Northern Ireland Assembly, 11 May 2026

311 contributions from 57 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I inform Members that the Hospital Parking Charges Bill has received Royal Assent. The Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2026 became law on 6 May 2026, and it is Chapter 4.

Matters of the Day

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on the judgement in the Dillon judicial review by the Supreme Court that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I greatly welcome the Supreme Court judgement in the Dillon case. It was a case of real constitutional significance that puts the brakes on those who seek to expand the remit of article 2. It rebuffs the absurd contention that rights in Northern Ireland should be those evolving in the EU, not in our United Kingdom. It also leaves policy in this Building exposed. I directly challenge those who sit on the Assembly Commission. Stormont operates an illegal toilet policy that permits trans invaders to self-identify and use the toilet of their choice, even though the Building facilitates schoolchildren almost daily.

The judgement is also a particularly welcome reality check for the activist Equality Commission, which has sought to argue, by way of article 2, that the definition of a woman changes when they cross the Irish Sea. That absurd position trashed the rights of women to privacy and safety in single-sex spaces. It was always logically and legally dubious to say that a man became a woman when he got off the ferry in Larne. As the Bible puts it:

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools".

After Thursday's judgement, all the waffle on the subject that the Equality Commission seeks to peddle as guidance to people across Northern Ireland has been exposed for what it is: activist-motivated tripe. Yet it does not even accept that. Reacting to the judgement, it said that it would take time to consider its implications. The truth is that it has no answer to the fact that its aggressive, anti-women overreach has been exposed. Its guidance, judgement and agenda have been unmasked. It is time that its guidance was withdrawn and to bring an end to blindly following woke ideology. The women of Northern Ireland deserve an apology. The commission members should resign or, indeed, be forced from office.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Supreme Court judgement is, no doubt, a landmark judgement for Northern Ireland. It goes to the very nub of who governs this place, whose laws we are accustomed to and what direction we follow. The Dillon judgement has proven to be a costly correction to those who have attempted at every turn to use article 2 of the Windsor framework to undermine UK sovereignty and lawmaking and to undermine common sense.

What did the judgement do? It stated in law that, for the purposes of rights, the given narrative from activist lawyers and activist organisations that attempted to use an expansionist view of article 2 to apply European rights in Northern Ireland over the head of UK law was wrong. That is important for a number of reasons. It is important that we examine the issues by which certain people in the legal profession, the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission attempted to use that for the purpose of blocking potential important legislation in Northern Ireland that would ensure that we could control our borders and put to bed the blight of illegal and uncontrolled immigration. When it comes to the definition of "gender", my goodness, it is a landmark ruling for common sense. Those who have used their broad interpretation of article 2 have denied a Supreme Court ruling to Northern Ireland that was as basic as to say that, for the purposes of gender, there are but two: male and female. Those organisations now have to front up or leave the stage. Common sense must be applied in lawmaking in Northern Ireland. The judgement also goes to the heart of the legacy issue in Northern Ireland, where there is still an intent by some people in the House and outside it to ensure that those who served the country with distinction, put on the uniform, defended liberty and defended civilians are no longer unjustly brought before the courts.

The Prime Minister must go further than just recognising the judgement: he must ensure that we end EU law supremacy in Northern Ireland. We have clarity on article 2. It is high time that the UK asserted itself over not only legal matters but economic matters.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Last week's judgement at the British Supreme Court was a disappointing result for families who have campaigned for decades for truth and justice. The judgement has caused them grave concern and will make their job harder in the search for truth and justice. It is clear that the British Establishment is closing ranks to protect national security interests by way of protecting British state forces. That judgement will undoubtedly be followed by other legal challenges and potentially a challenge to the European Court, leading to further delay and trauma to families who have already been campaigning for decades.

The judgement on the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) is another area of major concern. The British Government's own acknowledgement that the ICRIR needed to be replaced is reflected in the legacy Bill that is going through Westminster at the moment, where the intent is to replace it with the Legacy Commission.

That builds on the recent review of the ICRIR, which highlighted severe flaws at a leadership level around culture and governance issues. That is also reflected by the fact that most families here are not engaging with the ICRIR, despite its best efforts. To command the confidence of families, any legacy process must be independent, victim-centred, human rights-compliant and free from political interference or the abuse of national security restrictions. Sinn Féin will continue to stand with families throughout the process.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

On behalf of the Alliance Party, I will put a few remarks on record regarding the Dillon judgement, which relates to the compatibility of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) with the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I am sure that all across the Chamber recognise that that continues to be an incredibly complex matter. It is important that all relevant stakeholders take time to consider the implications of the judgement fully. Alliance recognises that the successful appeal will be of great concern to many victims and survivors today, and my thoughts are first and foremost with them as we navigate the next steps.

The ICRIR is not fit for purpose. The case for a clean break is just as strong today as it was last week. It is noted, of course, that, to some extent, the UK Government have already accepted that by virtue of the new legislation that they are taking through. It is vital that the new Troubles Bill create a fully human rights-compliant process for legacy investigations that is capable of winning the trust and confidence of all victims and survivors. That is the only way to deliver the truth and justice that the families deserve.

Alliance has long argued that the Conservatives' proposed Troubles amnesty was an affront to victims and survivors, and that has been further validated. Moving forward, it has never been clearer that a successful approach to legacy will be centred on reconciliation, facilitating the pursuit of justice and information recovery in a fair, transparent and equal manner.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to talk on the matter. Article 2 and article 2 compliance has always been a matter of considerable difficulty with the Windsor framework. The Windsor framework was designed primarily to be a trade deal. It was designed to make sure that there would be free movement across the rest of our country and to remove all the barriers to trade.

Right from the beginning, the Ulster Unionist Party questioned why two unelected quangos — the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) — would be put in a position to set themselves up as the self-appointed guardians of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. They are not, and they never were. The fact that they were given agency to do that by both political parties and by what I can only call the "cult" of the lawyer and the lawfare-type organisations that seem to be around here is an absolute disgrace.

The Supreme Court has spoken, and that is appropriate. What is more, the Supreme Court has made clear its view on that degree of activism and that degree of pushing the envelope on the boundary being done at the taxpayer's expense. We must remember who pays for those quangos: as taxpayers, we do. It is beyond time that those quangos were investigated properly to see what they do with the moneys that they have. Why they remain under the same leadership when the Supreme Court has clearly knocked down their approaches I do not know, but they are unaccountable. They cannot be allowed to continue in that process.

The Supreme Court of our nation has spoken. It has laid the limits. It is beyond time that both those quangos were brought well and truly under heel and, if necessary, got rid of, because they are not doing what they were designed to do.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

The highest court in the land has ruled on what the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland already knew: a man is a man, a woman is a woman, and immigration policy is set by the Westminster Government, not faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. When I walked into the Chamber today, I thought that I was attending a wake: the ruling is a defeat for those who have been protocol cheerleaders; those who have been rigorous implementers; and those who took the word of faceless organisations ahead of common sense.

As a member of the Executive Office Committee, I make it clear on behalf of my party that we expect the immediate appearance of the chief commissioner at our Committee to answer questions. It is not their budget that they have wasted on ongoing legal fights but money that belongs to hard-pressed taxpayers in Northern Ireland. It is money that should have been spent on our hospitals and roads but, instead, was wasted by political campaigners who were more interested in protecting woke ideology than in biological fact.

The UK Government can no longer hide behind the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland protocol to deal with illegal immigration in Northern Ireland. The law is clear: immigration policy, which aims to stop the illegal arrival of people on small boats, is set at Westminster. Those who come to the country and have no interest in adding to its wealth but, rather, want to benefit from it have no place in Northern Ireland. It is now time that we take a UK-wide approach to immigration that protects families here.

The Supreme Court has spoken. There can be no ambiguity, and there can be no questions. There is no need for the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission or any other faceless organisation to read the judgement. The judgement is clear: they are wrong. They have wasted public money, and it is now time for every one of them to consider their position.

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

I will start by making an observation: only the TUV could reduce a complex Supreme Court decision to a toilet in the Assembly. Seriously?

The Supreme Court has narrowed aspects of article 2 protections. The judgement must not displace fundamental human rights commitments that underpin the Good Friday Agreement, and it will be for the Attorney General to scrutinise the decision. Human rights were never an optional extra in our peace settlement; they are central to building trust, confidence and parity of esteem in the North. The SDLP has always believed that rights protection must be practical, enforceable and accessible to ordinary citizens, particularly victims and families, and there will understandably be some concern that the scope of post-Brexit safeguards has been interpreted more narrowly than many had anticipated.

The case underlines once again the need for a comprehensive bill of rights for Northern Ireland, as envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement. We must avoid any drift towards weakening rights protection through constitutional ambiguity or political expediency. Victims and survivors in particular deserve legal certainty, transparency and confidence that their rights will be protected, regardless of changing political circumstances.

The broader challenge now is to ensure that Brexit-related arrangements do not result in any diminution of rights for people in Northern Ireland. The peace process succeeded because it recognised that rights, equality and the rule of law are stabilising forces in a divided society. The Supreme Court has clarified the law, but it has not ended the wider political and moral debate on rights protection and legacy issues in particular. Our focus should remain on protecting the integrity of all strands of the Good Friday Agreement, including its explicit human rights commitments.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Sinéad Ennis has been given leave to make a statement on the results of the Scottish election and the Welsh election that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

First, I send congratulations from the Assembly Chamber to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru on their historic election success over the weekend. For the first time in history, we could have three nationalist, pro-independence First Ministers leading the devolved institutions. The election results are not just a reaction to the desire and clear necessity for self-determination but a damning indictment of successive British Governments, who have abandoned working people, decimated public services and put vested interests above communities.

More and more people are seeing that the Union is not working for them. It is no surprise that the DUP, 10 years after the disastrous referendum on Brexit, which it championed and still supports today, has been at pains over the past number of days to diminish and talk down the enormity and significance of the elections. The DUP increasingly wants to fight the battles of the past, because it has no vision for the future.

However, people here want better for themselves and their families, and Sinn Féin will continue to offer a better way and a better future. We will continue to give people hope; hope for a future beyond the constraints of Westminster, where decisions are made without thought of, or regard for, the people and communities here. We look forward to working with progressive Governments and parties in Wales and Scotland, and we will build on existing relationships as we continue to build momentum towards constitutional change and, ultimately, something better for all our people here.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I, too, rise to discuss the election campaigns and results over the past few days, which prove that we are indeed at a seminal moment and that the plates are shifting in British democracy. They are shifting back to the people, who have found their voice. Successive Governments have not listened, and this Government are not listening. They have never listened to the people. They are squeezing us with further taxation, destroying farm businesses, eroding free speech, pushing mandatory digital IDs on us all and carrying on the Tories' damaging, flawed practices and policies, including those relating to illegal immigration. The Government are not working for the people, and the people have responded.

Nationalism will grasp any thin thread that it can, but the failure is there for all to see. In Wales, 56% of people voted for pro-Union parties. In Scotland, 58% voted for pro-Union parties, and 41% voted for nationalist parties. The SNP vote fell by 9·2%, and the overall nationalist vote in Scotland dropped by 8%. Nationalism is at its ugliest when it makes things up.

I am proud to hear the people speaking with one voice. We are watching and experiencing something dramatic among the British people: they will no longer tolerate bad governance from whatever quarter, be it the red of Labour or the blue of the Tories. We will see massive changes in the forthcoming years. It also gives voters hope that their voice can make a difference and shows them that they should get registered and vote, because they see that one household or one voter can make a difference to how they are governed and that they need to be governed far better than they have been in the past decades.

I rejoice when I hear the people speak and see this great country's democratic practice. It is for the voters — the people of Britain — to decide how they are governed best.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

In the wake of last week's elections in Great Britain, we have seen the predictable rush to the microphones. Some are heralding the results in Scotland and Wales as a seismic shift, a death knell for the Union or an inevitable surge towards independence. Others are noting, as we have just heard, that pro-Union parties collectively received the majority of the votes and claiming that little has changed. However, as we look at the data, which we must do in the context of our constituents in Northern Ireland, it is vital that we meet those headlines with a firm sense of reality.

We must remember that a significant proportion of last week's electoral map was defined by local council elections in London and different parts of England. Local government elections are about bins, planning, leisure facilities and other vital services that keep a community breathing, while elections to the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales are about the big issues such as health and education. To extrapolate from a handful of seats and say that there is a definite mandate for a constitutional outcome one way or another is a leap of logic. It does a disservice to the voters who cast their ballots last week based on their neighbourhoods, not the status of their borders.

I place on record my congratulations to our Lib Dem colleagues in Great Britain. They had a terrific election result.

In Northern Ireland, we know all too well the exhaustion that comes from viewing every election through the prism of a constitutional headcount. When we obsess over whether Scotland is going or Wales is wavering, we fall into the same old trap of ignoring bread-and-butter issues. Indeed, if the local election results in England are to be analysed at a national level, what we are seeing is a call for action to improve people's lives, which politics across the UK is failing to do.

The Alliance Party is clear that the constitutional future of any nation is a matter for its people, but it cannot and should not be the only matter that is up for debate at election time. We cannot feed a family or fix a health waiting list with a flag, regardless of which flag that is. Our mandate is to make Northern Ireland work. The people whom we represent, whether they identify as unionist, as nationalist or, like a growing number of us who choose both, as other, are not asking us for a running commentary on the internal politics of Plaid Cymru or the Scottish National Party. They are asking us whether the Executive will survive in order to ensure that our schools receive the funding that they need; whether reform of our health service will happen; and whether we can build an economy that is sustainable, prosperous and inclusive. As legislators, our job is not to break up but to build up.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

It is somewhat a sign of Sinn Féin's desperation that it is searching for more evidence of its false momentum towards Irish unity by looking at the election results in Scotland and Wales. It is false because, of course, the majority of people who cast their vote did so for pro-Union parties. Across the United Kingdom, in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we know that we are better together. Here is a reality: Sinn Féin needs to keep doing that because its promised project of Irish unity failed. It did not happen in the years after the Belfast Agreement. We have had so many different dates: 2016, 2025 and 2030. I suspect that we will be here in 50 years' time, with relatively youthful Sinn Féin Members saying that, in 2060, a border poll will be just around the corner and just within reach. Here is a reality: most people in Northern Ireland want us to get on with making things work. This is a distraction from the fact that Sinn Féin does not make things work. Its contribution in Economy has cost us jobs. Man landed on the moon in 1969, but, in Infrastructure, Sinn Féin cannot deliver smooth roads in 2026. The rates Reval was disastrous. Every ministry that Sinn Féin holds is a disaster. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

Here is another reality: the people of the United Kingdom stand together. What you are hearing is that people want change from the same politics and the obsession with pet projects like constitutional change. People are wondering about the cost of filling up their car; the cost of their car insurance; the cost of hiring workers; the cost of putting their heating on; or the cost of filling up a basket of groceries. Sinn Féin's fixation on constitutional change is starting to hurt its vote down South.

There is an irony in Sinn Féin's position: when it comes to Great Britain, it has become the party of partition. Sinn Féin wants to partition the island into three constituent parts. Its youth wing has a lovely picture of Ireland from space, saying, "Where's the border? Ireland is an innate island. Why would you have an artificial border on it?", but, of course, Sinn Féin wants to have "artificial" borders to separate England, Scotland and Wales. It is the party of partition. Sinn Féin is allying itself with the Brits to try to advocate its cause. I will say one thing for Scottish and Welsh nationalists: at least they never blew people up to try to get their independence; at least they never chained people to steering wheels and turned them into human bombs. They believe in peaceful politics, and, for that, they have my respect.

