outlining its key objectives for 2026-28. The Council approved the corporate and business plans, with the latter including the 2026 budget provision. The Council noted that the 2024 SEUPB annual accounts are currently under review by the Comptrollers and Auditors General in both jurisdictions.

Ministers welcomed the commitment made on a successor to the current PEACE PLUS programme and noted that further engagement will need to be undertaken on the details of that programme. The Council welcomed the presentations made on the Shankill Shared Women’s Centre and congratulated the project on its work. The project was awarded funding of €8·58 million from the Peace IV programme and received a prestigious EU REGIOSTARS award in Brussels in October 2025. The award category was "A Europe Closer to the Citizens", with the award recognising the centre's work in fostering community cohesion and delivering support for women and their families in a shared space.

The Council agreed to hold its next special EU programmes meeting in May 2026.

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

Thank you, Minister. First, I associate myself and my party with the Minister's words on the sad passing of Mr Beattie, the director. Clearly, that was very sad news for his family and colleagues.

Was the connected European social fund, which was used to fund economic inactivity, then became the Shared Prosperity Fund and is now the local growth fund, discussed? We know that there is concern in our local sector about the loss of funding. I cannot put my finger on what the situation is for this financial year. I know your Department is taking responsibility for 2027-28 onwards, Minister, but will you give us an update for the coming financial year, 2026-27?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

That was not discussed as part of the programme, because, unfortunately, as a result of Brexit, the funding that used to come directly from Europe was lost. The British Government then replaced it with less funding, as the Member will recall, and there has been a further reduction in funding this year. You can draw a straight line from Brexit to the implications of what is happening now as a result of that decision. I do not have the full details in front of me on the coming financial year, but I am happy to provide that to the Member in writing.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Minister, will you outline what funding calls are open at the moment and what will be opened in the time ahead?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The change maker funding investment areas 1.2 and 6.2 are currently open for calls on a rolling basis. The change maker fund provides small grants of up to €100,000 and focuses on activities that advance community cohesion and bring communities and groups together on a cross-community basis. Further funding calls are anticipated to open in the first half of this year for SME development and transition, strategic planning and engagement and empowering communities. All information on current funding calls is available on the SEUPB website.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

Minister, why has there been a delay in certifying the 2024 SEUPB accounts, and when are they likely to be certified?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am aware of no specific reason why there has been a delay. As I said in my statement, they are with the Comptrollers and Auditors General in both jurisdictions, and it will be up to them to set the schedule as to when they will sign off on them and when those further steps will take place.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for coming to the House with the update. Can you give some further information about whether discussions were had about a successor to the PEACE PLUS programme and whether there is a timeline for when such a successor programme will be in place?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Both Governments and the EU have agreed in principle that there will be a successor to PEACE PLUS, and we await further details on that. Everybody is hopeful that there will be a continuation of the PEACE PLUS programme. It has been successful across the island in bringing communities together and ensuring that the peace embeds and people see real change as a result of it. As I say, both Governments and the EU have agreed to that in principle, but we await further detail.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Minister, what benefits did Peace IV and INTERREG Va deliver?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I will give some examples. A total of 154,000 children and over 500 schools participated in shared education schemes, and over 2,700 teachers were trained in delivering shared education. Over 23,000 children and young people developed their soft skills in respect of diversity, and 1,617 marginalised and disadvantaged young people developed their soft skills in respect of diversity. Some 24 new shared spaces were made available, and I mentioned some examples in my statement: Shankill Shared Women's Centre; Black Mountain Shared Space project; Waterside Shared Village; Connecting Pomeroy; the Bushmills Courthouse shared space; and Newforge shared space. It has made a huge contribution to this society.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Since the signing of the withdrawal agreement in January 2020, the United Kingdom has paid around £40 billion to the EU under the terms of that agreement. Therefore, we welcome any opportunity to get some of that money back. The Minister referred to the successor to PEACE PLUS and advised how that was being taken forward: is his office or the Northern Ireland Executive playing any role in advancing that?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Engagement and discussions with the two Governments are ongoing, and we will use that opportunity, when possible, to emphasise the importance of a future PEACE PLUS programme. The fact that the two Governments and the EU have agreed to that in principle is a sign of the collective will across the institutions for that to succeed, but we will have to continue the engagement on that.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, the 'Newry Next' idea is a big-picture proposal from Paschal Taggart and Ger Perdissat on the potential for 6,000 new homes in Newry and its districts, which is for Newry and people around that area first, is a plan on a plate, potentially, for the Executive.

Obviously, that plan's success is contingent on drainage investment.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Question.

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

Was the 'Newry Next' proposal discussed at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting? Is it possible for PEACE PLUS funding to be accessed for that proposal's development?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It was not discussed. It would not be normal practice for us to discuss individual planning applications or proposals in that manner. The purpose of the NSMC sectoral meetings is to engage on policy and practice, including highlighting the successes of previous programmes etc. If those who are behind the proposal to which the Member refers believe that it is worthy of EU funding and PEACE PLUS funding, and that it fits the criteria of the PEACE PLUS programme, they should first contact the SEUPB and submit a bid.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That concludes questions on the Minister's statement. Members should take their ease before we move on to the next item of business.

Executive Committee Business

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I beg to move

That the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 be approved.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. Minister, please open the debate on the motion.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the motion forward. I do not propose to cover in detail the background and operation of the UK emissions trading scheme (ETS). I am, however, happy to address any clarification questions that Members may have. Members, and, in particular, members of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, have engaged positively with my Department on the emissions trading scheme. There is good understanding across the Chamber of the importance of that UK-wide decarbonisation scheme to our climate targets and those of the UK Government.

The proposals that are contained in the draft Order, which make changes to the free allocation element of the scheme, were subject to extensive engagement with stakeholders through two joint UK-wide consultations on a review of free allocation methodology and distribution in the UK ETS. The free allocation of UK ETS allowances is the main policy instrument through which carbon leakage risk is currently addressed in the UK. The free provision allowances to operators that are considered to be at risk of carbon leakage reduces their carbon price exposure to lessen the risk of offshoring production.

Alongside my counterparts in England, Wales and Scotland, I agreed to the content and subsequent publication on 26 November 2025 of the UK ETS authority response to those consultations, which included commitments to make three technical changes to UK ETS free allocation policy. The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 was laid under the draft affirmative resolution procedure before both Houses of Parliament on 16 December 2025 and before the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly on 17 December 2025 under the Climate Change Act 2008, which requires that the Order be laid in draft and debated in each legislature where it is to have effect. So far, the draft Order has been debated and approved by the Welsh Senedd and the Houses of Parliament.

If the draft Order is approved by the House, it will make the following three changes to the calculation of free allocation for the 2027-2030 allocation period. The first is an adjustment to account for COVID-19 impact. ETS installations' historical activity and emissions levels during a defined baseline period are a key component of the free allocation entitlement calculation. To account for the disruption that was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the draft Order will allow participants the option to exclude activity data for the year 2020, or 2020 plus 2021, as potentially reduced levels of activity during those years of COVID disruption could result in baseline data reports being unrepresentative of normal activity, potentially unfairly affecting free allocation entitlement. That approach aims to ensure a fair representation of typical activity levels for the 2027-2030 allocation period.

The second change relates to the benchmarks used in the free allocation calculation. Benchmarks are set at an average of the top 10% most efficient operators in each industrial sector, with operators closer to those benchmarks receiving a higher proportion of free allowances. Efficiency is measured on the basis of emissions generated per unit of product, with lower emissions per unit indicating higher efficiency. That ensures that free allocation continues to reward and incentivise decarbonisation efforts. The UK ETS benchmark values have been aligned with EU values since the implementation of the scheme in 2021. This instrument retains current benchmark values for the 2027 scheme year and provides for the adoption of updated EU benchmark values for the 2028-2030 scheme years, once those values are available. The decision across the UK to retain alignment with EU benchmarks has been considered in the context of the UK and EU's announcement that they will work towards linking their respective emissions trading schemes. I welcome that. Maintaining alignment with the EU approach should avoid the creation of competitive distortions between the schemes and increase consistency in decarbonisation incentives. The approach has been welcomed by business and industry here.

The third amendment allows for the phased reduction of free allocation for sectors covered by the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM). From January 2027, CBAM will be introduced, and it will eventually replace ETS free allocation as the main carbon leakage mitigation tool for the sectors in scope, with the gradual phase-out of free allocation coinciding with the UK CBAM introduction. A carbon border adjustment mechanism works on the principle of placing a carbon price on imports of goods from certain sectors, with the aim of creating a level playing field by ensuring that imported goods face the same carbon price as those produced domestically. The CBAM should, therefore, ensure that highly traded carbon-intensive products that are imported from overseas face a carbon price comparable to that which is payable for products produced in the UK and that UK decarbonisation efforts lead to a true reduction in global emissions, rather than simply displacing carbon emissions overseas. The draft Order enables the reduction of free allocation annually during the period 2027-2030 for UK ETS operators covered by the UK CBAM. This approach will ensure a gradual transition for UK industries from free allocation to the UK CBAM as the primary carbon leakage mitigation measure.

Those are the main elements of the Order. It will make three technical changes to the UK ETS free allocation regulations that relate to historical activity data, an update to sector-specific benchmarks and the introduction of the phased reduction of free allocation for sectors that overlap with UK CBAM. The amendments are necessary to ensure the continued effectiveness of the scheme and will help to ensure that the scheme continues to play its part in incentivising greenhouse gas emission reduction in Northern Ireland and across the UK by ensuring that free allocation is targeted to the sectors most at risk of carbon leakage. Accordingly, I commend the Order to the House.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I rise on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to represent its views on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026. The Committee's scrutiny began at our meeting on 4 December, when we considered a letter from DAERA that gave advance notice of the laying of the draft SI and a summary of the proposed amendments. The Committee noted that Minister Muir had given consent for the draft SI to be laid under the draft affirmative resolution procedure, and it was laid simultaneously as an Order in Council before the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Houses of Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd. On 15 January, the Committee held an oral evidence session with officials from DAERA's climate change and green growth policy division. The Committee noted that the aim of free allocation in the UK ETS is to support climate policy and emission reduction goals and mitigate the risks of carbon leakage. This can occur when companies relocate their production to countries with less stringent climate laws, resulting in an increase in overall global emissions.

The Committee also noted that the Order makes the following amendments to the calculation of free allocation for the 2027-2030 period. First, adjustments to historical activity data used in the free allocation equation to account for COVID-19-related disruption. Secondly, updates to sector-specific benchmarks used in free allocation calculations. Thirdly, the phased reduction and eventual replacement of free allocation for sectors that overlap with the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, known as, as the Minister said, CBAM. DAERA officials advised that the amendments are technical and operational and that they are necessary to ensure the continued effective operation of the scheme. When questioned by the Committee on any financial impact, officials responded that, although the UK ETS comes at a cost to industry — currently, in the region of £15 million a year to Northern Ireland business — the draft Order will not mean a significant change to cost. The Committee also heard that, since the UK ETS came into force on 1 January 2021, it has raised in the region of £19 billion for the UK Treasury.

