Northern Ireland Assembly, 18 May 2026

430 contributions from 58 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

May is Stroke Awareness Month. It is an important reminder of the need to recognise the signs of stroke and act FAST. The FAST test helps people recognise the most common symptoms of a stroke: face — has one side dropped; arms — can both be lifted; speech — is it slurred or confused; time — is it time to seek urgent medical help? That urgency is exactly why a life-saving procedure such as a thrombectomy is so vital, yet, in the North, it is available only between 8.00 am and 5.00 pm.

Last Friday was World Thrombectomy Day, and it was also 500 days since the stroke action plan committed to delivering a 24-hour service by the end of 2024. In that time, hundreds of patients may have missed treatment that could have helped them walk, speak, swallow or live independently. One of my constituents suffered a stroke at just 39 years of age. Thankfully, she received a thrombectomy in time. Her family arrived at the hospital expecting the worst, only to find her sitting up and speaking. Hours earlier, she had been unable to communicate. That is the difference that a thrombectomy can make.

Every eligible patient deserves access to that treatment, regardless of when their stroke occurs. Tomorrow at 10.00 am, I will join stroke survivors, clinicians, campaigners and the Stroke Association outside to mark 500 days since the service should have been delivered. I encourage all Members to join us to send a clear message that we can no longer wait for a fully operational, 24/7 thrombectomy service.

Today also marks the beginning of Dementia Action Week, which is an important opportunity to recognise the growing impact that dementia has on thousands of families in the North. Nearly 25,000 people here are living with dementia, and that number is expected to rise by more than 50% by 2040. Behind those figures are mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sons, daughters, carers and loved ones, many of whom face daily emotional, physical and financial challenges.

New findings from the Alzheimer's Society show that many dementia patients here continue to face long delays to diagnosis, alongside major gaps in treatment and support. Dementia is the leading cause of death across these islands, but one in three people with dementia still do not have a diagnosis. That means missed opportunities for early intervention, treatment and support for patients and their families. Without decisive action, the human and financial cost of dementia will continue to rise. We urgently need a bold, new dementia strategy, one that is focused on early diagnosis, better support for carers, a properly trained workforce and long-term investment in services. This Dementia Action Week, the message must be clear: we cannot afford to wait any longer for action.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Gregory Campbell and I met representatives from Ulster University on Friday past regarding the proposed redundancies at the university. Following the meeting, we remain concerned, particularly for the Coleraine campus and the wider north coast economy. Coleraine uni is a vital economic, social and cultural anchor for the region. The uncertainty surrounding up to 450 potential job losses has understandably created anxiety among staff, students, local businesses and the wider region along the north coast. Many people fear that Coleraine could be overly impacted at a time when significant investment is being seen elsewhere in the university estate, especially at Magee.

Any reduction in staffing or courses would have consequences far beyond the campus. Local hospitality, retail, transport providers, landlords and tourism businesses benefit from the presence of students and university staff throughout the year, especially outside the peak tourist season. The university also plays a role in attracting young people to the north coast and retaining them in the area. Students whom I have spoken to want clarity and reassurance about the future of courses at Coleraine, and staff who have given years of service want transparency and full engagement throughout the process.

Ulster University has stated its promise to Coleraine in its multi-campus university, and it is essential that that is reflected in future planning and investment decisions. The long-term sustainability and success of the Coleraine campus must remain a priority not only for the university but for the wider regional economy.

I want to be clear that Coleraine must not be an afterthought. That is the message that the MP and I made clear during our meeting with the leaders of the university last week. Too often, there is a feeling that everything gravitates towards Belfast, while other areas are expected to do less and make do with less. The Department and university leadership must work together to ensure that there is a long-term future for Coleraine and to ensure that that campus is not weakened. The message from the north coast is simple: we value our university, the jobs that it supports and the opportunity that it creates, so we want and expect a strong and ambitious future for the university in Coleraine. Such regional assets must be protected for the generations to come.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I rise to highlight Arthritis UK's first Arthritis Awareness Month. An arthritis diagnosis can open the door to life-changing support: that is the message from the health charity Arthritis UK during its first Arthritis Awareness Month, which is shining a light on the diagnosis of arthritis and other musculoskeletal conditions, which affect over half a million people in Northern Ireland. Those conditions are a leading cause of persistent pain, disability and lost working days, yet they are often dismissed as just a bit of pain or a natural part of the ageing process rather than as life-limiting and life-changing. A diagnosis can open the door to treatment, community and better symptom management, yet people with arthritis often struggle to get a timely diagnosis. The awareness month will lead up to the launch of an Arthritis UK report, 'The Silent Treatment: Why an Arthritis Diagnosis Matters'. That report will highlight the barriers faced in achieving a timely and personalised arthritis diagnosis and why a diagnosis matters.

As well as facing diagnostic challenges, people with arthritis in Northern Ireland experience some of the longest healthcare waits, with years spent in severe pain, waiting for such vital care as orthopaedic surgery. We must treat that as an urgent healthcare priority and take a relentless approach to driving down orthopaedic and rheumatology waiting times. People with arthritis deserve timely access to surgery and treatment, with support before and after treatment to secure the best possible outcomes.

Without that, we will see increasing disease progression and comorbidities, such as poor mental health, so please join me in supporting Arthritis Awareness Month by following the campaign on social media and highlighting the information and support from Arthritis UK, which can help our constituents open the door to a better way forward.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I want to pay tribute, as I am sure many Members will want to, to the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society (RUAS), which is based in Lagan Valley, on a very successful Balmoral show. I was delighted that the show moved from the King's Hall at Balmoral to Lagan Valley. That has worked out to be one of the greatest successes in platforming our farming and food industries and allowing people who live more in urban areas to mix freely with those who are the mainstays of what I consider to be the most important indigenous industry here, namely farming and food production.

As many of you will know, having been there — I saw many of you at the show — the weather was slightly inclement, so I want to put on record my thanks, not only to the RUAS staff but to all who contributed to making the show such a successful event, whether that was Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, the PSNI or the many volunteers, particularly those who stood outside in that inclement weather to direct pedestrians or direct traffic to parking spots.

Over the four days, there were many opportunities for many of us to engage not only with the public and our constituents but, very importantly, with the farmers and food producers who underpin what has been quantified as a £7·3 billion a year industry that provides over 109,000 full-time equivalent jobs in Northern Ireland. I am not sure that there is another industry in Northern Ireland that provides such a wide variety of skilled and valued jobs.

Last year's Balmoral show happened against the backdrop of the introduction of the dreaded inheritance tax, which, even after the changes, still looms over our family farmers in Northern Ireland. This year, the backdrop to the show was further pressures for our family farmers, namely the geopolitical instability that has led to the rise in fuel prices. Why should that matter to us? It matters because, if it is not resolved and if the Treasury in London does not take action on fuel duty in particular, we will see rampant "foodflation". People have become used to working out whether to heat or eat in winter but that option may not even be there, because "foodflation" could run ahead of itself. We really need to, collegiately, work together to lobby Treasury and the UK Government to take some meaningful action in that regard.

I urge anyone who did not make it to this year's show to get it into your diary for next year, because it is the premier event in the agri-food and farming sector across these islands.

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

In 2008, walking out of St Tiernach's Park in Clones after Paul McGrane had raised the Anglo-Celt Cup as Armagh captain, with Armagh having won six Ulster Senior Football Championship titles in the previous nine years, no one would have thought that it would be another 18 years before Armagh got their hands on the cup again. The Ulster Championship is by far the most competitive provincial championship, with six different counties claiming glory since 2005. The Armagh senior footballers famously won the Sam Maguire in 2024, but there was always a feeling that something was missing. Yesterday, the players and management completed the set. I want to say a huge comhghairdeas

[Translation: congratulations]

to the players, management team and county board. You have come agonisingly close in recent years, visiting the locker of hurt so many times in the Ulster Championship, but have kept going despite setback after setback.