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

Last week's election results indicated something that has been clear for at least a decade and can, in fact, be dated specifically to June 2016 and the Brexit vote: the destabilisation of the UK state, which is significantly and radically poorer, less influential and less stable than it was before that date. Many of us have always supported constitutional change — a new Ireland that is based on reconciliation and is without a border — but many more people, from all sorts of backgrounds, are now thinking about that future as a result of the UK being a poorer, less prosperous, less stable and less influential state.

Those facts are unarguable.

The UK's economy is radically smaller than it otherwise would have been had the UK not left the European Union. Its politics have become profoundly unstable. There have been six Prime Ministers in the past decade, I believe. People here have a right to choose something different from that destabilisation. The results in Scotland and Wales are one manifestation of that, but they are far from the only one. Indeed, for lots of people, it is not just that they dislike the prospect of the potential, perhaps even likely, election of Nigel Farage as Prime Minister of the UK because they dislike his politics and his crypto-billionaire-backed gang of hard right adherents or dodgy dealers; it is that they simply want to choose a completely different future for their country.

I slightly, gently, push back at colleagues from the Alliance Party who once again push the idea that to believe in change on this island is and must always be a distraction from making this place work. As leader of the Opposition, I, along with my colleagues, come here every day and hold the Executive robustly to account for their many failings in delivery. There is no contradiction between doing that and believing in, choosing and advocating a new Ireland as the route to the best possible future for people in Northern Ireland and on the whole island of Ireland. Increasingly, people who do not want to be governed by Nigel Farage and have their future shackled to a poorer and unstable UK state will want to make that choice. The elections last week are a stark reminder of that journey, and the SDLP and others will talk more about that opportunity in the weeks and months ahead.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The nationalist Members of the House have somewhat lost the run of themselves after Thursday's elections. Listening to Sinn Féin, one could be forgiven for missing the fact that the SNP lost seats in Scotland. For the benefit of Ms Ennis, I note that the SNP was down six seats in total. It lost over 400,000 votes in the constituency contest and almost 470,000 votes in the regional contest: falls of 32% and 43% respectively. That is hardly a mandate for independence. In Wales, the nationalists obtained just 35% of the vote and are well short of a majority. Sinn Féin would be better concentrating its efforts on getting its own house in order than constantly scrambling to spare its blushes through deflection.

It is most telling that the Matter of the Day refers to Wales and Scotland but ignores the significant developments in England. Across the country and, in fact, in Scotland and Wales too, we have seen the rejection of the old parties and the rallying behind not the loony left, epitomised by the Greens, but Reform UK with its message of total independence not from the UK but from the EU. Reform UK wants to see strong borders to stop illegal immigration and to see a rejection of woke ideology. It is no wonder that it performed so well last week.

The results in Great Britain have been noticed by unionists as well as nationalists in Northern Ireland. They have seen that people across the UK have rejected the old parties and the woke establishment, and guess what? The world has not ended. In fact, I look forward to next year, when we will see a shake-up in this place and I will be joined by many TUV colleagues on these Benches. The lesson from the elections is not that the Union is dying; it is that voters across the United Kingdom have finally woken up and are revolting against the political class. The results have put the establishment parties in this House that belong to the failed Executive on notice.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Last week's elections provided a seismic opportunity for many people in parts of the United Kingdom to have their say on 20 months of a Labour Government in which we were promised so much but have seen so little. The electorate has had 20 months to make up its mind on the performance of Sir Keir Starmer. People asked, "What does this man stand for? Who actually is he?", and, by voting in their millions, they decided that Mr Starmer does not live up to his name.

Our Prime Minister talked this morning about taking responsibility for the loss of over 1,400 council seats and the loss of many Members of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. He should ask why those seats were lost. He talks about, "Be better, do better". He should take responsibility not just for the Labour councillors and Members who were lost but for immigration. This country continues to see thousands upon thousands of people entering illegally and then being put up in accommodation paid for by the taxpayer. There is no responsibility in that regard from Labour. There is also no responsibility when it comes to taxing businesses to the point of extinction. Small businesses are being driven to the breadline by the Labour Government. What about their attack on pensioners? What about their attacks on farmers? Anybody who was unable to predict the results was living in a complete fantasy land. The message was written on the wall.

As sure as night follows day, what is the first thing that Sinn Féin does, in order to cover its progressive diversionary drivel? It gloats in the fact that we will now have three nationalist First Ministers. There is no acknowledgment of the joint nature of the office in Northern Ireland and accountability. That is a sign of what is to come as Sinn Féin attempts to cover disaster after disaster in its Ministers' Departments. What about the cost-of-living crisis now? No, that is all for the optics; today is about driving a nationalist argument. The unionist majority in Scotland still prevails when it comes to voting intentions. The same is the case in Wales. The same is also the case in Northern Ireland, but the lesson for Northern Ireland is that split unionism will cost seats. Stop the nationalist narrative —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Steve Aiken.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— and get behind the party that can win: the DUP.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The election results represent a sad time for those who lost their seats. As a member of the steering group of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly and a member of the steering committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I know how much has been provided to those organisations by Members who, sadly, have lost their seats, and I pay my respects. Some were independent Members. There were Lib Dems and members of Welsh Labour, Scottish Labour, the Welsh Conservatives, the Scottish Conservatives and even the SNP. They are friends and colleagues who worked tirelessly to promote the best of the United Kingdom and in the areas of the climate emergency, LGBT rights and disability rights not just in the United Kingdom but across the world.

I pay particular thanks to Jeremy Balfour, who is a friend of many of us. Jeremy has been a tireless supporter of disability rights and action across the globe. Anybody who has met Jeremy will know that he is probably one of the most dedicated people when it comes to dealing with disability issues. I wish Jeremy all the best for the future. I have been in contact with him, and I know that he will bounce back, but I pass on to him the regards of the members of our committees.

Jamie Greene is another great friend. Believe it or not, he hails from County Antrim. He was a Lib Dem MSP but lost his seat in the Scottish election. Jamie has been a tireless advocate for LGBTQ rights. He has been to the fore, particularly in dealing with rights in areas such as Africa, which not been the easiest place to support LGBTQ issues. I have worked closely with Jeremy on quite a few issues, including on election observation missions, and he is probably one of the soundest politicians whom I have met. So, when some Members gloat about the loss of those Members in the elections, they should remember that a lot of them provided a lot of support and, indeed, have been useful in making sure that our nation, the Commonwealth and many other nations have been supported in democratic consistency. It is with sadness that I make my remarks today, but, when I talk to them all, I will pass on our regards.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I welcome Sinn Féin's new-found interest in politics in other parts of our United Kingdom. Even by Sinn Féin's standards of rewriting the past, the Chief Whip of the party opposite has managed to completely gloss over the actual results of the election. Ms Ennis described the SNP victory as a historic victory for the people of Scotland: Mr Speaker, I have not been in politics for as long as you have, but, if my party had lost half a million votes and six seats, I would not call that "a historic victory". What there has been is a rejection of the Labour Party in other parts of the United Kingdom, just as the people of Northern Ireland rejected the Labour Party's sister party here, the SDLP, and voted it into opposition.

The party opposite, having outsourced its failed attempts to break up the United Kingdom and blamed the Irish Government for that failure, is now trying to cling to the coat-tails of the outcomes of elections in other parts of the United Kingdom so that it can continue to tell its followers that it was not, in fact, lying to them when it promised the people of Northern Ireland a border poll in 2016; that the current First Minister, who promised one in 2020, was not lying to the people of Northern Ireland; and that Mary Lou McDonald, who set a date of 2035 for a border poll and was then quickly corrected by her party colleagues, who said that it had to be 2030, was not lying to the people of Northern Ireland. When polls for the party opposite continue to fall in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic, what do we see? We see calls for a border poll to take place. The people of Northern Ireland see through the distraction politics. They see that, since 1998, the votes for the parties in Northern Ireland that want to break up our United Kingdom have not grown by 1%.

The leader of the Opposition seems to be the man most obsessed with Nigel Farage becoming Prime Minister. We will not have a general election in Northern Ireland for a number of years, but, in the SDLP's hope for relevance, it tries to scare the people of Northern Ireland into wanting to pursue a different constitutional settlement, because it knows, despite the arguments made by Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party, that the people of Northern Ireland know that the Union is best for all.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For Mr Burrows's information, 50 years from now is not 2060; it is 2076. We will take no lectures on the competency of our Ministers from a person who cannot get basic maths right.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I do not think that that is a point of order, but, nonetheless, the point has been made.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the Executive Office Committee last Wednesday, despite numerous attempts by me and the Member for North Antrim —.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

That is not a point of order.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Sorry, Mr Sheehan, you —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order. Mr Brett has the Floor. I make the decisions on whether it is a point of order, and I usually do that at the end of a contribution, not after the second line.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Mr Sheehan, if you want to be Speaker, put a good word in with Ms Ennis, and she might take out Carál and put you in.

Despite attempts by Mr Gaston and me to seek information from the Office of the Irish Language Commissioner, the commissioner has refused to provide the details, stating that he is currently dealing with a freedom of information request from a private citizen.

Mr Speaker, are you aware of any rules or Standing Order that would prevent a body that is accountable to the Assembly from providing factual information to Committees if a freedom of information request is being dealt with?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for raising the matter. If a Committee makes a request under section 44 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I will judge that request as and when it comes to me. Whether the request is made of an arm's-length body or, indeed, civil servants who come before Committees, openness, honesty, frankness and transparency are what the Northern Ireland public want to see in the House. I say, not for the benefit of anyone who has made such a request but, rather, as a general remark, that people, particularly those who are paid from the public purse, who engage in obfuscation are not fulfilling their duties. I am not aware of any previous case of someone having used a freedom of information request as the reason not to provide information on the day that they should have done when presenting to a Committee.

Committees have the same power as the House does. That being the case, it is for Committee Chairs to ensure that Committee members get responses to the questions that they have asked. What I will say to all Members, however, is not to allow themselves — I speak from experience — to be walked over by witnesses who come to Committees. Be they civil servants, from arm's-length bodies or others who are being paid from the Northern Ireland Budget, they are there to answer Committee members' questions. When they are asked questions, they should therefore answer them. If they do not, I encourage the Committee Chair of whatever Committee it happens to be to ensure that those questions are answered. If a section 44 request comes to me, I will look at it and give it consideration.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, I chair the Committee for the Executive Office, and I put on record that this is not the end of the line for the Committee. I think that we were all upset and frustrated at the commissioner's use of a freedom of information request so as not to provide information, so we are writing to the Irish Language Commissioner citing section 44, but we will potentially also seek legal advice. Moreover, the Committee has written to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to ask them what their understanding is of the supply of information to the Committee for scrutiny. I assure people that we have not let the issue drop.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you, Ms Bradshaw. I was making my remarks in the round. I did not witness what happened at the Executive Office Committee, nor have I been following the issue. Rather, I was making a general observation.

There are no more points of order, so I will move on.

Members' Statements

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

In the 10 miles or so between Antrim town and Moneyglass, there are five Gaelic Athletic Association clubs, and all have won county titles. South-west Antrim is central to GAA life in County Antrim, and one of its beating hearts is Kickhams GAC. The club was founded 102 years ago. Since then, it has gone from strength to strength. All Gaelic games are played at all levels in the club. It has won county titles in all four codes, and, like hundreds of others, I have fond memories of playing football and hurling on McAteer's Field. Back in the day, club facilities were a green tin hut. Then, over 40 years ago, the big hall was built, and 20 years ago, a new pitch, pavilion and Astroturf pitch were put in place, all of which were funded and built by the local community.

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

Yesterday, more history was made with the opening of the new £1·2 million facilities, including another new pitch, a gym and a shop. All that was also achieved through fundraising, sponsorship and sheer hard work by local people. The day-long programme of celebrations was absolutely fantastic. Uachtarán Cumann Lúthchleas Gael

[Translation: The President of the Gaelic Athletic Association]

, Jarlath Burns, spoke about the ethos and vision of the club. He could have attended the Connacht and Munster football finals, but instead chose to come to Creggan.

Yesterday marked the start of a new phase in the club's history. Five generations and hundreds of members, supporters and players gathered for the occasion. The sense of achievement was absolutely palpable. Yesterday Creggan oozed a sense of ambition. Terry Robb, the club chairperson, put it really well when he said, "We have not come this far just to get this far. The new pitch and gym facilities are achievements which bow to the past. A new horizon exists now because we all stand on the shoulders of giants". The new facilities will be a catalyst to secure and inspire the future of Gaelic games in Creggan, and even greater success, I am sure.

A new chapter has opened up for the young people, and the not so young, of that small rural community. Future generations now have their field of dreams. Everything about Cumann Lúthchleas Gael is future-focused on our youth and new generations. It is where we all belong, and that is the mission of Kickhams GAC.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Last Thursday was a sad day for Northern Ireland. For the first time in living memory, we saw a pastor criminalised. It was not for violence, theft or scandalous misconduct — indeed, the judge himself recognised Pastor Clive Johnston as a man of good character. Pastor Johnston was convicted under the safe access zones legislation for preaching John chapter 3, verse 16 within a safe access zone.

I love it when this country is known around the world for the right reasons: excellence in sport, education or innovation. Yet, last week, for very wrong reasons, we made international headlines because a pastor was convicted for preaching John chapter 3, verse 16.

When that legislation came before the Assembly, my party — I spoke in the House — warned that it was bad law. We opposed it for the very reasons that there were serious concerns for religious and civil liberty. The DUP had prepared a petition of concern to stop the legislation. Sadly, it fell one short. We are a nation that has been shaped by a long tradition of constitutional, civil and religious liberty standards. Many of the freedoms enjoyed across the western world developed on these islands, yet, today, we find ourselves in the position where pastors are being criminalised under vague and expansive legislation.

Badly written laws have consequences far beyond that which was their first intention.

'For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.'

Those are the words of John chapter 3, verse 16. Just think of that. Other parties in the House have now criminalised the public preaching of those words in certain parts of Northern Ireland, in a nation that has been shaped by over 1,500 years of Christian truth and witness.

There are many concerning parts following this judgement. If preaching John chapter 3, verse 16 is capable of amounting to unlawful influence, what about carrying a Bible through a hospital? What about saying a prayer for an end-of-life patient? What about a carol service or speaking with a patient or family member in a ward or in the public area? Those things should not need legal advice. We hold Pastor Clive Johnston and the Christian Institute in our prayers as they tackle this issue.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

I will address the disorder that occurred in east Belfast on Saturday evening. Unfortunately, in past months, a number of young people have been involved in arranged fighting in east Belfast, and, at the weekend, they took it upon themselves to engage in rioting and antisocial behaviour. The most concerning part of it is that some of those involved are only 10 or 11 years old. Damage to property, organised fights and outbursts towards PSNI officers are completely unacceptable. The fact that, in 2026, restaurants had to close and a window was smashed is ridiculous. Fear will be felt and there will be a wider impact on the local community and on how others view east Belfast because of those young people's actions.

Ultimately, it is also a safeguarding issue. As a new parent, I say that parents should know where their children are and what they are up to. Children and young people are planning and, using public transport, travelling to prearranged gatherings to take part in antisocial behaviour. However, it is also about a failure of the system. The systemic underfunding of youth services in east Belfast means that those young people have nowhere to go and that they fall through the cracks. While youth services are doing all that they can to prevent young people from taking part, they cannot do it alone. The young people deserve better, and our community deserves better: no one wants this. There are age-appropriate ways of engaging and educating young people who end up in the justice system, in conjunction with their parents, including through youth conferences and the work of the Youth Justice Agency.

