Northern Ireland Assembly, 17 February 2026

351 contributions from 53 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Maidin mhaith daoibh.

[Translation: Good morning to you.]

I take the opportunity this morning to pay tribute to a school in my constituency, which is very special and close to my heart, because it is the one that I attended: St Colm's High School in Ballinascreen. Many of you may have noticed the feature on 'BBC Newsline' last week on a fantastic pilot programme that the school is involved in. As part of the pilot, three OT students from Ulster University work in the school with pupils, particularly on mental health and anxiety, helping them to identify the physical manifestation of worry and anxiety in themselves and teaching them coping mechanisms and strategies to deal with that. As was referred in the piece on 'BBC Newsline' last week, the students who got involved all felt that it was really worthwhile and of great benefit.

Forward-thinking and innovative practices are nothing strange or startling at St Colm's. It is a small school, but it is always leading the way, looking at new ways of doing things and how to improve life for the school community. As Members, we will all have had experience of schools coming to us on the issues of mental health and anxiety and the new challenges that they have to navigate as these modern times wear on. The pilot initiative has been really worthwhile initiative.

Just before Christmas, I had the pleasure of attending the St Colm's career fair, which is now an annual event that brings together all the local businesses and shows pupils the different career opportunities that are open to them. It provides the local businesses with access to the brilliant new talent that is on their doorsteps. That is another example of the school community working with local organisations.

The pilot is a result of Thrive Sperrins, which is led by Workspace in collaboration with the Northern Health and Social Care Trust, partnering with Ulster University to bring in the OT students, providing them with valuable work experience and adding benefit to the lives of pupils and teachers alike. I congratulate everybody involved at St Colm's, particularly Miss McAllister and the leadership team there, on the fantastic work that they are doing, and I urge everyone to believe and achieve.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I take this opportunity to welcome the unlocking of funding by the Education Minister, Paul Givan, under the curriculum-led capital programme to secure a new synthetic sports pitch for Tandragee Junior High School. This is, of course, a welcome development, and it follows the decision by the Education Minister to commit to a new-build project for the school. It is exciting news for Tandragee Junior High School. I am a past pupil of the school who, on many a wet afternoon, played on a muddy grass pitch. The vision of a new, all-purpose, synthetic surface is a real game changer for the school.

It is also important that progress continues to be made on forward planning for the new build, which will be an exciting new resource. The securing of a new build for Tandragee Junior High School and the new commitment by the Minister for a synthetic sports pitch represent a real and purposeful investment in education provision in the area. It is certainly a seal of approval for the well-cherished Dickson plan that Tandragee Junior High School so ably caters for.

With investment secured for that specific site in Tandragee, as an MLA for Newry and Armagh, I am also very committed to continuing to lobby for Markethill High School. There is a real and pressing need for investment in that site on the Mowhan Road. Markethill High School continues to perform impressively as an education provider. The Minister has visited the school on a number of occasions, and I have been in communication with him again in recent days on continuing work on that development requirement. Markethill High School deserves investment, and I will continue to make the case for that. The school is highly cherished in the town and, indeed, for miles around. It is a top-quality provider, and the principal, Mr Berry, and all the staff work tirelessly to make the educational journey for pupils inspiring and informative, which is seen in the consistent results of the pupils. That enthusiasm and success needs to be rewarded with investment in the site. I will continue to make the case to the Minister for that important resource in the days ahead.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Our clocks are not working quite right, but I will be keeping an eye on the three minutes.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I rise to raise the issue of ambulance handover times. In January last year, the Minister of Health was called before an urgent meeting of the Health Committee amid sustained pressures on the health service that winter. There, he talked about how his winter preparedness plan for this year would be better. It started with a blank page, and it was to involve big discussions with experts about how we reduce pressure on the health service. That is how we were supposed to move forward.

One of the focus areas was about reducing ambulance handover waits to two hours. Yet, here we are, a year later, having seen that an ambulance waited outside the Ulster Hospital for 19 hours and four minutes before the patient was admitted. That is not a statistic in isolation: it is a person in pain and distress, waiting almost an entire day and night in the back of a vehicle before even getting in the door of an emergency department. In that same month, 40% of ambulance arrivals at the Ulster Hospital waited longer than two hours. The average handover time there was two hours and 28 minutes. The longest wait at the Causeway Hospital exceeded 16 hours, and, at Antrim Area Hospital and Craigavon Area Hospital, it was more than 15 hours. Across Northern Ireland, emergency departments remain under constant pressure.

In his winter preparedness plan, the Minister set a target that, by the start of December, handover should not exceed two hours; yet, in several hospitals, a quarter of arrivals or more breached that standard. Last year, Northern Ireland's Comptroller and Auditor General reported that ambulance handover delays led to thousands of incidents of potential harm. Those delays carry serious risk.

Let me be clear: this is not a criticism of front-line staff. Ambulance crews and emergency department teams are working in extremely challenging conditions for sustained periods. Ambulance handover delays are a symptom of deeper system blockages. When inpatient beds are full, discharge is delayed and community services are overstretched, the pressure builds at the hospital front door. Ambulances become holding areas because there is nowhere else for patients to go.

We need more than winter plans and workshops. We need to remove the blockages in patient flow. We need proper workforce planning and a meaningful expansion of care in the community to prevent avoidable admissions and support timely discharge. No one should ever spend 19 hours in the back of an ambulance. No paramedic crew should spend its entire shift parked outside an emergency department, and no patient or their family should endure that uncertainty. Delay means fewer ambulances on the road answering calls, and it backs up an already dangerously overstretched system, meaning that those in dire need are waiting longer and are at risk of further harm. The figures should serve as a wake-up call. Managing pressure is not enough: we must fix the structural problems that create it.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am proud to recognise an organisation that has stood beside generations of individuals and families through some of the most difficult moments in their lives. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Northlands centre in Derry. For half a century, it has carried a simple but life-changing message: recovery is possible, people matter and no one should face addiction alone.

What began in the 1970s as an education initiative has grown into something far greater. Northlands became a community of support and, ultimately, a regional treatment centre that has helped people from across the North. Its work has not only transformed lives but challenged the shame and stigma that so often surround addiction. It has replaced silence with understanding and brought hope to those who were in despair.

In the city that I represent, it is difficult to find a family whose story has not in some way been touched by the care, professionalism and humanity that is offered there. For many, a second chance in life can be traced directly back to the support that they received in the Northlands centre. While anniversaries are rightly moments of celebration, they must also be moments of reflection. The demand for addiction services is rising, substances are evolving and the challenges facing families are becoming more complex and more urgent.

Those working on the front line are clear in their message: without additional capacity, need will outstrip provision. If we are serious about valuing recovery, we must be serious about investing in it. That requires a joined-up commitment to ensure that the north-west has a fully supported, properly resourced residential addiction treatment centre that is capable of meeting present and future needs. The people who seek help are not statistics but our neighbours, our friends, our sons and our daughters. They deserve more than recognition. They deserve action that matches the courage it takes for them to ask for help.

As we mark 50 years of extraordinary service, I extend my sincere thanks to Tommy and all the staff, volunteers and everyone who has sustained the vital work at Northlands. I also urge the Minister of Health to match that determination so that hope and recovery remain available to every family who need it in the decades ahead.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

This Friday, 20 February, marks World Day of Social Justice. It is not just a date in the calendar but a call for action, and it reminds us that poverty and inequality are not inevitable but problems that we can solve together, with the right focus and effort. It is the day on which we commit to delivering a society for all by tackling the systemic issues, including poverty and all forms of inequality and discrimination, to deliver a decent standard of living for all.

A reliable income and secure housing are fundamental. I commend Minister Archibald for her continued dedication to delivering the biggest upgrade of our employment legislation since the Good Friday Agreement. It will strengthen terms, pay and benefits, voice and representation and work-life balance. We must have the same ambition and drive to end housing inequality. Our people need to see and feel a real sense of urgency over the proposed reform of the Housing Executive to ensure that it can deliver social housing at scale, as it is so desperately needed in our communities. We need new plans or innovative suggestions to regulate and improve housing standards in the social and private rented sectors, aside from the changes made through the Private Tenancies Act 2022. We need to prioritise and deliver timely repairs and enforcement mechanisms for all failures to address substandard housing conditions. Additionally, there is no existing enforcement body to regulate those working under the auspices of estates, sales and lettings here, and that leaves a concerning gap in streamlining standards and safeguarding students, workers and families against rogue traders and unacceptable charges.

This week, in the run-up to World Day of Social Justice on Friday, I urge the Department for Communities to place a greater focus on legislative change to improve tenant safety and property conditions and to provide an urgent update to the Assembly on the proposed reform of the Housing Executive. Social housing should be viewed as a tool for social justice and equality. Access to safe and affordable housing levels the playing field for families across our communities. It also helps break the cycle of poverty and lays the foundation to improve outcomes.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

Across Northern Ireland, countless families still carry the scars of violence. Whether physical or emotional, the scars are permanent, and families' lives have been changed forever by acts of evil that no community should ever have to endure. Too often, their suffering has been overlooked, ignored or spoken about as if it were some distant memory, but, for victims and survivors, it is very much real, lived experience. Today, we see so many attempts to airbrush history: brazen attempts to rewrite the horrors of the past and glorify the actions of the IRA. My party has always been resolute in saying that there was always an alternative and that all violence is wrong.

Groups such as the Wolfe Tones are conditioning our young people to see terrorism as normal. Songs such as 'Celtic Symphony', 'Come Out Ye Black & Tans' and 'Rifles of the I.R.A' and chants of "Ooh ahh, up the 'RA" should not be the norm in any modern-day society.

Sammy Heenan, a well-respected victims' campaigner, has rightly condemned the advertising of the upcoming Wolfe Tones concert at the SSE Arena on radio stations across Northern Ireland this week. Recalling the harrowing events of May 1985, when his father, William, was shot dead by the Provisional IRA outside his home in County Down, Sammy said:

"I followed a trail of blood to an image that would never, ever leave me — an image of my daddy lying dead. My father was a civilian, he was an innocent man who didn't deserve to be forced to his knees and shot twice in the head. He never hurt or offended anyone and was not engaged in terrorism and I think young people need to know how hurtful the music of groups like Kneecap or The Wolfe Tones is to innocent victims."

The advertisement of those groups on national radio causes enormous hurt and retraumatises the victims of terrorism. Today, we call on media outlets and venues such as the SSE to have consideration for victims and survivors. Advertising campaigns that promote ticket sales and events designed to romanticise the actions of the IRA are an affront to all those who have suffered at the hands of terrorism.

Today, we also remember the innocent victims of the bombing at La Mon, 48 years ago. We must never forget the suffering that the IRA has inflicted on Northern Ireland. My party will always stand with the innocent victims and survivors of terrorism.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

I will highlight the experiences of individuals in the family courts system and, primarily, the fact that ensuring the welfare of children and victims of domestic abuse is paramount. Since I joined the Justice Committee over a year ago, constituents of mine in North Down and others from across Northern Ireland have reached out to me for help — help in keeping themselves and their loved ones safe in an incredibly adversarial process.

Responsibility for family law and its processes in Northern Ireland is something that, I sincerely believe, needs to be demystified. The Department of Finance has responsibility for private family law, the Department of Health has responsibility for public family law, and the Lady Chief Justice is responsible for the proper functioning of the courts and the administration of justice. That can create great difficulties for those who engage in such matters and who wish to raise concerns and bring about change.

So much could be said about the process; honestly, much of what I have been told by those who are going through the system has been heartbreaking and of deep concern. There are clear and emerging high-level themes, including the need for the voices of the children involved to be heard more; the lack of information-sharing between civil and criminal courts, particularly in child contact proceedings where there are allegations of domestic abuse; the lack of openness and transparency around family court processes; and the experience of many victims who feel retraumatised, through family court proceedings, by post-separation abuse.