Monaghan deserve an honourable mention. Despite the odds, they were valiant in defeat. I know that that is of little consolation.

On the final whistle yesterday, despite the torrential rain, there was an amazing outpouring of joy, celebration and pride among Armagh fans, who streamed on to the pitch in their thousands to see Aidan Forker and Aaron McKay lift the Anglo-Celt Cup. Aidan Forker, in his acceptance speech, thanked the management, coaching and backroom team; the county board; and the team's sponsors — Simplyfruit and Patrick McCann; Mullaghbawn's Aidan Strain Electrical Engineering; and Padraic McKeever of McKeever Sports — who have stuck with Armagh through thick and thin.

Most expressively, Aidan thanked the families of the players, who understand and support the commitment necessary to succeed as an inter-county footballer.

While Aidan spoke, some of the families were revelling on the pitch and in the enclosure below, at home and abroad. It was their day as much as it was the players' day. Everyone will have loved the pictures on TV of Kieran McGeeney embracing his children after the final whistle. Incredibly, Geezer first stripped out for his county in 1988 and has been actively involved in playing, coaching and management at inter-county level every year since. All that I can say to that is this: wow. One of Geezer's strongest values is loyalty. There are people who have stood with him in the dark days and the bright days, some since the '90s. I will not mention names; they know who they are.

Yesterday was a wonderful day for Armagh Gaels, made more special by the fact that the Anglo-Celt Cup was presented by an Armagh man, Michael Geoghegan, Ulster president, with another Armagh man, uachtarán Chumann Lúthchleas Gael

[Translation: president of the Gaelic Athletic Association]

, Jarlath Burns, beside him, to a team wearing jerseys made by an Armagh man, Padraic McKeever of McKeever Sports. The credit lies mostly with the players — the men in the arena.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

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

The celebrations will be short-lived. As we know, every team that is still in the competition will feel that it has got a shot at "Sam".

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The hospitality sector is vital to our economy, with tourism being particularly important across our rural areas. Great progress has been made in my constituency with the extension of the Ireland's Hidden Heartlands brand into Fermanagh, which was announced by my Sinn Féin colleague Minister Caoimhe Archibald, but we need to see the British Government step up and reduce the VAT rate for hospitality across the North. We want to see VAT rates harmonised across our island. The gap is set to widen on 1 July, when the VAT rate in the South will be reduced to 9%. It currently sits at 13·5%, which is significantly lower than that of the North, which sits at 20%. My Sinn Féin colleague Minister John O'Dowd has been pressing the British Government consistently on the issue. They need to start listening and understand the all-island nature of our hospitality and tourism sectors. The current VAT rate here means that hospitality businesses in the North face higher taxes and are therefore at an unfair disadvantage compared with neighbouring businesses in the Twenty-six, where the lower VAT rate will increase footfall across restaurants, pubs and cafes.

I call on the British Government to reduce the VAT rate for hospitality businesses here. That would be a vital help to the hotels, restaurants, cafes and, of course, pubs that have struggled in recent years with rising bills, supporting them to thrive and attract more customers through their doors. A harmonised VAT rate would represent a positive step forward and ensure a level playing field for all hospitality businesses across Ireland.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

Last Friday, Sinn Féin's official youth wing posted a video clip online that, it insinuated, was a statement made by me attacking the Communities Minister during a Committee session. The post described the statement as "not AI", implying that it was therefore factual. The post has received many comments and views. Its intention was clearly to bring negative, unwanted personal attention towards me and to intimidate, humiliate and gag me. It will do nothing of the sort. It was a complete misrepresentation of the facts. I quoted word for word the inaccurate and fabricated statement of the Committee Chair, Colm Gildernew, from the Sinn Féin website.

I ask that the First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, ensures that the post is removed and that she distances herself from that potentially defamatory content. While I understand and accept that the use of social media clips to highlight a disagreement or offer a differing view is part and parcel of political discourse in the House, I am disgusted by the post and ask why it was deemed necessary. Perhaps it was inspired by the behaviour of the Chair and Deputy Chair, who seem content to heap abuse on members of my party simply for doing their job with honesty and openness. Perhaps they were buoyed by the Chair's comment that members would decide what facts they believed, while disregarding the actual evidence and deciding to post a fabricated video to support the Sinn Féin narrative.

Thursday's Committee session was a complete farce because of the TikTok-making theme of pelting words at the Minister and then continually interrupting and speaking over him and, laughably, trying to pretend that it was a form of scrutiny. I must put it on record, however, that no Committee member was involved in that other than the Sinn Féin members.

In an era when it is difficult to put anything on social media without facing a barrage of abuse, especially as a woman, I ask the First Minister to call out that dishonest, childish and malicious behaviour that was, without doubt, inspired by Sinn Féin's coordinated, personal attack on the Communities Minister, who is being demonised for delivering for more than one side of the community.

Having served on many Committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly over many years, I have never experienced anything like the debacle that was dressed up as a scrutiny Committee last week. It saddens me, because we are all responsible for what the public witness in this place. Robust challenging is expected to be a fair and necessary part of those proceedings, but that cannot be replaced by personal attacks that are peddled as legitimate political activity or some variation of truth.

Let me state, for the avoidance of doubt and to help those behind that pathetic activity, that I am in full support of the Communities Minister and believe that, like me, he is more than willing to demonstrate tolerance, accountability and cooperation at Committee and in the Chamber, providing, of course, that our voices are allowed to be heard in the first place.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

On Thursday evening, Kyiv was struck by a mass missile strike from Putin's forces that killed at least 24 innocent people. The attack destroyed an apartment block in a residential part of the city: a city and people targeted just because they were Ukrainians; Ukrainians who do not want to succumb to the nationalist fascism being orchestrated by the Russian leadership, who were firing missiles, such as the Kh-101 cruise missile. The horror and violence of Thursday's attack was commented on and condemned by the Irish ambassador to the Ukraine, Jonathan Conlon. The irony of his remarks should not be lost on any of us, nor by President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people, because one of the main materials that goes into the Kh-101 cruise missile and many other Russian weapons is aluminium. Members may or may not be surprised to learn that one of the largest sources of that aluminium comes from that centre of international neutrality — that paragon of global, triple-locking virtue — the Republic of Ireland.

Aughinish, in the Shannon estuary, is owned by RUSAL, a Russian smelting company with deep connections to the Russian arms industry. The examination of shipping tracking shows a near weekly sailing of vessels from Shannon to Russia. Bizarrely, the Irish Government have lobbied extensively in the EU to keep RUSAL free of sanctions, despite the key role of alumina in the Russian arms industry. It has even lobbied the EU extensively to make sure that alumina is not proscribed as a commodity to Russia because, apparently, it is vital for countless civilian industries. Really? Could a lack of soft-drinks cans create a humanitarian crisis in Moscow, St Petersburg or elsewhere? The same aluminium is purchased by dozens of arms companies that make weapons for Russia's war in Ukraine.

On this side of the Chamber, we are well-used to the Irish Government's hypocrisy. Our leader, Jon Burrows, recently pointed out how a blind eye was turned by Irish authorities to the theft of gelignite from the Republic of Ireland that made its way to the IRA, killing and maiming, before the IRA's main supplier became that other paragon of virtue, Gaddafi, and the suppliers from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Yet again, the Irish Government hypocritically support terror; just ask why Aughinish has not been shut down for Russian exports. The family and friends of 24 innocent Ukrainians deserve answers. Slava Ukraini.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Last week, tens of thousands of people from right across Northern Ireland gathered at the Balmoral show to celebrate the very best of our agri-food sector, our family farms and our rural way of life. Like many Members, I spent time speaking to farmers, producers, manufacturers and local businesses. The message that I heard, repeatedly, was straightforward: people want this place to help rural Northern Ireland, not burden it with costs, more regulation and more bureaucracy.