The Committee enquired whether the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) had enough resources to deal with the UK ETS. Officials advised that sufficient resources are in place at present and that officials can call on the support and knowledge of the regulatory bodies in other jurisdictions if required.

I highlight that the process of the draft SI did not run entirely smoothly due to a number of drafting errors. The draft Order was originally laid on 1 December 2025 but was subsequently withdrawn following the identification of typographical drafting errors. An amended version of the Order was shared with the Committee on 18 December, which was some delightful Christmas reading for members. At the briefing on the SI from officials on 15 January, Committee members pressed them for more information on how the errors were missed in the checking process and sought assurances that checking procedures have been tightened. Officials apologised for the errors and highlighted the case for introducing further safeguards to strengthen the robustness of checks on draft legislation. The Committee was assured that they were minor errors that did not impact on the policy or the operability of the SI. However, the Committee was later notified that a further minor typographical error had been identified on 19 January.

The Committee noted at its meeting on 5 February correspondence from the Department detailing how the UK ETS authority will now enhance its internal checking and scrutiny processes to minimise the risk of similar issues arising in the future. Further assurances were given that officials are working with colleagues in the Departmental Solicitor's Office to improve the robustness of drafting checks.

Overall, the Committee was content that the amendments contained in the SI are of a technical and operational nature and that the errors discovered, although indicating a weakness in the checks, did not impact on the Committee's consideration of the policy. The Committee agreed to recommend that the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 be approved by the Assembly.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I support the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026. While the Order is technical in nature, it sits within a broader strategic context. Since Brexit, the North participates in both the UK emissions trading scheme and, in respect of electricity generation under the Windsor framework, the EU emissions trading scheme. That unique position brings complexity, but it also creates opportunity.

In 2025, participation in the EU ETS generated approximately £53·5 million in auction revenue associated with activity here. Revenue linked to the UK ETS also represents a significant sum depending on carbon prices and allocations. That is why the ongoing joint work between the Finance Minister, John O'Dowd, and the AERA Minister, Andrew Muir, is so important, in particular their efforts to secure improved access to the EU ETS innovation fund and relevant UK ETS funding streams. If we are contributing to those schemes, it is only right that the Executive are positioned to draw down funding to help meet our climate commitments under the Climate Change Act.

Turning to the amendments, excluding the COVID-period data from baseline calculations is a sensible step, as emissions during that period are artificially suppressed. Aligning UK benchmarks with EU benchmarks provides consistency and supports fair competition. The phased reduction of free allocation for sectors covered by the carbon border adjustment mechanism reflect the introduction of a UK CBAM from 2027, helping to prevent carbon leakage and create a level playing field. Those are proportionate, technical updates that maintain coherence in the scheme. For those reasons, we support the motion.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The question is —. Sorry, Minister: I nearly ploughed on without you. I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to respond to the debate. Go for it.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I have a 15-minute winding-up speech.

[Laughter.]

No, I do not.

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate.

To summarise, the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 will implement three technical changes to the UK ETS. It will adjust the historical activity level to take account of the disruption caused by COVID-19, update benchmarks so that they continue to align with those adopted by the EU ETS for the allocation period 2026-2030 and phase the reduction of the free allocation for CBAM-covered sectors.

I thank the Committee for its engagement. It is important that we are able to provide certainty on the issue. I commend the Order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 be approved.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I beg to move

That the draft Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 be approved.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I seek the Assembly's approval of the draft Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026. The statutory rule (SR), which has been made under the Energy Prices Act 2022, seeks to close formally schemes under the Energy Bill Relief Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2022 and the Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023.

The British Government introduced the schemes in response to the energy crisis. The purpose of the instrument is to bring us into line with the equivalent amendments already made in Britain, thus ensuring regulatory parity. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) has already enacted similar scheme closures in Britain, including extending the relevant period to 26 months, which enables my Department to amend the regulations and legislatively close the schemes. It is appropriate and necessary that we implement the same approach here.

Financially, there are no implications arising from the instrument. The schemes were always intended to be temporary, and their closure simply marks the end of the support period.

In summary, following the enactment of similar regulations in Britain, this is a necessary measure, and I would welcome the Assembly's support.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

On behalf of the Committee, I support the motion. As the Minister indicated, the rule will close the energy bill relief scheme and the energy bills discount scheme. The schemes were introduced across the UK during COVID. The energy bill relief scheme, which effectively closed on 1 April 2023, provided for discounts on the wholesale portion of energy bills for non-domestic users in the United Kingdom. The energy bills discount scheme, which closed on 31 March 2024, replaced the energy bill relief scheme and offered similar benefits to businesses.

As the Minister outlined, the Department made it clear that the original legislation created an obligation on suppliers to continue to provide a discount while the regulations were in place without the right to reclaim costs from the UK Government. The Committee was therefore content to support the rule. We pay tribute to the Minister and her officials for their hard work and dedication on the issue.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for bringing this to the House today, because, at its core, the Bill is about ensuring that the insolvency framework in the North remains modern, fair and aligned with best practice. Insolvency law may not always — apologies: I will be speaking on that subject tomorrow.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Did you do a Justin?

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Yes.

[Laughter.]

I welcome the statutory rule.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

OK. That is good to know. We know what you are going to say tomorrow.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I do not know what to say, Pádraig.

The regulations came at a time when they were absolutely needed for families and businesses It was a time when, across the UK and Northern Ireland, bills were doubling and trebling, so they were essential for the many small firms, manufacturers, hospitality settings and community organisations that were under threat. The schemes were necessary in order to stabilise costs and prevent closures. We therefore welcome the fact that the schemes happened and are thankful for what they did.

I will make one point. A lot of Members talk about the cost of renewables. Taxation being spent on fossil-fuel generation in order to keep prices down is part of that discussion. That element is not always included when we look at the cost of energy, but it is a point that needs to be made. As we move forward, we have an opportunity to take energy to the next level and create a pillar in our economy that means that it is viable for businesses to invest in it and that, alongside dual market access, allows them to grow. When we look at taxation, we can start to build a system that allows us to move forward, grow our economy and protect people and their families in the long term.

I encourage the Minister to get moving on energy so that we see a master plan with elements that will enable our people to avail themselves of all the benefits of the single market and the North/South interconnector. I support the motion.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I, too, welcome the regulations amending the energy bill relief scheme and the energy bills discount scheme in Northern Ireland. The regulations bring Northern Ireland into alignment with Great Britain, which is precisely where we should be. Consistency across the United Kingdom in the operation and conclusion of the schemes is important for clarity, stability and confidence in our energy markets. The measures ensure that the support schemes are brought to a close properly, responsibly and fairly. They were never intended to be permanent fixtures in our energy system; they were emergency stabilisers that were introduced at a time of exceptional volatility in global energy markets.

The UK Government acted through the Energy Prices Act 2022 to provide temporary and targeted intervention when households and businesses faced unprecedented pressures. That intervention was necessary and proportionate, and it served its purpose. However, in order for Northern Ireland to function effectively within the wider United Kingdom framework, legislative loose ends must be tied up and potential loopholes addressed: the regulations do exactly that.

As we conclude the emergency schemes, we must turn our attention to long-term energy resilience. That means strengthening grid infrastructure, accelerating the development of renewables, supporting business competitiveness and ensuring that households are better insulated from future global shocks. The Ulster Unionist Party has consistently supported targeted intervention in times of crisis coupled with a responsible return to normal market operation once conditions stabilise. The amendments reflect that principle, and I am pleased to support them.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call the Minister for the Economy to conclude and make her winding-up speech on the motion.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

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

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

I thank Members for their contributions today and the Chair and members of the Committee for the Economy for their consideration of the regulations. As has been outlined, they were introduced in an emergency situation in which electricity and energy costs were going through the roof. That highlights the volatility associated with reliance on fossil fuels. As Members on all sides of the Chamber have indicated today, we want a secure, resilient and affordable energy supply for households and businesses, and that is what we are working to deliver over the next months and years.

As has been set out, the regulations close the temporary support schemes as intended and ensure parity with Britain. I commend the motion to the House and thank Members for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 be approved.

Private Members' Business

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I beg to introduce the Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill [NIA 24/22-27], which is a Bill to require the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to make regulations under the Agriculture Act 2020 as to payments for areas with natural constraints.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

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

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I beg to move

That this Assembly expresses concern at the increase in dangerous potholes following storm Chandra and worsening winter surface conditions on our roads; is concerned with the increasing risk that this poses to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians; believes that the continued deterioration of the public road network has now reached a crisis point; notes with alarm that, in 2025, an estimated 127,109 surface defects were recorded across Northern Ireland, including 97,897 potholes; condemns the long-standing and short-sighted Department for Infrastructure policy of only repairing the highest priority defects and, even then, doing only the minimum work necessary to remove any immediate safety risk; further believes that the Minister for Infrastructure has failed to address the roads crisis; expresses disappointment that the new draft road maintenance strategy lacks clear prioritisation and detailed, costed and time-bound actions to deliver measurable improvements; and, following the closure of the public consultation on the new draft strategy, calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to urgently bring forward an updated roads maintenance strategy and detailed action plan that addresses those concerns.

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. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, 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.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The roads network across Northern Ireland has reached crisis point. The poor, dangerous and, often, shocking condition of our roads affects every corner of Northern Ireland. It is not confined to one constituency or, indeed, one council area. From city centres to country lanes, from commuter routes to residential developments, the deterioration is visible and worsening day by day. That is the case in my constituency of North Down and right across our country. I am sure that many of my colleagues will reaffirm that during the debate.

The pothole pandemic needs a cure, and this Minister does not seem to have one. Our constituents are paying the price in repair bills, damage, insurance excesses, lost time and personal injuries. That is simply unacceptable and cannot go on. They deserve better than this Department for failure. The current Minister has blamed everything: the weather, the Tories and cuts. The only thing that she will not do is take responsibility and fix our roads. The amendment claims that the draft roads maintenance strategy sets out a clear vision. The reality is that the document is as clear as mud and lacks the ambition that is required. The amendment, tabled by Sinn Féin, the Minister's party, says to the public, "Nothing to see here", which is certainly not the case on the roads network right across Northern Ireland. That is why we cannot support it.

Recently, storm Chandra, the winter freeze and heavy rainfall have left their mark. In the past three months alone, almost 50,000 defects were recorded on our roads, and I am sure that that figure, even in the past week, has been added to considerably. That is close to half the total for the whole of the previous year. Let us not pretend, however, that the crisis began just a short number of weeks ago with one storm. We had Storm Éowyn, a significant storm, just over a year ago, we have had many more in the past and no doubt we will have many more in the future. The weather has, however, exposed weaknesses that have been building for years across the roads network.