In December, the office of the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime launched an incredibly useful report: 'Totally Invisible'. It focused on the experiences of domestic abuse victims and children who engage with family courts in Northern Ireland. The report includes the lived experiences of victims and survivors of domestic abuse, and, from that, the commissioner designate developed a really worthwhile set of recommendations. The proposals include presumptions against contact with children in cases of domestic abuse; mandatory training on domestic violence and abuse for all members of the judiciary and legal professions; and reform of the family courts system as a whole. Last week, I met the commissioner designate, Geraldine Hanna, who informed me that her office is now taking forward a task and finish group with buy-in from the Health, Justice and Finance Departments to establish terms of reference and a business case for a pilot on how to work family courts differently. I am also aware that the Lady Chief Justice issued new guidance in that area last June.

That work is incredibly important and positive, and we cannot and must not forget why it has to happen. It is vital to protect parents who have been subject to domestic violence and who are simply trying to keep themselves and their children safe in the toughest circumstances.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Déanfar Lá Idirnáisiúnta na Máthairtheangacha a cheiliúradh an deireadh seachtaine seo. Leagfar béim i mbliana ar ról an aosa óig i múnlú an oideachais ilteangaigh.

Tuairiscítear nach bhfuil rochtain ag 40% de dhaonra an domhain ar oideachas i dteanga a labhraíonn siad nó a thuigeann siad. Tá a mhalairt d’fhadhb ag ár dteanga dhúchais in Éirinn: tá ró-éileamh ar an Ghaelscolaíocht, agus is í an Ghaelscolaíocht an earnáil oideachais is mó fás sa Tuaisceart. Tá sin amhlaidh in ainneoin go ndearnadh ionsaithe ar ár dteanga dhúchais ar feadh na gcéadta bliain lena cur den tsaol.

Tugann teangacha dúchais léargas ar leith dúinn ar an tír, agus nascann siad muid léi; tá siad fite fuaite inár gcultúr, agus tá ról tábhachtach le himirt acu i bhforbairt ár bhféiniúlachta. Táthar á thuar go rachaidh idir 50% agus 90% de theangacha dúchais i léig faoi cheann 100 eile bliain. Tuairiscítear go dtéann teanga dhúchais amháin in éag i gceann gach aon choicíse mar gheall ar an choilíneachas nó de bharr na dteangacha idirnáisiúnta a tháinig chun cinn de dheasca an choilíneachais. Ach is léir gur theip ar na cumhachtaí coilíneachta an teanga a scriosadh in Éirinn: má tá teangacha eile dúchais ar fud an domhain ag dul in éag, tá an Ghaeilge ag fás léi.

Tháinig an Ghaeilge slán ón scrios sin, mar gheall ar iarrachtaí a rinne muidne ár dteanga dhúchais a athbheochan, iarrachtaí ar éirigh go maith leo. Ar na hiarrachtaí sin, bhí: bunú Chonradh na Gaeilge sa bhliain 1893; obair Dhúbhghlais de Híde agus Phádraig Mhic Phiarais; agus foghlaim na Gaeilge i gcásanna na Ceise Fada — iad uilig ag cur le hathbheochan atá faoi lán seoil anois. Ceapadh Coimisinéir Gaeilge le déanaí, céim ollmhór chun tosaigh i gcaomhnú agus i gcur chun cinn ár dteanga.

Ag seo teachtaireacht shoiléir Lá Idirnáisiúnta na Máthairtheangacha: beatha teanga í a labhairt.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

In 2025, the consultation on my proposed Member's Bill on women and girls in sport in Northern Ireland showed strong backing for the need for increased protections in sport here. There is a consistent demand for fairness, safety, equality and better participation and representation of women and girls in sport in Northern Ireland.

Women's rights have been fought for long and hard, and there is still some way to go. The current battles are not just the traditional misogynistic ones but include increased attacks from the woke agenda. Women deserve better than that. I was incredibly disappointed at the European Parliament's recent decision, when it refused to anchor pregnancy to biological sex. That is shocking and shows a huge shift in how sex is treated in law. On 12 February, the European Parliament adopted a resolution, by a vote of 340 to 141, calling on EU institutions and member states to guarantee the full recognition of trans women as women in EU policy and law. An amendment was then brought stating that only biological women can become pregnant. That was defeated, with 233 Members of the European Parliament voting against it. Being pregnant and being a mother is a privilege. As a mother of three, I find that vote incredibly offensive and shocking.

Whilst the vote does not change any treaties or mean that there will be any immediate changes in our laws, it does shape Commission priorities and influences how equality frameworks are interpreted. That vote shifts the line between biology and the law. We need to be very mindful of what that could mean for us all. Reproductive health policy, medical research, crime data, sports eligibility, prison placement and sex-segregated protections all require clarity about biological sex. In sport, those categories determine competitive fairness. In prisons and female-only shelters, they affect safety. The vote is a clear signal that biology itself is negotiable in statutory language. That has serious and worrying consequences. When a legislature will not state who can become pregnant, it is moved beyond accommodation into redefinition. Compassion does not require ambiguity in law. What will it be next? Will we see an attempt to rewrite simple biology in our school curriculums?

Once again, women and our rights are under attack. Where is the common sense in all this? Only biological women can be pregnant. The DUP stands strongly to represent common sense and women on those issues.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Since my arrival at Stormont, I have used my position on the Executive Office Committee to attempt to turn the spotlight on to the role of the Irish Republic in facilitating and sustaining 30 years of republican terrorism in Northern Ireland. The facts are undeniable. The arms trial of 1970 exposed something of Dublin's role in the formation and arming of the IRA, yet that did not damage the careers of those who were involved. For example, Charles Haughey went on to become the Irish Prime Minister in spite of having to resign from the Cabinet due to his role in the affair. House of Commons answers show that, between 1973 and 1997, there were at least 110 extradition requests made to the Irish Republic by the UK. Just eight were successful.

Before the shipments from Libya and the introduction of Semtex, the vast majority of IRA bombs were made with Irish industrial explosives. The IRA had an endless supply of bomb-making material from the South; something with which Dublin did not concern itself. A year ago, Kenny Donaldson of the South East Fermanagh Foundation gave evidence to the Executive Office Committee, highlighting that between 550 and 570 murders that were committed during the terrorist campaign had a cross-border element in the planning and/or escape plan of those who were involved.

In spite of that, some in the House say that Dublin's woeful record is not a matter to be discussed at Stormont. You cannot consider victims' issues, get to the truth about what happened during the IRA's years of terror or ever talk about justice unless you face up to the fact that Dublin was an active participant in the terror. A number of Committee members need to recognise that fact. I trust that, as we go into the forward work programme, the Committee will delve into that issue and expose the Irish Republic's role in the terrorism that we have experienced here in Northern Ireland.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Often, in the Assembly, Members stand up to speak out for business. Quite often, they stand up to recognise the challenges that businesses face, and rightly so. That means that, when we look at today's headlines, we should all look upon them with disgust to see that there is still paramilitary involvement in Northern Ireland in holding businesses in fear and to ransom for protection money.

It does not matter what hue or section of society such groups purport to come from: it is wrong and dangerous that we have paramilitaries that think that they have control over our business community and can extort them for money for so-called protection whilst the PSNI says that it can do nothing about it. I do not agree with that. I believe that, as an Assembly, we should state clearly that paramilitary influences have no place in our society, regardless of where they come from.

Our businesses should be left to thrive. Our business community should be propped up and should prosper. Businesses pay taxes. Quite often, in this place, we talk about the huge challenges that they continue to face. Many of them, including long-held family businesses, face the threat of extinction. I listened to the headlines today, and it was beyond ridiculous to hear that, in 2026, businesspeople still live in fear of getting a tap on the shoulder about a threat to their personal life, family life or business. I call on the PSNI to show clearly how it will stamp that out of our society, because, certainly, the Assembly will be unified and clear in saying that groups that extort businesses or communities have no place here.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I can give you a couple of minutes, Miss Hargey.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Thanks very much, Mr Speaker.

Building a world-class healthcare system in a new Ireland would give us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rethink how we care for one another. At a recent health event that was hosted by Sinn Féin in South Belfast, clinicians, GPs and medical experts delivered a clear message: operating two separate health systems on a small island has led to duplication, siloed working and wasted resources. With just over two million people in the North, our current system is under severe strain. We face an ageing population, workforce shortages and an ongoing loss of staff who are moving south because of better pay and conditions. That is not sustainable.

To protect what we value in healthcare, we need to a critical mass. Population matters. An all-Ireland healthcare system would allow us to pool resources, reduce duplication and negotiate better prices for medicines and equipment. Crucially, it would allow us to invest more in front-line services; in doctors, nurses and social care. For patients, especially those who live in our border communities, it would mean simpler access. They could attend their nearest hospital or GP surgery without having to navigate complex cross-border systems. We already have good cooperation in specialist services, such as cancer and cardiac care, but we now must plan at scale. Serving a population of over seven million people would strengthen our research, training and retention of staff capacities and ultimately produce better outcomes for patients.

Healthcare should never depend on a postcode or income, or on which side of the border you are born. We can take what is good from both systems and design something new. An all-island system with social care at its core would guarantee that care is based on need, not on someone's ability to pay. Everyone across our island deserves the same high standard of care and outcomes.

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

Executive Committee Business

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I call the Minister for the Economy, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, to move the Consideration Stage of the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill.

Moved. — [Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy).]

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the single amendment for debate. As Members are aware, it is a large Bill, with 121 clauses and four schedules. A single ministerial amendment has been tabled.

In an effort to make the best use of plenary time, at the appropriate points in the Bill, I will seek your permission to group clauses and schedules for the Questions on stand part. However, that does not preclude any Member from speaking to or opposing a clause or schedule standing part of the Bill. If any Member wishes to do so, they can approach the Table or signal their opposition to my request to group the clauses and schedules when I am putting the Question.

The amendment will be debated under the group heading "Technical amendment". I remind Members that, once the debate on the group is complete, the Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 88 and 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 90 and 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 94 to 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 102 to 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 107 to 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 119 (Power to make consequential amendments, repeals and revocations)

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

We now come to the single group for debate, which, as I explained, is a technical amendment.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

In page 58, line 23, after "legislation" insert "or an Act of Parliament".

Before I speak to the amendment, I put on record my thanks to the members of the Economy Committee for their helpful scrutiny of the Bill. As you mentioned in your opening remarks, it is a lengthy piece of legislation, with a considerable number of clauses, and relates to procedural issues on insolvency. The legislation, which will ensure that procedures are modernised and fit for purpose, is important for those impacted on by insolvency proceedings.

I put on record my appreciation of the Committee's diligent scrutiny, because, while officials were dealing with some of the Committee's queries, they discovered that there is a minor omission in clause 119(3), which is a consequential amendment clause. The main purpose of clause 119 is to enable my Department to make any changes that are required to existing legislation so that it will align with what is in the Bill once it becomes an Act. My Department will be able to do that by making orders to effect the changes required, which may include the repeal, revocation, amendment or modification of any existing statutory provision that applies in this jurisdiction.

The intention is that all such orders will have to be laid in draft before and approved by the Assembly. The requirement for that is in clause 119(3). However, it has been identified that, as drafted, clause 119(3) is deficient. That is because it is not stated to apply in the case of orders that make changes to Acts of Parliament made at Westminster. Acts of Parliament are primary legislation and can be amended to the extent that they apply in this jurisdiction by an order made under clause 119 powers. Therefore, orders amending Acts of Parliament should be subject to the same form of Assembly control as any other order made under those powers. Accordingly, the amendment that I have tabled will ensure that that is the case. The amendment will do that by inserting the words "or any Act of Parliament" into clause 119(3).

The amendment is important, but it does not involve any change to the Bill policy. I have notified my Executive colleagues about it. The Economy Committee was informed about the need for the amendment in a letter sent to it on 30 October 2025. The Committee formally agreed to clause 119, subject to the amendment being made, when it met on 26 November 2025. That concludes my explanation of why I consider the amendment necessary.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Before I address the amendment, I will, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, briefly summarise the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill and outline its support for the Bill's progression today and the amendment tabled in the name of the Minister.

The Insolvency (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Assembly on 23 June 2025, with the Committee Stage commencing on 1 July. The Assembly agreed on 8 September to extend the Committee Stage until 12 December. We launched our call for evidence on 2 July and received three substantive responses. The Committee took oral evidence on the Bill from the Law Society of Northern Ireland, the Bar of Northern Ireland, the Insolvency Practitioners Association and an insolvency practitioner.