Every political party turns up to the Balmoral show. There is no shortage of smiles, handshakes and warm words for the cameras during those four days in May, but warm words at a show mean little if they are not backed up by votes and policies for the other 51 weeks of the year. That is where the difference lies. The DUP has consistently stood with the agri-food sector when it matters. We oppose unrealistic climate targets that would pile additional pressures on to farmers and rural communities. We opposed the creation of a climate commissioner, which would have meant more bureaucracy and more cost. We have challenged policies that restrict infrastructure development and hold back the much-needed road projects that rural communities rely on.

When concerns were raised about the flawed nutrients action programme, it was the DUP that campaigned, alongside farmers and rural organisations, to force a rethink. As a result, the Agriculture Minister was compelled to revisit those proposals and engage more meaningfully with primary producers, rather than simply placing blame on the farming community. Unfortunately, other parties in the House chose a different path. Too often, Sinn Féin, Alliance, the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP have voted for policies that make life harder for Northern Ireland, while attempting to present a very different message when they arrive at Balmoral for a photo opportunity.

Farmers do not need lectures from politicians who speak warmly at agricultural events while supporting measures that increase costs, weaken competitiveness and make it harder to produce food. Agriculture is not a problem to be managed; it is one of Northern Ireland's greatest strengths. It sustains tens of thousands of jobs, contributes billions of pounds to our economy and plays a central role in maintaining the social fabric of rural communities.

Those who work in the industry deserve more than token gestures once a year. They deserve representatives who will stand up for them consistently not only at the Balmoral show but in the Chamber when votes are cast and decisions are made.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I raise the lack of respect for fundamental freedom shown by the Irish Language Commissioner, Pól Deeds. For weeks, he defied the powers of a Committee of the House to which he is accountable. He sought to hide correspondence that he had had with the 'Belfast Telegraph' about an interview in which he not only suggested that people were using the law unlawfully but attacked a private citizen. After the interview, he appeared before the Executive Office Committee and claimed that many of the issues arose because of "a bad translation". Last week, his letter to the 'Belfast Telegraph' was finally released. Tellingly, Mr Deeds did not dispute the translation of his interview when it was quoted back to him, but, alarmingly, the commissioner's letter states:

"constantly speaking out against the protection of the Irish language as provided for in the Identity and Language (NI) Act 2022 may not be entirely lawful".

That should concern all Members of the House. Freedom of speech and the right to speak out against any law are fundamental. This letter raises questions about what other dealings Mr Deeds has had with the press and what other voices and views he has sought to suppress.

The fact that a publicly funded commissioner should seek to abuse his office to suppress that freedom cuts to the heart of the liberty secured on the battlefield. No jumped-up little Hitler in the Irish Language Commissioner's office should be permitted to undermine it. It is time that Pól Deeds stopped acting as the activist that he is and started acting as a commissioner.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Yesterday, I attended a memorial service in proud memory of three Scottish soldiers — Fusiliers John McCaig, Joseph McCaig and Dougald McCaughey — to recognise that this year is the 55th anniversary of their murders in 1971.

We are grateful to the Oldpark/Cavehill branch of the Royal British Legion, which organised yesterday's anniversary service and parade, held at Ballysillan Presbyterian Church. We were honoured to have members of the McCaig family in attendance, along with the Lord Lieutenant, the Lord Mayor, the High Sheriff of Belfast, representatives of the Royal British Legion, elected representatives and members of the public.

The brutality of the killings of those Royal Highland Fusiliers remains deeply shocking to this day.

They were not on active service but off duty and unarmed. They were taken from a city centre pub and most likely told that they were going to a party. They were, however, ultimately shot at close range by the cowardly Provisional IRA on a small country road at White Brae in Ligoniel in north Belfast.

According to the Ministry of Defence, over 1,400 serving members of the British armed forces died during Operation Banner, either from paramilitary attacks or from other causes. We remember them all, yet the murder of those three Scottish soldiers, who were aged just 17, 18 and 23, continues to stand out for the deceit and savagery involved. If the IRA considered itself to be at war, by that standard it murdered prisoners of war, which is an act of total depravity.

No one has ever been convicted of the soldiers' murder. It is appalling that, within the ranks of Sinn Féin in north Belfast, there are people who know which IRA terrorists were involved in those murders, yet, because of a Mafia-like code of omertà, that information is withheld by people who demand that every action and record relating to the state be examined in order to find some fault or omission. That hypocrisy is a further insult to the victims of the IRA, and the contradiction relating to truth and justice is stark.

We hope, however, that it is of some comfort to the families of Fusiliers John McCaig, Joseph McCaig and Dougald McCaughey to know that their memory is cherished and held dear and that two memorials in their honour have been funded by public subscription. We will remember them.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to look at Mr Gaston's remarks during his Member's statement and reflect on whether they violate the Standing Order on unparliamentary language, specifically the comparison that he made when speaking about the Irish Language Commissioner, which, I think, far exceeds legitimate free comment in the House.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I am happy to look at that.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Opposition Business

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the outcome of the recent elections in Britain; expresses concern at the rise of right-wing populism embodied by Reform UK; believes that a Reform UK-led Government would be hugely damaging for people living here as well as British-Irish relations; further notes recent polling that indicates majority support for a new Ireland within the European Union; affirms that any process of constitutional change must be carefully managed, protecting the relationships and multiple identities outlined in the Good Friday Agreement; and further affirms that the only credible way of decisively exercising democratic control over our future is to build a new Ireland.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

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

It is important that, as the official Opposition, we acknowledge that the motion does not completely relate to the business of the Northern Ireland Executive. Others will probably say that it does not relate to the day-to-day business of the Northern Ireland Executive. I will throw that back across the Chamber, however, because I am tempted to say that, were the Northern Ireland Executive more functional and bringing more business before the Assembly, we might be debating different things.

As a constructive Opposition, our job has consistently been to confront the Assembly and, in a sense, air issues concerning the consequences of decisions that are made and of those that are not made. The local government elections in Britain that took place 10 days ago were significant, if not historic. I wish that the results, in England at least, had been different, because they demonstrated the rise of a dark and destructive force: Nigel Farage and Reform UK.

We already knew that Farage and his movement were a coming force in British politics, particularly English politics, but not exclusively so. We are increasingly learning that his form of authoritarian populism is funded by offshore billionaires with shady connections, to put it mildly. We already knew that the politics of Farage, who, in many ways, was the intellectual force behind the Brexit movement, were a growing force in Britain. That was illustrated starkly on Thursday a week ago. That has consequences, including for all of us.

We hear constantly in the Chamber from Ministers and MLAs from all parties that decisions that are made in Britain, specifically in Whitehall and Westminster, have an impact here. We are consistently told that in relation to, of course, the Budget, and the limitations of the financial settlement. We are told the same about the most routine business, whether that is getting agreement to introduce legislation, or getting clarity on whether a certain piece of law applies to the North. Decisions that are made on the other island have huge consequences here. In 2016, English voters voted to leave the European Union. If there were a general election tomorrow, the most likely next British Prime Minister, if current polls are correct, would be Nigel Farage. That decision by English voters would have a seismic consequence for the public in Northern Ireland. I think that it is fair to say that, if Nigel Farage were standing for election here, it is unlikely that he would be elected. I would be interested to hear from some of the unionist politicians opposite about whether they would like Mr Farage to stand here. Perhaps they would like his endorsement. I know that there is a little bit of a difference of opinion in that regard. Perhaps that will be flushed out during the course of today's debate. Mr Buckley is smirking pleasantly; perhaps he has something to say about that. I know that he was very pleased about some of the election results on Thursday a week ago.