I commend the PSNI officers who managed the situation on Saturday night, dispersing the crowds and maintaining the peace following the disorder. I highlight the fact that this is not all young people. Many amazing young people across east Belfast have no interest in behaving like that. I call on them to continue to show their peers that there is more to east Belfast than violence. I also urge parents to talk to their young people and help them to understand that, when they participate in recreational fighting and rioting, they put themselves at risk and could greatly harm their futures.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I pay tribute to the six women who recently secured the conviction of William Lloyd-Lavery for sexual abuse in a school in the seventies. The victims displayed great courage, resilience and tenacity in securing that conviction after all these years. Two of the victims, Nicola Bannon and Lynne Darcy, waived their anonymity. Collectively, in making the case so public, the victims have, I hope, inspired other victims to come forward and give evidence.

The publication of 'The Katie Simpson Review' report and the sentencing of William Lloyd-Lavery should make last week a seminal moment in Northern Ireland. There is an opportunity for us to make a clear and unequivocal stand against any form of abuse, degrading behaviour or sexual assault against women or girls.

Lloyd-Lavery's offending was disgusting. It is shameful that, at one stage, he worked for the Ulster Unionist Party, in that he worked for an MLA. No association should change our ability to stand up and say that his behaviour was vile.

The case brought up the issue of character references. One was given by David Campbell and another by David Lavery, the first of whom is a former a chair of my party, I am ashamed to say, and now works for the Loyalist Communities Council. The second of those people holds a high position in the Law Society. Let me make this clear: when it comes to a trial, people should be able to put forward evidence if they want to make the case that someone is innocent, but, once that person has been convicted of sexual assault, there is no place for a character reference. In this case, the defendant, William Lloyd-Lavery, denied the offence. In effect, he called all his victims liars, yet, on his conviction, two members of our society, including one who holds a senior position in the Law Society, felt that it was it right to give that individual a character reference.

The case also throws up the issue of delay. The time between the victims giving a statement to the police and the verdict was six years. Many victims, of sexual and domestic violence in particular, cannot withstand the pressure of giving evidence over a six-year period. Often, suspects delay their plea — in this case, there was a not guilty plea — until the last minute, in the hope that a victim will break.

I pay tribute to those women for their courage, their resilience and their tenacity. We need to deal with the issue of character references post conviction for sexual assault, speed up our justice system and take a stand for victims, not perpetrators.

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

I am going to speak about the disgraceful way in which a club in my constituency — Strabane Athletic Football Club (AFC) — has been treated by the Department for Infrastructure and its Sinn Féin Minister. The club has just delivered one of the proudest moments in its history, winning the North West Senior Cup for the first time ever and bringing the trophy home to Strabane following a brilliant season on the pitch. By all accounts, Strabane AFC is a community club, built by hundreds of volunteers and players and driven by local people who genuinely care about giving young people opportunities and building something positive for the future. While the club delivers success after success on the pitch, building by the day, what does it get back from the Sinn Féin-led Government? Nothing but delays — no responses to questions but total silence and disrespect.

The planning application for the stadium was submitted in February 2018: eight years ago. Think about that. In those eight years, young players have grown up and left school, and some have started families of their own, while the project still sits, trapped by a ridiculous system. It is a positive project that will have huge benefits for the people I represent. There were no objections to the application. It had overwhelming community backing and was unanimously supported by the planning committee in Derry City and Strabane District Council, but the Department decided to call it in anyway and has sat on it for the years since. The same has happened with a Lidl application in the city of Derry: eight years on a desk.

The Planning Appeals Commission hearing finally took place in September, and the report of that has, to my knowledge, been sitting on the Minister for Infrastructure's desk since November 2025. It is now months later, and we are still waiting. The Minister for Infrastructure has not answered questions from me as the MLA for the constituency. Those questions go unanswered. There has been no decision and no explanation. There is no urgency whatever. Meanwhile, the people behind the club have spent tens of thousands of pounds to try to get this over the line. Local volunteers have given years of their lives and their effort for what? To be ignored by government. That is what it feels like. Communities west of the Bann feel ignored.

I pay tribute to the people who have kept the club alive, such as Seamus McElroy, Renie McElroy and Pat Henderson. It is a great project; in fact, it is exactly the sort of project that Sinn Féin politicians praise whenever the cameras are on. When it comes to actually delivering it, however, delays suddenly start, excuses begin and people suffer the consequences. The people of Strabane are tired of waiting and watching the Department hide behind paperwork while local people do the heavy lifting. It is time that Sinn Féin, with the big mandate that it has in West Tyrone, did something for the people of Strabane. When it comes to Strabane Athletic and the A5 —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Time is up.

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

— they are failing miserably —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Time is up, thank you.

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

— on a daily basis.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The conviction of Pastor Clive Johnston marked a profoundly dark day for Northern Ireland and the Assembly. I include the Assembly because it was the House that passed the law that criminalised a man for preaching the gospel. The idea that devolution is some sort of safeguard for civil and religious liberties was finally buried at Coleraine courthouse. All those who voted in favour of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act (Northern Ireland) 2023 or found something better to do that day than to vote at all should hang their heads in shame. In 2022, the Green Party led Sinn Féin, the SDLP, Alliance and, sadly, the Ulster Unionist Party through the Lobbies to bring in the safe zone legislation.

Pastor Johnston is 78 years old. He is no threat to society, yet what was he convicted of? Put simply, he was convicted for preaching from John 3:16:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

That is a verse that many of us will have learned at Sunday school or seen on posters or on the gable wall of many churches across the country. John 3:16 is a verse that many who sit in the Chamber would do well to heed.

It is striking to read in the judgement that it is accepted that Pastor Johnston and his associates on that day had no placards inside the safe zone and that he said nothing about abortion, yet, the perverse and, yes, wicked law passed by the House saw him convicted and fined for daring to preach the gospel in a Christian country. Those are the depths that this country has sunk to.

I commend pastor Johnston for his stand. His testimony gives us believers in the House great encouragement, and we should take encouragement from it that, regardless of the obstacles that we find in front of us, we must always put our faith first. I wish Pastor Johnston well in his appeal and trust that many will come to faith through the stand that he has taken for my Lord and Saviour. My faith brought me to Stormont. I will continue to speak up for the unborn and speak out against the holocaust in our time that is abortion:

"Here I stand, I can do no other".

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Time is up.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Is gearr go raibh Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann buailte linn i mBéal Feirste. Agus níos lú ná 100 lá le fanacht againn, níl teorainn leis an scéala chugainn maidir le suíomhanna, pleananna, ceoltóirí agus imeachtaí. Tá an chathair ar bís; tá ardú croí agus meanman le sonrú ar fud an bhaill; tá na pleananna faoi lán seoil; agus tá gach duine dár labhair mé leo, tá sin ag tnúth leis an fhéile mór le rá seo a theacht chuig an chathair s’againn.

Déanfar ionaid champála sealadacha dár bpáirceanna le freastal ar na sluaite, cuirfear borradh ollmhór faoin gheilleagar áitiúil, agus táthar ag iarraidh ar ghnólachtaí ar fud na cathrach tús a chur ar an phleanáil lena chinntiú gur féidir leo riar ar an mhéadú ar an éileamh. Chláraigh breis is 1,500 duine le hobair dheonach le linn na fleidhe a dhéanamh, rud a léiríonn chomh mór agus atá muintir na cathrach ag dúil leis an fhéile. Beidh ról ríthábhachtach ag oibrithe deonacha le rath na féile a chinntiú. Tá deiseanna go fóill ann ar obair dheonach a dhéanamh. Mar sin de, molaim do gach duine páirt a ghlacadh san fhéile.

Léiríonn an fhleadh an Béal Feirste atá anois ann, an cur chun cinn atá déanta againn, agus, níos tábhachtaí arís, an bealach taistil atáimid a thabhairt. Bhéarfaidh sí deis dúinn rogha agus togha na cathrach a chur ar taispeáint, agus cuirfidh sí a bhfuil de shaibhreas ceoil agus cultúir againn a chur os comhair an tsaoil mhóir.

[Translation: The countdown to the arrival of Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann in Belfast is well under way. With fewer than 100 days to go, a constant stream of updates regarding locations, plans, artists and activities is coming to us. The buzz around the city is palpable; the excitement is everywhere; the plans are well under way; and everyone whom I have spoken to is looking forward to seeing this flagship festival coming to our city. Our parks will be makeshift campsites to accommodate the influx of people, and our local economy will be massively boosted, with businesses all over the city being encouraged to plan now to ensure that they can meet the increased demand. Over 1,500 people have registered to volunteer for the fleadh, showing the scale of local enthusiasm for the festival. Volunteers will play a vital role in ensuring the success of the festival. Volunteering opportunities are still available, so I encourage everyone to play their part. The fleadh symbolises where our city is, where we have come from, and, more importantly, where we are going. It will allow us to showcase the best that the city has to offer, as well as showing the city’s musical and cultural wealth to the world.]

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I want to highlight one of the greatest local sporting events: the North West 200. Before I do so, I acknowledge the death of a rider in the Superbike qualifiers on Thursday at Station corner. Forty-eight-year-old Kamil Holan from the Czech Republic will be for ever remembered, and we extend our deepest sympathies to his family circle at this most difficult time.

Every year for almost a century, for the North West 200, the roads linking Portrush, Portstewart and Coleraine are transformed into a world-famous circuit that attracts the best riders and tens of thousands of bike fans from across the globe. There is simply nothing like it. As someone who lives in the north coast area, I know that the atmosphere during race week is electric. The roar of the engines, the sight of riders reaching breathtaking speeds and the crowds lining the coast create an unforgettable spectacle. Families return year after year. Visitors discover our stunning coastline, our hospitality and our people. For many, the North West 200 is their introduction to the Province, and what an introduction it is.

The impact of the North West 200 reaches far beyond sport. The event is recognised as and proven to be a vital driver of the local economy. Hotels, guest houses, restaurants, cafes, shops, transport providers and local businesses all benefit from the influx of visitors. During race week, accommodation is booked out months in advance, hospitality venues thrive, jobs are supported and revenue flows directly into our area. The North West 200 showcases Northern Ireland on the international stage in a way that few events can. Television coverage and media attention reach millions of viewers worldwide, promoting our tourism industry, landscape and reputation as a welcoming place. It is a sporting event that is an economic engine and a global advertisement for the Province.

The North West 200 is and has always been one of Northern Ireland's greatest success stories, and we thank the organisers for that. Today, it is important to recognise not only the races but the enormous contribution that the event makes to our economy and our international profile. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, it is also important that, today, we remember Mr Holan, a rider who was lost doing what he loved most.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I wish to speak about Mental Health Awareness Week. I begin by recognising the charities, community organisations and front-line staff across our mental health services who continue to do extraordinary work in a system that is not fit for purpose. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of joining my local Extern Embrace group at its Darkness into Light event in Ballygally, where I heard about the physical and mental health benefits of cold-water-dipping groups. However, our system is one in which people are left waiting until they reach crisis point before receiving the help and support that they need, and some never get it. We have a mental health strategy for which only 16% of the required funding has been identified, and it increasingly risks being shelved due to a lack of action. The theme of this year's Mental Health Awareness Week is action, so let us talk honestly about action.

Last week, the Health Committee received a written briefing from the Department of Health on the progress of the mental health strategy. Frankly, it was deeply concerning. The Department presented as achievements things that, going by its own timelines, should have been delivered months ago: for example, writing two job descriptions was listed as progress, despite the commitment to have the full team in place by March this year. An early intervention and prevention plan is still being developed and finalised, despite a commitment to have a full draft completed by December last year. Workshops and draft actions for digital mental health were highlighted, despite the commitment to have an action plan completed and implementation under way by March. Those are only a few examples of an update that, honestly, was shocking and stark, littered as it was with missed targets and a serious lack of accountability.

There is a real danger that we become so used to delay and watered-down ambitions hidden behind budgetary constraints that failure to act becomes the norm. Funding pressures are real — no one is pretending otherwise — but not every failure can be blamed on budgets. When Departments miss their targets and attempt to present missed deadlines as achievements or progress, there is a serious issue. Delivery plans and strategies are not box-ticking exercises; they are supposed to improve people's lives. Behind every delayed action is an impact on someone's life. It represents longer waits for assessment, inability to access treatment, health deterioration and a greater cost to the health service, digging us deeper into a reactive and crisis-driven service.

The Committee has agreed to write to the Department to seek clear information around accountability, because there are now serious questions that need to be answered. Who is responsible when targets are repeatedly missed? What mechanisms are in place to meaningfully monitor delivery? Writing a job description two months after a full team is supposed to be in place is not an achievement to the person in crisis who still cannot access the services that they so desperately need. Therefore, I hope that the Minister takes the message of action seriously and is prepared to match the scale of the mental health crisis with the urgency, accountability and action that it demands.

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

Today, I congratulate Eithne and Colin Bell as they prepare to step back from the day-to-day running of the Kevin Bell Repatriation Trust after dedicating 13 years to helping families to repatriate loved ones who, sadly, passed away while abroad. Eithne and Colin founded the trust in 2013 following the sudden death of their son Kevin in New York. In the depths of their grief, they decided to use the funds raised to repatriate Kevin to Ireland to establish a charity to help other families who found themselves in the awful situation where a loved one has died abroad. In doing so, they created a powerful and permanent legacy for their son Kevin.

After having experienced huge difficulties bringing Kevin's remains home, Eithne and Colin wanted to make sure that there was somewhere to which grieving families could reach out for financial and practical support when facing the same situation. In 13 years, the Kevin Bell Repatriation Trust has helped return 2,500 loved ones home to their families from almost 100 countries. That is 2,500 families who have been touched by Eithne and Colin's kindness. Eithne and Colin have supported those families in some of their darkest, most challenging times by lifting the financial burden and that of navigating complex systems in order to bring loved ones' remains home.

Based in the Whitegates Business Park in Newry, the Kevin Bell Repatriation Trust is the only organisation of its kind in the world. What an incredible achievement by Eithne and Colin, and what a wonderful legacy for Kevin. Eithne and Collie, I wish you Godspeed. Go raibh míle, míle maith agaibh.

[Translation: Thank you very, very much.]

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I call Julie Middleton. You have two minutes.

Julie Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Within the past week, we have seen a disgraceful escalation in sectarian attacks, which are violent in nature, in the Fountain and Bishop Street interface area. The attacks are not welcome, and they are unjustifiable. The attacks that have been witnessed in the past number of days are not a new experience for residents. To be clear, such attacks were unacceptable in the past, and they remain completely unacceptable now. Let me also be clear that we are talking about masonry, petrol bombs and fireworks being launched into a residential area, where people of all ages live, including vulnerable adults and elderly people. We are also talking about streets on which children want to play and about residents who want to live in peace and have a peaceful night's sleep.

The attacks are designed to intimidate, isolate and drive people out of their homes. I have been in constant contact with the PSNI throughout the disturbances. Although I welcome the increased patrols and the arrests that were made the weekend before last and in the days that followed, we must be honest and say that the response against the perpetrators must be robust and consistent. More than just a reactive presence is needed. We need a proactive strategy that prevents such gatherings before the first sectarian slur is shouted and the first stone thrown.