The Committee considered the regulation-making powers in the Bill and reviewed the interaction between the Bill and the European Convention on Human Rights and article 2 of the Windsor framework. The Committee noted that none of the provisions raised particular concerns in regard to their compatibility with the convention or the framework. The Committee deliberated informally on the Bill on 12 November and undertook formal clause-by-clause scrutiny on 26 November. The Committee ordered that its report be published in early December.

The Committee welcomed the Bill's provisions, which are designed to improve efficiency and reduce costs for insolvency proceedings and to bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales. The Committee noted the provisions that introduce greater use of virtual creditor meetings, which are designed to reduce costs and streamline processes. Members were concerned that the increasing use of electronic media may be to the disadvantage of some people with limited access to virtual assets. However, the Department set out clearly its assurances on there being robust rules in that regard. The Committee considered other matters in respect of statements of affairs, deemed consent, the assignment of causes of action, petitions for insolvency and bankrupts' homes. The Committee felt that the provisions match those that have been in place in England and Wales for some time and were therefore uncontroversial. The Bill is very lengthy, with many important provisions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Department for providing a Keeling schedule and for responding in such a timely manner to the number of queries raised by the Committee.

The Committee considered clause 119, which includes powers to make consequential provisions. Clause 119(3) indicates that, where such provisions amend Northern Ireland legislation, draft affirmative resolution shall apply. However, clause 119(4) indicates that any other regulations will be subject to negative resolution.

The Committee felt that the draft affirmative resolution procedure should apply to all the delegated legislative powers associated with clause 119. It is therefore happy to support the amendment standing in the Minister's name.

I thank the Minister and her officials for their engagement with the Committee; in particular, although it is not common practice, I will namecheck Mr Reid for all his dedicated work. In coming back to the Committee with the information that we requested, he has been very dedicated.

The view of the Committee is that we support the amendment in the Minister's name.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The Bill, although modest in scope, is a necessary and a welcome step towards modernising Northern Ireland's insolvency legislation. The amendment to clause 119 is necessary, and I am happy to support the Bill.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

At its core, the Bill is about ensuring that the North's insolvency framework remains modern, fair and aligned with best practice. Insolvency law may not always capture the headlines, but it plays a crucial role in underpinning business confidence and supporting economic stability. In an economy such as ours, which is built largely on small to medium-sized enterprises, it is essential that we have a system that works efficiently when businesses encounter financial distress. Not every business difficulty stems from poor management. Many firms have faced extraordinary pressures in recent years from global supply chain disruption to energy price volatility. A responsive and up-to-date insolvency regime is therefore crucial.

The Bill contains important technical amendments that strengthen our legislative framework and ensures greater clarity in the administration of insolvency processes. That clarity benefits not only insolvency practitioners but the courts, employees and business owners, who rely on the system to ensure that it is transparent and predictable. Given the interconnected nature of trade and commerce across these islands, divergence without justification would create unnecessary complexity.

The Bill helps ensure consistency while maintaining our devolved competence. Importantly, effective insolvency legislation is not simply about winding up companies; it is also about rescue and recovery and, where possible, saving jobs. A well-functioning framework can provide viable businesses with the opportunities that they need to resuscitate and protect jobs where possible and, importantly, to create sustainability. That is in the interests of workers and the wider economy. It is essential work, reflecting responsible economic stewardship. In strengthening and refining our insolvency framework, the Bill will contribute to a stable and confident business environment in the North. For those reasons, I am pleased to support it.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

This largely technical legislation brings our insolvency framework up to date with legislation in the rest of the UK and across these islands, and that is really welcome. Throughout the legislative process, the key issue for me has been to make sure that we get the balance right. As has been said, nobody wants to find themselves in such circumstances, which can often be as a result of things outside their control. Making sure that people and family homes were protected is core to what Alliance wanted to see in the Bill, as well as protecting businesses and making sure that the debts were also protected. I am therefore content with the balance that has been struck. The Bill must bring clarity and fairness moving forward. That is hard to find in really difficult circumstances, but I think that we have got it.

I thank the Minister and her Department. I scrutinise the Department regularly, and, at times, I feel as though I am hard on it. In this case, however, departmental officials — I will mention Mr Reid, as Phillip did — have been outstanding. In walking us through the detail of the Bill, they have been absolutely first class. They gave us the clarity that we needed and every bit of information that we wanted at any time. They never confused anything. They engaged really constructively. I thank the Department for that. It set an example of how to work with a Committee.

Alliance is pleased to support the Bill and the amendment, and we look forward to seeing the Bill come through.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I call the Minister for the Economy to make a winding-up speech.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I am grateful to the Members who contributed to the debate on the amendment. The amendment is a minor one, but it is, nonetheless, important. Agreeing to it will ensure that all orders that effect changes to primary legislation as a consequence of the Bill's passing will be subject to scrutiny and approval by the Assembly.

I note the comments of the Committee Chair and other Members, and I recognise the issues that have been highlighted around the Bill's intent: to simplify and keep up to speed with insolvency processes while, importantly, striking a balance in supporting businesses and others impacted on by insolvency proceedings through what is a difficult and challenging time.

Like other Members, I record my appreciation of the work of officials. It is technical and detailed legislation, and, as I said, it was brought through Committee Stage with diligence. I recognise the work of officials and the Committee in that regard.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, and I thank the Members who spoke in the debate.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 119, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 120 and 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Private Members' Business

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the scale of public funding committed to the redevelopment of Casement Park; further notes that the stadium will host major non-GAA commercial events, including international concerts and sporting fixtures, generating substantial private revenue; believes that it is unjustifiable for public money to underwrite the scale of funding required for this major commercial venue without provision for the recovery of a proportion of revenues arising from non-GAA use; and calls on the Executive to require, as a condition of any further public funding for Casement Park, that a legally enforceable clawback mechanism be put in place to return an agreed proportion of net revenues from all non-GAA events to the public purse.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Timothy, please open the debate on the motion.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I make no secret of the fact that, if Casement Park is built, you will never see me in the stands. I have profound issues with the GAA. Many people in my community share those concerns. When they hear of Casement Park, they do not recall some sporting feat. They remember the murders of Corporals Derek Wood and David Howes. They think of a sport that names clubs after the likes of Kevin Lynch, an INLA terrorist who went to jail not for encouraging fitness but for kneecapping people, denying them the ability to walk. However, this is not a debate about whether Casement Park should exist. It is not a debate about the place of the GAA. It is not a debate about sport, identity or culture. It is a debate about something far more basic: public money, private profit and whether the Northern Ireland taxpayer is to be treated as an unlimited underwriter of a major commercial venue with no share in return.

The Strategic Investment Board (SIB) describes Casement as a flagship capital project — a new stadium with a capacity of around 34,500 and that includes corporate hospitality, conferencing and extensive year-round facilities. That is not simply a sports ground redevelopment; it is a major commercial venue. The motion recognises what everyone now accepts:

"that the stadium will host major non-GAA commercial events, including international concerts and sporting fixtures, generating substantial private revenue".

The question, therefore, is not whether money will be made; the question is who will benefit from it.

The scale of public funding is enormous and still growing. The project sits within the Executive's regional stadia programme. The Executive endorsed a package of up to £110 million under that programme. Stormont committed £62·5 million as far back as 2011. Now, Westminster has added a further £50 million through financial transactions capital (FTC). The Minister of Finance told the Assembly that that funding could be used only for Casement, that it does not need to be repaid to Treasury and that it comes with no further conditions attached. Public exposure increases, yet there remains no enforceable mechanism to ensure that the taxpayer sees any return. Furthermore, the project is still priced at around £100 million more than the current money available. Therefore, this question becomes unavoidable: if there is a gap, who is expected to close it? The answer, time and time again, is the public purse.

Going beyond that, let us look at the issue of revenue. The Casement Park project literature states:

"revenues created ... on match days and throughout the year will be reinvested back into the GAA community".

Revenues are expected. The question is simply this: why should the taxpayer get nothing back when the taxpayer paid so much in?

The motion is not radical: clawback is a standard tool of public finance. The Scottish Government's public finance manual includes charge and clawback conditions as routine safeguards where public funding creates assets capable of generating a return. That is orthodox value-for-money discipline. In 2009, for example, the Scottish Funding Council clawed back £2·88 million from Stow College, which was repaid over several years. We have other real-world precedents. For example, in London, when the publicly funded Olympic stadium was converted for commercial use, the public authority retained a contractual right to share in key commercial income streams, such as naming rights and hospitality revenues. The taxpayer was not left paying the bill while others kept the upside. That is exactly the principle in the motion that I have proposed.

The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have warned that the Government too often fail to maximise long-term value from major projects. They stress that it is not enough to build an asset; rather, mechanisms must exist to ensure that the intended public value is realised. The motion is not about opposing Casement but about protecting the taxpayer. The amendment, while well-intentioned in its desire to safeguard public investment, ultimately falls short. In referring to current and future constructions, it fails to distinguish between current and future budget provision. It therefore treats budgets that are already allocated and agreed as if they were no different from hypothetical future schemes. That lack of clarity would negatively affect organisations that have already designed business cases for current Stormont-led programmes, having acted in good faith, followed the rules and secured approvals on the basis of criteria that the Departments set. Many current projects have already negotiated funding packages, revenue models and community benefit obligations tailored to their circumstances. I make it clear that the motion relates to moneys not yet planned, allocated or, in the case of Casement, talked up at Executive level, and therefore it provides a clear line in the sand. Unfortunately, the amendment does not make that clear, and, for that reason, I cannot support it.

The proposition is simple: if public money underwrites that stadium and fills the gap, and if non-GAA concerts and fixtures generate substantial commercial profit, it is totally unacceptable and unjustifiable for the public to carry the cost while private bodies retain the reward. That is why we call for a legally enforceable clawback mechanism as a condition of any further public funding in order to return an agreed proportion of net revenues from non-GAA events to the public purse.

The motion calls for fairness, value for money and basic accountability to the taxpayer. I commend it to the House and look forward to the debate.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I beg to move the following amendment:

Leave out all after “non-GAA use;” and insert: “and calls on the Executive to require, as a condition of any public funding for any stadia currently in construction or to be constructed in future, that a legally enforceable clawback mechanism be put in place to return an agreed proportion of net revenues from all non-sporting events to the public purse.”

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gerry, you will have 10 minutes in which 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.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I declare several interests: most of my family members are members of the GAA; I am, I think, technically still a member of Patrick Sarsfields GAC, although I have not played for many years and was not really much good; and I may be the only Member in the House who is a member of Casement Social Club.

There is no doubt that the Casement Park development has been beset by disaster from the get-go. In more recent years, the role played by unionist Ministers has tended to dominate proceedings. That is not unimportant, but, for me and many others, it is not the full story. Those same parties have been particularly vocal in claiming that public money should not be spent on sports infrastructure at a time when public services have been and are being stripped back in schools, hospitals and elsewhere. Quite often, those same parties supported the stripping back of those services.

There is a story from before, which is not often told in the House or elsewhere: a story that it is hoped that people will forget. I am here to remind people about some of the reasons why we are where we are. The truth is that, if they choose to, Governments can afford to invest in sports and culture as well as in essential services such as health, education and infrastructure. Many would argue that, in the past 20 years or so, they have refused to adequately do both. As a starting point, we should reject the either/or approach that assumes that it should be either sports or education, or either culture or health.

It is worth remembering that we are at this point currently because we were supposed to have a multipurpose sports facility at the Long Kesh site, which would have encompassed all sports, music concerts and other events. That was not built because of the ongoing crisis in unionism. The then First Minister, Peter Robinson, initially agreed to the development of the site, but backed down after being forced to concede to harder-line elements in his party — a familiar story.

Casement Park lies empty because of the disaster that surrounded it and the politics that dominate this place. It is also empty because of the greed that has been shown by the upper echelons of Ulster GAA and by Sinn Féin, who wanted to drive ahead with a 40,000-, 38,000- or 34,000-seater stadium, regardless of what people in the area thought or how they would be impacted on. It is telling that, although a key pillar of Sinn Féin's strategy for the North has been Casement Park, it has been unable to lay a brick there, despite holding the posts of Finance Minister, Economy Minister and First Minister, and having a junior Minister.