Last year, over 127,000 surface defects were recorded, with almost 100,000 of those being potholes. That is not routine wear and tear; that is systematic deterioration and failure. For over a decade — we are now in the eleventh year — the Department has been operating what it calls a limited maintenance service. It is limited in ambition, limited in intervention and limited in outcome and very limited in delivery. Only the highest-priority defects are repaired, and even then, only the minimum work necessary is carried out to remove the immediate safety risk of potholes of over 50mm. That has left its mark.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

No, not at this stage. There is one hour and 45 minutes for the debate, so there will be a good opportunity for everybody to contribute, and we look forward to hearing remarks from right across the House.

Eleven years of limited service inevitably produces limited results and, ultimately, failure, and we are now living with the consequences. It is the public who are living with the consequences, and they deserve better. The maintenance backlog has tripled in the past five years and now sits at over £3 billion. Public liability claims alone for vehicle damage and personal injury have more than doubled since 2019-2020, only a few years ago. Those figures come from the Department's draft roads maintenance strategy, and they are a stark admission that the current model has failed and is failing again and again.

Yes, we welcome the £7·85 million winter recovery fund that was announced recently by the Minister after considerable lobbying, certainly from these Benches. However, let us be honest: that cannot simply be another sticking plaster approach as we have seen to date. Temporary repairs that have failed or will fail after the next downpour or period of frost are of no use to anyone and only cost money and staff time, and they frustrate the general public. With a transport budget of over £850 million, lack of money alone cannot be an excuse. Yet £85 million is earmarked for schemes such as cycle lanes to nowhere in some cases, and my colleagues will highlight examples of those in their constituencies. If money is the issue, that funding should be prioritised for maintaining the basic roads network.

The Minister and her Department really need to get to grips with poor repairs. The Minister continues to remind us that her Department does not have enough money, but how can her Department have no money to deal effectively with the issues facing our roads while having no reservations about spending taxpayers' money on unwanted, unnecessary Irish language signage, such as that in Grand Central station? It is clear where the Sinn Féin Minister's priorities lie: unfortunately, to date, they have not been on fixing our roads.

It is more important than ever that the Minister properly resources her Department to deal with the crisis that we face. It is not just an inconvenience issue; it is a real road safety issue. Indeed, the dangerous condition of our roads compromises the important road safety messaging from her Department. For motorists, a pothole can mean a burst tyre, wrecked wheels or damage to suspension or alignment. However, for cyclists and motorcyclists, it can mean much more, and, often, the consequences can be more severe. A deep, unmarked pothole has the potential to throw a rider into the path of oncoming traffic, and the potential consequences are lethal. That links into other forms of active travel: for pedestrians, including our older residents, uneven surfaces and broken carriageways present a real risk of falling and personal injury.

The Department subjects vehicles to rigorous annual roadworthiness tests and expects cars to meet high standards of quality and safety, yet the roads that they are driven on fail the most basic tests themselves. We must also address an important factor that is often overlooked: the significant role of utility companies and the mark that they leave and toll that they take on our roads. Across urban and rural Northern Ireland, we see repeated openings of carriageways for water, gas, electricity and telecoms works. Those works are necessary, but, often, the quality of reinstatement leaves a lot to be desired and is substandard. Poor reinstatement leads to further break-up and, ultimately, surface failure. There must be much stronger oversight and quality control by the Department. Reinstatement standards must be improved, and follow-up inspections must be routine, robust and meaningful. Despite a 2024 Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report into road openings by utility companies, the very draft strategy that is being hailed as a game changer makes absolutely no mention in its 18 pages of the role of utility companies. That is very disappointing, but there is an opportunity for the Minister to address that. The utility companies should be held accountable and required to put the situation right at their own expense rather than at the expense of the taxpayer.

The draft road maintenance strategy speaks of governance structures and enhanced metrics, but it lacks ambition and what really matters, which is a detailed action plan, detailed costings and time-bound delivery. That is what the public want and rightly expect to be done, and that will be the measuring tool for improved roads. We also need to have an honest conversation about the balancing of budgets. When our core roads network is crumbling and we have so many potholes — 100,000 in a single year — across the country, it is legitimate to question whether the balance is right or whether the pendulum has swung too far. That needs to be considered in such debates and across the country.

I recently discovered that the Department for Infrastructure has spent £5·4 million on external consultants in the past five years alone as part of its active travel plan, £4 million of which was spent within the past two financial years. There are certainly more questions to be answered on those matters. We need to see a major reset. That is what led to our proposing this important motion. The Minister has an opportunity, which she has not taken to date, to get a grip on the issue. We need to end the decade-long reliance on limited maintenance as the simple default position. We need to look at permanent, higher-quality repairs, utilising technology and best practice from across the globe. We need deliverable targets that address the Department's workforce pressures, strengthen enforcement around utility reinstatements and deliver improved inspections and real accountability. We also need to restore balance in the transport budget and get the basics right.

The public rightly expect safe roads. They expect that, when a problem of this scale is identified, decisive action will follow. The pothole pandemic will not fix itself: it is time for action beyond warm words and short-term funds.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Minister, fix our roads. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

Leave out all after "including 97,897 potholes;" and insert: "welcomes the Minister for Infrastructure’s new draft road maintenance strategy, which sets out a clear vision for how roads will be managed and maintained over the coming years, with increased use of technology; commends the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Infrastructure for securing an additional £7·85 million towards targeted road maintenance in response to storm Chandra, in addition to the £30 million allocated in December 2025; supports efforts to improve the state of our roads; and calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to bring forward the road maintenance strategy and associated action plan, following the closure of the consultation on the draft strategy."

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

You will haves 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I welcome the motion, but not for the reasons that it was brought, because, in tabling the original wording of the motion, its movers have demonstrated that they are more interested in party politics than in the pothole problem. When the Minister came to the Chamber two weeks ago, she was clear, not only as a Minister but as an MLA for a rural constituency, that she is all too aware of the condition that our roads are in. Not once did the Minister shirk her responsibilities on the issue; instead, she very clearly laid out what she is doing to improve the condition of our roads. In short, we tabled our amendment to bring clarity and honesty to the debate, while also supporting the calls for urgent action, as each of us will have examples of roads in our communities that are in a dire state.

Let us be honest. Will the motion fix the potholes overnight? No. As I said, our amendment seeks to add some honesty to the debate. Our amendment, if supported by other parties in the Chamber, would send a clear message to the public that we hear them and are working to fix the problem. The draft road maintenance strategy published by the Minister acknowledges that we need a different approach. It acknowledges the need for and commits to the increased use of technology to ensure that we target resources where they are needed most, addressing the most high-risk surface defects. In addition, the Minister is clear on the need for additional funding and resourcing to enable her to carry out much-needed resurfacing schemes as opposed to patching roads that are in poor condition. I have seen it —.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member can put his name down, just like Mr Dunne said.

In my constituency, I have seen £590,000 for a road improvement scheme on the A29 Armagh Road, Keady and a £375,000 scheme on the Farnaloy Road, Madden allocated by Minister Kimmins.

In supporting our amendment, all the parties in the Chamber can show that they are not here just to play the blame game but want to work with the Minister to see additional funding going to roads, just as we saw before Christmas, when an additional £30 million was invested, £4 million of which was targeted at improving rural roads. Further to that, the additional investment of £7·85 million in the wake of storm Chandra highlights the fact that the Minister is working to increase the funding that is available to her.

Let us use this debate to send a signal that we all want to see the roads improved, rather than trying to pin the blame on one Minister. As I have said already, the road problem will not be addressed overnight, in the same way as it did not arrive overnight. We need increased investment in order to undo the years of underfunding of public services; we need the updated road maintenance strategy and detailed action plan to be completed urgently; and we need to work together to find solutions.

I commend the Minister for her efforts and look forward to working with her and others to improve our roads.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

During the course of a rumbustious debate in the Chamber, the Alliance Party will very often be referenced as being this or that, none of which I will credit or repeat. One such reference, however, is that we are simply a middle-of-the-road party. Dare I say that many of us are middle of the road at the minute, given the state of the roads. It is hard to disagree with the basic concept of the motion and the case that it makes about the state of our roads. It is a major constituency issue for every Member

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

He has only started, the poor fella.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I will give way.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

You referred to being the middle-of-the-road party. Where are you at with active travel? I will give you a brief example: if you were looking to replace the kitchen in your house, but your roof was leaking, which would you attend to first?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I acknowledge the remark, but I will stick to the motion at hand about the state of the roads, thank you, Mr Buchanan.

It is hard to disagree with the motion. It is not because there is not money going towards the roads; in fact, huge sums are being spent on road maintenance every year, but they do not translate into better outcomes.

One pound of every five spent on road maintenance goes into small-scale patching, but those repairs never last. Additionally, the Department has spent almost £33 million on public liability claims in the past five years. The number of claims has doubled in that time.

The motion refers to the Department's policy of limited service in repairing only the highest priority defects, and it carries out only a minimal patch job at that. That is not an efficient or effective way of maintaining or repairing roads. Making repairs to only the most severe defects means that the road surface is left to deteriorate instead of its being repaired and that the public see no discernible improvement. Indeed, I cannot imagine that it is a policy or strategy that the Minister or those carrying out the repairs would choose.

The Minister will make the case, as her predecessor has done, that it is the result of having her hand forced due to underfunding by the British Government, but the Department for Infrastructure already receives the highest capital budget in the Executive. DFI's opening capital budget in this year was the greatest in the history of devolution. It is up to the Infrastructure Minister to manage her Department within that very substantial funding envelope. If she needs more money to do so, it is up to her to make the necessary policy decisions. The fact remains that successive Infrastructure Ministers have indeed chosen the policy of limited service. They have chosen where to allocate their block grant in the many different areas of their Department. They know that none of those areas is funded to the requirement needed to make a tangible difference. Successive Ministers have avoided decisions to make the fundamental changes that would have allowed them to maintain our roads to a better standard, sort out our significant waste water and flooding issues, improve our public transport and provide for active travel. The list goes on.

How to spend and raise money and what to fund are all fundamental policy decisions. I welcome in principle the new draft road maintenance strategy. It proposes a much more efficient and effective way of carrying out road repairs than current practice. I am sure that it represents best practice. However, unless the Minister can provide the funding required to implement the draft road maintenance strategy, that strategy, like others, will fall short of delivery. That is why we do not see any costed and time-bound actions or targets as part of the draft road maintenance strategy.