To those responsible, let me be clear: you are not defending anything. You are destroying your neighbours' peace of mind, well-being and mental health. Although physical damage to property can be repaired, albeit it should not have to be, the psychological toll on the residents of the Fountain and Bishop Street interface is much harder to mend. As a representative of Foyle, I will not stand by while that community is used as a punchbag. I will continue to work with the PSNI, residents —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Julie Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

— and community representatives.

Committee Business

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 30 October 2026 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

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

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

As the House will be aware, the call for evidence for the Committee Stage of the Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill has commenced. As Members will also be aware, there were a large number of responses received to the Department's related consultation. In order to give it time to engage with all the anticipated relevant stakeholders, the Committee unanimously agreed that it would seek an extension to the Bill's Committee Stage until 30 October 2026. If the motion is passed by the House, the Committee will endeavour to conclude its deliberations in advance of the date in the motion. On behalf of the Committee, I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 30 October 2026 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Petroleum Exploration and Licensing (Repeal) Bill.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 20 November 2026 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Utility Regulator (Support for Decarbonisation Preparation) Bill.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on this debate.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Again, I rise as Chair of the Committee. As the House is aware, the call for evidence for the Committee Stage of the Utility Regulator (Support for Decarbonisation Preparation) Bill has now commenced. As Members are also aware, the Bill deals with the functions of the Utility Regulator. Stakeholders have previously signalled that they might wish to see the Bill amended in that regard.

In order to give the Committee time to understand whether such amendments might be necessary, the Committee unanimously agreed to seek an extension to the Committee Stage until 20 November 2026. In any event, and as indicated with the previous resolution, the Committee will endeavour to conclude its deliberations in advance of the date in motion. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee, I commend the extension of the Committee Stage to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 20 November 2026 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Utility Regulator (Support for Decarbonisation Preparation) Bill.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

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

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

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 13 November 2026 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on this debate.

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

I am pleased to be able to move the motion today. First of all, the Committee welcomes the Bill. In bringing the motion, we are clear that we regard 13 November 2026 as a limit rather than a target. Indeed, with several recent Bills, the Committee has proved itself able to rigorously scrutinise legislation significantly more complex than this Bill. That is not to say that this is not an important Bill. With those Bills, we have completed our reports without undue delay, and, where evidence-gathering has concluded earlier than anticipated, we have been able to conclude our scrutiny sooner than anticipated. We hope that that may also be the case with the Bill.

We bring forward the motion to extend the Committee Stage in order to ensure that we have the necessary time and flexibility to discharge our statutory scrutiny role appropriately. The Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill was introduced to the Assembly on Monday 16 March 2026. It completed Second Stage on Monday 20 April, with Committee Stage beginning on Tuesday 21 April. As Members are aware, Standing Order 33(2) states:

"A statutory committee to which a Bill stands referred under this order, may, within the period of 30 working days from the date of referral, consider and take evidence on the provisions of the Bill, and report its opinion thereon to the Assembly."

Without an extension to Committee Stage being agreed, the last day of Committee Stage would be Wednesday 3 June, when the Committee would be required to lay its report on the Bill. In practical terms, that would significantly curtail the Committee's ability to undertake the level of scrutiny that the draft legislation warrants.

I will not go through all the Bill's provisions in detail, as they were rehearsed at Second Stage. First, the Bill brings non-religious belief marriage fully within the statutory framework of the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, placing belief bodies on the same statutory footing as religious bodies for the purposes of registering officiants and granting temporary authorisations. Secondly, it raises the minimum age of marriage and civil partnerships to 18, without exception, and introduces an offence that is aimed at conduct that is intended to cause a child to enter into a marriage.

The proposed extension to Friday 13 November 2026 would allow the Committee to undertake scrutiny in the usual and appropriate manner, which would include a six-week call for evidence; consideration of written submissions and survey responses; and a number of in-person evidence sessions during Committee meetings. It would ensure that the Committee could continue its wider programme of work alongside scrutiny of the Bill, including its ongoing inquiry into the performance and culture of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The Committee has also been careful to take account of recess periods and to plan scrutiny in a realistic and transparent way. Accordingly, the proposed approach allows for the summer and Halloween recesses and extends Committee Stage into mid-November.

Members will be cognisant of the importance of applying appropriate time to legislative scrutiny, including the reputational risks that can arise from inadequate scrutiny, and the importance of adhering to well-established Bill scrutiny procedures. Given some of the consequences of previous bits of legislation, it is important that we are all mindful of that and of the reputation of this institution more broadly.

In requesting that the Assembly supports the extension, the Committee is simply asking for the flexibility that is required to give the Bill the time and scrutiny that it deserves while, again, emphasising that the Committee views the extended date of 13 November as a limit rather than a target. The Committee commends the motion to the House and seeks Members' approval.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I support the proposal to extend the Committee Stage of the Marriage Bill in order to allow for fuller scrutiny of the draft legislation, which will raise the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership to 18 and make involvement in causing a child to enter into that arrangement a criminal offence. It is a piece of draft legislation that has equality and human rights at its core. Extending the Committee Stage will help to ensure that the Bill is given the detailed consideration that it deserves.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I call the Chair of the Finance Committee to respond before I put the Question.

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

I have very little to respond with, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Assembly for considering the motion. I trust that it will be confident that the Committee will treat the extended date not as a target but as a limit. Hopefully, the motion will be passed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 13 November 2026 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members, you may take your ease briefly, please.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the Committee for Finance and Northern Ireland Fiscal Council reports on the 2026-29/2030 draft Budget; and calls on the Minister of Finance to give due regard to their findings.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 15 minutes to propose and 15 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Matthew, please open the debate on the motion.

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

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be able to speak to the Finance Committee's detailed scrutiny of the draft Budget, which was published earlier this year. I will speak largely in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee and will then make a few remarks in a party capacity afterwards.

Members will be aware that the Committee for Finance undertakes a round-robin exercise to hear the views of other Statutory Committees on their respective Departments' budget allocations. As has previously been the case, the exercise also takes in the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council's view on the draft Budget. The Committee has compiled a report on those views, and it has been published. Today's debate provides Members and Chairs of the Statutory Committees, in particular, the opportunity to debate the 2026-29/2030 Budget. The Finance Committee takes its role in leading scrutiny of departmental budgets seriously, with members seeking ways to support and facilitate other Statutory Committees in budget scrutiny. The Committee is grateful to the Minister for agreeing to respond to the debate, and I welcome having the debate today, even if an agreed Budget has not yet been introduced.

I start the debate by noting that this is not an agreed Executive Budget, with the Minister confirming that he is yet to reach an agreement with Executive colleagues on a final Budget. Finance officials have highlighted to the Committee on a number of occasions the fact that in-year funding will be significantly less than last year's and that Departments must live within their allocations. The Committee noted that, following the publication of the draft Budget, the Treasury recognised the challenges facing the Executive and the savings realised in 2025-26. The Treasury has agreed to provide the Executive with a reserve claim of £400 million of resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) in 2025-26, with repayment over the following three financial years. Officials have confirmed to the Committee that section 64 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, stating that an agreed Executive Budget should be laid before the Assembly before the beginning of each financial year, has been breached. It is therefore timely for the House to debate the motion, with no agreed Budget despite our being in the new financial year. The permanent secretary of the Department is already preparing for emergency measures should a Budget not be agreed by the end of June. I thank the Business Committee for agreeing to schedule the debate. The Committee asks the Minister for timescales as to when a Budget may be agreed and whether it will be a single-year or multi-year Budget. It is extremely important that that be agreed sooner rather than later.

The debate today is informed by the Budget document itself; the useful Fiscal Council assessment; oral and written evidence taken by the Finance Committee; and the scrutiny undertaken by other Statutory Committees. I thank the Fiscal Council, Pivotal, the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre, the Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI) and all the Statutory Committees that were able to respond with their views. I will reflect on some of that evidence on the Finance Committee's behalf.

The Fiscal Council highlights the fact that the proposed multi-year Budget is significant. It is significant that a multi-year Budget has been proposed in the first place, but it starts from an exceptionally challenging position. The Fiscal Council notes that Northern Ireland overspent in 2022-23 and only avoided overspends in 2023-24 and 2024-25 due to exceptional Treasury interventions. The Fiscal Council warned strongly about the danger of normalising overspending, with repeated Treasury interventions acting as short-term measures that weaken discipline. It noted a cultural shift. Historic overspends, once considered unacceptable, are now more tolerated. Where Departments expect end-year bailouts, overspending becomes a rational expectation.

The council confirms that the draft Budget theoretically balances at year start, but it is unlikely to unfold as presented. The repayment of the reserve claim over the next three financial years makes the underlying funding tighter than the headline numbers. Baselines for Health and Education start below their current spending levels, making re-emerging overspends highly likely.

On the level of need, the council acknowledged that the 124% needs-based uplift is based on demographics and structural characteristics today, not historical legacy. Factors such as regional inequality, long-term ill health, legacy issues — that is, legacy from the conflict — and complex ageing profiles in Northern Ireland may mean that the true level of need now exceeds 124%. Indeed, since we took evidence on that, we have had updated demographic data around how fast our population is ageing relative to neighbours here. The council states that the Barnett formula is poor at addressing infrastructure deficits or accumulated social need and that non-Barnett injections may be needed for resource and capital.

Members are engaged with the work around the fiscal framework following Professor Gerry Holtham's report. The Committee supports the Minister's ongoing engagement around Northern Ireland's level of need with the Treasury. Hopefully, we will have an update on that today from the Minister and a briefing from the Department over the next few weeks.

The council emphasised that, while the Executive clearly need to make hard choices, only the Treasury can fundamentally change the model of funding. It believes that a credible Treasury strategy could set the right path and limit future interventions in order to reintroduce real Budget discipline. The Executive will still need to make real strategic choices, consider revenue raising, address workforce issues and look at genuine transformation of public services.

With specific reference to the Department of Finance's Budget position, the Committee noted that the Department will carry significant capital pressures that it intends to manage down through a range of measures. The Committee will continue to keep those pressures and other pressures identified by the Department under observation.

Through its membership of the Interparliamentary Finance Committee Forum, the Committee continues to engage with the UK Treasury to provide greater scrutiny of its actions, which have a direct and significant impact on the UK fiscal context, not least the Budget for Northern Ireland. For example, the Committee has made a number of representations to the Treasury regarding changes to the local growth fund and will continue to make representations on other budgetary matters. Notwithstanding some other comments that have been made, our Committee has been very robust and repeated in its engagement with the UK Treasury, whether it is seeking information or presenting agreed cross-party views from the Committee to the Treasury. We have not always had adequate or helpful responses, but we have been consistently robust in engaging with the Treasury.

The Committee is working with our Scottish and Welsh colleagues to ensure that our Budget settlements are reflective of our respective needs and are more adaptive and flexible. The current arrangements do not incentivise the Executive to focus on growing the economy or the tax base here, as current arrangements with the Treasury would see us losing growth in our fiscal base to the block grant.

As per the custom in previous years, the Committee agreed to ask other Statutory Committees in the Assembly to review the anticipated impacts of the 2026-29/2030 draft Budget proposals on their respective Departments. The Chairs of those Committees will have an opportunity to comment, but I will note the common themes from the Statutory Committees, including highlighted concerns over the lack of Executive agreement on a multi-year Budget. Without Executive agreement, the Committees found it difficult to provide full scrutiny of the draft Budget. In many cases, it was because their Ministers and Departments have not agreed on the Budget. Therefore, they are not engaging with it as a true final Budget.

Some Committees were unable to take a formal position because, as I said, Departments had not completed their budget assessments. Many Departments face resource and capital shortfalls, with limited discretionary spending, and most budgets are tied up in statutory duties and fixed costs. Several Committees warned that Departments will be forced to consider cuts to programmes and front-line services. Departments warned that the draft Budget threatens their ability to meet their statutory duties and Programme for Government commitments and to maintain essential services for vulnerable populations. Statutory Committees indicated their understanding of the constrained fiscal context in which we find ourselves. They acknowledged that there is considerable pressure on the public purse and that difficult decisions will need to be made.

We look forward to hearing Members' comments and the Minister's response. Once again, we are grateful that he agreed to respond to the debate. We hope that the debate will be useful at least in flushing out some of the issues in the Assembly. I will close my comments as Chairperson of the Committee for Finance there, having welcomed the fact that we are able to have the debate.

I will make a few remarks in a party capacity. It is, I am afraid, deeply disappointing and, frankly, somewhat farcical that we are debating a report on a draft Budget that has not yet been signed off by the Executive. That is an indictment of the Executive and their failure to take responsibility for the public who elected them and all who sent them here to improve their lives and public services.

We are now six weeks into a new financial year, which means that, as of Wednesday this week, we will be six weeks, I think, into the Executive's being in breach of the law. That should be a grave matter for any Government: all Governments should operate according to both the letter and spirit of the law. The Northern Ireland Act is quite clear that a Budget must be passed before the beginning of the financial year. There is no Budget at all at the moment. We are in the surreal situation where we have a draft Budget. Its status is kind of unknown: it is sort of in the ether, and we are debating it as a draft. When it was published in January this year, the Minister said that it would be transformative. Now, apparently, he himself has disowned it. Certainly, other Ministers appear to have no interest whatsoever in taking responsibility for agreeing a Budget.

We are less than a year from the dissolution of the Assembly at the end of the mandate; a mandate that began with the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the then Finance Minister talking about the need and, indeed, the urgency of passing a multi-year Budget and the opportunity to do so. Next month, we will be a year on from the spending review that was published in London. Again, we were told that we would soon get a multi-year Budget. There was in exercise in which Departments were encouraged to draw up five-year business plans, four-year capital budgets and three-year resource budgets. We were to move to a brave new world, yet here we are: six weeks into the new financial year, there is no sign of a Budget being agreed. It is a genuinely farcical situation.

Of course, it is an extremely tight settlement, and, of course, this chaotic UK Government are not prioritising Northern Ireland. I do not think that anybody in the Chamber could think that they were, although it was somewhat surreal to hear DUP Members "rejoice" at the idea of a Reform Government, which, I would say, would care even less about this place. However, when the Opposition and I question the Executive's failure to set a Budget, we are told that we are simply speaking up for the Brits, as it were. That is a shocking and pathetic indictment of an Executive who cannot and will not take responsibility for themselves. It is clear that the UK Government are not prioritising this place, but that cynicism and their indifference is made worse by Executive ineptitude. Those two things go hand in hand.

The Treasury is deeply cynical about this place. I know that better than most, not least because of my chairpersonship of the Finance Committee. The Government and Treasury are not prioritising us. We are not at the top of their list, not only for funding but for attention. Whatever the colour of the Government in charge in London, yet and all, the Executive, rather than take responsibility for us, seek to constantly shift responsibility on to that UK Government, who, they say, do not care about this place. In doing so, they fail the public. As Chair of the Finance Committee and leader of the Opposition, I certainly support the Executive's getting the best possible financial settlement for this place. That is critical. Clearly, we are in the situation where we have a higher level of need, for all the reasons that I have outlined and that we all know, including the legacy of conflict, our rurality and our ageing population.

Given the cynicism that exists in London, which is real and pernicious, the problem will ultimately be solved only when there is a new constitutional dispensation, but it is made worse when the Executive refuse to take responsibility .The two main parties shift the blame to each other and then simply say, "We cannot do anything until the UK Government step in". We have a farcical and chaotic situation in which, in the final year of what was supposed to be a new start in our transformation of public services, we have no idea at all whether there will even be a Budget.