Residents of Mooreland, Owenvarragh, Stockmans and the wider Andersonstown area raised concerns about the size and scale of the development that was going to be on their doorstep, and they were denigrated for it; they were called anti-GAA and told to suck it up. I pay tribute to those residents and to the work that they have done not just for their community, which is my community, but for every single one of us. Members in many quarters of the House did their best to bury the health and safety concerns that were raised by people such as Paul Scott and groups such as the Mooreland and Owenvarragh Residents' Association (MORA), whose judicial work in the courts system helped to highlight the dangers of ploughing ahead with a dangerous development that could have resulted in a Hillsborough-type disaster in West Belfast.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Gerry. Those claims were refuted, so if you continue to make those accusations, I want to put it on the record. Honestly, they were refuted. So if you continue to make those accusations, that is fine.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I was quoting what is in the news, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, but I am moving on anyway.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Yeah, do.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

For many, Patrick Murphy, a journalist for the 'The Irish News', put it well in an article last year, in which he stated:

"The GAA’s mistake was not to build a 15,000-20,000 capacity stadium"

at Casement in 2011, which:

"would have been similar in size to GAA stadiums in Newry, Armagh and Omagh."

He claims that the option of 38,000 was never about attracting large numbers to GAA matches but was a GAA "vanity project", to use his words, similar to Páirc Uí Chaoimh in —.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Go ahead.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Should the GAA and West Belfast not be ambitious and want to have the very best delivered for Casement Park and West Belfast? We could have had the Euros. We could have had something magnificent that would have brought so many people to this wee part of the world, but we fell short of that. You sound almost like Timothy: you are running down West Belfast, Gerry, and it is ridiculous to listen to.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

That was not meant to be a speech. I will not take lectures from the Member opposite or his party, who ignore residents and their concerns and repeat the mantra of anti-GAA to people who live in West Belfast. It is ridiculous and not true. I will move on.

Look at the example of Páirc Uí Chaoimh in Cork, which is now called SuperValu Páirc Uí Chaoimh. What is the equivalent being proposed for Casement? In the 2013 book, 'GAAconomics: The Secret Life of Money in the GAA', Michael Moynihan discusses how the Celtic tiger led to the GAA's splurging on stadiums that were simply too big. He writes that, of the 26 stadiums in Ireland with a capacity of over 20,000, the GAA owns 23 of them.

Everybody should support the development of Casement Park, despite what was alleged earlier. We always did from our end, but there is a difference between manageable development and overdevelopment, and greed as well, which needs to be challenged. Definitely, in this context, there are effectively two GAAs. There is the one of volunteers and players who break their backs every week to show up to training, help facilitate the training, washing the kits week in and week out, driving teams to matches and playing on the pitch in rain, hail or shine. That should be contrasted with the upper echelons of the GAA, who refuse to adequately invest in grassroots GAA but also blindly push a corporate vision of Casement Park and, not to mention, have an ostrich approach to the GAA's association with Allianz as well. Casement Park was, as mentioned, a New Decade, New Approach commitment but, at this stage, it does not look as though it is going to be finished by the end of this decade.

In my amendment, the principle of venues that host non-sporting events paying money back into the public purse when they have received a significant amount of public money for their development is a worthwhile principle and an agreeable one. My concern, though, with the motion — hence the amendment — is that it singles out the GAA exclusively. My amendment outlines that the same should apply to all stadiums that receive public funding. For example, if there is a large music concert or event at Windsor or Ravenhill and it is lucrative and profitable, surely the same clawback model should exist that is being proposed here for Casement Park. If it does not, it seems to be just an attempt to stick the boot into the GAA for the sake of it. The Member has been fairly consistent in that, which is his prerogative.

Neither Casement nor any other development of stadia should be about developer profits, gentrification or a low-wage neoliberal tourist economy. It is time to move on from the mega Casement and the failed economic model that drove it. It should be guided by the original ideals and values underpinning Cumann Lúthchleas Gael,

[Translation: the Gaelic Athletic Association]

: a community project supporting amateur athletes and building grassroots GAA. I commend my amendment to the House.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I also make a declaration of interest as a proud member of the GAA.

Casement Park is an Executive flagship capital project, which has been mentioned. It stands alongside the other regional stadia that have already been delivered in Ravenhill and Windsor Park. That was, and is, a collective commitment by the Executive to invest in sport, infrastructure, communities and people right across our society. Reading the motion, I see no reference to those other stadia or to asking the Executive to claw back funds from the events that they have hosted, or could host, outside of the sport that they were built for.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I will, yes.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Just for the Member's benefit, I am talking about future moneys. I have no problem in saying to the House that for any future investment that goes into Windsor or Ravenhill, once a line in the sand is drawn, clawback should be enacted.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Thank you. I will touch on that.

There is no mention of a clawback of funds on the events that they have hosted or could host outside the sport they were built for. Stadiums that were built for rugby or soccer have opened their gates to boxing events, concerts, corporate events, launches and other showcase commercial events, and why would they not? These are modern venues, designed to be utilised and meant to maximise opportunity, open their doors and invite people in to use them. There is no mention of a clawback, though, for those stadia in this motion. However, when it comes to Casement Park, the conversation suddenly shifts and there is an attempt to move the goalposts. It is OK for those other stadia venues to diversify and generate an income by hosting boxing and other events, but it is a problem when the same principle is applied to a GAA stadium. We can all read between the lines as to why that is.

The motion is not about financial prudence: it is pure double standards. It sends a clear message that it is OK for some, just not for the GAA. Let me be clear: Gaels across Belfast, Antrim and Ulster are entitled to have Casement Park redeveloped. The attempt to try to "other" Gaels through this motion should be called out for what it is: a blatant attack on the GAA. Members of the GAA, like others in the public, are taxpayers and ratepayers, and they contribute to society like everybody else.

The amendment, to be honest, is disappointing, because the Member for West Belfast knows and has seen at first hand the transformative power and the benefits of the GAA from club level up. We know the scale of grassroots investment that flows from development at the top. Any revenue generated through Casement, as with Windsor and Ravenhill, will be reinvested in the sport, the clubs, the facilities, youth development, coaching and community programmes.

It will be reinvested in the county structures and programmes, from juveniles right up to the men's and ladies' teams, allowing them the chance to develop and grow and to be the role models and the stars for the generation coming behind them.

Casement Park represents a significant opportunity for economic growth and regeneration and to create jobs, attract visitors and drive footfall into local businesses. When major games and events come to our city, whether sporting or cultural, they will fill hotel rooms. They support hospitality and place a positive spotlight on this place that we call home. Casement Park will be no different.

As someone who is a proud member of the GAA, as a coach and former player, I have seen and been part of the difference that it makes. The GAA is a community anchor. It promotes physical health; it strengthens mental resilience; it fosters leadership, discipline and teamwork. It binds communities together. On winter nights and summer evenings, our pitches are full of young people finding confidence in belonging, enjoying themselves and challenging themselves. That social value cannot be reduced to a narrow argument such as that in the motion.

Casement Park will be more than a stadium. It will be a catalyst for regeneration, a driver of opportunity and a symbol of equality in investment. Casement Park must be afforded the very same respect as other stadia. Equality means equality: nothing more, nothing less. We will not support the motion, nor will we support the amendment.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

We support the motion and the amendment. However, I must make it clear: I support stadia and facility development that is necessary for any and all sports to grow.

In relation to Casement Park, it is important that any redevelopment is affordable, sustainable and capable of being operated responsibly over the long term, thereby ensuring financial viability and transparency, which is essential to maintaining public confidence in major capital projects. However, in the context of ongoing pressures on public finances, it is reasonable for the Assembly to consider how publicly funded venues are used and how wider public benefit is achieved. Where stadia that have received public investment are used for non-sporting events, it is appropriate to examine whether there should be a mechanism or some return to the public purse. It is acknowledged that concerts and other large-scale events can generate significant revenue and contribute positively to the local economy. At the same time, there is a broad public expectation that, where public funding has played a substantial role, a fair proportion of any commercial return should reflect that investment.

With regard to Casement Park, it is important that any redevelopment is affordable, sustainable and capable of operation over the long term, as I have said, therefore ensuring financial viability and value for money, which is essential to maintaining public confidence in major capital projects. The motion provides an opportunity to consider those issues in a balanced and pragmatic way. For that reason, I support it and the amendment.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

I will keep my remarks brief. Alliance supports the redevelopment of Casement Park and believes that it should be delivered as part of the original regional stadia commitment.

We will not support the motion. We believe that it singles out one sporting code in a way that risks deepening division and being perceived as a dog whistle. If Members believe that there should be clawback mechanisms attached to publicly funded stadia or, indeed, any publicly funded capital assets, we believe that that principle should be applied across the board to all arenas and all sports, not to one stadium alone.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

I will not. I do not have much to get through.

For example, would it mean that proceeds from any non-sporting event held in any of the football grounds across the country that receive funding from the Department for Communities through the NI Football Fund (NIFF) should also be clawed back? Public finance rules must be fair, consistent and non-selective.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

At the outset, I say that there are a number of elements to the motion. Before I turn to the substance of the motion and the amendment, it is important to turn to the history of Casement Park itself.

The project did not reach its current cost estimate because of one decision or one party. There were planning challenges and court proceedings. The original planning was quashed. There were redesigns and safety issues that had to be addressed, and there was a period when the Assembly and the Executive were not functioning. Then, as we all know, the costs of construction and inflation rose sharply. Anyone involved in capital projects over the years knows how dramatically costs have increased. The most significant delays, however, stemmed from planning and safety considerations, and that is part of the factual record. It is too easy, and perhaps convenient, for some to reduce it to a simple political narrative or to level a charge of sectarianism.

The cost reality is more complex than that. The Executive have committed over £60 million, the UK Government £50 million, the Irish Government up to €50 million and the GAA £15 million. That is a commitment in the region of £170 million, which is more than the combined fund for the regional stadia programme. Acknowledging that fact, however, does not remove the issue that we face today. The projected cost has increased significantly from the original commitment and plan, and we are debating the matter at a time when capital budgets are under real pressure.

Every day, our constituents rightly highlight the length of housing waiting lists, school buildings that are no longer fit for purpose and roads that are in a shocking state, to mention but a few issues. Members across the House no doubt have similar examples that they will wish to highlight. Every time that we consider allocating further capital funding, we need to be honest about what that decision will mean for other priorities. Our position has been consistent throughout: the original commitment should be honoured — we are not arguing to tear it up — but we do not support the provision of additional public funds for Casement Park in the current fiscal climate, given the competing pressures that we face.

I will turn to the clawback element of the motion. When public funding is provided, the Minister and the Department must demonstrate that it meets the value-for-money test. That is not optional. Rather, it is a fundamental requirement when using public expenditure, and it applies to every project, not just Casement Park. If further money is provided, many will understandably question that decision, particularly those who are waiting on housing or for investment in essential infrastructure. That is the reality of the Budget context in which we are operating. On the principle of clawback, a requirement to recover a proportion of revenues that arise from non-GAA use is something worth considering. Where public money underwrites a venue that will host major commercial events, it is reasonable to examine whether a proportion of revenues should be returned to the public purse.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. I just want to clarify something. Is he saying that if a venue makes money, it should be clawed back? Is the reverse therefore not also true? Ulster Rugby lost money last year, so should the state pay for its loss?

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member knows full well what I am referring to. He should not try to put words into my mouth.

We are also content, in principle, to support the Member for West Belfast's amendment, which broadens the scope, notwithstanding the concern that the proposer of the motion raised. Revenue-sharing mechanisms have been used elsewhere, as others have highlighted, although the details will need to be carefully considered, not least as they relate to the amendment.

There is a clear difference between hosting major concerts and routine room hire, and the practical implications of any mechanism must work in practice and not have any unintended consequences. I am therefore keen to hear more from the Minister about how clawback would work in practice, notwithstanding the unintended consequences for stadia and other projects that are already under construction. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Andy. I should have said that you had an extra minute, but you did not need it anyway.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I oppose the motion. We are speaking about the redevelopment of Casement Park, a long-promised, long-delayed project that represents far more than the construction of a stadium. It is about regeneration in west Belfast and parity of esteem in how we support our sporting infrastructure.