Those election results are a stark illustration of something that has been clear since time immemorial: we have little to no control over decisions that are made in Britain, whether you are a nationalist in favour of a united Ireland, a unionist who favours the continued Union with Britain, or somebody who does not take a position, whether agnostic or just completely disinterested, which is entirely legitimate. It is clear that, in 2016, we voted to remain in the European Union. We were dragged out against our will by votes on the other island. I am glad that we have a set of protections that exist specifically for this island, but that is far short of what I want and my party wants, which is full EU membership — back in Europe — for the people of this region, with all the opportunities and benefits of that vision. Our party is shamelessly and proudly the most pro-European in the Chamber.

We cannot kid ourselves that we have the ability to control who the next British Prime Minister is, whether that is the leader of the Labour Party — we are observers of the fascinating if chaotic process that is unfolding at the minute in that respect — or someone else after a general election. As I said, the current most likely next Prime Minister is Nigel Farage. I will be clear on behalf of myself and my party, but also on behalf of my kids and everybody who belongs to me: I do not want to live in a country that is run by Nigel Farage. That is not really to do with the colour of my passport, whether I identify as Irish — obviously, I do — or British, or whatever I think about a whole range of other issues; I simply do not want to live in a country that is governed by that charlatan. I really do not.

People here of all backgrounds, including many in my constituency of South Belfast who are certainly not convinced, dyed-in-the-wool nationalists — although many of them have been coming to my office in increasing numbers to have their Irish passport form signed — do not want to live in a country run by Nigel Farage, either; they want, in many cases, the possibility, hope and opportunity of rejoining the European Union.

We have put our motion down today to, as we have done in the past, confront the Assembly respectfully with a simple but ultimately unavoidable choice. If you live in this region — in Northern Ireland — and want not a future governed by Nigel Farage, the dark authoritarian forces that he represents or the shady people who fund him but a new future back inside the European Union, the only way in which to decisively make that choice is to opt for a new Ireland, back inside Europe. Let me be clear: that process is going to take years. It is not going to happen today or tomorrow. I and my party are sceptical about the worth of simply naming dates for a border poll, rather than practically preparing, persuading and campaigning for change. However, that question and that choice is one that more and more people are engaging with. If we do not want to live in a country either governed by Farage or dictated to by the forces that surround Farage, we will have to make that choice at some point.

It is not simply a choice between two options to get back inside the European Union. It might come up in today's debate that there has been some chatter about the UK potentially rejoining the European Union. As people will know because I have talked about it many times in this Chamber, I was previously a UK civil servant, and I tried to keep the UK in the European Union. I was not successful in that effort, as others were not. I think that it remains vanishingly unlikely that, in any meaningful horizon, the UK will rejoin the European Union, although I would like it to. If there were a referendum, I would campaign for the UK and Northern Ireland to rejoin. However, here is the thing: even if there were a referendum on the UK rejoining the European Union, Northern Ireland could vote remain by 99% to 1% and our votes would be wiped out by English voters, if they decided to vote to remain outside the EU. We in this place do not have equal opportunity options on our future. We only have one decisive way of taking our future into our hands and choosing a European future, and that is via a new Ireland.

There are, of course, other practical challenges. Even were the UK to have a successful rejoin referendum — as I said, I would like that to happen, but I think that it is unlikely — there would have to be a formal accession process. There would have to be a negotiation, which would take years — perhaps more than a decade. Many countries have been formal accession countries and, after a very long time, still have not joined the European Union. I do not want that; I want a new Ireland back inside the European Union. It would be much quicker and more straightforward, and I think that many more people are engaging with that possibility. Of course, to be clear, as was established through the Brexit negotiation process, should a majority of people in this region — Northern Ireland — vote for a new Ireland, we would automatically rejoin the European Union. We would accede to being an existing EU member state. We would have automatic right of re-entry, with all the possibilities that that entails.

I respect and acknowledge the fact that many Members in the Chamber, particularly those from unionist parties, do not want that future and that it is not one that they seek. However, I will say this: many people in Northern Ireland, from a whole range of backgrounds, do want that future. They do not necessarily want it today, tomorrow or next week, but they want to talk about it for the future of their kids and grandkids. They see dark, authoritarian forces on the rise in the world, and they want a future based on interdependence, cooperation, human rights, decent environmental standards and decent labour standards. They see that future in Europe through working together. They see, through the European context, the potential for respect of our multiple identities on this island, and they want to build that future.

I sincerely hope that the rise of Nigel Farage is held off in Britain. My party and I will do anything that we can to stop that, but let us be clear: we in Northern Ireland have only one way of genuinely and decisively choosing a new future, not today and not tomorrow but by planning for a new Ireland inside the European Union. It is a hopeful vision, and I hope —.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

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

I have literally about 20 seconds left, but yes.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Thank you, Mr O'Toole. You have mentioned "a new Ireland" a number of times. I am curious to know what that means. Is it a new flag, is it a new constitution, is it new —?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Matthew, time is up. You do not get an extra minute when you are given more than five minutes initially.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I beg to move the following amendment:

Leave out all after "recent polling" and insert: "suggesting that, if a referendum were to be held today, a majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote to rejoin the European Union; affirms the process for managing constitutional issues as set out in the Good Friday Agreement, which recognises the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely expressed by a majority of people in Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland; and commits to creating a shared future through a system of good government and democratic renewal in Northern Ireland for the benefit of everyone."

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Eóin. You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Eóin, please open the debate on the amendment.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I rise to move the amendment standing in the name of the Alliance Party. At the outset, I reaffirm that Alliance is proudly a cross-community party that does not define itself around the constitutional question. We are proud to represent people from a broad range of backgrounds and who have a broad range of perspectives and aspirations on the constitutional question, including those who are unionist, those who are nationalist, those who are open-minded about the future and those who simply do not prioritise the question. What unites our members and supporters is support for the principle of consent in the Good Friday Agreement: it is for the people of Northern Ireland and not parties in the Chamber to decide the constitutional future; and that there must be a shared desire to make our society work, building a shared future regardless of either constitutional status quo or change, and to build a united community, whether that be within the United Kingdom or within a united Ireland.

That said, we recognise that fluid, live and open debates are happening across these islands about the future of the UK and Ireland, and factors such as Brexit, the rise of Farage, right-wing populism and English nationalism have given increased energy to them. We have always been clear that we are happy to take part in constructive, evidence-based debates on the constitutional question without prejudice to the outcome of that debate. There are many push-and-pull factors at play and many detailed points that need to be worked through regarding the political structures and institutions, our public finances and the impact on the economy, trade and public services, alongside key questions of identity and how minority identities would be protected in any different arrangement. We want to see that debate move into the space of discussion and challenge on those key points of detail rather than perennial abstract arguments that appear to go round in circles. Are we talking about a unitary or federal state? Who would pay the pension liabilities? Would our constituents have to pay to see a GP? What would be the impact be on those disproportionately employed in the public sector in this part of the island? Those are questions that we are happy to discuss but that the motion fails fundamentally to address.

The motion references a single poll by the European Movement Ireland, the participants in which voted 66% Remain. That is not representative and is far higher than the actual result in 2016. Rather than respond to one poll with a motion in the House, we should look at the polling trends over time, and those have consistently indicated a plurality, albeit not a majority, in favour of maintaining the Union, with a significant portion of voters undecided on the issue. There is also clear evidence that that polling has moved significantly as a result of Brexit. The polling shows that a clear majority of people in Northern Ireland believe that Brexit was a bad idea. That has been backed up by recent polls by Queen's University and LucidTalk showing that a majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote to rejoin the European Union if a referendum were held today, and our amendment acknowledges that.