Climate change is leading to more frequent and extreme weather, and that will only increase the challenges for our infrastructure. We have wetter winters: last month was the wettest January in 194 years, and close to 200% of February's rain has already fallen and we are only halfway through the month. The rain has exacerbated the problem of road repairs. I worry how the Department will cope with the changes in our weather patterns.

I ask the Minister what she intends to do differently to manage within her funding allocation in the future. How will the success of the policy be measured? How will she fund better-quality repairs while maintaining the current level of service? What changes does the Minister propose to enable the new policy implementation?

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Members who tabled the motion. It is obviously a critical issue that affects every one of our constituents. Across the country, our roads are in a diabolical state: that is not an exaggeration. Today, we are not debating minor wear and tear, seasonal deterioration or the usual spikes and complaints after bad weather. We are debating the cumulative failure of road asset management across Northern Ireland; a failure of strategy and of prioritisation of long-term planning that has left our road network in a visibly deteriorating state.

Recent storm damage, of which there is much, did not create the problem: it merely exposed it. The motion states that over 127,000 surface defects were recorded in a single year, including 98,000 potholes. That is not simply a result of weather events: it is the product of a maintenance model that has been reactive, under-resourced and strategically unfocused for too long.

Across Northern Ireland and specifically in my constituency of East Antrim, which I can talk to, the situation is stark. From rural routes connecting villages and farms to arterial routes carrying commuters into Carrickfergus and Larne, the condition of our surface roads is simply unacceptable. Residents are not raising cosmetic concerns: they are reporting damaged suspension, burst tyres, unsafe journeys and roads that seem to have been totally neglected. Aside from the destruction and damage and the risk to public safety, it is a huge burden on the public purse, with millions already spent on compensation every year. Those defects are not statistics on a departmental briefing note: they are wheel-busting, axle-damaging craters, hazards for cyclists navigating uneven roads, and trip hazards for pedestrians, particularly older residents with mobility issues.

The Minister continues to defend an approach that intervenes only at the highest-priority level, and, even then, only with the minimum standard of work required to remove the immediate liability. That is not stewardship of a multibillion-pound public asset; it is crisis management. We would not run our health service by treating only emergencies and abandoning preventative care. We would not maintain public buildings by waiting for structural failure before acting. That is what is happening with our roads.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

Yes.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Does the Member agree that the current methodology for fixing potholes does not represent good value for money? I ask that because it seems to me that when a bucket of material is thrown into it and then hit with the back of a shovel, the pothole reappears a week later.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. It will come as no shock to him that I absolutely agree. It is a case of being penny wise and pound foolish. The model that we are pursuing at the minute is to find a temporary solution to the problem and move on to the next one. Reactive patching is not a strategy but a short-term fix that accelerates long-term decline. Every temporary repair that fails within months increases the life-cycle costs. Every delayed resurfacing programme compounds the structural destruction of the network. The financial argument for planned preventative maintenance is overwhelming, yet it is not being translated into policy.

We heard from the Member who proposed the motion about increased insurance costs and their impacts. Those are real experiences that are affecting people. We also heard about the draft road maintenance strategy. It has been talked about for some time, yet it contains a total lack of clarity and operational detail. For example, where are the five-year resurfacing targets broken down by road classification? Where are the measurable reductions in repeat defect rates? Where is the transparent assessment of the maintenance backlog and the trajectory for reducing it? Where are the quarterly accountability metrics that will allow the Assembly to scrutinise any progress? The reality is that they are all absent. Instead, we have broad language about resilience and sustainability with which none of us will necessarily disagree, but it comes without a costed action plan to deliver either.

We have talked about funding pressures. No one disagrees that that is the case, but the reality is this: the Department for Infrastructure has a £1·55 billion budget a year, so there can be costings done and savings found within that. No one disputes that there are pressures, and they have been there for some time. Leadership, however, is demonstrated by structuring and prioritising limited resources and then defending their use. Allowing assets to deteriorate to the point of structural failure does not save money; it defers costs and ultimately multiplies them.

Rural communities are particularly exposed. In my constituency of East Antrim, agricultural traffic routes, school transport routes and key economic corridors are suffering. Businesses cannot operate effectively on fractured infrastructure, and there is an impact on emergency response times.

As I have said, there are hidden costs to the public. Motorists across Northern Ireland are being forced to claim compensation for vehicle damage that runs into thousands and millions of pounds each year. Insurance premiums are rising accordingly. For anyone who owns a car, we have some of the highest insurance rates anywhere on these islands. That is having a massive impact.

We need a fully costed, multi-year road maintenance strategy; a transparent quantification of the maintenance backlog and annual reduction targets; a decisive shift from reactive patching to planned resurfacing with clear, published performance metrics; and a funding model for asset preservation, not short-term expediency. Those are key issues, and the Minister needs to act as quickly as possible.

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

I welcome the motion and thank the Members who tabled it. Potholes are no mere inconvenience; they are a daily hazard for people in Newry and Armagh and in the North more generally. There are 6,281 reported potholes in the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council area and the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area. Across the North, there are 11,797 reported potholes in total. Minister, more than half the potholes in the North are in your constituency: what is going on?

My office is inundated with calls from constituents who are fed up with and furious at the state of our roads. They speak of burst tyres, cracked alloys and broken suspensions, as well as of danger avoidance, with cars attempting to miss craters having to swerve into the pathway of oncoming traffic. That is extraordinarily dangerous. Constituents describe roads as resembling the crater surface of the far side of the moon. They talk about crater after crater, potholes within potholes and temporary fixes that break at the first sign of rain or frost.

Last Wednesday, I posted on social media to ask people where the dangerous potholes are across my constituency of Newry and Armagh, which is also the Minister's constituency. By the next morning, there were 500 comments that identified more than 300 locations — 300 hazards; 300 daily risks — in Newry and Armagh. I thank everyone who took the time to engage with the post. That is not anecdotal frustration; it is overwhelming evidence of systematic and systemic failure.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

You say that it is systemic failure. Your party colleague was the Infrastructure Minister for longer than Liz: what did she do about it?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

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

Talk about being political. On that point — thank you for bringing it up — the Member who tabled the amendment, Mr Boylan, who is also from Newry and Armagh, asked our Minister 228 questions about roads. In this mandate, when there is a Sinn Féin Minister, how many questions has he asked? You can count the number on the fingers of two hands. Who is being political?

I have written to the Minister — I have lost my place. Forgive me.

The depth of the potholes is surpassed only by the depth of the frustration felt by our constituents in Newry and Armagh and across the North. It is a public safety issue. It is about the mother driving her children to school, the shift worker commuting before dawn, the farmer transporting livestock and the cyclist navigating traffic. Every one of those people deserves roads that are safe and fit for purpose. Road maintenance is not a luxury; it is the core function of government. When potholes are left to multiply, when repairs are cosmetic rather than structural and when communities are told year after year to be patient, trust in public services erodes. People rightly ask, "Where are our taxes going?".

I have written to the Minister to detail the location of each pothole that was identified in response my social media post, and I again thank everyone who responded. Minister, I hope that you will join me in thanking the hundreds of people who took the time to outline the location of those dangerous potholes and that you will attempt to get the potholes filled and make the roads in our constituency safer. I recognise the scale of the challenge faced by the Minister, but leadership means taking responsibility, and people need solutions. It is farcical for a so-called republican Infrastructure Minister to deflect blame indefinitely on the British Government and the bad Tories while our roads continue to crumble beneath us.

The recently announced £7·85 million winter recovery road fund is welcome. It presents an opportunity, but it cannot become another headline without delivery. The Sinn Féin amendment ignores the severity of the issue and merely pats the Minister and her party on the back for the worst potholes we have seen in a generation. No, we cannot support that.

The funding must translate into visible, durable resurfacing, not temporary patches that wash away by winter's end. Something must be done urgently to make our roads safer and easier to navigate. Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians do not want more excuses from the Minister or her party. They do not want the potholes photographed or new technology that maps out where they are. They want the Minister to send somebody out with a tin of yellow paint and fill the bloody potholes.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time and the questions for urgent oral answer, when the first Member to speak will be Harry Harvey.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

1. Mr McReynolds asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the appointment of a Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner. (AQO 3095/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner Regulations 2025 were affirmed by the Assembly and made by the Executive Office on 8 April 2025. They came into force on 9 April 2025. The regulations provide the legal authority for TEO to appoint a Climate Commissioner. Since then, officials have been undertaking work to establish the commissioner's office. That work includes the preparatory work for a public appointment process to be run in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice, which will lead to the appointment of a Climate Commissioner.

Supporting work has been progressing on the drafting of an appropriate business case and on working through the approvals that are required by the Department of Finance. That also involves consideration of the most appropriate staffing structure for the office; identification of suitable office accommodation; and arranging the key systems for human resources, IT, records management and finance. An indicative budget of £3 million — £1 million per annum for three years — to support the operation of the office has been included in the draft Budget, which is out for consultation, and will need Executive consideration before being agreed.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the First Minister for her response. Extreme heat, as a direct consequence of climate change, is predicted to result in 100 deaths a year in Northern Ireland. Flooding and heavy rainfall can have devastating consequences for farmers, families, businesses and coastal communities. With Northern Ireland producing more CO2 per year per person than China, does the First Minister share the view of the deputy First Minister who recently told the Executive Office Committee that a local climate change commissioner would not add any value?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We have a difference of opinion on that. It is the will of the Assembly that we establish a Climate Commissioner. As I said, we are going through all the processes, including the business case, and carrying out the due diligence work that is required. The role of the commissioner will be really important for us. We only have to look at the extreme rain that we have seen since Christmas: weather events that, previously, would have been described as once in a lifetime events, or events that occurred once every 50 years, are now a very regular occurrence. That is a direct result of climate change. We have to play our part and do something about it.

There are lots of things going on across all Departments, but the sooner that we get our commissioner in place — one who can work in tandem with everybody — the sooner that we can fulfil our responsibilities around climate change obligations. I believe that the majority of people will do, and want to do, that. It is about having a just transition — a fair transition — and allowing people, particularly our farmers, to play their part. Farmers have always said that they are part of the solution. I believe that that is the case. Let us get to work with a commissioner. We will come back to the House with next stages when we have the business case and everything else complete.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

First Minister, you mentioned something very important in your response: a just and fair transition. What will that mean for farmers, families and workers?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member represents a rural constituency so she will know from engagement with farm families that they want to play their part, and will play their part, but they want fairness, and they want support to adjust and transition towards playing their part.