The Executive have previously backed strategic investment in major venues for soccer and rugby. The draft Budget seeks to provide more for those sporting codes. We also want to see the fair roll-out of the Northern Ireland Football Fund, because such investments are recognised as being of regional significance. They have not been subject to special clawback mechanisms that are tied to commercial activity. Rather, they were understood, correctly, to be infrastructure projects that deliver social, economic and sporting returns far beyond the turnstiles. Why, when it comes to Casement Park, are we suddenly being told that any commercial income must be siphoned back into the public purse? It is hard not to conclude that the motion is more about rabble-rousing than revenue raising and that it is another potshot taken by Mr Gaston at the big, bad boogeyman that is the GAA.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Certainly.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Does the Member recognise that, throughout my contribution, I said, with regard to the money that was agreed in 2011, that a line should be drawn in the sand? There is a clear distinction between money that had been agreed — no clawback — and the future moneys that I am talking about. That would be for all sports, but the flagship project is for the GAA.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Mark, you have an extra minute.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I did not see any of that in the motion; it is the motion that we are debating. I acknowledge that the Member mentioned that in his remarks, but the motion does not say that. It singles out the GAA.

Let us be honest about what the stadium is for. Its primary purpose is to serve the GAA community — sorry, it was remiss of me not to declare my membership of the GAA — from the Antrim county teams to the thousands of young people who dream, and who will dream, of walking out on to that pitch. It is about providing safe, modern facilities for a sporting organisation that is woven into the fabric of our communities. I encourage Mr Gaston to give it a go: we all know how much he loves scoring points.

[Laughter.]

We should recognise something else: the GAA is not a profit-distributing enterprise. It is a community-based, volunteer-led organisation that reinvests its revenues in grassroots sport. Every ticket sold, every event hosted and every sponsorship secured ultimately supports local clubs by funding coaching, youth development, facilities, inclusion programmes and community outreach. Across the North, GAA clubs are sustained by volunteers — parents, coaches, committee members — who give countless hours to help young people to keep active, healthy and engaged.

When the GAA generates income from larger events, that money does not lie in shareholders' pockets. It goes back into parishes, pitches, changing rooms and programmes that strengthen communities. Casement Park may host concerts or international fixtures — I look forward to the day that it does — but that is not something to fear. It is to be welcomed. Those events will bring visitors, jobs and spending into west Belfast and wider Belfast. Local cafes, shops, taxis and hotels will benefit: the wider economy will benefit. That is how public infrastructure works. We do not demand a clawback from private businesses that profit when roads are built, airports expanded or city centres regenerated. We recognise that public investment creates economic ecosystems. To impose a legally enforceable clawback mechanism uniquely on Casement Park would send the wrong message.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Sorry, I will not have time, Kellie.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It would introduce financial uncertainty, could deter promoters and would risk further delaying a project that has already been subject to years of political obstruction and, yes, planning pitfalls. Above all, it would single out one sporting body — one community — for conditions that are not applied elsewhere.

Casement Park is about more than bricks and mortar. It is about fairness: delivering on commitments and ensuring that the GAA in Ulster and beyond has the same quality of facilities as those in other provinces and as there are for other sports here. For those reasons, I urge Members to reject the motion and allow this vital project to proceed not as a commercial venture to be penalised but as a community asset that will continue to reinvest in grassroots sport and in the future of society.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I suppose that I should declare an interest as a member of Saint Mary's GAC, Burren.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I tell you what: irony is well and truly dead. The motion comes from the TUV, which, by its own admission, could not care less if Casement was ever built, yet the Member comes to the Chamber demanding revenue from it. I had a whole speech written, but I thought, "You know what? To hell with that". Why would I stand here and waste my time trying to convince people — people who do not want to be convinced — of the value of the GAA?

I could stand here and try to educate Mr Gaston, political unionism and, by all accounts, People Before Profit on the immeasurable social, economic and sporting capital —

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will not.

— that the GAA reinvests —

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

[Interruption.]

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

You will have time when you are making a winding-up speech on your amendment.

— in communities, but that would be a waste of my time, because this is not a serious motion. It is yet another attempt by unionism to punish and debase the GAA and its members and to poke nationalism in the eye. Sinn Féin will not stand for that. This is not a serious debate, because we know that political unionism does not do the GAA. Political unionism does not do equality or fairness, because —

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— there was no mention of clawback when it came to Windsor or Ravenhill. Political unionism does not do Irishness. Political unionism does not want any expression or promotion of Irish identity and culture, and that is what Casement would represent to them. However, the uncomfortable and inescapable truth for unionism is that the GAA has contributed more to the cultural, sporting, social and economic prosperity of this island and, indeed, the globe than its mean-spirited and insular world view ever could or will.

The motion and the amendment should be treated with the contempt that they deserve, and shame on anybody who gives either any credibility.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I rise to support the motion and the amendment. This debate is about public money, accountability and fairness.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. The previous contributor would not, although I know that the decision on whether to do so is the prerogative of each Member. For the benefit of the House, even though it has already been stated, will the Member remind us of the make-up of the Executive back in 2011 when the original commitment to regional stadia, including Casement, was made?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I will leave others to answer the Member's query.

As I said, this debate is about public money, accountability and fairness. It is not about sport, culture or community identity; it is about whether taxpayers are entitled to see a return when public funds are used to underwrite major commercial activity. Casement Park is now a project with a total funding envelope of over £170 million. That includes £62·5 million from the Executive, £50 million from the UK Government, £43 million from the Irish Government and £15 million from the GAA. That is an unprecedented level of public investment in a single sporting venue. It is also clear that Casement Park will not be used solely for GAA matches. The stadium is intended to host large-scale commercial concerts and other major non-GAA events, which will generate significant private revenue. In that context, it is entirely reasonable to ask this simple question: where is the return for the public purse? The existing funding agreements for Casement Park, Windsor Park and Ravenhill contain conditions around income generation, market rates and community benefit. However, they do not provide a clear, legally enforceable clawback mechanism to recover a proportion of the profits from commercial events. That is a gap, and it is one that the Assembly should address.

We have heard arguments that Casement Park should be treated no differently from other stadia. I agree, and that is precisely why the amendment matters. This should not be about one project alone; the principle should apply to any publicly funded stadium now or in the future. If public money is used to build a venue that hosts concerts and other non-sporting events, a proportion of the net revenues from those events should flow back to the taxpayer. It is not punitive and does not threaten the viability of the project; it simply ensures value for money and protects public confidence.

The Minister has acknowledged that the situation has moved on considerably since earlier funding —

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

No, I will not at this point. Thank you.

— arrangements were put in place and that any new arrangement for Casement Park would require the funding agreement to be looked at again. That is an admission that the status quo is not sufficient. There is also the wider context that the Executive face intense pressure across Health, Education, Infrastructure and public services in general. Every pound matters. Public funding should not be open-ended, nor should it subsidise private commercial gain without conditions.

Let us also be clear that this is a GAA-led project, and it is therefore for the GAA to assess affordability, review its plans and determine what additional contribution it is prepared to make.

Public funding must be fair, proportionate and subject to clear safeguards. Supporting the motion and the amendment sends a clear message: if public money is to be used to support major commercial venues, the public interest comes first. The Assembly has a responsibility to set that standard. For those reasons, I support both the motion and the amendment.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Like others have done, I declare an interest as a proud member of St Colman's GAC in Drumaness.

Let us see the motion for what it really is: an anti-GAA motion from political unionism, which fears the benefits that the GAA brings. The motion is a clear attack on Gaels and an attempt to undermine and devalue the GAA as a whole. The motion is a farce; it is not a genuine attempt to look at putting greater accountability and transparency into public spending. It is about applying a separate set of standards to the GAA that has no basis and does not apply anywhere else.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

You had plenty of time.

I ask the simple question: why is there no mention of the clawback of public spend for all the other stadiums and those that benefited from the football fund?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way so that I can give a simple answer?

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I suspect —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order. Excuse me. Sit down, Cathy. Thank you. Timothy, you had 10 minutes to move the motion and will have 10 minutes to make your winding-up speech.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It was a simple question, and I will give a simple answer.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No. You know that you should not engage in stuff from a sedentary position. Every Member is entitled to respect and to be heard. I ask you to adhere to that. Thank you.

Sorry, Cathy. Go ahead.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I suspect that we all know why that is. The chuntering further demonstrates that. It is because it is about the GAA.

A recent report on the social value of Gaelic games right across the island estimated that the GAA, the Ladies' Gaelic Football Association (LGFA) and Camogie Association were worth at least €2·87 billion to Irish society. That comes as no surprise to many of us who know and feel the value of their local GAA club. From Cork to Derry and Galway to County Down, the GAA is much more than a sporting organisation. It is the social fabric that holds communities together. It is not just about the games and the clubs but the people, pride and sense of belonging that stretches far beyond any pitch. The GAA provides a natural focal point for community life; a place where people come together, connect and take pride in something that is shared. When we invest in and enhance the spaces where communities gather, we are not just improving facilities but strengthening the very communities that rely on them.

That is why having modern, state-of-the-art facilities at Casement Park, where future generations can play, grow and thrive with pride and excitement, matters so deeply. The prospect of having a stadium of that magnitude in the heart of Belfast is an exciting one for our business community, hospitality, tourism and retail alike. Casement Park is not just about sport: it will be a major economic driver, boosting local business, bringing investment and jobs and ensuring that the benefits are felt directly by the surrounding communities as well as across the wider regional community. Casement Park gives young Gaels a stage to which they can aspire. It will act as a beacon for sporting excellence and opportunity.

In rural areas like my own constituency of South Down, the GAA club is often the first place where young people find their confidence, sense of belonging and voice. It is where neighbours become teammates and teammates become lifelong friends, keeping the spirit of community alive. The GAA provides something that is invaluable to all who participate. Whether you are playing, coaching, refereeing or simply cheering from the sideline, you are part of something bigger. When challenges come, whether it is a family in need or a community tragedy, or there is a moment of celebration, your local club is the first to rally and provide support and the last to leave your side. It is a reminder that rural Ireland is strong not because of its size but because of its solidarity. The GAA does not just build athletes; it builds community, resilience and a sense of belonging that lasts a lifetime.

The motion needs to be seen for what it actually is: an attempt to single out the GAA for treatment to which no other sport, stadium or governing body is subjected. We should call it out for what it is: discriminatory, unjustified and rooted in an outdated attitude that has absolutely no place in the modern, shared and economically ambitious North of Ireland.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and introduce some facts that, unfortunately, have been missing from the very outset. There have been some predictable and some unpredictable remarks made. I will start with the unpredictable ones. Mr Gaston said that the motion is not about opposing Casement Park. That must be a change in policy on Casement Park from the TUV.

I will set out very clearly the Democratic Unionist Party's position: we signed up to a fair and equitable agreement for all sports across Northern Ireland in 2011, which gave sports equal funding to ensure that they were able to deliver the stadiums that they required. Some of those projects have been held up as a result of sectarian politics, but Casement Park is not one of them. The subregional stadia programme for football was held up by Sinn Féin Ministers because they did not want grassroots football in Northern Ireland to get the funding that it deserved.

Let us have the facts as to why Casement Park has not progressed. It was, frankly, laughable to listen to Mr Durkan as he tried with a straight face to lecture the House on why Casement Park has not been built. On many occasions, I have read this into the record, and I will do so again:

"Casement Park redevelopment: Stadium planning approval unlawful".

Who made that illegal and unlawful decision? It was none other than Mr Mark H Durkan, not the big, bad unionists whom some Members rant about when it comes to Casement Park.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Member give way?

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I will not give way, Mr Durkan.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Come on.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

You had the opportunity to apologise for breaking the law when you unlawfully approved Casement Park, but you have not done so to date.

Now that we are on the subject of the SDLP and Casement Park, let me read into the record some other remarks from members of that party. Mr Attwood, former SDLP MLA for West Belfast, said:

"That is why the SDLP in West Belfast, and Councillor Tim Attwood in particular, have worked with the residents"

to oppose moving those plans forward. Were those remarks about opposing those plans made by a unionist? They were not. They were remarks from the SDLP, which happily opposed Casement Park for political expediency, hoping that Mr Attwood would hold onto his seat against Sinn Féin, but, in the end, he lost his seat and any credibility on Casement Park.