I also ask the Minister whether he will share with the Finance Committee and the House letters that were sent by his Department's permanent secretary to all Departments but were, unacceptably, withheld from the Finance Committee. I do not know why they were withheld, but I would like to know whether he was responsible for not sharing that information with us. We should know what the situation is. Permanent secretaries are getting letters from his Department stating, "There is no Budget, so go on spending for the time being, and, fingers crossed, one will be agreed by the summer". If a Budget is not agreed by the summer, the public should know who is responsible for that: the Executive. They have not taken their responsibilities seriously, all the while awarding themselves a pay rise while they get into their chauffeur-driven cars and shifting blame to other people. That is not good enough and is not acceptable. I hope that, eventually, we will be in the Chamber to debate an agreed Budget.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Committee for Finance and Fiscal Council reports on the draft Budget reiterate the challenging position of our public finances and how the current financial settlement with the Treasury does not meet our needs. Decades of underfunding by the British Government have, in recent years, been exacerbated by austerity measures by successive Tory Governments and now the Labour Government. Over 90% of our public finances comes from the block grant, so it is no surprise that, in its evidence to the Committee, the Nevin Economic Research Institute said that local revenue raising cannot fix the funding gap and that the deficit is a result of policy decisions made by politicians in London who are not elected by the people here. NERI also highlighted the fact that, as a region, we are living with the consequences of Budget choices that are beyond our control. Those choices include spending money on militarisation rather than front-line services, leaving us with less money to spend on our hospitals, schools and roads.

As a local Assembly, we have, in recent years, managed to alleviate some of the harms caused by the British Government that worsened existing poverty levels. For example, we introduced welfare mitigation measures. As the reports make clear, however, the finance available to us locally means that we simply cannot mitigate many of the negative spending decisions taken in London. That has been reinforced in recent months by the inflexibility shown by the Treasury on the structure of the local growth fund. Despite strong and repeated representations from locally elected representatives and from the community and voluntary sector about the need for change and the harm that the new model would do to that sector, the Treasury would not move. That funding is, of course, supposed to be the replacement for what was lost by the community and voluntary sector from the EU following Brexit, and it already falls short of what the sector received then. That is another example of this region having to deal with the impact of a decision that was not voted for by the people who live here.

NERI and the Fiscal Council also point to the current needs assessment of 124% as not taking into account our structural needs or our historical legacy. I therefore commend the current Finance Minister and his predecessor for their efforts to make the case for a new fiscal framework. To date, that has resulted in an additional £1·3 billion for our public services. All Departments have expressed the view that the draft Budget does not meet their financial requirements, and that is reflected in both reports; indeed, the Fiscal Council has stated that we are at high risk of an overspend. That is why it is crucial that we all support the efforts of the Finance Minister and the wider Executive in their request for additional funding to enable a multi-year Budget to be achieved and for a fiscal framework that goes beyond mere per head comparisons of public spending, which NERI has referred to as being a "blunt instrument".

Last week's election results in Scotland and Wales have further shown that the current constitutional framework is cracking at the seams, as people realise that those in London govern in the financial and economic interests of a chosen few in England. Ultimately, until we have constitutional change, our public services will continue to suffer as we try to mitigate decisions made in Westminster.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion as the Chairperson of the Committee for Justice. For some time, the Committee has been supportive of calls for a multi-year Budget. We have heard from organisations across the justice sector that believe that a multi-year Budget will help with long-term planning. It will not, however, take away from the fact that significant budgetary pressures will still exist. The recurring theme in all our budgetary briefings has been the historical underfunding of the Department, which is seeing pressures build across the justice system.

The Department's budget is mainly demand-led, and the majority of its resource allocation is taken up by funding the PSNI and prisons, by spending on courts and tribunals and by legal aid expenditure. As Members will know, demand across all those areas is ever increasing. Therefore, while a multi-year Budget is to be welcomed, it needs to be adequate to meet ongoing and increasing needs. Failure to ensure that will result in further delays, further pressures and, inevitably, further problems in years to come. Such things have real-life impacts and consequences for our citizens.

Some aspects of the draft Budget proposals are welcome, including the earmarked funding for the PSNI workforce recovery plan across the three years and the allocation of £119 million that the Executive have agreed to provide for the PSNI data breach settlement in 2026-27. Leaving those and other ring-fenced funding aside, the Department has advised that the indicative Budget allocations equate to year-on-year increases of 2·9%, 4% and 1·9% against the 2025-26 opening Budget baseline. Any increase is welcome, but that falls well short of what is required. The Minister has indicated that the indicative allocations would leave the Department facing pressures of £101 million in the first year, rising to £215 million by 2028-29. By the end of the multi-year period, the shortfall will equate to the annual budgets of the Prison Service, the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency and Forensic Science Northern Ireland combined.

The Minister has advised that it is difficult to see how the Department will manage to live within its resource budget. She has also advised of an annual shortfall in capital funding of £150 million that, she advises, will severely restrict plans to transform, modernise and reduce operating costs across the justice estate. The Committee has heard that not all inescapable bids have been met and priority will have to be given to contractually committed expenditure. The Department may need to pause or stop a number of important, high-profile projects, such as new prisoner accommodation, redevelopment of the courts estate or the proposed new PSNI training college.

The Department paints a difficult picture, but the comments received from non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are no more positive. While welcoming the certainty that a multi-year Budget will bring, each highlighted significant concerns for their organisation, with some indicating that it may be difficult to fulfil statutory obligations or meet their Programme for Government commitments. The chief inspector of Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) went as far as to suggest that an insufficient budget allocation could be seen as fettering that office's independence, which is clearly a serious matter for us all. Regrettably, there is no time today to highlight other bodies' concerns that were expressed in Committee, but they have been set out in our submission to the Committee for Finance.

The Minister has pointed out to the Committee that the possible consequences of the draft Budget could be catastrophic and risk setting back the transformative work that has been undertaken over the past 10 years. The Committee recognises that that is a challenging position for the Department and shares the concerns about the impact that the proposed Budget may have on organisations across the system and their ability to deliver statutory functions, as well as on access to justice and public confidence in the justice system. We will continue to monitor the Department's prioritisation and financial planning to ensure that key priorities are funded to deliver effective outcomes across the justice sector.

Speaking as a DUP MLA, I think it is fair to say that we are tremendously worried and concerned about the fact that we do not have a Budget in place that is agreed across the Executive. I fear for the fundamentals of governance if we cannot get to a position that is agreed by all Ministers and one where all Ministers are sufficiently satisfied with their lot.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Like others, I welcome the opportunity to reflect on the Finance Committee's report on the draft Budget, although it is incredibly disappointing, as others have reflected, that we do so in the absence of agreement on a Budget more than a month into the new financial year. That delay is creating uncertainty and operational risk across all Departments and all public services as well as for our constituents, who rely on those services. It is not as simple as saying that the Budget should just be agreed as it stands; we must be clear that that would mean cuts to public services of upwards of £700 million in the first year. I do not think that any of us in the Chamber would wish to advocate or stand over such an untenable and unsustainable position.

The current proposals create serious difficulty for every Department in meeting statutory requirements, but the most extreme example is the situation facing the Department of Justice. As the Chair of the Committee has just reflected, at the end of the three-year Budget cycle, the shortfall facing the Department would be over £210 million, which is equivalent to the budgets of the Prison Service, the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency and Forensic Science combined. That is not a workable or credible proposal. No amount of prioritisation or transformation in a Department would lead to that scale of savings. Since the devolution of policing and justice, the Department's budget has been squeezed from 11% of the block grant to just 8%. Significant reform and transformation has happened in that time, but there comes a point where you are no longer trimming fat and all that is left is muscle and bone in the system. We have reached that point. I acknowledge that significant progress was made in the previous Budget — we were able to start recruitment to the PSNI again, and money was made available for the data breach — but all of that good work would be undone in one fell swoop by the proposals on the table.

There has been a lot of debate in recent weeks about whether blame for the current crisis rests with Stormont or Westminster: the truth is that it rests with both. Decades of stop-start government, which has deprived the Executive of key opportunities to transform public services, combined with over 14 years of austerity, have left the Executive in that position. We are often told that there is an issue of credibility when it comes to the Executive's relationship with Treasury, but let us be clear: credibility cuts both ways. A bit like Pavlov's dog, politicians here have been conditioned to believe that they have to elevate financial or political issues to a crisis in order to get engagement and response from Treasury, which will get its cash book out to patch things up temporarily. That is what happened in 2023, when there was a short-term cash injection. However, the funding formula that was set out at Hillsborough Castle failed to deliver the long-term baseline funding and the fair settlement that public services and the people whom we represent deserve.

We also fall into the trap of thinking that the only way out of the crisis is through revenue-raising. I have been open about thinking that progressive revenue-raising that ensures that the wealthiest in our society pay their fair share is a good thing. However, the idea that people in Northern Ireland, who deal with lower median wages and huge challenges with poverty, including fuel poverty, and inequality, should plug gaps created by Treasury is nonsense. The Treasury's open-book exercise, which was published in recent weeks, was an insult to the people of Northern Ireland. It was complete rubbish. It was cack-handed and inaccurate and did nothing to engage seriously with the structural issues facing our society and economy. It is not credible to say that public-sector workers should bear the brunt of the crisis. If we removed pay parity, which was one of the Government's proposals, we would see an exodus of public-sector workers over the border to work in the Republic of Ireland.

We need to see stabilisation funding, with a view to longer-term funding, from Treasury. The Executive need to take responsibility for issues such as the transformation of public services. It is regrettable that, last week, the DUP and Sinn Féin voted against amendments that would have brought greater transparency and accountability to our politics to ensure that they are delivering. We need to move away from the cycle of patch-ups and towards a credible Budget, a fair funding settlement, real transformation and, importantly, political structures that will support that change.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly take its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Robbie Butler.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

1. Mr McMurray asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on reviewing and updating the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. (AQO 3511/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As an Executive, we are committed to delivering what matters most to communities, including tackling racial inequality, eradicating racism and promoting good race relations. As part of that, a comprehensive review of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 has been completed, alongside a public consultation. The resulting policy proposals, which are substantial and, in some cases, complex, are under consideration. In parallel, a 12-week public consultation on a draft framework for race relations and associated delivery plan commenced in March of this year. All of that work reinforces our commitment to building a better future where everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, can thrive and contribute meaningfully with a genuine sense of belonging.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Have all of the Ministers in the Executive Office now agreed on what form that update will take?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. Yes, that has been circulated to all Ministers, who have scrutinised it. It is complex, and there are a significant number of technical amendments to it. The idea behind it was to make sure that we were not going to continue to fall behind some of the legislative changes elsewhere across the United Kingdom. That has been examined in detail. Some of them, as I have said, are very technical, and we are working through those at the moment. There has been, as the Member will be aware, a very firm commitment to doing everything that we can to support eliminating racism and to support people, no matter what background they are from and what they are. This is only one part of a number of different initiatives that we have been driving forward from the Executive Office.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Deputy First Minister, we have witnessed racism and sectarian attacks, whether they have been in Derry, north Belfast, Larne or Ballymena. Can you, as deputy First Minister, ensure that a refreshed approach to race relations will be effective in building a society free from racism, sectarianism and, indeed, xenophobia?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you. It is really important that this House stands together and sends that clear message against all of those things. We know that racism, sectarianism and that type of prejudice blight lives and ruin communities. There are social cohesion issues. Communities need support, and we must be there to support them in trying to make sure that everyone in that community can have that brighter future.

There are significant opportunities with the drafting of the revised Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) good relations strategy — T:BUC 2. We are looking at that, not only to extend it across the traditional communities here in Northern Ireland but to ensure that it is in the mainstream and that good race relations are embedded in the strategy and delivery framework.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

On the topic of race relations and, indeed, the concentration of immigration, can the deputy First Minister update the House on her recent engagement with communities in Ballymena that were affected by last year's summer disorder and advise what practical support TEO is considering?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his important question. We saw significant disruption last summer in his constituency, in the Ballymena area. It is incredibly important that we get out and speak to people who live and work in those communities about their issues and concerns. I believe that people are sick, sick, sick of not being listened to by their elected representatives, not just in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom. It is important that all of us get out.

I thank the Member for bringing me out on the ground in Ballymena, speaking to organisations, including women's groups and community organisations, and young people, and listening to the issues that really matter to them. We need to wake up and listen to the fact that people have genuine concerns about social cohesion. People are absolutely sick, not only of not being listened to but of being called racist or being dismissed when they are articulating genuinely held concerns. We need to listen to people and step up to that challenge, and, working with my colleague, I am determined to do so.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

2. Mr Baker asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to provide a timeline for the launch of public recruitment competitions for the Strategic Investment Board (SIB). (AQO 3512/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The review of SIB recognised the value of the organisation for the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the wider public sector. However, it also suggested that there is a need to consider its ongoing strategic role and made recommendations in that respect. We are clear that SIB has a key role to play in providing strategic advice on capital investment, supporting delivery of major projects and developing innovative approaches to support Executive priorities. That must be the focus of its work, and it will be important that incoming board members are aligned to that strategic role. As such, we are considering proposals for a public appointment competition, which will take the findings of the review and the future strategic role of SIB into account.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Minister, how, then, do you justify the failure to appoint candidates deemed suitable to the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) board two years after a completed public competition in which they were told that they were successful?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As the Member will be aware, it is incredibly important that we get the right people when appointments are being made. With regard to the initial question, I was referencing the SIB appointments. The review highlighted a significant amount of valuable work that the Strategic Investment Board does. However, I do not need to tell anybody across the Chamber about the frustrations that we all have about delivery, particularly of key capital infrastructure, so things need to change. I believe that the Strategic Investment Board, with its statutory responsibilities to help us to drive forward and deliver, particularly on capital infrastructure, has a pivotal role to play. The discussion that I had with the First Minister on that issue was about making sure that we get the right people for the SIB board. That extends to the Victims and Survivors Service board: we need to get the right people in order to deliver whatever we task them with.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Minister, do you have updates on the publication of the investment strategy? There is a key role for the SIB board in setting its direction, and this would be the right time for that strategy to come forward.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The investment strategy is an important aspect of what we are trying to do, and I commend all who undoubtedly put a huge amount of work into the draft strategy. I want a strategy that sets out for the people whom we serve across Northern Ireland what we are going to do on the big issues. We have been constrained time and again because of the Budget, but we still have to set out clearly what we are going to do to tackle, for example, waste and water over the next five to 10 years. What are we going to do to ensure that, when the Executive agree to build roads, they can be built and not stopped in the courts? What are we going to do to ensure energy security across Northern Ireland? How are we going to support our farmers and our businesses? Those are key issues. It can be good to get strategies and all the detail out there, but I want an investment strategy that actually works, sets out what we are going to do and is connected in a real way to the funding that could be available.

We had developments recently with the prospect of a three-year Budget, the challenges that we are currently facing and, of course, the legal challenge in the courts to the A5 judgement. Those are critical to our capital investment plan, which is why we are actively reviewing that in light of what is happening.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

The SIB has responsibility for the delivery of major infrastructure projects. However, some, including the A5 and many other important road projects, are stalled due to climate change legislation. That is not helped by the head-in-the-sand approach from some if not all Executive parties around its negative impact. What can be done to unlock that?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

A lot can be done. My party, the DUP, has ambitious plans for transformation and reform. People out there are deeply frustrated by what they see as a lack of delivery, and that is not because of the structures but because of the processes that we have in each and every Department.