Our ambitious target of achieving net zero by 2050 is challenging. We are slightly behind other jurisdictions, but the pathway has been set. The commissioner will provide a unique opportunity to enable us to target specific sectors to look at what can be done and how we can work with individual sectors. Some will be able to do more than others. That is the approach that we need to see. Confronting a climate crisis — I do not think that anybody can deny that that is what it is — means reshaping our economy to create a more equal and more sustainable society. In essence, that is what the just transition is all about. It has to be planned. The commissioner will allow us the ability to do that and to have conversations with farmers, citizens and businesses, all of whom will have a role to play in making sure that the transition is implemented fairly and equitably across the board. We are slightly behind other jurisdictions in the emission reductions that we have achieved thus far, but, by working across the House and all sectors, we can reach those targets and do more.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

First Minister, at a time when our public services are crumbling, the vast majority of the public will be appalled that you want to spend £3 million on yet another quango. When I asked you this question at Committee, you called me "a climate change denier", without any evidence to back up that claim. Could you outline to the House Northern Ireland's contribution to global emissions on an annual basis, please?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member took the opportunity to set that out very clearly at the Committee, and I had no doubt that he was going to ask a similar question today. Instead of running away from the climate crisis — we do have a crisis — we need to do something about it. We need to find ways to work with our farmers and our business industry leaders to make sure that we can all play our part in doing right by the climate. Our public services will continue to be decimated if we have to keep investing in roads that have been dug up because of extreme weather, such as snow and ice. The climate has a real-life impact on our public services. We need to work together on the climate crisis and do everything that we can. We are protecting the future for our children and grandchildren, and we are protecting this world that we live in, but we should be able to do that in a joined-up way by working constructively with people. We should also do it through a just transition that allows people to navigate from where they are to where they need to get to and to play their part.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I have a concern that the Executive have, for too long, operated in the interests of the big agri-food sector. I hope that that does not continue. You mentioned a figure of £3 million for the Climate Commissioner and the staffing structure. How many staff will that include, and will the commissioner have teeth to intervene and impose fines, if necessary? What happens if the deputy First Minister does not agree to the commissioner being established?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We will take one problem at a time. We have to work our way through this. The deputy First Minister may take her own position, but it is the will of this Assembly to bring forward legislation. We are going through the business case process and doing all the due diligence at this time. It is very clear that the Members on the opposite Benches do not agree with the approach that the rest of us have agreed to. This is about us trying, as custodians, to play our part in protecting the place in which we live for future generations. The commissioner will be able to provide advice and make recommendations to various Departments on the operation of the Act. They will be able to do research, which will inform how we move forward. They will monitor and implement the climate action plans and sectoral policies. They have reports to publish. There is a lot to be done.

The Member asked about the staffing of the office. We are working our way through the business case with the Department of Finance, and we will then be able to say more about that. Obviously, budgets will be crucial to what we can do in the office. As I said in the initial answer, as part of the three-year Budget, we have looked at the allocation that we have asked for. That is still to be decided. That will definitely have an impact on what we can do, but suffice it to say that the office needs to provide value for money and needs to pass the business case test. We are actively working, at official level, with Department of Finance officials.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

2. Mrs Dodds asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any progress that has been made on the implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. (AQO 3096/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The armed forces covenant has not been formally adopted here.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

The brevity of the answer and the style in which it was delivered explains a lot to many of our people. First Minister, will you explain to the innocent victims of IRA violence, many of whom still live with life-changing injuries, and the brave members of our armed forces, who stood in the gap during a terrible terrorist campaign, why you can find endless ways to show respect to convicted IRA criminals but cannot deliver on the most modest task of ensuring housing, job opportunities and support for our armed forces?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said in the original answer, there is no agreement. That is a matter for the British Government. It is their policy, and it is for them to protect their serving forces.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The First Minister will be very aware that, in my constituency, in Derry, people's reality of the British Army is enshrined by the fact that 14 people were murdered on the streets of my city on Bloody Sunday, and many more were injured. That has been the impact of the British Army in my city. When the British Government defended those soldiers in court with £4·3 million of public money, that was very clearly a role that they took on. Therefore, can the First Minister confirm that this is not the responsibility of this Assembly but of the British Government?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I concur. Unlike others, I do not look at it through one particular lens. I think that there were many tragedies and injustices in our past, and I think that we all have a duty to acknowledge that. In fact, the first stage in trying to heal is to recognise that people have different perspectives, different lived experiences and different narratives. For the people of the city that you represent, that is very much the case.

I noted with disgust the commentary by the DUP leader, who told the Bloody Sunday families to "move on" and stop their endless pursuit of others. That is just crass, insulting and provocative. It does nothing to serve the needs of victims and survivors, which should be the business of everybody in the House. The Member will know that, when I took up office, I said that I would never ask people to "move on"; I would ask them to move forward. Let us try to find ways of dealing with the past that allow families to get access to truth and justice. I want that for every single person. I want that for every family out there in society. Despite the noise and disgusting language that we have heard, particularly from the DUP leader, I still implore all political leaders to work together to find a way of dealing properly with the past that will allow those families to get access to truth, justice and information, and allow them to look towards a brighter future. That is certainly my resolve. I will continue to work with people who are in the same frame of mind.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

The First Minister has rightly called out abuse when it has been directed at politicians and other members of society. Will she join me in calling out abuse directed at members of the armed forces as being wrong and intolerable, and stating that those who are behind it should face the consequences?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I do not want to see anybody's being abused. There are realities of our past and the many tragedies and injustices that happened here, but we all have a duty, particularly those of us who are elected, to be responsible in our public utterances and about what we hear and see around us. I certainly will not be found wanting in that regard. I think that we have all experienced quite a rise in online abuse, and in the disgraceful and disgusting commentary that is directed towards anyone who steps forward for public office. That is not tolerable for anybody in society, including those who have chosen to step forward for public office or to take up a public role.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

First Minister, you mentioned moving forward together. The Assembly passed a motion on the armed forces covenant. It is my firm belief that, if we are going to have peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, the North or whatever you want to call it, that has to include everybody. It is very clear that members of the armed forces, after they have served and return to civilian life, will experience some level of discrimination and marginalisation. How do you square that circle if you are going to be the "First Minister for all"?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have demonstrated from day 1 that I live up to my word. I said that I would be a First Minister for all, and I have done that. It has been laid bare for all to see. My track record speaks for itself. I am very confident about that.

The Member will be aware of the conflict here, the fact that there were so many tragedies and injustices, and the role of state forces. I believe in equality for everybody, but I do not believe in preferential treatment. That is the distinct difference.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

3. Ms Egan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the community-led review on rural women and girls as part of the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls delivery plan 2024–26. (AQO 3097/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, junior Minister Reilly will answer that question.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Violence against women and girls is an issue that affects all our communities, but we know that rural women and girls often face unique challenges. Often, living far from services and having fewer support options can increase their vulnerability and make it harder for them to get help, protection and justice.

Together with the Agriculture Minister, we launched the community-led review on rural women and girls in October 2025. That review is led by the Rural Community Network and the NI Rural Women's Network; two organisations that are embedded in rural communities. The aim of the review is to investigate gender-based violence against rural women and girls through lived experience in order to understand fully the experiences and barriers facing women and girls, as well as the drivers of that violence, abuse and harm. The review will develop practical, rural-sensitive recommendations to shape and improve future policy and practice. The work is progressing well. We will absolutely share the results with you when it has concluded.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, junior Minister. Obviously, that was part of the ending violence against women and girls delivery plan for 2024-26, so we are in the year in which that expires. Will you therefore outline the work that the Executive Office is undertaking for the next phase of the delivery plan?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Yes, absolutely. The second delivery plan will continue to focus on community investment, collaboration and campaigns, in line with the objectives of the strategic framework. That approach will allow us to build on the momentum that we have already established through the first delivery plan. It will ensure continuity and consolidate good practice and lessons learned.

It will allow for the scaling of initiatives that have been proven to be effective. That does not mean that we are complacent. It is a live strategy, and we have to move when we see what is working well, what might not be working well and how to adapt to those things.

The new delivery plan has been informed by feedback from delivery partners that indicated that the current delivery models, particularly around the change fund, seemed to work well. We have also reflected on lessons learned from the first phase. The next delivery plan will be brought to the Executive very shortly, and, as I said, we will keep Members informed when that happens.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Junior Minister, you have already answered part of my question in your answer to Connie Egan. In relation to the second delivery plan and the insight, can you give an update on engagement you have had that has shaped your thinking for the next phase of the work to end the scourge of violence against women and girls in all our communities?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

In my previous answer, I outlined some of that. If the strategy is to work, it has to reflect the real challenges and issues that face women and girls in our society. That means actively listening directly to women and girls, local service providers and the community and voluntary organisations on the ground. It also means co-designing solutions, rather than just imposing them on people. It is about making sure that funding, outreach models and service delivery are flexible and capable of meeting everybody's needs.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I am sure that the junior Minister agrees that the loss of even one life is one too many. Dealing with the loss of a loved one is clearly an already excruciating experience for family and friends, but waiting periods in the legal system can and do amplify that hurt. What work is being undertaken as part of the ending violence against women and girls strategy with the Department of Justice to address those concerns?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for that question, because it reinforces the fact that the ending violence against women and girls strategy is not just about one Department; it needs a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach. I absolutely concur with the Member's comments: waiting for long periods is extremely challenging for victims and families, particularly when they are going through the justice system, whether or not that is to do with a conviction. They have already been through a great deal, and delays, particularly in the justice system, further impact on that. We will continue to work closely with the Department of Justice, which sits on the oversight board and gives important feedback, and other Departments to make sure that we put systems in place and that we have the confidence of victims, survivors and the public.

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Junior Minister, will you outline your Department's recent engagement with organisations such as Women's Aid to ensure that the strategy is having the intended impact on the ground, particularly in the north-west, where gender-based violence is, sadly, so prevalent?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Absolutely. I have touched on that continued approach, particularly with the oversight board and departmental colleagues. It is so important that we continually engage with the partners who deliver services on the ground, because our commitment to ending violence against women and girls is for everyone across society. Safety, dignity and access to support cannot depend on a particular delivery partner. We will continue to work closely with communities and delivery partners to shape delivery and make sure that all women and girls, no matter where they live, are protected and supported.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

4. Ms Sheerin asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, following the establishment of the Office of AI and Digital, for their assessment of its impact on public-sector transformation in terms of improving service delivery. (AQO 3098/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The deputy First Minister and I launched the Office of AI and Digital on 11 June last year. Its remit is to support the adoption of AI technologies across government to improve service delivery. The potential for AI is extraordinary: it can revolutionise how we work and study, drive economic growth and prosperity and help to transform our public services. There are a number of positive examples of AI deployment that are improving service delivery. In TEO, for example, Microsoft Copilot is being used to support staff in enhancing personal productivity and streamlining administrative tasks, such as the preparation of routine briefing materials. The Office of AI and Digital is compiling a register of the deployment of AI technologies across NICS Departments to improve collaboration and avoid duplication.