We then listened to the uninformed rant from Comrade Carroll about the reason for Casement Park not being built. He said that it was as a result of unionist Ministers, but he did not give one example of an action by a unionist Minister that contributed to why it has not been built. Again, let me read into the record comments by Mr Carroll on Casement Park:

"Still politicians peddle the lie that this is about jobs and the economy. In truth, this is a vanity project for politicians."

Those were the remarks of Mr Carroll, who stood on the picket line to oppose the development of Casement Park. He then comes to the House and throws out nonsense about the DUP and other unionist Ministers opposing the building of Casement Park. There is no branch of the Democratic Unionist Party on the Andersonstown Road in west Belfast, although I wish that there were. It was Mr Carroll and his comrades who stopped the building of Casement Park.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I will not give way. Unfortunately, we had to listen to your 10-minute rant at the start, and we will have to listen to another five minutes of your nonsense.

I turn to the issue of safety concerns at the stadium. It is a matter of fact that, in a tribunal case, Sport NI was forced to pay a settlement to Mr Paul Scott because he raised issues about safety concerns at Casement Park. None of the people involved was a DUP Minister or a DUP politician.

We then heard a rant from the Chief Whip of Sinn Féin, who said that she had not written a speech but then managed to read out every single word of one that she had written before coming to the Chamber. In her anti-unionist rant, she said that we did not care about Irishness and that we hate Irish people. You do not get to tell me what my identity is.

I am very proud to say that I am British, I am Irish and I am proudly Northern Irish. You do not get to tell me.

The facts speak for themselves. Sinn Féin and other nationalists have failed to deliver Casement Park.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

It is your fault.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

You are to blame.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up. I call Colm Gildernew.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Not the big, bad unionists.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Sit down.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It should come as no surprise to Members that I oppose the motion. The proposer of the motion claims that it is about protecting the public purse, but it is obvious to me and to anyone watching that it is nothing of the sort. The motivation for the motion is to attack the GAA and anything to do with Irish culture. We know that because the motion singles out Casement Park as the only stadium that will be subject to the clawback provision. No other stadia are included in the call for clawback.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No. You will have 10 minutes to try to explain why Casement Park is the only stadium that is mentioned. I am not sure whether that will be enough for you, to be honest, but you will have those 10 minutes.

Sinn Féin does not see this as a serious motion; rather, it is another attempt by the TUV to engage in a culture war, which, sadly, seems to be all that political unionism has to offer these days. I welcome the progress being made on Casement Park. The sight of machinery on the ground, as initial groundwork recently got under way, has been cause for optimism in west Belfast and the wider Ulster GAA family.

The GAA is the biggest and most successful sporting organisation in the North, despite decades of discrimination and underinvestment. It is rooted in communities across the country and is thriving in Irish emigrant communities across the world from Britain to Boston to Beijing. It is only right and fair that the GAA's landmark stadium in the North is redeveloped, in addition to the redevelopment of Windsor Park and Ravenhill, as was agreed almost two decades ago.

We must also remember the huge community and health benefits that stand to be gained from the project. A report commissioned by the GAA in 2024 estimated that, across the island — we have already heard it, but it bears repeating — the GAA generates £2·87 billion in economic and social value, which is manifested in a host of areas, including health and well-being, social capital and volunteering.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will not.

Delivering Casement Park will add to those benefits for west Belfast and beyond. Despite the bluster from Members opposite, we on this side of the House will stand firm in our commitment to see the project delivered and ensure that the GAA is supported to continue making a vital contribution to our communities in the North and, indeed, all across Ireland.

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

I rise to speak about the powerful and positive impact that the redevelopment of the home of Antrim GAA — Casement Park — will have on the island as a symbol of hope and ambition, a beacon for sporting dreams and endeavour and a gateway point to Ireland's second-largest city. The benefits arising from a newly built world-class stadium at Casement Park in the heart of west Belfast will be immense. From a health and sporting perspective, thousands upon thousands of players will have a new stadium in which challenge themselves physically and mentally on the field of play. Players immersed in the grind, the commitment and the teamwork will build lifelong friendships while playing games of huge sporting and cultural significance on this island. From a social, community and economic standpoint, the completion of a 34,000-capacity stadium will stimulate significant positive economic multiplier effects, creating construction jobs, generating seat revenue, potentially providing a huge local economic uplift and attracting sports fans and tourists to the North.

Casement Park is more than just a stadium; it has the potential to become a hotbed for Gaelic games in the heart of west Belfast. It can become the beating heart of the GAA in Ulster. For too long, Casement Park has remained dormant and abandoned, causing the North to miss out on hosting major global sporting events and leading to an entire generation of hurlers, footballers, camogie players and ladies' Gaelic footballers missing out on the opportunity to play on Casement's hallowed turf. Delays to Casement are dreams denied. Ladies' Gaelic footballers dream of playing against Dublin; ladies' camogie players dream of playing against Cork; Antrim footballers dream of taking on Armagh; and hurlers dream of taking on Limerick on Casement's turf. That would be very special. So many young people dream of that possibility, but it is being denied because of delays.

Casement Park has the potential to be a huge source of community and social cohesion and pride. However, rather than honour that potential, the motion attempts to attack Casement Park before it is even built. The GAA has demonstrated demand for a 34,000-capacity stadium at Casement Park. I wonder whether Mr Gaston has consulted the chief executive of the Irish Football Association (IFA) and the chief executive of Ulster Rugby about his proposal. Are they on board with the proposal as it relates to Clearer Twist National Stadium at Windsor Park and the Kingspan Stadium at Ravenhill?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will not give way to Timmy, because he has made his anti-GAA diatribe enough.

The motion is anti-GAA, but, more fundamentally, it is a distraction from the real crux of the matter: when will Casement Park be built? On 2 July 2025, I asked the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to detail any communications relating to Casement Park. That question from seven months ago was answered only this morning. A coincidence? I wonder. On 21 January, I asked the First Ministers a question for written answer about when construction was due to be completed, given the commencement of enabling works. That question was due to be answered on 26 January. Will it be answered six months later, possibly in July, as was the case with the previous question? When will Casement Park be built?

I say to the Executive that it is time to see cranes over Casement, not mere enabling works. The focus of the Assembly must be to hold the Executive to account on their flagship projects and on completing Casement Park. Building the stadium will bring joy to sports fans, as well as economic, health, community and social benefits to the North, and will generate massive sporting and national pride on the island. Let us get Casement Park built.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Next is the Minister for Communities, who will respond to the debate.

Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members for their contributions, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate and the amendment. As the Minister with responsibility for the long-established regional stadia programme, I recognise the issues that Members have raised about the future use of the Casement Park stadium, in particular the question of whether a mechanism should be put in place to secure a clawback of public funds from non-GAA events held at Casement Park for the public purse. Let me provide clarity to the House: that is something that I support. However, let me first set out a little of the history behind the Casement Park project, as some in the Chamber seem to have forgotten that history or seem determined to rewrite it.

In 2011, there was a funding agreement for football, rugby and the GAA. I stand by that agreement, which would have allowed all projects to progress. The work at Windsor Park progressed. The work at Ravenhill progressed. The work at Casement Park did not.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

Will the Minister give way?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I will give way.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

Will the Minister enlighten the House as to whether those from political unionism were involved in that funding agreement, because some with a short memory have tried to make out that they were not?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

We were involved in that. We agreed to it, and we stand by that. I know that that does not suit the agenda of some and the message that they are trying to push. I will come to that further in my remarks.

The question that I ask is this: why has the project not progressed? The answer is simple: it is because of the actions of Sinn Féin and SDLP Ministers.

Unlawful decisions, community objections and safety certificate scandals all led to significant planning delays. As a result of those delays, costs have spiralled.

The project has not been without controversy, and there continues to be controversy; in fact, even over the past couple of months, senior figures in Monaghan and Tyrone GAA have expressed their opposition to the current plans. Let us not pretend that everybody is in agreement or that there is a simple and straightforward path for everybody to go down. Mr McNulty and others say, "Let's just get on with it and get the stadium built", but we know that there are significant barriers in the way.

We are also aware that additional capital allocations are currently unaffordable in the context of squeezed capital budgets for public services. That is why I, along with other Ministers, need to make sure that we spend the available money wisely. The immediate challenge is to live within the existing budget envelope. The challenge of more for less is here to stay. We therefore need to be open to all options. We all want value for money and for stadiums and other assets to be sustainable. We all want to assist and support partners to develop and grow.

Members will be aware that Casement Park is the third and final project in the regional stadia programme. The other two major projects — Ravenhill and Windsor Park — were completed and became operational in 2014 and 2016 respectively. The then Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure had funding arrangements in place with the IFA and Ulster Rugby, but, now that there are additional funding streams coming from other sources, we will have to look again at all options for future funding agreements.

My officials are currently considering an amended funding model to accommodate the new funding streams available to the Casement Park stadium, including the specific requirements of the UK Government's equity financial transactions capital element. I await advice on how new funding streams will be handled. That will, however, allow us to look at various funding models, which can include those that minimise the impact on the public purse. It is important to note that that work has not concluded and that any proposals will have to be agreed with all stakeholders and parties to the funding agreements. It is something that we should all be open to, however.

At this stage, I will sound a note of caution about Casement Park and all other capital projects. Funding for them all will be subject to a business case. A project's viability will be rigorously tested through the business case process, in which it must demonstrate value for money and sustainability. As part of the process, value for money is embedded across all aspects, including, where appropriate, any scope to return profits from non-sporting events to the public purse. There are no special cases or exemptions from the process.

It is also important that we have consistency on the proportion of funding already allocated to the programme. An important aim of the programme of capital investment in regional stadia is to reduce the three main sports' future reliance on ongoing revenue support from government. The principle that has been applied in the regional stadia programme is that capital investment supports each sport's ability to develop long-term financial sustainability. Of course, commercial activities form part of that sustainability, as they allow the governing bodies to operate and maintain their facilities without additional, ongoing public revenue support. The commercial management and operation of Casement Park, once completed, will therefore lie with the Ulster Council of the GAA, in accordance with the conditions of the existing funding agreement and any new funding model pertaining to the additional funding streams.

The amendment raises an important issue about the future management of public funding for stadia in general. It proposes that public investment in any stadia currently under construction and in future projects be contingent on a legally enforceable clawback mechanism:

"to return an agreed proportion of net revenues from all non-sporting events to the public purse."

It is entirely appropriate that Members should have the ability to consider how best to safeguard public investment and the forms of return that may be justified. There are legitimate matters for scrutiny here, particularly where publicly funded facilities may also operate as commercial venues for events beyond their primary sporting purpose. It will also be necessary to assess the amendment within the broader policy framework that has guided the regional stadia programme since its inception.

The programme has consistently operated on the principle that capital investment should strengthen each sporting code's long-term financial sustainability and reduce future reliance on government revenue support. Central to that approach has been enabling venues to diversify income through a range of commercial and non-sporting activities. Public money is given because there is an expectation that market failure has taken place and there is no other option open to venues to get them where to need to be. However, if an organisation is particularly commercially successful in making significant sums from commercial venues, most people will see that it is only right that such a return should be made to the public purse. For those reasons, I believe that the motion and the amendment are entirely reasonable.

I have to say that I am surprised by the response of some in the House today. We have frequently heard from the parties opposite the refrain that this explicitly targets the GAA. Some may be supportive —

[Interruption.]

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Mr Durkan, let me finish my sentence. Perhaps it will all become clear to him.

If that is Members' concern, the amendment helpfully tabled by Mr Carroll provides a way for everybody to be treated equally. We have heard the word "equality" time and again. The amendment means that, from this point, people will be treated equitably. It opens the door to allowing a clawback that, by the way, is nothing new. As Mr Gaston pointed out, it exists in other parts of the United Kingdom, and it has existed in Northern Ireland. I think in particular of the opportunity that urban development grants gave to different areas. The success of that allowed a clawback. If your concern is that this is only about the GAA, vote for the amendment and make sure that, from here on, everybody is treated equally and that, if there are significant commercial returns for one organisation or all the organisations involved, there could be some return for the public purse. We invest public money on the basis that it is required because there is no other option for organisations to develop, but, if they subsequently become successful, is it not right — is there not benefit in this? — to make sure that that comes our way?