I have the privilege of working with two Ministers from my party, in Education and Communities, who are driving forward an ambitious agenda in those Departments. You are absolutely right: we have a series of key roads infrastructure projects that are currently suspended and awaiting the outcome of a legal case. I have said to the Infrastructure Minister and every member of the Executive, "Instead of putting our future in the hands of a court decision, let us get on and make the amendments to the climate change legislation to unlock that critical road infrastructure for the people of Northern Ireland". Indeed, safety cannot and should not wait for the judgement of a court when people in the Chamber can do something about it.

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

Deputy First Minister, you are very keen to talk up your desire to sell Northern Ireland, and, from your social media, one would believe that you are the only Minister who tries to sell the place. That seems to be your self-definition. However, you have just said that you and the First Minister clearly cannot agree on appointing members to the SIB. You cannot agree the publication of an investment strategy. You cannot even agree on the publication of a three-year Budget.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Is there a question, Mr O'Toole, or just a speech?

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

What does it say to potential investors in this place when the shambolic Executive that you lead cannot agree any of those things?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That is not the case at all. Let us take a look at the record of agreement. We have agreed a Programme for Government and nine key priorities: everything from tackling health waiting lists to affordable childcare for families to growing our economy. Yes, there will always be some things that we do not agree on. However, as highlighted, we are discussing, for example, the SIB appointments to make sure that they are fit for purpose. That is why I am in this role. I am not here simply to rubber-stamp things that come through my desk but to scrutinise them and make sure that what we do matches the outcome that we want to see. I want to see delivery. I want to see progress, not process. I want to see each and every Department delivering against what we have agreed in that Programme for Government.

In the next couple of weeks, we will release our Programme for Government report, which will highlight a wide range of progress against a number of targets. However, we must do more. That means a willingness and real focus from each and every member of the Executive.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

3. Mr Beattie asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline progress on the reform and transformation of public services through the delivery unit. (AQO 3513/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Transforming public services is an Executive priority, which is why, in March 2025, £129 million was allocated to six significant transformation projects to tackle some of the highest-profile challenges facing our public services, including in Health, Education, Justice and Infrastructure.

The delivery unit is supporting implementation of these projects by driving and monitoring progress, with an emphasis on translating investment into service improvement, and we are seeing the difference. Over 900,000 citizens now have access to at least one multidisciplinary role in their GP practice, an increase of almost 20% since March 2025. Over 4,000 criminal justice cases have been diverted, freeing up significant policing hours. The unit regularly reports to us and the transformation board, ensuring transparency on delivery, performance, benefits realisation and emerging risks. Later this month, we intend to publish an annual report on the transformation fund that will set out the progress that has been made to date.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her answer. In many ways, she has answered my supplementary question, which was about the specifics and how we measure those outcomes. Minister, given the finite amount of money that is being used for this delivery unit over a five-year period, are there any plans to increase that funding?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Absolutely, in an ideal world, we would increase funding. However, this is the challenge that we have always faced and will continue to face. Bringing about transformation requires investment. However, keeping front-line services going requires funding. At a time when we are fiscally constrained, it is exceptionally difficult to do that.

I welcome the engagement from the Health Minister. Looking at what has come through from the Department and delivery unit about progress on health waiting lists, I can see that it demonstrates that where you ring-fence funding — the funding for health waiting list transformation was ring-fenced in the previous Budget — you will see real and tangible benefits for people.

We have to do both together. I will always fight and argue for more funding for transformation, because that is the only way to reach sustainability. However, I am also very conscious that increasing that pot will require additional help and support from the Treasury. We are working on that, but I am not entirely optimistic that we will get significant amounts above and beyond what we need to keep our public services going in the next 12 months.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

What value does the delivery unit provide that could not be provided by Departments?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As I have already said, things take much too long, and people are deeply frustrated by a lack of delivery. At times, I am deeply frustrated by how long things take. We cannot continue to do things as we have been doing them. We have to have change. We have to place a focus on delivery. That is why, at an early stage, the First Minister and I had discussions about what we could do to create game changers in the system that, although small, would bring about transformation.

I often refer to the big issues as being like big ships that we need to turn in the harbour, but we know, from looking at experience elsewhere, that delivery units can be the tugboats that support the making of tangible difference on key issues. That is what we need. It is not just about sitting at the centre in the Executive Office but about working across Departments, breaking out of silos and bringing about the results that we want to see.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

Over the weekend, we saw significant election results in England, Scotland and Wales that show clearly that people are frustrated by government's lack of delivery. What can you do to ensure that we deliver fundamental reform and see transformation across the public sector?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is an exceptionally important issue. I commend the Member for all the work that she is doing on the Finance Committee to drive the agenda of transformation, efficiency and reform across our Civil Service and public sector. As I said, we cannot continue to do things as we have done them. We have to have fundamental change. People are fed up with our tinkering around the edges. They want something significant. They want game changers. They want us to wake up, cut through the processes and make progress on the things that will improve their lives. I have continuously pursued that mantra, as has the Member, and I know that our party, the DUP, will continue to push for that being done. In the Executive, it is critical that we work with the Finance Minister, the First Minister and the head of the Civil Service to drive the reform agenda across every Department and every aspect of our public service.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

4. Mr Kearney asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the reasons for the delay in notifying successful applicants to the central good relations fund. (AQO 3514/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The central good relations fund provides support to groups in the community and voluntary sector to deliver good relations projects where there is evidence of identified good relations need. Since 2016, we have provided over £30 million in funding to support more than 950 projects, impacting on 320,000 people. The community organisations that are supported by the fund work incredibly hard to address good relations issues here, and I thank them all for the work that they do.

Discussions on the wider budget position are ongoing. We hope to notify successful applicants to the fund as soon as possible.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an leasChéad-Aire as ucht a freagra.

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

Minister, I fully endorse what you said about the achievement of the fund in getting £30 million of investment into communities, benefiting 950 projects. Can you be more specific and give us a precise time frame within which we will know which projects' applications for 2026-27 have been successful?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As the Member is undoubtedly aware, his party colleague in the Department of Finance has produced a draft Budget but has acknowledged the difficulties with it and the significant gap in funding. That means that we have not secured a Budget for this year, which makes it difficult for any Departments to give onward confirmation to organisations. Just last week, we met the permanent secretary of the Executive Office. We engaged with her and other officials to ask what can be done in this period of comparative uncertainty to give at least some certainty and to get some funding out in the interim. We will continue to work on doing that.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

The central good relations fund has not been confirmed because the Executive do not have an agreed Budget. I am conscious that the Executive are engaging with the UK Government on next steps. What is the deputy First Minister's message to the Prime Minister to ensure that we achieve agreement and get a Budget that delivers for the people of Northern Ireland?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question, which is, of course, important but also timely. There is no doubt that, following the elections just last week, we have seen growing frustration with the Prime Minister across Great Britain. We have raised that issue with the Prime Minister since he came into office two years ago. The reality is that, without economic growth, there are limited opportunities to invest in public services, and people are seeing that. We need economic growth across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. That means that we must have a Government who put in place the right foundations, policies and Budgets for economic growth. That is what I want to see.

Through the elections in Great Britain, the people of the United Kingdom have sent the message to the Prime Minister that they are sick of Starmer's stagnation on economic growth and the economy. We need significant change, not just another reset or more tinkering around the edges. We need a fundamental change in the Government in order to unlock economic growth across the entire United Kingdom.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Many organisations that deliver work under the central good relations fund need to heat and light their offices to deliver services in the community. Will the fund recognise and reflect the constraint in budgets and the fact that many such charges are rising through the roof?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you. As the Member will be aware from his time on the Committee, the central good relations fund is an in-year fund that is designed to support flexibility for organisations to identify particular needs and to apply for funding for an in-year project. It is not core funding. I acknowledge, however, that organisations' core funding has also been squeezed. There is no doubt that everyone feels that squeeze through staff wage increases, energy cost increases, food inflation and lots of other issues. I hear from organisations on the ground that the need that is presented to them has increased. I thank them for the incredible work that they do in very difficult circumstances.

Unfortunately, due to the Budget situation, I cannot give a commitment that we will be able to increase that fund. We are certainly looking at ways to drive efficiency across all our funding schemes, particularly in the administration of all our funds, in order to maximise the amount of money that we can give out to those on the front line.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

5. Mr Brooks asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in light of the First Minister's comments on the defence growth deal, to outline any action being taken to promote and encourage opportunities to grow Northern Ireland's aerospace, defence and security sector. (AQO 3515/22-27)

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

6. Mr Brett asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the economic impact of the defence growth deal on the Northern Ireland economy. (AQO 3516/22-27)

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

8. Mr Harvey asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister how their Department will ensure that benefits from the defence growth deal are realised across the full defence industry supply chain throughout Northern Ireland. (AQO 3518/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 5, 6 and 8 together.

The £50 million defence growth deal has the potential to deliver a wide range of economic benefits. I was pleased to join the Defence Minister, Luke Pollard, and the NIO Minister, Matthew Patrick, at the defence growth deal's launch on 22 April and to see at first hand the breadth and depth of opportunities that it presents for local companies. The deal places a strong emphasis on capability-building, innovation and skills pipelines to further enhance what we have to offer. It includes a targeted programme to help start-ups and small to medium-sized enterprises enter the supply chain, ensuring that they can avail themselves of the many available opportunities.

We are globally recognised for our commitment to developing world-class, innovative technology for the aerospace, defence, security and space sector. The deal will help to ensure that we can reach our full potential.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her answer. We have an Economy Minister who is AWOL at best and a First Minister who talks down investment in this place. I can only imagine that the aerospace and defence sector, which is an anchor of employment in my constituency, is dismayed. Does the deputy First Minister agree that we need to speak up for and promote Northern Ireland and our economy across Government, particularly in the Executive Office?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As I outlined in a previous answer, economic growth is incredibly important. It is what brings in the taxes that enable any Government to invest in their public services, creates the jobs for young people who are coming through and creates the robustness in our economy that keeps young people here rather than having to go away. The aerospace, defence, security and space sector has a critical role to play in that. I am proud of that sector. It has depth, innovation and excellence. I have worked very closely with ADS Group in Northern Ireland, which is seeing more and more companies come forward that are included in those supply chains.

Of course, those companies play a pivotal role in global security. The reality is that there are existential threats to many countries on the eastern front of the European Union. There is concern and a growing defence budget because countries want to protect their citizens. With the greatest respect, countries cannot protect their citizens with best wishes and breadsticks; they have to protect their citizens through strong defence. Global conflicts have an impact here given the cybersecurity attacks and disruption around undersea cables. It is not only a necessity but we have a duty to stand up and support our businesses that are prepared to provide security, support and defence for all citizens across these islands.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

First, I pay tribute to you, deputy First Minister, for engaging with the Ministry of Defence. Despite the population here representing only 3% of the UK's population, Northern Ireland has, through your work, secured 25% of UK-wide funding on this important aspect. Since becoming joint head of Government here, deputy First Minister, you have taken every opportunity to turn up, stand up and speak up for Northern Ireland.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Is there a question, Mr Brett?

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Will you commit to continuing in that vein and delivering for everyone in Northern Ireland?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Absolutely. That sector employs thousands of people and brings a huge amount of funding to Northern Ireland. It is full of innovation, skill and depth, and I am deeply proud of it. The sector defends the lives of people in Ukraine and beyond, and it brings security to a very unstable world. I will always turn up, stand up and speak up for all our sectors, including our aerospace, defence, security and space sectors. I look forward to going to Farnborough air show in the summer to do that. I will meet potential investors and support and champion our businesses, because I am really proud of Northern Ireland, and I will always take the opportunity to champion our businesses, our sports and our sectors.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

Deputy First Minister, you will be aware of the Government's plan to make defence an engine for economic growth. With a Northern Ireland focus on cybersecurity, what more can the Executive do to leverage our status as a global cyberhub?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

You are absolutely right. Given the global instability and conflicts, spend on defence is increasing. It is increasing in NATO countries and, as I said, on the eastern front of the European Union. It is increasing in every country that is trying to protect against cyberattacks and to protect its citizens. There will be huge growth in the sector in the next while. We all hope for peace, but we must be realistic about the real threats to our citizens. Therefore, I believe that the Economy Minister must make it a key sector. It is a key growth sector in a challenging global investment context. We must support it, because that growth will bring real benefit for the people of Northern Ireland.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Does the deputy First Minister have any concerns about the increased focus on militarisation and defence funding at a time when the British Government's focus should be on supporting the Executive to deliver essential public services and support hard-pressed families, businesses, students and farmers?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

OK, Mr Sheehan. We need to get to the answer.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

You asked me whether I have concerns. I know who has concerns: the people of Ukraine when they see Russia roll tanks over their border and try to kill their citizens; the people of Ukraine when they see drones trying to kill them; the people of Poland; and the people of Latvia. Every single day, those countries feel the threat of conflict, once again, on their very doorstep. I know who is really worried: those who see the cyberattacks that are designed to bring people on to the streets in democracies and destabilise the very heart of what we are and what we try to do in democratic Parliaments. We should be concerned about that. Countries invest in defence because those threats are real. While his party may not stand up to defend Northern Ireland citizens who feel those threats — his citizens and that party's citizens — I will. We cannot defend our citizens and support those who are under real and genuine threat with just best wishes; we have to support actions that will bring real benefit and support and provide defence on the ground and in cyberspace.

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

7. Ms Hunter asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any research their Department has carried out on the issue of sibling violence in relation to ending violence against women and girls. (AQO 3517/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

With your permission, I will ask junior Minister Bunting to answer the question.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

The strategic framework to end violence against women and girls (EVAWG) is focused on preventing all forms of violence, abuse and harm against women and girls. We have not commissioned or undertaken research that focuses specifically on sibling violence.

However, as part of the second EVAWG delivery plan, we are working with partners and other Departments to identify gaps in the research and evidence to inform our research priorities going forward.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We must move to topical questions.

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

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they rejoice like Paul Frew at the rise of Reform because, as of last week, Nigel Farage — a charlatan who recorded an "Up the 'RA" video for a few bob; a man who said that he admired Vladimir Putin — is now the most likely winner of the next UK general election, or if they, like many people in Northern Ireland, think that he would be a disaster for this place and accept that many people, including those from unionist backgrounds, will seek a new Ireland should he become Prime Minister. (AQT 2311/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The reality is that they are democratic processes, and we will respect their outcome. I will work constructively with whomever the public democratically puts up, which is all about championing what is best for Northern Ireland. As I have said many times, I see my role as standing up and speaking up for Northern Ireland and all our sectors, our businesses and our sports; that is what I am here to do. I will work constructively on that in the future.

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

You talk about democratic choice, but do you accept that, were Nigel Farage to become Prime Minister — a large number of people here clearly do not want —

[Interruption.]

Members of your party may chunter about that. They never learn their lesson. A decade after flirting with right-wing English nationalism, here we are again. Do you accept that, if people here do not want to live in a country governed by Nigel Farage, it is their right to choose a new Ireland that is back in Europe?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

One thing I know for sure is who the SDLP flirted with: Starmer's Labour Party. Not only did you praise and highlight time and time again the fact that it is your sister party — it is not just a flirtation; it is a marriage — you crossed the floor of the House to sit with that party. It is, frankly, embarrassing that, before Prime Minister Starmer and his Government came into power, the SDLP said to everyone

[Interruption]

that it would have influence on the Labour Party and that it would be good for Northern Ireland. It has been a failure

[Interruption.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order. Can we hear the deputy First Minister? Can we have a little less noise?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If anybody should talk about flirtations with political parties, it should not be the Member. His relationship with the Labour Party has brought about precisely nothing for Northern Ireland. All he has been able to achieve is Starmer's stagnation of the economy, and, instead of standing in the Chamber and lambasting everyone else, perhaps he could go to the leader of his sister party at Westminster and ask for a bit more than a fundamental reset and actually start delivering for the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the entirety of the UK.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

T2. Mr McAleer asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they accept that independence referenda are now a democratic imperative in the context of the seismic results in Wales and Scotland. (AQT 2312/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I was pleased to see that there were clear pro-union majorities in Scotland and Wales. Of course, the First Minister and I have very different views on this. However, instead of listening to the spin, spin, spin, which is all about putting momentum behind destroying and pulling apart the United Kingdom, we should look at the facts. It is a fact that the SNP's seat numbers and popular support fell, and a strong pro-union majority voted in Scotland. It is a fact that a strong pro-union majority voted in Wales.