When it comes to digital and data, the roll-out of the Encompass programme represents a significant investment to improve service delivery through the creation of single digital care records for every citizen here. The data underpinning Encompass will enable improved communication with patients and continuity of care. However, as everyone knows, the adoption of AI carries some risk. The Office of AI and Digital has developed a draft AI strategy that will provide some guard rails for the ethical use of AI, with human oversight as a fundamental principle. That is particularly important in the use of AI public-sector transformation, as the potential of AI will never be realised without it having public trust.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as a freagra.

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

First Minister, you outlined that there are some guard rails that you want to put in place to ensure that there is no negativity as a result of the use of AI. What concerns do you have regarding AI and the fears in our community that it could lead to the loss of jobs in the long term?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That has become increasingly topical of late, not least because people are fearful that, at the end of the day, AI will completely replace people in the workplace. That is why we have to have our guard rails around ethical procurement and ethical frameworks. We have to be ethically responsible. AI has to be socially beneficial: people have to feel a difference from it and know that it will make a difference. It has to be aligned with human values and very much grounded in the principles of trust, transparency and fairness.

People have concerns about it replacing people. There are genuine concerns about what it means for them in the future. How we use it will be important, and having a really strong framework in place will be important. For example, how can we use AI to excel in repetitive tasks that happen across public service, such as data entry, scheduling or root cause analysis? If you automate those tasks, that will free up our teams to focus on what truly matters, which is more strategic thinking, complex problem-solving and delivering high-impact outcomes for citizens.

You cannot take away from the fact that human judgement and the empathy that we feel as people when we are making decisions all have to be part and parcel of it. There is no algorithm out there that can replace that instinct, so it is important that those things are baked into what we do. It is about being responsible, having an ethical procurement framework and taking the opportunity to allow us to be more agile in how we transform and deliver public services. We also need to keep people at the heart of what we do so that the public do not lose trust in it when it comes to their ability to access some digital services. There is also an issue with digital inclusion that needs to be addressed.

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

We have AI, artificial general intelligence (AGI) and the potential for artificial superintelligence (ASI). The potential that can arise from all that is developing at a very fast rate. Therefore, what specialist expert opinion has the Department engaged to make sure that Departments keep pace with or, at least, try to keep pace with that and to engage in monitoring and supervision to make sure that AI does not travel too far ahead or too fast ahead of the normal expectations of society?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I concur with the Member. That is part and parcel of the strategy that we have been developing. We are very lucky that we have Helen McCarthy as the Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser. That role did not exist in the Executive Office before, but she is now fully in place. She has been working on the advances with other stakeholders, such as our universities and people in industry.

The Member is absolutely right: technology is moving so fast that people find it frightening at times, and I understand that. I even see it myself when I try to keep up with some of the advances. Therefore, the guard rails are necessary, and the ethical element is necessary to ensure that the public can have trust in it. You need to be able to stand over data and things that are inputted to certain systems.

The goal here is to improve how we deliver public services, to use AI for the betterment of the public and to have those very strong principles of fairness, responsibility, accountability and ethical responsibility around what we do. I assure you that we work with all our groups. As I said, we need to make sure that there is inclusion, particularly for rural dwellers, and that people have access to the internet and can use some of the tools that are becoming increasingly available.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

5. Mr Gildernew asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on their engagement with the British Government to secure a fair and adequate Executive Budget. (AQO 3099/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We discussed Budget issues at length with the British Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Cabinet Office at a recent meeting on 22 January. Alongside that, discussions have been ongoing between Treasury and the Finance Minister for some time.

We acknowledge the confirmation of the £400 million reserve claim, which allows us to stabilise some public finances this year. It is important to recognise, however, that it is repayable funding that we have achieved and will therefore place additional pressure on future Budgets. It is vital that we get to an agreed position on the multi-year Budget as soon as possible. No Minister will stand in the House and say anything other than, "This is an extremely challenging Budget process in which we are engaged". It has been clear from day 1, as all parties in the House recognise, that we have been underfunded. The fact that the stabilisation fund will run out this year puts us in a very difficult and precarious position when it comes to being able to fund public services and meet all our Programme for Government (PFG) commitments. That having been said, the case continues to be made at every available opportunity.

The draft Budget is out for consultation. It is now the job of all of us to try to get to the point at which we have a three-year Budget. We are on a dual run: we are trying to deal with public services here while continuing to make the case for why we need transformation and reform funding and additional funding to allow us to deliver good public services.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. While the efforts of the Finance Minister in particular and his Executive colleagues to secure access to a £400 million reserve claim are certainly welcome, does the First Minister agree that access to the reserve claim is in itself a clear statement that British Government funding for the North is fundamentally inadequate and that what we really need are greater fiscal powers to allow us to make our own financial decisions?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely agree. On day 1, the message from the House was that we had been underfunded for well over a decade. Every party in the Chamber agreed, and that remains the case. We have certainly made advances in shoring up the case for us to be funded according to the needs of the people here. In the short period that we have been in office in the past two years, the additional funding that the Finance Minister has secured on the Executive's behalf is to be welcomed, but it does not touch the surface of what we need in order to transform our public services.

At our most recent engagement, the deputy First Minister and I made the Secretary of State very aware of the position in which we find ourselves. We are making the case so strongly. We have a stabilisation fund, but that is about to fall off the edge. How will we transform public services if we are underfunded? How will we fix healthcare and education and do everything else that we want to do if we are underfunded? I often hear people use the begging bowl analogy: I do not accept that. What we are asking for is what is right for people here. What we are asking for is right for the people whom we represent. What we are asking for is appropriate support to address the many years of underfunding of this place and, ultimately, more fiscal levers in order for us to be able to do more things here through investing in policy proposals and in public services.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

There absolutely is a need for an adequate Budget, and every Member in the House supports that. Among the general public, however, there is a perception that there is huge system mismanagement, with our roads in absolute chaos, persistently high hospital waiting lists and huge underinvestment in our school estate. What can the First Minister do to reassure the public that every effort is being made to ensure that there is not system mismanagement? I look particularly at the Audit Office report that showed that £50 million a year was spent on sick leave payments in the Civil Service. What will the First Minister do to address that wastage and ensure that the money goes to front-line services?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There is no doubt that there is wastage in our system. We are doing all that we can to transform our public services. You have only to look at the state of the Department of Education budget and the fact that that Department has overspent so significantly or at the Department of Health budget to see that that leaves the whole of the Executive in a difficult position. There is no doubt that our public services are under huge pressure because of years of underinvestment. Our day-1 argument needs to remain our day-1 argument: we need to fight for more money to invest in public services here.

Alongside that, we need to do the transformation work, and I believe that we are all up for doing it. We can deliver public services better and more efficiently through a range of measures, be they transformation projects that try to reform — for example, reforming how planning applications are dealt with — or improve, and we have seen such improvements across the Department of Health with the roll-out of Encompass.

We also need to get right to the heart of the wastage in our system. That is a big issue that we are all committed to addressing. A raft of proposals has been taken forward at Department of Finance level and head of the Civil Service (HOCS) level to deal with wastage in the system as a result of absences and everything else.

There are strategies in place to deal with that; we might just have to wait a bit longer to see the benefits of them. There are, however, a number of things in train that will make a significant difference.

Our day-1 argument, which should be that of everybody in the Chamber, is that this place has been underfunded for over a decade and that we are trying to pick up the pieces. The British Government need to pay for public services that they have underinvested in for over a decade.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We will move to topical questions.

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

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in light of the fact that the Executive Office is responsible for Ukrainian refugees here, and after noting that the First Minister's party and Donald Trump share the position of being less than fulsome in their support for the people of Ukraine as they experience an onslaught from Putin's Russia, whether the First Minister can honestly stand over the vote of her colleagues in the European Parliament to stand alongside the German far right and Viktor Orbán in denying humanitarian aid to the people of Ukraine, albeit he welcomes the fact that the First Minister said today that she would not attend the White House, while noting that the SDLP leader will not attend also, given that party's clear position this year and in previous years when Trump was in the White House. (AQT 2041/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That is nothing to do with the Executive Office, but we do our very best to support the Ukrainian refugees who are under our care. In our society, people have been excellent at opening their doors and welcoming people: long may that continue. My party's policy positions are not relevant to the Executive Office per se. However, we should all be increasingly concerned that, whilst all public services are struggling, the approach of the British Government and that of international communities is to move towards a militarisation agenda as opposed to investing in people. I have concerns about that and I take issue with it.

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

First, I get about two questions once a month, so I will ask you about issues that pertain to wider questions, including decisions that your party has made. It has nothing to do with the British Government; it was a vote taken in the European Parliament by your colleagues, including on the subject of civil and humanitarian aid. I understand that your colleagues are talking about defence spending, but you do not have to endorse every part of that spending. Your party could, for example, have abstained: your party chose not to. When those of us who want a united and new Ireland back in the European Union are asking for European solidarity now and in the future, is it defensible for your party to stand against humanitarian aid to people in Ukraine?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Again, that is nothing to do with the Executive Office, but we can clearly stand over our position. Nothing in life is black and white, and neither are positions that are adopted in the European Parliament. Sometimes, you have to go with one part or another of a motion. I am confident that —

[Interruption.]

Well, this is nothing to do with the Executive Office, but I am very confident in our party position, and I know that we can stand over it.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

T2. Mr Honeyford asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the value provided by the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) in light of the delays that are affecting everything from the Maze/Long Kesh site to the upgrade of the A1 junctions. (AQT 2042/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are actively looking at our investment strategy, including the role of SIB. As the Member will know, there was a review of the strategy. When the three-year Budget process is in place, it will inform the investment strategy. We are actively looking at the SIB's role: what it does and how it does it. We will have a particular ask of the SIB and what it will do within its remit, and we will be more than happy to share that with Members.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. I sit on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). When the SIB appeared before the PAC, I was unclear as to what power it has. Will you give a timescale for that comprehensive review so that we can ensure that we get value for money for the public?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I agree that we have to get value for money. The role of SIB has morphed over the years, and many people who were initially in the SIB are now in the Department on a longer-term basis. The DFM and I have raised that issue, because we want to be clear about our ask and the added value of SIB, particularly when it comes to rolling out our investment strategy. We will be open about the role of the SIB and what we have asked of it; that is really important. We are actively working our way through the investment strategy, and a considerable amount of work has gone into that. Some of the work underlying the investment strategy is around nine key enabling actions that will help us to do things better and to transform and invest in infrastructure, alongside other things. I look forward to when we are back in the House debating the investment strategy, because it is something that we all want to see.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