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Will the Minister give way?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, I am happy to give way to the Member, who, I think, wants to use this as an opportunity to have a go at unionism. She did not address the motion earlier.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Thank you. I hear what the Minister says, but does he not accept that that was not a condition when Casement was announced along with the other two stadia? To impose it retrospectively is not equality; it is not fair.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Funding agreements were in place with Windsor Park and with Ravenhill, and a default on those funding agreements would have necessitated a clawback and allowed it to happen. A funding agreement for Casement Park has not been put in place. One of the reasons why a new funding agreement is needed is that there is additional FTC. It is up to the Executive to decide how the equity share works out. With most FTC, there is a requirement for some return on the loan that is given.

The motion does not say that all commercial profit needs to come back; it says that "an agreed proportion" should come back. It asks whether, if something is commercially successful and there is a large return from such events, it is only fair that the public purse should get a little back. I say that we should treat everybody the same: if additional funding is required for the other stadia, treat them the same. There is an opportunity for us today to agree, on the basis of equality, that everybody should be treated equally. The motion does not determine exactly how much or what percentage; it opens the door to successful commercial ventures to give a return.

I was disappointed with some of the responses, and I count the Alliance Party in that. In Ms Mulholland's short contribution, she said that she did not want to deepen division and felt that there was an issue of equality, because it was a case of one being picked out over others. However, the amendment gives her an opportunity to show that everybody can be treated equally and to demonstrate financial prudence and responsibility. I urge the Alliance Party, as I urge everybody in the Chamber, to reconsider. It is an option that may make us more sustainable and give us a return so that we can invest more in the future.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for giving way. Does the Minister envisage that the clawback could be applied only to regional stadia, or would recipients of the Northern Ireland Football Fund, for example, be expected to cough up too?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I envisage it being used primarily for the regional stadia. We are talking about a portion of significant commercial income. I am not sure that smaller clubs that have been impacted by that fund would get that commercial return, so that is still fair. That is a reasonable point. I am not even saying that it will generate a lot of income, but I am asking this: why would we not allow that option to be there and consider it?

The way that this appears to be going is disappointing. Much of the debate has been about one organisation being singled out over others. The amendment gives us a way to consider the issue and ensure that everybody is treated fairly. I encourage —

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

I thank the Minister: he is kind in giving way. Minister, it will be no shock that the SDLP will not support the motion or the amendment. However, seeing that you are a Minister who is worried about pounds and pennies, the SDLP will happily sponsor your first tickets to Casement Park.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That is kind of the Member, but I urge him, even at this last minute, to reconsider. If we are serious about spending money wisely and want to ensure equality and equal treatment, it would be wise for him to get on board.

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

Will the Minister give way?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am reluctant to give way to the Member, because I thought that his was a lazy speech. His speech did not address the motion. This was not a proper debate about the rights and wrongs of a clawback; it was people repeating their old tired —

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

Will the Minister give way?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

No, I am not giving way.

— their old tired ideas about Casement Park, rather than looking at the motion. If we read —

[Interruption.]

I am not giving way, Mr McNulty. If we read the motion and the amendment, everybody should be willing to accept them, but, unfortunately, some Members are so blinded that they are not prepared to accept reasonable proposals.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I remind the Member that you are not supposed to shout at anyone from a sedentary position.

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

Apologies, apologies.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Justin. Much appreciated.

Gerry Carroll, you have five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech on your amendment.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I will not be able to respond to everything, but I will do my best to respond to some points.

My colleague from West Belfast, the junior Minister, spoke about the wide-ranging benefits of a Casement Park development, and I hope that that is the case if a proper, manageable and safe Casement Park is allowed to go ahead. We need to be cognisant that, in a general sense, the financial impacts of developments are often exaggerated. The economic impact of the Olympics, the World Cup and the Euros beyond just the stadiums is often over-egged. Dave Zirin, a well-known sports journalist, when talking about the Olympics, said something that is relevant to Casement Park:

"You create this tourist mecca that reimagines what work is for working-class people. It's not industry, and it's not union work. It's service work. The jobs the Olympics create, after the construction, are almost entirely service work. "

You could replace "the Olympics" with "any stadium across the North". That point needs to be emphasised. Looking closer to home, I remember, before I was elected to anywhere, the hoo-ha around the Titanic development and the economic impact that would come from that. I think that that was then the largest public spend on a tourist attraction in Europe, and people would laugh at you if you talked about the economic and job impacts of that. Grand Central station, whilst important for transport —

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

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I will give way, sure.

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

Does the Member agree that it is about much more than the economic impact? Can you imagine the feeling of young people coming out of the tunnel in Casement Park with the roar of the crowd, the raw nervousness, the excitement and the anticipation of the battle? You cannot buy that with money, Gerry.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gerry, you have an extra minute.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Thank you.

I agree with the Member. I had the, I suppose, unfortunate reality of going as a kid to watch Antrim get hammered by Derry most championship years. The Member for Foyle is probably laughing at that. I agree with the Member; I just criticise the point that was made not just by the Member for West Belfast but by others about the economic impact. I am not saying that it does not exist, but it is generally —

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Sure.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Does the Member not agree that there will be an economic benefit and impact, particularly for the businesses around West Belfast, from the footfall? We should be ambitious as elected representatives for West Belfast. We want to see the most investment possible going into our small part of the world.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I agree with the Member on that. The point that I am making is about the types of jobs: will they be in the service industry and hospitality, where people are usually underpaid and often in non-unionised positions? That point stands, although the Member made valid points.

The Member for South Down Sinéad Ennis talked about the TUV poking people in the eye: I do not disagree with that. She went on to criticise unionism: I agree with some of those criticisms, but I remind her that her party is in government with the biggest unionist party in this place. As another Member mentioned, Ms Ennis said that she had a speech that she would not use but went on to use it anyway. That is her prerogative. Some would say that that was performative, and some would say other things about it. She tried to lecture me and my party on the GAA. When Members do that, it means that they have nothing else to criticise the amendment for.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

You did not give way to me, so no, thanks. Manners cost nothing and all that. I am used to Sinn Féin misrepresenting my and my party's views on the issue. That is by the by.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I will make some progress.

I am used to that, but they also misrepresent the concerns of people who live in the vicinity of Casement Park, in places such as Stockmans, Mooreland, Owenvarragh and elsewhere. At a deeper level, Sinn Féin knows that it botched this stage of the Casement Park development, and it is frustrated and angry about that. If I were a Sinn Féin Member, I would be as well.

The Member for North Belfast, who is no longer in the Chamber, was robust as usual but reluctant to give way. Comrade Carroll says to him — big, bad Brett

[Laughter]

— that he needs to listen to the truth. I was proud to stand with the residents of Andietown. That was not a picket line; a picket line involves striking workers. I may educate the Member about that on another day. I stand with them in their protest to say that they are for the development of the stadium in principle and in practice but criticise the particular development that was proposed. It is possible to do both, and that is not rocket science. People grasp that, even when Members misrepresent it.

Some Members mentioned their concern about singling out the GAA. I made that point directly to Timothy Gaston yesterday and made it in my speech today. Strangely, on the amendment, I find myself agreeing with the Communities Minister, maybe for the first time ever. The amendment covers other stadiums as well; it explicitly does not single out the GAA. Members should genuinely read the amendment; I am not being facetious.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way, even though he is winding on his amendment. The amendment refers to:

"funding for any stadia currently in construction".

That causes me a lot of concern for organisations that have borrowed money. What does that say to the banks? It says that the funding will be changed when they have already started.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gerry, your time is running out.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I cannot address that in 10 seconds. I know that the Member tried to intervene earlier. The point stands.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

OK.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The next Member to speak will be Timothy Gaston to wind on the motion.

Timothy, you have 10 minutes.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. Due to the lack of Members willing to give way, I hope to take every second, if required.

From the get-go, I assure the House that, yes, I am still opposed to Casement and am unashamedly opposed to the GAA, for the grounds that it has named after terrorists, for the atrocities that have been carried out and for the trophies that have been named after them. Those are linked to the GAA to this day.

I challenge the GAA to sort out its own backyard and the image that it portrays to unionism.

The debate has been a first for me. Principal Deputy Speaker, you made a point of order to Mr Carroll. I have not been a Member for that long, but nowhere in Standing Orders does it say that a Speaker, when presiding over a debate, can raise a point of order with a Member. You can absolutely challenge a Member, but raising a point of order with a Member does not reflect proper debate in the Chamber.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order. Take your seat, Timothy. Maybe I should have said "Order", rather than "On a point of order". It is important that, when Members speak in the Chamber, despite there being political back and forth, they do so with accuracy; otherwise, they would deliberately be denigrating someone. Continue.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy —.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes, I am happy to give way.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Although I would never challenge a ruling of the Speaker — I take the Principal Deputy Speaker's point that it was an order that was made when I spoke — does the Member share my concern that the same was not applied to Mr Brett from North Belfast?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I will leave that between the Principal Deputy Speaker and —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order. Timothy, take your seat again, if you do not mind.

Gerry, you are challenging the Speaker. I allow a lot of back and forward. The difference is that what Phillip Brett was doing was political, while what you were doing was downright lies. If you are not happy — I suspect that you are not — I ask that the Hansard report be reflected on, and that it be sent to you. If "Order" were called every time that somebody offended somebody else, we would be out in the hall with our fingers on our lips. That is not going to happen, but it is important that we do not tell lies.

Sorry for the interruptions, Timothy. Please continue.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. To start off —.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I will, reluctantly.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Is the Member concerned about a Member of the House being accused of lying by the person currently occupying the Speaker's Chair?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I encourage the Member to refer that to the Speaker.

As I was saying, Principal Deputy Speaker, to start my summing up —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Timothy, would you mind taking your seat again?

This is bordering on the ridiculous now. It is beginning to sound, for want of a better term, like "Nyah-nyah, nyah-nyah nyah" from grown adults. I am going to refer this to the Speaker. No one was accused of telling lies. I said that it is important that people do not tell lies, OK? That applies to inaccuracies as well.

Timothy, for the fourth time: continue.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker.

To start off my summing up proper, I put on record my thanks to the Research and Information Service (RaISe) for the paper that it produced. It did the homework of Members. It is clear that nationalist Members did not bother reading my motion or the RaISe paper. The paper demonstrates quite well that there is a precedent in the UK. Indeed, it refers to the Scottish model and the Olympic stadium. That shows that Members do not like the messenger, did not read the motion and did not bother reading the information that was provided by RaISe. The paper is an excellent read, and I encourage everybody to take the time to read it.

On that basis, I will move forward. There is a stark reality in the House when it comes to debating Casement or any GAA matters. Time after time, nearly every nationalist MLA who gets up to speak in such a debate has to declare an interest as being affiliated with or a member of a local GAA organisation. It is no surprise, then, that they say that they want the GAA to be treated differently from any other organisation. My motion is very clear; it draws a line in the sand to say that money that has been offered out to date has gone. I was not here at that time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I am talking about new money, going forward.

I agree with the vast majority of Mr Carroll's amendment. The bit that I have trouble with is the reference to "stadia currently in construction". We need to draw a line in the sand and set an example, so that, going forward, any public money given out by the Executive will be introduced to the clawback for those who generate revenue.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am happy to give way to Mr Lyons.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I reassure the Member that we do not have any stadiums currently under construction. No funding agreements are in place, either. On that basis, perhaps the Member will reconsider his position.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that clarity. My concern is about the Northern Ireland Football League funding for stadia and the clubs the length and breadth of Northern Ireland, such as Ballymena United, who have participated in all good faith. I do not want a rerun of the renewable heat incentive, where an agreement was put in place, but the Executive rowed back on commitments already made. That is where my problem is with the amendment. I support it in broad terms, absolutely. I have no problem if any money given out to any of the major stadiums from here on in undergoes a clawback mechanism if revenue is generated from them.

I will go through a number of the points that have been made. Mr Carroll put both feet into Sinn Féin in some of his remarks, and I enjoyed that, to be honest with you. He outlined how the project has been beset with problems from the get-go.