While Brexit has, undoubtedly, been a disaster for Northern Ireland, we can draw salutary lessons for this debate about the constitutional question. First, nothing is inevitable. For years, people said that Brexit would never happen — that people would never vote against their own economic interests — and yet it did. Therefore, no one in the Chamber should assume that constitutional change or the constitutional status quo are certainties or guarantees. Secondly, it exposed the folly of running headlong into a referendum without a plan. While that might be a fine strategy to win a referendum, as for every Leave vote there was a different version of Brexit, it was no way to create cohesion around the future that we had post referendum. Again, there are important lessons in that debate, which is why moving to a debate on the actual points of detail rather than an abstract debate is important. Thirdly, it underlined that Nigel Farage is a charlatan who has no solutions, no answers and no interest in the consequences for the people of Northern Ireland.

The motion rightly acknowledges the concerns about the rise of right-wing populism, and those are concerns that I share. Nigel Farage and Reform UK trade in a brand of politics that exploits grievance and pits the weak against the vulnerable, the vulnerable against the marginalised and the marginalised against the more marginalised. He told us that Brexit would make people richer, and it did. It made the DUP £435,000 richer and Nigel Farage himself £5 million richer, whilst our constituents suffer. He cares not a bit about working people anywhere in the UK and certainly not about Northern Ireland, given that he has threatened to rip up key cornerstones of the Good Friday Agreement. It beggars belief that unionist politicians in the Chamber continue to fanboy over a man who sold them a pup once before and is trying to flog them another. However, we should not overstate the rise of Farage, because the vast majority of people in Great Britain earlier this month rejected Nigel Farage. They voted against him. The problem is that the first-past-the-post system does not reflect that reality, turning a minority of votes into a disproportionate level of political noise.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I will, briefly.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member clarify whether he is more aligned with the policies of the leader of the Green Party, who believes that, if he hypnotises women, their breasts enlarge?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

No, I am not, and I actively campaign against the Green Party in Northern Ireland. On a serious point, we have seen worrying lurches both to the left and right with a number of candidates being subsequently suspended from their party for either racist or antisemitic remarks, which are absolutely appalling and should be condemned by us all. We should all be concerned by the rise of populism, be it of the left wing or the right. I am absolutely, categorically clear about that.

More fundamentally, the constitutional future of this place is not for the DUP, Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists or the Alliance Party to decide. The Good Friday Agreement is clear that it is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to decide. The agreement sets out the process for managing the debate, recognising the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely expressed by the people whom we represent, whether it be to maintain the Union or join a sovereign united Ireland. That principle has been the bedrock of peace and stability on this island over the course of my lifetime, and our amendment reaffirms that principle in full, recognising that both aspirations are credible and legitimate and that it is for the people to decide. That is the position that Members of the Assembly should adopt, rather than trying to manufacture a border poll in the Chamber in a bid to win back some relevance and political support.

The constitutional debate will always be part of our discourse. My party is always happy to engage in that discourse when it is debating points of detail and, sometimes, challenging those points of detail too. The beauty of the agreement is that that conversation can happen in parallel whilst, in the meantime, we in the Chamber get on with the issues plaguing our constituents' lives: record waiting lists, lack of an agreed Budget, a cost-of-living squeeze and the need for public service reform and investment. We have more in common than what divides us, and, while the constitutional debate will continue, it is in all our interests to focus on making politics work here at the Assembly: to ensure that the institutions represent the society that we are, rather than the divisions that we inherited; that they can deliver good government for everyone and represent everyone equally, regardless of background and constitutional aspiration; and that, together, we continue to strive to build a more reconciled, integrated and shared society.

That is my vision for this place. I want to build a united community, regardless of whether the people whom I represent choose to have it in the United Kingdom or a united Ireland. That is what our amendment offers, and I commend it to the House.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

The recent election results in England, Scotland and Wales represent really significant political change in the landscape of those countries. The surge in electoral support for progressive politics and self-determination, as well as support for extreme right-wing populism, should be a wake-up call for the British Government. The fallout from Brexit continues to cast a long shadow, but politics is realigning. That is reflected in the unprecedented political support for Plaid Cymru, the remarkable return for a fifth successive Administration of the Scottish National Party and the levels of popular support that Sinn Féin continues to hold in Ireland.

Increasing numbers of citizens in Wales and Scotland and in the North of Ireland recognise that Westminster will never serve our interests. English politicians, whether Labour, Tory or Reform, simply do not care about the citizens who live here. That realisation is increasingly shared in Wales and Scotland. The choice is clear: more Westminster political chaos, austerity, ongoing isolation from the European Union and the rise of far-right Reform politics or the alternative that lies in self-determination and new constitutional arrangements. Irish unity is not inevitable, but it is more possible now than at any stage before. The British Government should take their heads out of the sand and accept that the status quo has failed. It is time for British policy towards this place to change. A similar challenge now arises for the British Government with regard to Scotland and Wales.

Political unionism also needs to recognise that change is indeed fixed on the political horizon and no amount of denial will change that reality. Partition has not worked, and it never will. We need a serious discussion about how future change should be managed. Successive polls demonstrate growing desire across the island for constitutional change, reunification and rejoining the EU. The right to a unity referendum is set out under our Good Friday Agreement, and, 28 years from that agreement's having been signed, there is no longer any justification for refusing to set a date. The need to plan and prepare for Irish unity is a matter of established political consensus among the majority of parties across the island. In 2024, an all-party Oireachtas Joint Committee called on the Irish Government to begin that process immediately, and the Irish Government should do so. They should demonstrate the leadership that is now required and formally engage the British Government on developing a process of structured constitutional transition, and they should establish a citizens' assembly on constitutional change and begin work on drafting a Green Paper.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Irish unity should not be feared. It is an opportunity to shape a new constitutional settlement that guarantees the identities, traditions, religious and civil and democratic rights of all citizens.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way; he is always very kind. Is the Member aware of the poll published by the 'Sunday Independent' recently that asked Southern voters to rank their political priorities? Would he care to reflect on the place of Irish unity in the minds of the Southern people, given the fact that it did not get even 1% in the poll in terms of its importance to voters in the South?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat.

[Translation: Thank you.]

In reality, there is a momentum in the discussion around constitutional change that is organic and spontaneous. It is happening everywhere. On every street corner, on the side of every football pitch and in the shops and bars, people are talking about change. The fact is that we are living through a historic period of momentous change, so let us positively engage with the challenges that that presents. The opportunities are huge. Self-determination gives us all a way forward to national reunification and national reconciliation and to securing a new constitutional settlement in all our interests that is built on equality, inclusion, cultural diversity, pluralism and anti-sectarianism.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

The motion tells us a lot about the SDLP, a party that loves to lecture us on how out of touch we all are and how it alone is the party with its finger on the pulse of Northern Ireland opinion. Yet, at a time when families struggle with the cost of living, waiting lists are dire, businesses face enormous pressure and people want government that is focused on delivery, what does the SDLP do? It chooses to propose a motion that laments the democratic election results in Scotland, England and Wales, rather than one on bread-and-butter issues. Is that the best that we can expect from the SDLP? Have a so-called lacklustre official Opposition run out of steam so early?

The motion warns about so-called right-wing populism, but people in Northern Ireland are already experiencing and living with the consequences of left-wing populism. The SDLP's policy positions and, indeed, the orchestra of incompetence in Alliance, Sinn Féin and the Green Party have led to laws under which tadpoles and bats have more rights than the unborn child. We have net zero policies that let everybody else drill in the North Sea while we import our energy from those countries at a higher price, giving us the highest energy prices in Europe, never mind stopping roads being built. We have a benefits system that undermines the incentive to work and in which those who do the right thing — they get up early and go to work — are taxed to the hilt, and they are simply asking, "What is the point?".