T3. Miss Hargey asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the reasons for the First Minister's decision on visiting the White House on St Patrick's Day. (AQT 2043/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you. I have confirmed my decision publicly. I gave serious consideration to my attendance at the White House this year, understanding and recognising, as we all do, the fact that there are very deep and historic bonds between Ireland and the United States. I said that I would make the decision based on the prevailing context and circumstance, and it is very clear that what is happening in Palestine has not improved. What we are seeing unfold in front of our eyes is very clear: families are still under attack and the genocide is still occurring. That is a context in which I cannot attend. For me, it was about taking a principled stand and not attending the White House on this occasion.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Thanks very much. Does the First Minister agree that all political leaders have a responsibility to stand against the inhumanity that Israel is displaying towards the Palestinian people?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I do. This is an opportunity to do so. We have a small voice, but it is important to use it at times that like this. This is the genocide of our generation. When you reflect on all of that, you have to use your political platform and your voice to be on the right side of humanity and the right side of history. That is why I have taken the decision that I have. Whilst there is a ceasefire in name, there is not a ceasefire in reality. That is the very clear lived experience of the people of Palestine. When you still see homes being destroyed, families being killed and indiscriminate fire daily and nightly, that should alarm us all. We should all be proactive in using our voice. As I said, there are times in history when you have to stand on the right side of humanity. I will always be able to confidently say to my grandchildren that I stood on the right side of humanity.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

T4. Mr Burrows asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after stating that First Minister's decision not to attend the White House on St Patrick's Day on humanitarian grounds is somewhat at odds with her party's conduct when it comes to visiting China, why it is OK to shake the hand of Beijing but not visit the White House. (AQT 2044/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As the Member will be aware, we have spoken quite often in the House about our engagement with Chinese officials here and the Economy Minister's recent visit to China. We make very clear our view on China's human rights abuses — we always underline that in our visits. Both the deputy First Minister and I are on record in all of our meetings with Chinese officials as saying that we are concerned about their human rights abuses. They are very clear about our position on that.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

That is really a non-answer, because you are still prepared to have the Economy Minister go to China, a regime that drips in blood, crushes dissent, is a humanitarian abuser and oppresses Christians. You are happy to have a senior member of your party shake the bloody hand of Beijing, but you give false reasons for why you will not attend the White House.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

My reasons for not attending the White House this year are very similar to the reasons that I gave last year. There is a genocide — a genocide — that is unique to our generation. It is important to stand on the right side of humanity on that issue. Unfortunately, many Members on the Benches opposite will be on the wrong side of history. I have made my voice clear. I am taking a stand on the role of the United States and the way in which the international community has turned the other way and failed. I want to see a two-state solution in the Middle East. Our society tells you that there is always a road out of conflict. Our society tells you that dialogue will get you to that point. I encourage the international community to do more. I am taking distinct approaches when it comes to what we do in Washington and what we will do in China on trade and relationships. I am very confident that our Economy Minister is more than capable of raising all of those human rights concerns, which we all share.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

T5. Mr T Buchanan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that the window for introducing legislation is closing fast and that the Education Minister's proposals to address an inequality through the provision of a statutory body, with equivalent powers, for the controlled sector are sitting on the First Minister's desk gathering dust, whether they will commit to progress those proposals, address the inequality and accept the request to meet representatives from the controlled sector to discuss that very important issue. (AQT 2045/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am quite sure that your colleagues are not briefing outside the Executive, because that would be a breach of Executive confidentiality. There are many papers sitting in the Executive waiting to be cleared. I can tell you that there are very few at my end.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

That was not much of an answer, but whatever. The Communities Minister has raised the important issue of tackling fraud and error in the benefits system. We all know that those who defraud the system are stealing from those who genuinely need that support. Why, then, do you not support the Communities Minister on that important issue rather than preventing further action to address it?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Again, more talking out of the Executive. We are working our way through all the papers that we have. Some are detailed policies. I was quite concerned about some of your colleague's proposals because he seems to have a disproportionate emphasis on people who are struggling and need benefits, going after them in the courts and naming them and shaming them.

[Interruption.]

That is my concern.

I assure the Member that I continue to work with all Executive colleagues because I want to see our papers agreed. Unfortunately, some papers have been stuck in the Executive for over a year. Over a year, could you imagine? That is disgraceful. I want to progress papers as quickly as we possibly can, and I will work with Ministers to do so. We have a short window left in this mandate, and where there are legislative proposals, we should be prioritising them and getting them agreed and back to the House for debate. That would be good because I think that we are going to spend the rest of the mandate debating many pieces of legislation that would be beneficial to people's lives.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

T6. Mr McAleer asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to update the House on any engagement that they have had with the insurance industry following the Infrastructure Minister's changes to driver licensing. (AQT 2046/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Again, not on behalf of TEO, I joined the Infrastructure Minister in a meeting that we had with the Association of British Insurers, the umbrella body for insurance companies. We raised with them a concern that I know has, no doubt, been raised with many in the House, and that is the cost of insurance here, which is disproportionately high, in particular for young people. Some of the premiums that young people are paying are absolutely extortionate.

We took the opportunity to meet the association because the Infrastructure Minister has announced road safety improvement measures, which are raising awareness of security and safety on the roads. Also, the announcement on graduated driving licences was made. A combination of those should mean that our young drivers are safer on the road. I wanted to make the case that those companies need to stop making such big profits off the backs of young people and let them get on the road at a premium that is fair and reasonable and not disproportionate. That is the case, I think, when you compare the rates here with those in Scotland, Wales and England.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

On the topic of road safety, does the First Minister agree that the increase in sentencing for drunk divers, that will be proposed in the Justice Minister's sentencing Bill, is welcome?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. Obviously, that is a very emotive issue, particularly for anybody who has lost a loved one on the roads, and, unfortunately, there are far too many. I very much welcome the fact that the Bill has moved to the next stage and that the Justice Minister will be bringing it to the House for debate. That proposal is important because increased sentencing guidelines will be a deterrent, and drunk drivers will not get a slap on the wrist for being the cause of someone losing their life. In the Member's own back yard, the family of Enda Dolan have been strong campaigners, using their own tragedy and life experience, for a meaningful change in the law. I commend that family, and I am sure that all Members know families that have been likewise campaigning, so I commend them all for getting to this point. The outworking of local Ministers being close to our communities and able to listen to the changes that they want is that we are able to bring those changes forward through legislation, so I look forward to the sentencing Bill's coming to the House for debate.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

T7. Mr McGuigan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, who will no doubt be aware of a statement issued last week by Geraldine Finucane, expressing increased frustration at the handling of the Pat Finucane inquiry, whether they share his concerns and the concerns of the Finucane family about the British Government's approach to that issue. (AQT 2047/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely do. I am very mindful of the family, given that the anniversary of Pat's death has just passed. It has been 37 years of campaigning for truth and justice, 37 years of being let down at every turn by the British Government, and 37 years of promises being made and then reneged on. I commend the family, and I urge the British Government to step forward to do the right thing. They committed to the inquiry but have yet to agree the terms of reference. That is not acceptable or good enough, so they need to get on with it and allow the family the ability to move forward. I make that plea to the British Government today: stop making the Finucane family wait; do the right thing; develop the terms of reference; let the work get under way; and let the family get answers.

Oral Answers to Questions — Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs

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

1. Mr McCrossan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the process for elected representatives to engage with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency on planning applications in their area. (AQO 3110/22-27)

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

8. Mr Wilson asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline any engagement that he has had with the Planning Statutory Consultee Forum. (AQO 3117/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will group questions 1 and 8 together for answer.

The planning response team is the single point of contact for planning consultations and environmental queries relating to planning and provides a single, integrated response to each consultation across DAERA's areas of responsibility. Where an elected representative wishes to engage on a planning application, the planning response team, as the coordinating team, will direct the query to the relevant consultee team, or teams, for a response. That is the most effective approach because there are eight consultee teams in DAERA, and an application may need a response from more than one team. The planning response team can be contacted by email at planningresponse.team@daera-ni.gov.uk or via telephone on 028 9056 9604. The contact details are also available on the departmental website.

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

Thank you, Minister. As you will know, the NIEA's response to elected representatives is entirely inadequate; in fact, it is poor. The Speaker, in his former role as AERA Minister, made a temporary decision during the previous mandate not to respond to requests for information from MLAs or agents. Is it your intention to keep that decision in place?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Daniel, for your question. As you know, a Northern Ireland Environment Agency improvement plan is under way to review communication and stakeholder engagement, alongside other areas. As a first step in that plan, officials will implement a special exercise to provide an update on all consultations that await a response. The update will be provided to planners through the Northern Ireland consultee hub. The update will confirm receipt of the planning consultation, advise whether the case has been allocated to a case officer and provide an indicative time frame for a response. The indicative response time for each development type will also be published on the DAERA website. I recognise that there is more to do on NIEA planning response times. We have a performance plan in place, and I will visit officials at their site in Lisburn in the coming weeks.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, your Department has a seat at the planning consultee forum. The AERA Committee requested that the consultee forum address it. I am concerned that there is a lack of joined-up approach in planning consultees getting their responses back to planning departments. As your Department has a seat at the table, will you back us up in bringing the forum to our Committee so that we can adequately address the concerns of applicants across Northern Ireland?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am aware of the Committee's deliberations on the matter. You will be aware that, in 2019, there was a review of the planning system in Northern Ireland, with a particular focus on the role of statutory consultees. One of the recommendations was the establishment of a cross-government planning forum of senior leaders. You are aware of what the forum does: it meets quarterly and includes representatives from Departments, public bodies that have a key statutory consultee role as part of the planning process, councils and planning group staff. The director of NIEA's natural environment division in DAERA is part of the forum. I will consider your request, but I am conscious of the forum's remit and the role of the Department for Infrastructure. Let us be clear, however: statutory consultees' responses need to come back more quickly. We need to have a more effective planning system, and I am committed to playing my role in that regard.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It is my understanding that advice has been issued following correspondence between the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Shared Environmental Service on the cross-border impacts of agricultural litter and manure spreading on designated sites. Will the Minister confirm that the Environment Agency has considered that advice in relevant planning cases, and will he publish the advice as soon as possible in the interests of transparency?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am aware of the issue that you have outlined. I am also aware of the role that the Shared Environmental Service plays in it. I am happy to take that away and write to you, because I want to confirm the exact facts. There was a delay in getting the advice, and we told the Shared Environmental Service to proceed in its absence. If the advice has come back, I am happy to write to give you a bit more detail on it. The issue is complex, but I know that it has been of concern to the farming community.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

2. Mr Blair asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs when the departmental response to the consultation on ‘Rethinking Our Resources: Measures for Climate Action and a Circular Economy in NI’ will be published. (AQO 3111/22-27)

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

9. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the progress that his Department has made on creating a waste management strategy. (AQO 3118/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 2 and 9 together.

'Rethinking Our Resources' comprises two work streams that aim to help with the decarbonisation of our economy, improving our environment and building a better and more circular economy. The first stream focuses on specific waste and recycling reforms that are of interest to householders, councils and businesses. The second stream is the waste management strategy, which I launched recently. That will set the policy direction at a strategic level for waste management in Northern Ireland for the next six years.