In no particular order, I come to Cathy Mason, who talked about a farce. She asked a simple question. I wanted to give her a simple answer, but she did not want to know. She would not accept an intervention. That was a case of me coming out and publicly saying, in this place, in my motion, that I have no problem, whether it is with football, rugby or GAA: from this point forward, they should face the clawback mechanism. The problem was that the Member did not want me to intervene. It was quite clear. She had a script in front of her, and she would have to throw out the entire script. Time after time, Sinn Féin Members just wanted to line up and attack me for what I think about the GAA. However, this is not about the GAA per se: it is about public money, fairness and the prudent use of public money.

I will highlight Andy Allen's contribution. I thought that it was excellent. He talked about the planning challenges that have afflicted the project right from the get-go and about the court decisions. He talked about construction inflation and pointed out that the GAA has committed only £15 million to the project to date, at a time when — we talked about potholes yesterday — there is not the money to put into potholes, and our schools are crumbling and we cannot build new ones. I think of Causeway Academy. We had a meeting yesterday morning, and that school has not even made the list of new schools. Yet the GAA has given a measly commitment of £15 million.

Aisling Reilly, I want to come back to you because you talked about double standards. You did not listen to my intervention at all, because you still went on with your pre-scripted nonsense that this was all just about me against the GAA, which could not be further from the truth. This is about public prudence and public money. It is quite clear from your contribution that Casement is the cash cow that will bankroll the future of the GAA. That is not the case for rugby or football. That shows how you believe that the GAA should be treated differently, and, time after time, Member after Member who stood up on the nationalist side showed that the GAA should be treated differently.

Mark Durkan talked about regenerating west Belfast. There is no doubt about that: parity of esteem. You went on to talk about scoring points. One thing that I would say to you, Mark, is that when I hit, I put the ball in the net. The GAA likes to put it over the bar and miss the target, whereas every time that I take a shot, I hit my target.

[Laughter.]

Sinéad Ennis talked about wasted time, so I will skip on over her remarks because I do not want to waste my time responding to her.

Pam Cameron brought us back to what the motion is really about: the public finances. She asked a simple question: where is the funding to the public purse? When we are putting in substantial amounts of money, there has to be a return for it.

To pick up on Mr Brett's remarks, I can just reassure him — I am sure that he is watching from upstairs — that TUV policy has not changed. We are opposed to Casement Park. However, I am in this House and I know the hand that I have been dealt. I recognise that Mr Brett and others signed up to Casement a long time ago, and I have to work with the hand that I have been dealt.

Mr Colm Gildernew talked about a culture war. It is frustrating how nationalism has not listened. Nationalists have not read the motion or listened to anything that has been said, but he did say something that was quite interesting. He talked about a £2·8 billion generation figure and about the social and economic benefits that flow from it. If those are the benefits that come, where is the GAA's fair and equitable proportion to give into it? If it means so much to the GAA — I go on to Mr McNulty talking about "a symbol of hope" and "the beating heart of the GAA" — why not stick your hand in your pocket, get the wallet out and pay your fair share for Casement Park?

Time after time, you want the priority to be all things GAA. You want it to be treated differently, and that is something that I do not want. I want all sports to be treated the same. That is why it is fair that I said to draw a line in the sand, and any public money that is awarded from here for any sport in the future should be subject to the clawback mechanism.

Do I get an extra minute, since I was interrupted four times?

[Interruption.]

No.

On that basis, I happily move my motion and commend it to the House.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Timothy, I deliberately let you go over because of all the interruptions, two of which —.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It was four seconds.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I know, but, sometimes, four seconds is not a lot, and, other times, it is too much, but we will say nothing.

I want to clarify something for Mr Carroll. I will look at Hansard. If I called you "a liar", I will apologise. However, there were differences in the two approaches: one is accusing someone of detrimentally and deliberately interfering with safety, and another one was completely political. You can see that the nuances are slightly different. If I called you "a liar", I apologise, but I will look at Hansard, because, the last thing that I want to do —. To be frank, I want to be fair to everybody, so that is basically it.

Unless I am on another planet, it is clear to me that there will be a Division.

[Interruption.]

I will not ask. I will just accept that there is. The Business Committee will meet at 1.00 pm. After Question Time, we will take the vote on the amendment and then on the motion. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. Thank you.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.56 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Communities

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

1. Ms Sheerin asked the Minister for Communities to outline the criteria used to select projects in the most recent Your School Your Club programme. (AQO 3125/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Your School Your Club programme is delivered on behalf of my Department by Sport NI. Its chief executive officer has advised me that a two-stage application process was used to identify and select projects. Stage-1 applicants were required to provide evidence of four mandatory criteria: managing authority support, board of governors support, security of tenure and, if required, planning approval.

Schools that met all stage-1 requirements progressed to stage 2, at which they were asked to submit additional information. That was assessed against a scoring matrix that was developed by Sport NI, which included value-for-money weighting. The required information included a description of the project; current users and additional users; current hours and additional hours; details of programmes and activities; a weekly timetable of estimated use; finance for the project, including project costs and partnership funding; two years of accounts; and the Northern Ireland multiple deprivation score.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Minister, we all remember the Lisneal College debacle last year, when money was allocated to that school without there being any evidence of clear objective need. Can you clarify whether evidence of clear objective need was factored into the latest round of funding via the programme?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I advise the Member not to come to the Chamber with any insinuation or unfounded allegation. I have just set out the process by which money was allocated, including the use of the Northern Ireland multiple deprivation score. The allocations have been made fairly and transparently. Sport NI was asked to make them on the Department's behalf, and I am confident that they have been made in the right way.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

The Your School Your Club programme has been a game changer, for not only East Antrim but right across Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that the programme should continue to be funded? Can he commit to further funding for it next year?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Absolutely. I am a strong supporter of the programme because I have seen the change that it can make, not just in schools but in the communities that they serve. That is why I increased its budget from £500,000 to £3 million this year, which is why so many projects have gone ahead.

The programme is also a good example of two Departments working together to deliver real outcomes for people across Northern Ireland. We should all want to see more people get active. To do so, they need the facilities. As well as all the obvious sporting benefits, we are benefiting health outcomes, social inclusion and community cohesion. I will therefore continue to allocate additional levels of funding to the programme, as will my colleague Paul Givan, in order to ensure that we deliver vital sporting resources to our communities right across Northern Ireland.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister, for the update on the programme. As you will be aware, Ulster Hockey presented to the Communities Committee last week. It spoke to its report on the state of pitches right across Northern Ireland. Will you provide the House with an update on any plans for additional hockey pitches in Northern Ireland?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

In the past couple of weeks, I also had a very good meeting with Ulster Hockey, at which some of the concerns that the Member raised in her question were expressed. I am committed to developing sporting facilities in Northern Ireland, and that is why I established the Olympic legacy fund, which allows organisations to apply for match funding through Crowdfunder. I am sure that the Member will be aware of many organisations in her own constituency that are doing just that.

I always want to see more money for sport. We are operating in a constrained budgetary environment, and that is why the Olympic legacy fund is such a good programme, because it combines government support and money raised. I hope that that fund can continue, but I will do everything that I can to make sure there is provision available, especially for hockey, which has seen such growth in recent years.

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

Minister, does your Department hold any data on the downstream benefits of sporting participation, especially of embedding a culture of inclusive participation from early years, through school and beyond?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Many surveys and pieces of research have been done over the years, but none of us needs those to understand and recognise that, without question, such participation is beneficial. It gets more people more active more often and improves wider health and societal outcomes. That is why I am so keen to make sure that we continue to invest in and have facilities that can be used by people across Northern Ireland.

The Your School Your Club programme is so important because so much of our sporting estate is within the school estate. I want that to be open all hours, as far as possible, so that the school and then the wider community can benefit. That has not been done on such a scale before. I am committed to continuing to find innovative ways of ensuring that we get all the facilities that we need and deserve.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

2. Mr Kearney asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the timeline for bringing forward an Irish language strategy. (AQO 3126/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

All Departments are currently engaged in the development of the Ulster-Scots language, heritage and culture strategy and the Irish language strategy through the work programme of the cross-departmental working group. The group's work builds on the work of each strategy's expert advisory panel and co-design group to ensure that each strategy is coherent, costed and accompanied by a series of achievable actions within departmental remits.

The detailed timing for that work is, to a large degree, outside the control of my Department. There is a wide range of material to consider, and the working group members need to take into account their existing departmental priorities and budgets and the practicalities involved in delivering on the vision. Once the group has completed its work programme, and upon receipt of relevant departmental approvals, officials will bring forward both draft strategies for my consideration. I will then bring them to the Executive.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin.

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

Your Ministry has increasingly become defined as one with a reputation for being hostile to the Irish language, hostile to equality and hostile to the Irish language community and to meetings with it. That is the opposite of what should be expected from your office. Therefore, Minister, will you outline what steps you will take in the remainder of the mandate to rebuild relationships, trust and confidence with the Irish language community in the North?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

No, it has not become that. That is what the Member and his party have tried to portray. I have treated everybody equitably. I have met individuals and organisations; I have attended events; and I will continue to engage with people across the breadth of my portfolio. I know that it is in his political interests to say otherwise, and he and his party have tried that in relation to the strategy: even when the issue has been outside my control, he has tried to portray that as hostility to the language.

It is his party that, through the moves that it has made, has done more to harm the development of the Irish language in our society. Take, for example, the 15% threshold for street signage in Belfast. Even when things go against the wants and desires of the vast majority of people, his party is willing to put in place a policy that is not conducive to good relations. The Member should take a look in the mirror if he is concerned about the development of the Irish language. I will continue to work for everybody in Northern Ireland and find a way forward that has consensus and is affordable and effective.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Minister confirm what resources he has committed to the delivery of the Irish language strategy, including how many officials are working on it?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member will be aware that the work is for not just the Department for Communities but, through the cross-departmental working group, all Departments. He raises a good point about resource. We need to make sure that anything that is agreed is affordable, and that will be an important part of the work. That is the role of the cross-departmental working group, because, although we will always have the expert advisory panels and co-design groups that put information into the Department, it is the politicians and Ministers who, as decision makers, ultimately need to make sure that it is affordable.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Grand Central station is in an interface area and is used by people who use speak different languages, including a large number of Gaeilgeoirí. Going by many people's accounts, your intervention and opposition to bilingual signage are causing a lot of anger and frustration.

If you want dissuade people from that view and challenge Mr Kearney's accurate points, the best way to do so would be to withdraw your objection to bilingual signage on that site. Will you take this chance to do that?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

No, I will not, because this is an important point of process. The law is in place and needs to be followed. I strongly contend — this is why I am intervening in the case — that the Minister for Infrastructure has not abided by the law and has stepped outside of it. There is a requirement to bring issues that are significant, cross-cutting or controversial to the Executive. This is clearly controversial. In my view, it is clearly cross-cutting, and, therefore, it should come to the Executive. Ministers should know better. It is entirely right and appropriate to do this. If a Minister acts outside that process, that is not only a breach of the law but, perhaps, shows that there is an understanding that the proposal would not have got the required support. We do not go on ourselves; we work together to find a way forward. This is an important point of law and was a crucial part of the negotiations that took place 20 years ago and led to the restoration of this place in 2007. It is imperative that the law is followed.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

Given the current budgetary environment, does the Minister agree that this House should have complete clarity on the costs associated with the Irish language strategy?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, absolutely, and that is a key part of the cross-departmental working group's plans. The same approach was taken to the anti-poverty strategy. When we bring forward actions, we need to make sure that they are affordable and that we look at them in the round in the context of our wider priorities.

I know that the Chairman of the Communities Committee is very interested in cost. In fact, when I confirmed, after multiple Assembly questions, Committee letters and other correspondence, that there was no cost involved in updating the DFC logo, he still could not accept or understand that. That raises a wider question, because it is important —.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

[Interruption.]

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I know that the Member was embarrassed by his performance at the Committee last week.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

[Interruption.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I know that the truth can sometimes hurt, but it is very clear that he was not able to understand what those letters said. Perhaps the Assembly could provide some training in that regard.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

[Interruption.]

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

At a time when our finances are —.

The fact that he is shouting from a sedentary position confirms that he got it wrong, but I am more than happy to have a debate with him on those issues at another time.

We need to make sure that we consider carefully what we spend our money on and make sure that it is properly prioritised.