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

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I will in a moment.

Our families and farmers are working hard to feed the nation, yet the left-wing ideologues in this place want to tax the industry to death through incompetent, crippling inheritance tax and unrealistic environmental policies. Those parties are more concerned with cows burping than with farmers breaking even.

I will give way to the SDLP to see whether it has a solution to the matter.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. For someone who talks up the importance of remaining in the United Kingdom, he does a great job of pointing out the reasons that we should leave it, particularly when he mentions the state of our health service, our schools and our roads and the cost of living. Does the Member not realise that his party has been in government for 20 years, presiding over this disastrous nightmare of a place?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I say this to the SDLP: talk is cheap. It takes money to buy bread. The policies in which the Member's party have engaged —

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

[Inaudible.]

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— have resulted in low growth and in the building of roads being halted.

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

[Inaudible.]

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Member talks often about the A5 in this place, yet he and Members from his party —

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

Deflection.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— are clearly the ones who object to it with their net zero madness, so —

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

Deflection.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— spare us the left-wing claptrap in the Chamber.

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

The UK is a disaster.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

The allegations from the Member are clear, but what is the answer from the SDLP?

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

[Inaudible.]

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

It is not to fix any of this —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order. Daniel, the Member is talking.

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

I know, but —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

You have had your fun.

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

— he is talking through his hat.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

OK, but the Member needs to be heard.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

So —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Excuse me, but I have not finished. Sorry, Jonathan. Like any other Member, Mr Buckley enjoys the cut and thrust of debate, but he has come here to be heard.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

What therefore is the answer from the SDLP, apart from shouting from the sidelines? It is not to fix any of the problems but to call for a divisive border poll. Let me be clear: a single road or a single home will not be built and a single opportunity will not be given to a family here by getting rid of Northern Ireland. Rather, Northern Ireland will be fixed through fixing the policies that are holding it back. Before lecturing about populism, the House should start delivering for the people whom it serves. Less ideology and more delivery: that is what Northern Ireland needs. The SDLP appears to be fixated on causing chaos and distraction today. It is the party that left its seats in the House of Commons to go and sit on the knee of Keir Starmer. What did it promise us? Growth and a new era. What did it get? Higher taxation, low growth, open borders and Ministers who think that men can be women, as though those are things to be celebrated.

The motion fundamentally misses the point. Voters are not to be lectured about their concerns. They have not been hoodwinked. They are not too stupid to know what they are voting for or, in the SDLP's case, what they are not voting for. They know very well. They are expressing their frustration at successive Governments who have failed to secure our borders, failed to tackle illegal immigration, failed to support working families from being taxed to death and failed to stand up for farmers. Those are not extreme positions — far from it — but common-sense positions that are a direct reflection of the lived experience of many millions across Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and, indeed, England, so I ask the SDLP to spare us the melodrama. It is a tale as old as time: when mainstream parties ignore legitimate concerns, voters will naturally look elsewhere. Rather than engage in distraction politics and in condemning the electorate, Members should perhaps reflect on why so many people are fleeing from their left-wing lunacy towards policies of common sense. We can then perhaps get on with the job of government.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member's time is up.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Today is Opposition day, when, yet again, we have an ill-disguised motion from the SDLP that is attempting to make the case for a united Ireland. This time, the proposition is made on the basis of the local government election results in Great Britain. No matter how much the SDLP may dislike the results of the democratic elections in England, Scotland and Wales, democracy often produces results that may be unpalatable to others. That is the price of a free vote in our United Kingdom. Just look at what has happened here: people support a party that believes that there was no alternative to murder, butchery, torture and terrorism, yet it is now the largest party in government here. Democracy has a heavy price, which we sometimes have to pay.

The elections in the rest of our nation saw a significant protest vote that saw the rise of a nationalist party in Wales — Plaid Cymru — not as a call for independence, which even it admits is unlikely, but as a protest against decades of incompetence by the Welsh Labour Party and antipathy for the previous mainstream parties. Those who found Plaid Cymru uncomfortable and unpalatable sought change by supporting Reform.

The Opposition's motion talks about "right-wing populism", but ignores the rise of left-wing populism in the form of Plaid Cymru and the Green Party. The latter is a party that has shifted so far away from its eco-credentials that its far-left stance uses pro-Palestine identification to tap into discontent among other communities. It is curiously anti-EU, as are its green compatriots in the left groupings in Europe, such as the Pirate Party.

The motion implies but ignores the results of the elections in Scotland, where the vote for the nationalist SNP went down, causing it to lose six seats with a 10% reduction in turnout, with the results for Reform being matched again by those of the Scottish Labour Party. The SNP’s leader shows a scant understanding of the history of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and has forgotten the horrors of the IRA's campaign.

The Opposition are right to say that Reform did well in the English local council elections, but the failure of the Labour and Conservative parties to deliver anywhere has more to do with the rise of Reform than any clear indication that it will form the next British Government.

It goes without saying that the Opposition's motion stretches credulity by basing an entire motion on a poll funded by the European movement from Ireland, whose singular findings are the reverse of all the peer-reviewed and verified polling data, which has clearly shown, over many years, that the support for remaining in the UK has not shifted from 58%, and that is not due to conversations in pubs, as Declan Kearney would say. Basing a motion on such a poll pushes credulity beyond the breaking point. It seems to me that republicanism and nationalism, which both seek reunification and both realise that no authoritative polling comes even close, are seeking to rewrite the provisions of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. Picking random dates in the future and demanding that a poll happens by then and screeching from the sidelines does not lead to a carefully managed transition to a new Ireland. Instead, it leads to instability and fear, or much worse.

The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was carefully made, precisely to avoid any precipitous action that would fundamentally destabilise the peace process. Sinn Féin would be happy to take that advantage; it is just sad that our fellow partners for peace — the SDLP — seem determined to follow that path. Mind you, it is election season.

Finally, the motion's proposition that the only way to exercise democratic control is to ignore the result of democracy elsewhere is not democracy. It is so far from being a credible path to building and improving relationships across these islands for the benefit of all that it reinforces how unbelievable the Opposition's whole motion and the amendment are.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Before I call the next Member to speak, I remind Members that the motions that are selected are down to each party. It is the prerogative of each party on the Business Committee. I remind all parties of that fact.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I welcome today's debate. Unlike some others, I think that it is appropriate that we, as political activists in the North of Ireland, have conversations about elections that will ultimately affect us, and that is a sensible and rational thing for us to do. Whilst the debate thus far has been interesting and, perhaps, entertaining at times, it has probably missed the point. It is very clear that political unionism is rattled in the wake of the election results just over a week ago, and that is understandable, given that the so-called Union is shaking at the seams, and we can see that reflected in the voting patterns across England, Scotland and Wales.

The big story in the headlines after the local elections was the success of pro-independence parties in Scotland and Wales, and the significance of that cannot be overstated. We should engage in a conversation about the fact that the SNP has won its fifth election in a row and Plaid Cymru has become the biggest party in Wales. That is people voting for change. It is people exhibiting bravery; it is people voting for a different way of life; and it is people rejecting the chaos of Westminster. How much more explicit could that be than it has been in the past week? The current Labour Government cannot even deliver for themselves. They are so distracted that the thought of delivering for the English people, let alone for people in towns and cities across this place that they could not point to on a map, is ridiculous. There has been a lot of sticking your head in the sand and not wanting to engage. That is not helpful for any of the people whom we represent.