We have a First Minister in Scotland who wants to be the First Minister for Scotland; we have a First Minister coming into office in Wales who wants to be the First Minister of Wales; and we have a First Minister in Northern Ireland who wants to be First Minister for abolishing Northern Ireland. That is not something that the people of Northern Ireland genuinely deserve. I will be here, standing up for Northern Ireland. The future is bright for Northern Ireland. I am deeply proud of so many things that have happened in the past — our businesses, our economy, our achievements — and I know that Northern Ireland has a positive, strong and secure future within the Union of the United Kingdom.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her answer. If unionists are so confident in their not-so-United Kingdom, does the deputy First Minister support calls for the people here to decide our collective futures in a unity referendum, as set out in the Good Friday Agreement?

[Interruption.]

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will reiterate: a strong pro-Union majority voted in Scotland, and a strong pro-Union majority voted in Wales. There is a strong pro-Union majority across this United Kingdom. Unionism is the largest designation in this place, and Northern Ireland is led by a joint and co-equal First Minister who is also a strong and passionate unionist. Northern Ireland's future and the future of the Union of the United Kingdom is strong, and, every day, I will continue to fight for that strength and support across the United Kingdom. However, I will say this: the people whom we serve want us to get on with doing the business of government. They want us to get on with fixing our health service, improving education and growing our economy, not running off, at the first little chink, and trying to talk about the abolition of the very place that we are elected to serve and to try to make work.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

T3. Ms Nicholl asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that the deputy First Minister has talked at length today about progress, not process, and about championing businesses and getting on with it, why the artificial intelligence strategy — a subject that the Member has raised many times in the House, since we are imagining a completely different future — has sat with the Executive Office since December and when it will be published. (AQT 2313/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I recognise the importance of that agenda; indeed, it was my proposal to set up an Office of AI and Digital. When our Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser (CSTA) came into place, she was tasked with bringing forward that strategy. They are key and new initiatives by the Executive, contained in our Programme for Government. A detailed strategy has been brought forward, and that is under consideration. I am optimistic that we will be in a position to launch that publicly for consultation very shortly. I commend the CSTA for the huge amount of work that she has done. I recognise that a number of people have come on board and freely given their time to contribute to the draft strategy. That has been very valuable in this important area of work.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. I agree that the CSTA has done impressive work. What is the deputy First Minister's assessment of how that office is resourced and of whether it has enough people and resources, given that the South is on its second iteration of the strategy, Scotland is on its third and we still do not have ours published? Do we have enough resources going into the office?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is an area that requires significant investment and will do so in the years ahead. However, there is also an important balance to be achieved between having a stand-alone unit that will drive some of that progress and monitor the implementation and, on the other side, recognising the importance of AI being mainstreamed in Departments and agencies as business as usual. From speaking to and engaging with the CSTA, I think that her strong view is that it needs a dedicated resource to get it going and to continue to drive it forward, but, ultimately, success will be AI being mainstreamed in each Department and considered not as something exceptional sitting in a central unit but as something that is very much business as usual in every Department every day.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The fourth topical question has been withdrawn.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have a simple question for the deputy First Minister.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

T5. Miss Dolan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after noting that the Place-Name Project is vital in connecting us with our heritage and ensuring accurate translations for bilingual street signage and that the details and arguments of the debacle have been well heard and rehearsed and do not need to be heard again, whether they support the project and will ensure that it can continue its work with no more blockages. (AQT 2315/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As I understand it, discussions are ongoing on the issue with the Economy Minister, if I read the public statement correctly. I understand that it was originally funded by the Department of Finance, that funding came to an end and that it had been embedded within the Department for Communities. It is an issue for those Ministers to respond to.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As far as I am aware, the funding from the Finance Department to Communities came to an end a number of years ago. The Líofa bursary scheme, Arlene Foster's infamous "crocodile" comments, "Curry my yogurt", the GAA, the Place-Name Project: does the deputy First Minister accept that her party's issues with the Irish language and identity are less about process and funding and more about the deeply ingrained sectarian and anti-Irish mindset of political unionism?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is disappointing that we hear the attempt time and time again to stir up issues from the past to paint a particular picture. It is distraction and deflection from the fact that, for Ministers in the Member's party, there is a real struggle when it comes to delivery in some Departments. I will take the example of the A5, which sits with the Department for Infrastructure. I have put a solution to that issue to the Minister for Infrastructure: rather than waiting for her fate to be decided in the courts, we can take action to amend that legislation and provide certainty to allow those roads to go ahead. I say this to the Member: instead of coming into the Chamber to play politics, deflect and distract, I advise her to speak to her colleagues about getting on with delivery. The Education Minister and the Communities Minister from my party can do that, so the Member and her colleagues should talk about delivery instead of criticising other people.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

T6. Mr McReynolds asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given the disgraceful scenes on the streets of east Belfast over the past weekend, whether they share his condemnation of that antisocial behaviour and whether the Executive Office will respond to those disturbances by providing additional funding for youth services to support good relations. (AQT 2316/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That is a really serious issue. We do not want to see young people partaking in that type of activity on the streets of Belfast or elsewhere. Over recent years, we have seen it flare up from time to time, and I am conscious of videos of incidents in Bangor, for example. This time, it was in east Belfast. It is fuelled by a range of things. It looks as though it was fuelled partly by alcohol and I am not sure what else.

The key message is that such behaviour is not wanted on our streets. We have a number of really good community organisations working with young people, and there are really good results coming out of that. Through the funding streams in the Executive Office, we will do everything that we can to make sure that we have the right help and support in the right places; that, where we can, we are looking at diversionary activities; and that we are working to make sure that there is community resilience both in the general community and among our young people so that they do not get dragged into that type of behaviour. It is not acceptable; it is absolutely wrong; and it is not wanted by the communities in which it happens. Often, the problem is caused by people from outside those communities who come in. Just a few weekends ago, we saw it in Londonderry, when a small community in the Fountain was threatened. Such behaviour is not acceptable, and we should do everything that we can to support those communities.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you, deputy First Minister. As already mentioned today, community and voluntary groups are yet to receive their letters of offer of funding through central good relations funding or other programmes such as the minority ethnic development fund, both of which ensure that grassroots services can proceed without risk of closure. When will they receive those letters or at least a letter of comfort?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As I indicated earlier in Question Time, we have tasked the new permanent secretary of the Executive Office to work with the particular branches on all those funding schemes. I know that some other Departments have been able to give out letters of offer to give some form of comfort, even for an interim two-month period, and I have asked them to actively look at that to see what we can do to ensure that some of the schemes can go ahead. We know that the later some of the projects start, the less impactful some of the interventions could be. Therefore, I want to try to get that support out to them despite the ongoing difficult budgetary situation.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

T7. Mr Dunne asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the deputy First Minister agrees that it was depressing that, at the first opportunity following the elections in Great Britain, the First Minister was talking up the abolition of Northern Ireland and further asked how that aligns with the Programme for Government commitment to make Northern Ireland a success. (AQT 2317/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

What Northern Ireland really needs is a First Minister and deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland, not a First Minister for the abolition of Northern Ireland. We should be unashamedly proud of this place: I am. I will always turn up, stand up and speak up for Northern Ireland. I count it as a huge honour and responsibility to get the opportunity to do so. I want to see economic growth in Northern Ireland for absolutely everyone: unionist, nationalist and neither. That is the best way to stabilise this place and provide a better future for absolutely everyone, and that is what I am focused on doing.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Thank you for that, deputy First Minister. Despite significantly more votes for pro-Union parties than separatists in Scotland and Wales, nationalists are pretending that the Union is somehow under strain. Can the deputy First Minister confirm that, given the joint nature of the office, the First Minister will not be able to use the Executive Office to advance such an ideology?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As outlined, in the Executive Office, the First Minister and I have different views on this. However, I will mention a number of key things. First of all, as outlined, Northern Ireland is led by a coequal First Minister and deputy First Minister. I am a unionist, and Michelle is a republican. We are not led by a nationalist. Secondly, Scotland has been led by a nationalist SNP First Minister for 20 years. That party's vote and number of seats have gone down.

In Wales, what is absolutely clear is that, although there was a pro-Union majority out voting, split unionism cost those parties the First Minister position. The lesson for everyone in Northern Ireland is that split unionism costs seats and costs pro-Union parties the First Minister position. What happens then? The moment that someone gets the position of First Minister, they run off and try to build momentum that does not exist and to spin a reality that bears no relation to the facts.

I believe that the Union is strong. I believe in working together across the United Kingdom. Most of all, I believe in being deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland and in supporting everyone in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — Infrastructure

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

1. Mr Brooks asked the Minister for Infrastructure, in light of the additional investment announced in February 2026, for an update on her Department's progress in repairing road defects in East Belfast. (AQO 3526/22-27)

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

5. Mrs Mason asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on her work to build resilience into the road network. (AQO 3530/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle

[Translation: Mr Speaker]

, I will answer questions 1 and 5 together.

The damage that has been caused to our roads by prolonged bad weather at the beginning of the year is well documented. I subsequently established the winter recovery road fund specifically to address the damage in areas that were worst affected. The additional funding allowed the Department to deliver an enhanced package of structural maintenance work. That was predominantly made up of large-scale patching, extending existing resurfacing work and bringing forward work that would otherwise not have been completed in this financial year. Some of that work will have addressed existing recorded potholes and some will have repaired potholes that had not yet met the criteria but that undoubtedly would have become actionable in the coming months.

Crews have been out working hard to repair defects. The figures speak for themselves, with 10,000 repairs having been completed in eight weeks. Repairs have taken place right across the North. I am pleased to note that a portion of them were in my Department's eastern division, which covers the Member's East Belfast constituency. Officials have also undertaken works in that constituency, including large-scale patching on Bloomfield Parade, Mourne Street and Chamberlain Street. A significant resurfacing project was also carried out on the Ballygowan Road, which, along with the other repairs, has improved the quality of roads for the Member's constituents.

In addition to the funding and to enhance long-term improvements to the road network, Members will be aware that I am progressing the publication of the Department's new maintenance strategy, which will be supported by a full digital survey of all roads. The consultation on the strategy closed on 30 January. I am now working closely with officials to finalise the draft consultation report. Once it is published, my Department will be in a strong position to progress a modern, data-driven approach to road maintenance across the North.

Road network resilience also requires adapting to extreme weather events and reducing multiple risks, including flooding, erosion and slope failure. My Department is taking forward addressing those risks through the third climate change adaptation programme (NICCAP3) actions and the development of our first resilient road network plan. It is working with the Climate Change Committee (CCC) and academic partners to keep planning and investment evidence-based.

Building long-term resilience into the road network also depends on having in place the right people with the right skills, which is why workforce recruitment and development is a key part of my approach.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her answer. I am glad that some progress has been made. Members who drive through my constituency will know that there is still some way to go, however.

Minister, when the issue was raised amid the chaos of February 2026, you stood in the Chamber and assured Members that they could engage with their local offices if there were any issues. Since then, your Lisburn office in particular has refused to engage directly with Members or to provide updates. Will you assure the House that you will speak to your officials and undertake to ensure that the Lisburn office in particular engages with Members and provides updates as necessary?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As the Member has rightly said, I have talked in the Chamber about the importance of communication with local section offices. I will certainly take the Member's comments back and ensure that the matter is addressed.

It is also important to understand the severe resource pressures that there are across our workforce. As I have said, that is why we have a recruitment campaign under way. There has been quite significant interest expressed, so I hope that we will see good results from the recruitment process as we come out the other side. I recently met road workers at the Sprucefield depot to hear from them about the challenges that they face and about some of the depletion of the workforce in the past decade or so. That has had a real impact. I hope that we will see a marked improvement if we can get new people in post. We are moving through the recruitment process very quickly. As the Member will know, interviews took place at the end of April. We saw really good indications of the numbers that will potentially be recruited. I have been assured that they will make a real difference. I appreciate the Member's raising the issue.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Minister for her update. I will just state that our local offices are extremely helpful and engage with us regularly.

Minister, you mentioned the recent recruitment campaign. Can you give us an update on its progress to recruit industrial road workers?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said, Roads staffing across the North has seen significant issues for many years now. It is important to note that industrial road workers undertake a vital role in our operational services. The recruitment campaign that the Member mentioned further demonstrates my commitment to improving our network for the benefit of all road users.

As I said in the previous answer, interview open days were held in Ballymena on 27 and 28 April, with appointments likely to be in June, following successful completion of the pre-employment process. The new, innovative approach has been piloted in the Ballymena area and has both increased the number of candidates and shortened the recruitment process. There was a positive response to the campaign, with over 500 applications submitted when the campaign was advertised. Around 300 applicants were invited to interview over the course of two days. Once the scheme has been fully evaluated and its benefits documented, that approach may be used in similar recruitment campaigns in the future.

I talked to staff on the ground and heard about the impact of the number of vacancies across DFI Roads, and that really struck a chord with me. I recognise that it is something that we can deliver on. I have given the commitment to do that because the more that we can build our own departmental resilience, the more that we will see a marked improvement in our road network and the services that the public deserve and expect. We will also build up the morale in our teams, which have been significantly depleted for many years. I hope to bring further and more positive announcements on that in the coming months and that we will be better prepared going into the winter period.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Given the constrained budget context facing the Minister, the quality of repairs carried out by her Department must give constituents confidence that money is not being wasted. Recently, in Moira, the repairs carried out on footpaths to make them safe were so poor that they created a hazard. What is the Minister doing to claw back public money that has been wasted on shoddy workmanship?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member will know that that issue has been raised for some time. We have a process in place to try to inspect the quality of repairs. The Member will appreciate that it is not always possible to get to every repair, but we do take a portion of that.

The new strategy is key to delivering things in a more resilient and sustainable way so that we will not have those issues. In some cases, we have seen temporary repairs being done, whether to roads or footpaths, to make them safe until a proper, permanent repair can be done. We appreciate issues of poor repairs being reported and fed back so that we can rectify them, particularly if we need to engage with an external contractor to deal with that. I am not overly familiar with the work that the Member specified, but if there is anything further that I can do to feed back to DFI Roads, I am happy to do so.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

2. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline any further consideration she has given to a fixed crossing between Portaferry and Strangford village. (AQO 3527/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I recognise the view held by elected representatives and the public that a fixed crossing at Strangford could bring benefits of connectivity, support for local businesses, tourism and wider economic opportunities for the Ards peninsula, and I welcome continued engagement on matters of local and regional importance.

My Department’s transport plans are the primary mechanism through which future transport needs and investment priorities are identified. The connection between Strangford and Portaferry does not form part of the regional strategic transport network and would, instead, be considered in the eastern transport plan that covers Ards and North Down and the Newry, Mourne and Down local transport plan.