In 2024, my Department consulted on a range of proposals to improve recycling and waste collections across households and businesses. The responses to the consultation informed a draft departmental response containing recommendations for driving down the volume of residual waste and improving the quality and quantity of material being collected for recycling, supporting local processing.

Action is needed. Recycling rates are stagnating. We are exporting waste to other countries instead of managing our waste locally and we are losing valuable economic resource that could drive investment in local green jobs and support a local circular economy. I have heard at first hand that councils and businesses are seeking clear direction and clarity on our proposals, as they want to make investment decisions for their operations and to know how the proposals will impact on them.

Since the summer of last year, I have been seeking support from my Executive colleagues to publish my departmental response so that I can provide the clarity that councils and businesses require and assure householders that their efforts will boost a local reprocessing industry, creating new good green jobs and enhancing our local circular economy. As stated earlier, my draft waste management strategy has been launched for consultation. The consultation will close on 8 April, and I encourage everyone to respond to it to ensure that their views are heard.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that reply. How can separate recycling streams improve the quality of the recycled product as well as benefiting the circular economy?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, John. It is of key importance that we improve the quality as well as the quantity of recycling. That will ensure that the resource value of the material collected is maximised. For example, local reprocessors have told us that they are unable to take commingled glass, because high-quality cullet is essential to efficient re-melting. Contamination by ceramics, plastics and other particles reduces furnace efficiency, increases energy use and damages equipment. That means that our local businesses have to import high-quality material, while the collected commingled glass is exported to other nations for cleaning and processing or for downgrading to aggregate. That represents a missed opportunity for our local economy. Separate collections are beneficial because they lead to more local reprocessing, support investment in jobs in reprocessing plants and manufacturing, and reduce waste export volumes and associated emissions.

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

Minister, the strategy is called 'Rethinking Our Resources' and relates to the circular economy. I am afraid that your Department has been doing a lot of thinking, and it feels like it is going round in circles. People in Four Winds and Carryduff in my constituency have been told for years by Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council that they cannot get rid of these things called kerbie boxes, which blow all over the high ground in BT8 and, ironically, create more litter. The council tells them that nothing can be done about that until the Minister responds to the consultation that happened two years ago. Now, Minister, you are announcing another consultation. What do you say to my constituents in BT8, who are fed up waiting for consultation after consultation and just want action?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

As I outlined in my response to the question, I are consulting on a waste management strategy. I previously consulted on a recycling strategy, for which I sent a departmental response to my Executive colleagues in the summer of last year. That strategy is ready to go, and I want to be able to issue it to councils, but it is with the Executive, and I cannot publish it until I get their agreement on it. I share your frustration, because it has been sitting there for months. It is important that we help people to recycle. We have done so much good work on the amount of recycling in Northern Ireland — it has been a really good achievement — but we need to go further, because we want to boost our local economy and deal with environmental concerns that result from waste, whether it goes to landfill or incineration.

So the response and the proposed way forward on recycling is ready to go, but I need Executive agreement on it. There are positive elements alongside that, the most recent example being kerbside glass collection by Belfast City Council. My Department has supported that. That is good and popular, and it is important that we embrace it.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

Farmers and businesses are being asked to modernise, decarbonise and invest, yet we have been waiting for months and years for you, as Minister, to publish a consultation response. How is that credible leadership?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

You should ask your own party.

[Interruption.]

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

3. Ms Egan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the work that his Department is undertaking to tackle plastic pollution. (AQO 3112/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I have ambitious goals to protect our environment from plastic pollution, reduce unnecessary waste and promote sustainability. My Department has already taken action with the introduction of legislation to ban single-use vapes and wet wipes containing plastic.

My Department is leading on work to bring forward the plastic pollution plan for Northern Ireland. It is an overarching document with the aim of addressing and tackling the problem of plastic pollution in Northern Ireland. The plan will set the course for Northern Ireland to be part of the plastic solution and become a leader in driving the necessary change. A public consultation ran from 2 July 2025 for 12 weeks, with responses from citizens and businesses. Feedback received will be incorporated into the final plan. The plan will collate the targets incorporated in existing policies and strategies and identify actions that will contribute to eliminating unnecessary plastic in Northern Ireland.

My officials are working to bring forward regulations to transpose the EU single-use plastics directive into Northern Ireland domestic law, which will remove more commonly littered and unnecessary single-use plastic items from circulation. The primary objective of the single-use plastics directive is to protect our environment. Single-use plastic products are a wasteful use of resources, being used only once before being discarded, impacting on our marine and natural environment. The introduction of those regulations will reduce the volume and impact of plastic products on our environment.

Work also continues on the introduction of a deposit return scheme (DRS) for single-use drinks containers, which will launch in Northern Ireland in October 2027.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Minister. What programmes are being supported by the carrier bag levy?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Connie. The carrier bag levy is an example of behavioural change bringing about a positive impact for our environment, with the most recent statistics showing a decrease of almost 6 million bags per annum over a two-year period. The revenue raised helps to support the environment fund. It has delivered a number of projects including Eco-Schools, which engage with young people to further influence positive behaviours and enhance their appreciation of our environment. Both you and I have enjoyed meeting those Eco-Schools. Similarly, the levy also directly funds the Lyric Theatre's eco-project, 'Waste Busters' the musical, which is currently touring schools across all council areas in Northern Ireland, educating and encouraging efforts to protect our resources. I will be attending a production of that in the next few weeks.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Given that plastic makes up 15% to 20% of a nappy, I ask the Minister, further to my debate in January last year, whether he will provide an update on how he is going to divert nappies and absorbent hygiene products away from residual waste and ensure that valuable, recyclable material is extracted and reused?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

That is an important issue, and it is important that councils do all that they can to find a way to reduce the amount of waste that is going to landfill or for incineration. While my officials have been engaging on the matter, one of the key issues is the role that councils can play. Councils have an additional amount of approximately £50 million in extended producer responsibility for packaging money that they can use to improve their ways to recycle. One of the ways in which to improve recycling and reduce waste management is through what the Member has outlined. Officials will continue to engage, but, ultimately, it is for councils to take that forward. It would be good if I could publish the previous departmental response, which set out the proposed way forward.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Does the Minister agree that a better approach to tackling plastic pollution is to prevent it from being produced and appearing on shop shelves in the first place? It is ridiculous: you go to a shop to buy bananas, and they are covered in plastic. That is absurd. Will the Minister outline what work he is doing to compel or encourage producers and suppliers to stop using plastic, especially single-use plastics?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

My answer is yes. There is a waste hierarchy, and part of that is about reducing the amount of waste that we produce. There is the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme: that is being brought in across the UK and will, hopefully, incentivise a reduction in the amount of packaging. Furthermore, a scheme is coming into place in October next year. It has been in place down South since February 2024. It is the deposit return scheme, which will encourage people to bring back their bottles, and they will get money for that. It has proven to be very popular down South and in other parts of Europe. I believe that it will be popular here in the North as well.

There is lots that we are doing around this. However, there is more that we should do, because we want to make sure that we are not missing the opportunities from the circular economy.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his reference to the success of the deposit return scheme in the South. We are due to see it in October next year. What conversations has the Minister had with his counterpart in the South about how the scheme that we will implement here can harmonise with theirs?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I have spoken briefly to my counterpart in the South about that. There is a desire from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and me to go down South to see the scheme in operation there. One of the key focuses of the deposit return scheme in the UK is that it has to be interoperable with that in the South, which is a key thing that I have been advocating, and I believe that it will be. To be honest, what we have seen in the South is a role model for how we can take forward the scheme in the UK, including Northern Ireland. Staff from the scheme in the South came across to the DRS in the UK and have brought their knowledge with them. It is disappointing that the scheme has not been put in place in the UK sooner, but that is a result of the antics of the previous UK Government on the issue. The new Government, however, are committed to the scheme, and we are rolling it out. It was good to see the operator of the deposit return scheme at an event last week with Retail NI, engaging with local retailers on the issue.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Minister, it is good to hear that you are making progress on tackling plastic pollution. Will you take the opportunity to update the House and enlighten us on what progress you are making on reducing the amount of raw sewage that is currently going into our waterways? I know that that issue does not sit with you, but, given that farmers are always being used as a scapegoat for the actions of Northern Ireland Water (NIW), I am interested to know what progress you have made on reducing the 7 million tons of untreated sewage that goes into our waterways each year.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I am not sure what plastic has to do with sewage, but I will leave it in your hands, Minister.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Plastic and sewage are a bit different, but I am happy to answer the Member's question.

What sits with me is regulation and enforcement. A paper will go to the Executive in the next few weeks on how to address the bye ball that NI Water has been given since 2007, when it was unfairly given a special dispensation that other polluters do not have. That needs to be addressed. There is other work in place, which I will outline to the Chamber in the time ahead. The ultimate responsibility for investment in waste water infrastructure and its management sits with the Minister for Infrastructure. We need to be brave and address the issues, because I am acutely aware that not only are they causing harm to our environment but they are affecting housebuilding and economic development in Northern Ireland. Alongside that, we are doing work on plastic pollution, because its wider environmental impact needs to be addressed.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

4. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the percentage of farm support payments that were made within his Department's own target timescales in the previous scheme year. (AQO 3113/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

My Department's 2025-26 business plan includes a commitment to deliver 95% of payments for live farm-based schemes accurately and on time to eligible businesses. I am pleased to report that that commitment was not only achieved but exceeded. In 2025, 98% of payments under the farm sustainability transition payment (FSTP) and the beef carbon reduction (BCR) scheme were issued on the first day of payment, totalling over £260 million to farm businesses.

Early decisions by the Executive on the final Budget and associated allocations to Departments will be needed to ensure that we can maintain that record for 2026-27. My officials are working hard to prepare for another timely delivery following final decisions on the make-up of the Executive's 2026-27 Budget.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I welcome the news about the 98%, but, given that he was able to achieve 98%, why did he set a target of 95% for this year?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

If the Member wants, I am happy to review that target. It is important that we get the payments out on time. I thank staff for delivering 98% of payments on the first day last year.

I will say one thing to the House. We have only a draft Budget, and it is a draft Budget that was issued for consultation by the Finance Minister, rather than being agreed by the Executive. Without a Budget in place, I am seeking guidance from officials on whether I can set entitlements and do farm payments in the next financial year. People need to be cognisant of the need for us to work together to set a Budget for the year ahead so that I can assure the farming community of those payments.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Like the Member for South Antrim, I say, "Well done" to the Minister for getting the percentage up. We have to look at the raw statistics, however, as percentages can sometimes skew the real figures. How many farm support payment applications were made in that year as against the year before?