We have had references to the fact that Sinn Féin is the biggest party in Ireland and, obviously, the Six Counties. We are so because people want to reject the status quo. The motion alludes to the fact that we have to plot our way to a new Ireland. We have to bear in mind that that debate, without the calling of a referendum, has not yet started in earnest. The people are ahead of us. We are here as representatives of the people, and people are already talking about Irish unity and what it will look like. We all have to be engaged in that conversation. It is for us to have that debate and to see that change formulate. For us to say, "Oh no, we just have to remain tethered to Britain" does a great disservice to all those whom we represent. Week after week, politicians come to the Chamber and bemoan the lack of delivery from this place and the problems that we face across our health service, education sector, road network and infrastructure, all of which, we know, are a result of a lack of funding over decades, and a system in which we cannot succeed long term. This island is too small to support two of everything. There is duplication of service everywhere. It does not make sense. From a basic economic perspective, there is no rationale to support it. It is the status quo for us to say, "People have the right to want a united Ireland, and they have the right to remain within the United Kingdom, but, for now, let's just stop talking about it" and then continue within our current arrangement. People are voting against the status quo. It is our responsibility to have that conversation and to stand up for those people and show them what a new Ireland could look like. That is what the motion should be about, and it is the focus that we should have. Rather than allowing ourselves to be swept away by the hatred of Nigel Farage and his cohort, we should be talking about hope — hope for the future and hope for a better way.

This state has not delivered for any of the people whom we represent. We know that it is not going to work long term; there is no length in it. It is —.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. She stated that "this state", as she calls it, has not delivered for any of the people whom we represent. Does she include her party's Ministers in that? Have they not delivered for the people whom they represent?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member knows rightly what I meant. Your party has Ministers in Government, and you know how difficult it is to deliver in this place. I say that as somebody whose party's Ministers are trying to deliver but cannot because your party's Ministers are blocking them. The nationalist people come to us, continuously, with complaints about a lack of delivery here, because we see the worst impact of a right-wing regressive DUP policy that is anti-Irish, anti-rights, anti-bill of rights and anti-delivery of anything progressive. "No, no, no. Never, never, never": that is all we ever hear. That is the tip of the iceberg with regard to the British establishment with which we are trying to work.

We know that this constitutional arrangement cannot go on forever, and we know that it does not work for the people whom we represent. We are trying our best to work within that prism. That is the challenge that we have. This place allows us to make incremental gains, but that is all that they are. You know that as well as I do. You referred to the farming families that you want to support. You only want to support some of them. You do not care about hill farmers. You voted against Declan McAleer's areas with natural constraints Bill, which would deliver support to real people.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

The debate started off badly, because the leader of the Opposition had to justify or attempt to justify why he brought the motion today, and it only got worse from there. He did not table a motion on delivering the A5, which, I am sure, his colleague Mr McCrossan would support. He did not table a motion on job cuts at Magee university caused by Sinn Féin, which, I am sure, Ms McLaughlin would support, or, indeed, a motion on issues that Mr McGlone would support. No, no: the SDLP dedicates its vital Opposition time to wallowing in the defeat of its sister party, the Labour Party, across the United Kingdom. Rather than dealing with the issues as to why the Labour Party was wholly rejected by the people of the mainland United Kingdom, the Opposition blame the people for the decisions that they take. They are not looking at the issues in relation to the failure by Matthew O'Toole's sister party to deal with illegal immigration. The leader of the Opposition did not raise issues in relation to taxing businesses and workers to death or in relation to picking the pocket of pensioners, which perhaps the SDLP supported at Westminster. No, no: instead, let us blame the people.

There is an obsession in the party opposite when it comes to Reform and Nigel Farage. I took a short look at Hansard yesterday: which politician in the Chamber, do you think, has used the words "Nigel Farage" more than any other person? The leader of the Opposition has mentioned Nigel Farage in the Chamber more than every other MLA combined, because he is utterly obsessed with him. I understand the obsession. It is because the SDLP has been rejected by the people of Northern Ireland and so, instead, tries to find a bogeyman who will increase support for its party.

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

You lost half your MPs.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Instead of chuntering from a sedentary position, Mr McCrossan, perhaps you would be better listening to this.

Members talk about the great victory of the SNP, and they talk about the SNP being a model that we need to follow. So interested is that party that they completely rewrote him out of history, but Ian Paisley achieved a lot. My recollection about whether Ian Paisley signed the Belfast Agreement is very different from what the leader of the SNP outlined and very different from the childhood that I grew up in. There was no mention or criticism, of course, of the SNP by the leader of the Opposition.

We are used to Mystic Mary Lou McDonald predicting border polls in Northern Ireland, but now we have Mystic Matthew O'Toole. Mary Lou McDonald promised the people who voted for her party in 2022 that, within five years, we would have a border poll. Mystic Mary Lou then looked at her crystal ball again later that year and changed it to 2030.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I will happily give way.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member. He is using the term "mystic": perhaps they will make good bedfellows for the hypnotist-in-chief, Mr Zack Polanski.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

What we have now is Mr O'Toole trying to predict the outcome of the next UK general election, and that is because the SDLP has been unable and unwilling to articulate a case for itself.

We often have the rewriting of history in the Chamber, but let us look at the outcome of the so-called historic elections. Let us first deal with Scotland. The SNP lost six seats and over half a million votes. The leader of the Opposition may say that losing seats and votes is a victory — indeed, that is a pattern that his party continues to go down — but I do not think that any other political party would state that that was a great election victory. In Scotland, before the last election, in terms of the popular vote, unionism and those who want to break up the United Kingdom were neck and neck. Now, those parties who advocate Scotland remaining in the United Kingdom have a 17% lead over the SNP and the Green Party. Those are the facts that the parties opposite do not wish to engage with. Instead of trying to outsource their failed break-up of the United Kingdom to the Irish Government, who are refusing to in any way advance constitutional change on the island, they try to cling to the coat-tails of election results in other parts of the United Kingdom.

It is interesting, though, that the party opposite has dropped its new line of a historic three so-called nationalist First Ministers across the United Kingdom.

I wonder whether that is because the First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister of Wales refused to meet Sinn Féin last week when it ran over to Westminster to try to meet them on bended knee. They see the truth, which is that the people of Northern Ireland want all of us here to use our time in the House to focus on the issues that matter to them.

Mr Kearney, I encourage you to go to some street corners and pubs, because the issues that people are raising there are not about constitutional change but about the fact that Sinn Féin Ministers continue to fail the people of Northern Ireland. You are exposing the fact that you are unable to deliver for the people whom you claim to represent.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The SDLP motion is fundamentally dishonest. However, we cannot let that get in the way as the SDLP attempts to hold on to Sinn Féin's coat-tails. The motion pretends concern about the results of the elections in Great Britain and claims that they are grounds for a united Ireland. Really? In reality, it would not have mattered what those results were because, as we saw last week in the Chamber and we see again today, nationalist politicians peddle their own narrative, as they struggle to keep their party faithful on board the united Ireland fantasy bus, regardless of what those election results tell us. Reform could have been wiped out, yet the SDLP would still say the same thing as John Hume said in the 1970s:

"it's a united Ireland or nothing".

Everything, ultimately, is a means to that end for nationalism and its helpers in the Alliance Party.

Let us look at what the election results actually tell us. Apart from the SNP losses, which nationalism chooses to ignore, they show us that, when the political class loses the faith of the grassroots, it can and will be replaced. Members on the Benches to my left are keen to downplay the rise of Reform. Why did Reform perform so well? It is because grassroots people are rejecting the old parties of broken promises. People want strong borders to stop illegal immigration and an end to the rampant woke ideology that is controlling government and setting the narrative.