As the Member will know — we previously debated the issue in the Chamber — the Department examined, at a high level, the case for a fixed crossing at that location. Most notably, the 2013 strategic review of the Strangford lough ferry service considered alternatives to the ferry, including a bridge, and concluded that a fixed crossing could not be justified on value-for-money grounds when assessed against expected demand and the continued availability of the ferry service at that time. More recent, high-level estimates have suggested that the cost of a bridge could be in excess of £500 million.

Within the current strategic planning and funding framework, no immediate transport need for a fixed crossing at Strangford has been identified to date. It is also important to note that Strangford lough is subject to significant environmental protections. Any proposal for a major fixed crossing would therefore face additional technical and environmental challenges that would need to be carefully considered as part of any future assessment.

Officials continue to engage with the relevant councils and other stakeholders as the transport plans and associated local development plans progress, and they will consider all relevant evidence and representations within that strategic framework. My Department will continue to keep its position under review as those plans are developed and will work with everyone involved to see what the best outcome will be.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Ards and North Down Borough Council, along with Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, have passed DUP motions supporting a fixed crossing between Portaferry and Strangford, and even though Strangford is no longer in the constituency of the Sinn Féin MP for South Down, he has come out and endorsed the plans. The Minister has highlighted that it would improve connectivity and that it would be good for tourism and economic development. Given the Minister's party position on the issue along with ours, will she commit to commissioning a full economic appraisal of the proposal?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member may be aware that I have agreed to visit Strangford this week in an effort to look at the situation. I have been invited down by an elected rep. You will probably get notification of it closer to the time. I confirm my commitment to looking at the potential. I am happy to keep it under review. We will work with everybody involved to see what may be possible.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I can attest to the fact that Strangford is a lovely part of the world. Minister, as part of your consideration, will you look to review the sailings, specifically the early morning ones?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

That issue was raised with me recently, and I have asked my officials to look at it. As you will know, the ferry continues to provide a dedicated and reliable crossing service between Strangford and Portaferry. During the 2025-26 financial year, at least one ferry was available for 99·82% of all scheduled sailings. That shows its importance. I have asked for a light-touch survey to be carried out to assess the demand for additional sailings and to see whether we could put those in place. I await the outcome of that survey, which will inform my decisions on the next steps.

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

Minister, forgive me, but I am slightly confused about your position. Your answer seemed to indicate that it is not part of the Department's eastern transport plan, but you also seem to be saying, "but you never know". Can you be clear: do you support the commissioning of a feasibility study? That would be helpful for the record, because I am not totally clear on your position.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

To be clear, I have said that we have based our position on previous assessments, but we continue to keep it under review as more evidence and information come to light. As I said, both councils are in the process of developing their transport plans, which is the mechanism for any new proposals. We will work with Ards and North Down Borough Council and Newry, Mourne and Down District Council. Elected representatives across the board have raised the issue, so I know that there is an appetite for it. Therefore, it would be remiss of me to say that we are not looking at the issue. It is important that we look at it again and see what is possible. With regard to the provision of a definitive answer on the next steps, we need to get more information and then decide where we go next.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

3. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline the amount spent by her Department to reimburse members of the public for damage to their vehicles caused by potholes or poor quality roads in each of the past three years. (AQO 3528/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

There has been an upward trend in expenditure on road-related vehicle damage compensation since the 2020-21 financial year. In the 2023-24 financial year, expenditure on vehicle damage compensation for the North was just under £1 million. During 2024-25 and 2025-26, vehicle damage compensation was just over £1 million. By comparison, the five-year average annual expenditure since 2021-22 was around £810,000 per year. There are a number of reasons for the increase, including rising repair costs. However, the primary driver is the corresponding upward trend in the number of claims received by my Department.

As we have said previously, claims can increase due to external factors that are beyond our control, including the severity of weather conditions in recent years; increased traffic volumes; and greater public awareness of the right to submit a claim, as, for many years, people did not realise that they could. I acknowledge that, alongside that, historical underinvestment in the maintenance of the road network has contributed to deterioration in parts of the network across the North and had an impact.

To mitigate the immediate impact on our network of the poor winter and the years of underinvestment, I announced additional funding of more than £40 million, which has gone some way to making long-term improvements. As the Member will know, I am also progressing the publication of the Department's new maintenance strategy, supported by a full digital survey of all roads. That is a sustainable way to improve road condition over time, to minimise defects and to reduce the number of claims and the compensation expenditure, while improving safety for everyone who uses the network. It is important to say that we are doing all that with a very constrained budget, as an effort to do as much as we can with what we have.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Given the recurrent cost of around £1 million a year in reimbursement for damage to vehicles, we find ourselves in a really unsatisfactory position. In my constituency office, I find that there has been an increased volume of work. It is not just about the amounts being repaid to members of the public but the staff time required to deal with those complaints. The actual damage is getting worse. People have had issues with multiple wheels, their suspension and wheel realignment. There are towing and recovery costs, and some things have been refused. There is a lot of going backwards and forwards. The true cost of dealing with —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

A question, Ms Forsythe.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

— those claims is significantly more. Will the Minister undertake an assessment of the full cost of the claims that are made and the processes of dealing with them for her Department?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

You have clearly outlined the impact that this has across the service that we try to provide. That is why it is important that we do all that we can to ensure that people do not have to make a claim in the first place.

I have outlined clearly what I have done in recent months and what I intend to do as we develop and implement the new strategy. We are trying to recruit more staff, which will mean that people can get to the repairs more quickly and have a more responsive approach from the Department, and we are looking at how we can secure additional funding to make sure that we are not in this position next year and that we build that resilience for the future. That is my priority at the moment. However, I am happy to speak to officials to see whether we can encapsulate what that impact is, but, at this point, I want their focus to be on getting the work that we need to do done so that we reduce the number of claims in the future.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, what are your plans to improve the condition of the road network and minimise the number of road-related claims and the expenditure on compensation?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said in response to a previous question, we are finalising a draft strategy that aims to introduce a more modern, data-driven approach to maintaining the road network and ensure that our resources are used more effectively and efficiently. That is about raising maintenance standards by delivering higher-quality, longer-lasting repairs and targeting investment where it is most needed. I have said before about the impact of going out to fix one pothole but skipping others. Through additional funding in recent months, we have been able to ensure that, when we go out to a site, we do more than that to ensure that we do not have to come back.

The strategy also embeds environmental and financial sustainability, including reducing carbon impacts, strengthening resilience to climate change and developing long-term investment plans. Overall, it sets out a comprehensive vision to create a safer, more reliable and future-proofed road network that supports economic vitality, social connectivity and community well-being so that we all have access to good-quality, safer roads. That is my focus. I hope that, with the cumulation of the new strategy, the use of data and the digital survey, enhanced recruitment and staffing, and, if we can get it, enhanced investment, we will see a marked change.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Minister, how will you gauge success? Will it be about the actions around strategies or actual targets relating to reductions in compensation or potholes?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It will be when we start to see a real difference in the quality of the roads. As elected reps, we will hopefully see a very different outcome from what we have seen for a number of years — over a decade, I suppose. We have seen it year after year. The Department will use a number of metrics to see what the success is. When we developed the road maintenance strategy, a pilot was done in the Ards and North Down area. Certainly, the feedback that we got on that was very positive, because people saw the impact. Based on that, we are moving forward with this, and we can confidently say that, if we are able to implement it properly, it will make a real change. I am happy to provide further information on the detail on how that will be measured to the Member, but the measure of success will be if we are standing here and we see a real difference by this time next year. I hope to be, in that context, able to say that we have seen a change, particularly after a winter period. That in itself will be a testament to its success.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I declare an interest: my car has been in the garage for six weeks, having hit two potholes — two craters — in my constituency. I look forward to getting it back.

Minister, spending £1 million a year on compensation is bad enough, but we know that three quarters of compensation claims are not paid out. That means that our constituents are paying up to £3 million a year themselves, or else their insurance companies are, which means that their insurance premiums are going up. That is simply unacceptable. We already know that our roads are in a terrible state. Will you review the criteria to ensure that the people who are entitled to compensation through no fault of their own get it and are not made to jump through hoops in order to do so?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I appreciate that. We have had many discussions about that issue. The other side of that is that this is public money, and we have to ensure that we are following the correct processes, so that money is paid to those who are entitled to it. I am not suggesting that people who have made claims and have been turned down are not entitled to that. However, the Member will appreciate that we have a fine balance to strike in order to ensure that we are doing that correctly. If there are specific cases in which people have been turned down, having provided the evidence that they were asked for, I will be happy to ask the Department to review them. I am also happy to look at particular areas of the criteria that could be tweaked in order to avoid those circumstances. As I said in my previous answers, my focus is on ensuring that people do not have to make claims in the first place, and they should be used only as a last resort in cases where repairs have not been done in a timely manner.

We have had an uphill battle in relation to the condition of our roads. Staff have been working extremely hard with a limited budget, and we have tried to enhance that as best we can. There is no doubt that that has made a difference, but there is still a lot more work to do, and I am committed to ensuring that we do everything that we can to get that done.

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

Minister, you gave some detail as to the damages paid out per annum. Picking up on what Mr Stewart said, are you able to detail the percentage of those claims that have been rejected in that period, and whether there are specific geographic locations where the rejection rate is higher than it is in others?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member will appreciate that I do not have that information in front of me, because his question is quite specific. If he wishes to submit a question for written answer, we can get accurate figures. If there are any trends or patterns that relate to specific areas, we can look at them.

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

4. Ms Hunter asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on developments in relation to Kilrea Bridge. (AQO 3529/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I was pleased to note that Kilrea Bridge reopened to traffic on 18 February 2026, following the substantial repair works that were required. Whilst the main structural works to stabilise the wall have been completed, with width and weight restrictions lifted, a number of minor construction activities continue, including masonry repairs, masonry parapet construction, the repointing of the south-west wing wall, kerbing and resurfacing. During this period, a temporary barrier remains on the carriageway in order to protect the workforce and road users.

Any further traffic management measures that are required in order to undertake the works will be of short duration and will be carried out during off-peak hours to minimise any further disruption. In the interest of public and workforce safety, I continue to appeal to motorists to comply with the ongoing restrictions on the bridge until the works are complete.

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

Thank you, Minister. I have spoken to local traders who have told me that, after experiencing half a year of disruption, footfall has not returned to normal and journey times are still taking a little bit longer. What engagement have you had with local businesses in the Kilrea area, and what has your Department learned about communicating with local businesses ahead of and during roadworks that might have a direct impact on them?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We have seen lots of instances across the North where major works have been required and, undoubtedly, caused disruption. In recent months and since I came into post, I have been contacted by a number of representatives about not only Kilrea Bridge but some of the other major works across the North. I fully appreciate that communication is absolutely key, and where that has not met the expected standard, I will always take that back to ensure we can rectify that or learn from it.

Businesses have been impacted on, as have people's daily lives and commutes, so communication has been vital. If there is anything else to learn from that project, I will be happy to take that on board. We always have to be conscious of the impact on people. The other side of that is that the bridge repair was essential work. It is about trying to get the right balance between the work having to happen and managing the wider public's expectations, being conscious of the impact and how we best mitigate that in order to minimise disruption as far as possible.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

As you have indicated, Minister, the closure of the Bann bridge at Kilrea has had a serious impact on the businesses and residents of Kilrea. Whilst, as you have said, the closure was absolutely necessary for safety reasons, it has flagged up the very real need for a new bridge at Kilrea in order to meet transport needs in the area. Have you had any engagement with Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council on its work to include a new bridge in its development plan, and will you support that?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said, I fully recognise the significant impact of the bridge closure on residents, businesses and the wider Kilrea community. I understand why the council is seeking to look at longer-term solutions for the area. I absolutely welcome the council's engagement on the matter. As with the Strangford issue, there is a desire to reflect local needs and future transport considerations through the council's emerging local development plan. Any decision on new transport infrastructure must, of course, be considered through the appropriate strategic planning and prioritisation processes. In that context, any proposal brought forward through the council's local development plan should be consulted on in the normal way to ensure that it aligns with my Department's emerging strategic transport plans. As I said, Kilrea Bridge is now open. The main structural works have been completed, and the Department has no plans for a new bridge at present. However, we will continue to engage with the council on that and on its work on its local development plan to see what comes from that.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Minister, on the topic of bridges, it is great to get Kilrea open. However, the traffic flows down into mid Ulster and then cannot get across a bridge with a weight restriction outside Coagh. It has had a 7·5 ton weight restriction for 11 years. Will you provide an update on that, please? I appreciate that you may not have the detail in front of you. It is killing farming and heavy transport. All the traffic goes through Coagh because of the weight restriction. We have had no answer for 11 years. We need the bridge to be upgraded.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for raising the matter. I do not have the information in front of me, but I will respond in writing to give him an update. Hopefully, that will help to move things on.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Minister, can you clarify who, if we envisage a new bridge at Kilrea, will be responsible for building it? Will it be the council or the Department for Infrastructure? Your answer to the Member for North Antrim suggested that you are trying to pass the buck.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I was absolutely not trying to pass the buck. I outlined the processes that are required for any new transport proposals for council areas. That is the purpose of the local development plans: they feed into and align with our wider transport plans. If things are done in isolation and do not take into consideration the wider network and wider development in council areas, that can have a negative effect and be counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve across the board. I was saying that the proposal that is put forward through the development of the council's local development plan will help to inform where we go next on the issue.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

6. Mr Buckley asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline any engagement her Department has had with local councils in relation to the development of planning policies to manage the over-concentration of houses in multiple occupation. (AQO 3531/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

My Department has a statutory consultee and oversight role in respect of local development plan documents that are prepared by local councils. In that role, my Department engages with councils on local planning policies across a wide range of topics, including where plan documents incorporate specific policy for managing the impacts of houses in multiple occupation, or HMOs, as they are more commonly known.

Responsibility for preparing LDPs rests with individual councils, reflecting the intent of planning devolution in 2015 to place plan-making and decision-making with democratically elected local representatives. LDPs remain the most appropriate mechanism by which to manage the location, scale and concentration of HMO development through evidence-based local policy that responds to evidence of localised impacts. My officials have engaged with Belfast City Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council plans, which introduced specific policy measures to address HMO overconcentration. Those approaches were examined through independent examination, and both were found to be sound prior to adoption.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her answer. She will know that the overconcentration of houses in multiple occupation has greatly irritated not only my constituents but many constituents across Northern Ireland. Her Department is responsible for overseeing planning policy pertaining to HMOs in local councils. With only two of the 11 councils having bespoke policies to deal with overconcentration, does the Minister accept that its not being dealt with across the board is an issue, and is her Department providing enough information to ensure that councils are well equipped to deal with that major issue?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said, the responsibility for preparing LDPs rests with councils, reflecting the intent of planning reform and transfer to place plan-making and decision-making with the democratically elected representatives on those councils. We devolved planning to councils to allow those who probably have the best knowledge of their area to be part of that decision-making. Nothing in the Department's strategic planning policy statement, the regional planning policy or legislation prevents councils from bringing forward locally tailored HMO policies through LDPs, where evidence supports a policy response, as every council area will have different characteristics, different issues and different needs. It is important to note that not all councils have yet published planning strategy documents.

The two that I mentioned have done so.

As I said, not all councils have faced the same level of HMO development. Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, for example, has not identified it as a local planning issue. Instead, it will rely on general housing and amenity policies in the plan to manage impacts on residential character, environmental quality and amenity. I expect that, on some of the councils on which the Member has colleagues, such issues will be brought forward. They will then be considered as part of the work that councils are doing.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We will move on to topical questions.