The DUP would also do well to reflect on why Reform made the breakthrough that it did. It was because of the arrogance of people who thought that they had a divine right to rule in many parts of England and Wales; the lack of delivery by a political party that had been entrusted time and time again with the votes of people whom it took for granted; and, most of all, those people's belief that they had been lied to. Labour came to power promising change and failed to deliver anything other than U-turn after U-turn. There are Members of the House who are here only because they told the unionist people that they opposed the Northern Ireland protocol in all its forms; yet, as soon as they got the dud Donaldson deal over the line and after the first sail in the ministerial limo, all the promises were forgotten. It is worse than that. We had Gavin Robinson write an article with the headline:

"DUP set out to remove internal trade border in the Irish Sea – and we've achieved exactly that".

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

That was a lie, Mr Robinson. The DUP presence in the Executive is built on that lie. For me, the lesson of the GB elections is that you can get away with doing that only for so long before the public hold you to account.

I am happy to give way.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Member and I agree on many issues. He knows full well my position on the Windsor framework and other accords. Does he also acknowledge that he needs to be careful what he wishes for? Some of the candidates whom his party endorsed and supported signed and voted for the Windsor framework and its predecessor, the Northern Ireland protocol, whilst they were Members of the European Parliament.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I thank Mr Buckley for his intervention, but he completely gets away from the issue and, indeed, the warning that I was trying to set out before the House: turn your back on the electorate, and it will turn its back on you. Each and every party in the House would do well to remember that.

I will finish off my remarks on the motion by picking up on Mr O'Toole's points about "dark" forces. He was obsessed about dark forces and Nigel Farage. Mr O'Toole is selective when it comes to dark forces. Imagine that you had people in the Government who had a private terrorist group overseeing them — imagine. Would you class that as a dark force, Mr O'Toole? Mr O'Toole, you are happy to have Sinn Féin in the Government —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— here in Northern Ireland, so spare us all your bluster and concerns about Reform UK and Nigel Farage.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Timothy —.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

You practise what you preach.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Sorry, Timothy, your time is up. I apologise: one clock was working; the other one was not, so I am keeping an eye on this one. In case I am accused of bias, I will point out that I gave you more than six minutes.

[Interruption.]

Perish the thought.

[Interruption.]

Yes. Yes, absolutely. Perish the thought that that would ever happen in this place. Anyway, I call Gerry Carroll.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I hope that I get six minutes as well.

[Laughter.]

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member take an intervention?

[Laughter.]

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

With the recent election results in England, Scotland and Wales, it is clear that the Labour Party is presiding over a disastrous time in office. The Labour Party was elected in 2024 — the turnout, it must be said, was historically low — in the hope that it would be different from the corruption-riddled, rich-backing, austerity-addicted Tory party. However, in some ways, the Labour Party has been worse. It promised change and that things could be different, but it has done sod all. In many cases, it has made situations, such as the fuel payment scandal, to name but one, worse.

Obviously, part of the story of the council elections — I emphasise that it is just part of the story — is the increase in votes and seats for the Reform party. The motion rightly expresses concern at the rise of right-wing views as expressed by Reform UK. It is extremely concerning, and it should be a wake-up call for anybody who was not paying attention. Whilst it is not inevitable, it is certainly likely that Reform will be the next Government in Westminster.

Farage's politics are toxic, racist and divisive, and people should see through them. It has to be said that the reason why he is in the position that he is in is that he and his arguments have been bolstered over the years by most mainstream coverage of many issues, such as migration or asylum seekers. I want to state quite clearly that migrants are not a problem and should not be seen as a problem. They should be neither seen nor presented in this House or anywhere else as a drain on society or resources. They are net contributors to our society, financially, socially and culturally.

In my view and that of many people, Keir Starmer should shoulder a lot of the blame for Farage and the rise of Reform. He has tried to cloak himself in the Union Jack, quite literally, and has repeated some of the talking points of Nigel Farage. He also had the shameful audacity to quote and echo Enoch Powell in speeches. He knew what he was doing. He got called out and tried to backtrack. I suspect that Nigel Farage was rubbing his hands when he heard that speech.

The Labour movement in Britain was built by all sorts of nationalities, as was Britain itself: obviously, by people who are British; by the countless generations of Irish people who built homes, railways and buildings across Britain; and by people from the Caribbean, Pakistan, Africa and many more places. Shame on Keir Starmer for many things, and he should be ashamed of that dog-whistle politics as well.

The motion references growing support for a united Ireland. That is an important and welcome phenomenon. Despite what Members to my right have said, people are breaking from old traditions, and more are now open to, or are certainly considering, the possibility of a united Ireland. That is positive and welcome, but I have some concerns about the motion. I ask the SDLP to elaborate on what it means by constitutional change needing to be "carefully managed". I do not know what that means, and I would be wary of taking such an approach, which sounds like quite a timid form of politics. This is a time when we need bold politics. We need a vision for a workers' republic in the 21st century.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Yes, I will give way.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Member will know that I am certainly no advocate of a united Ireland, but will he himself elaborate on what issue he has with the words "carefully managed"?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I asked that question of the proposer of the motion. It risks adopting a political approach in which we just merge the Northern and Southern states, with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael-type politics dominating, which would be very detrimental to people on the island.

We need to have a positive vision. All the i's cannot be dotted and all the t's crossed beforehand, but we could have some general principles about what a united Ireland could look like, which might include having an all-Ireland, publicly funded NHS; not supporting the US military going through Belfast International Airport, Shannon Airport or anywhere else; ending the empty homes scourge that sees hundreds of thousands of homes across the island, North and South, not being used while there is a homelessness crisis; and not being the bedfellow of US and other corporations.

The SDLP's obsession with Reform was mentioned, but I will leave it up to its Members to respond to that. I will say, however, that Jonny Farage has a bit of an obsession with the Green Party. He mentioned it an awful lot. I remind the Member that such an obsession is not really good for his health.

[Laughter.]

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

People today are worried about getting a GP appointment, paying their mortgage or their rent, accessing childcare, finding housing and whether public services will still be functioning in five or 10 years' time, because, let us face it, they are barely functioning now. Those issues are not mutually exclusive to the context in which we provide them, but we should be focusing on them.

I appreciate that there are Members whose genuine constitutional aspiration is for there to be a united Ireland. They are entitled to hold that aspiration. They are entitled to advocate for it peacefully and democratically, and I have absolutely no issue with their doing that. I do, however, take issue with the constant attempt to frame constitutional change as somehow being inevitable, urgent or the singular answer to the challenges facing people in Northern Ireland today. That is gaslighting. It disregards my aspiration, and I can assure Members that it is not endearing me to the vision of a new Ireland.

If that is our answer, what are we really saying to people? Are we saying that the Northern Ireland Executive are not working? Are we saying that every Minister in the current Government is failing? Are we saying that, because we cannot fix our health service, improve our economy or reform public services, let us instead hand over Northern Ireland to another jurisdiction and hope for the best. Let us be honest as well that the Republic of Ireland has significant pressures of its own, including housing pressures, healthcare pressures, cost-of-living pressures, political frustration and rising polarisation. The South may not have a Nigel Farage, but it does have left-wing and right-wing politics.

The idea that south of the border is somehow immune to instability and division is often conveniently overlooked. If we are genuine about improving people's lives, surely it is the House's responsibility to focus on making this place work, rather than on constantly talking it down. We have already heard Northern Ireland be described as a failed state by Members who have been responsible for governing it for the past 10 years.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for giving way. What she said at the beginning of her contribution goes to the heart of one of the frustrations that I, as somebody who believes in a united Ireland and wants to see it delivered, have. We do not want just to rub away the border and stick the two states together. As a Sinn Féin representative, I know how hard our Ministers in particular work. They are, however, working within an arrangement that stymies growth and delivery. We have to rely on a Westminster Government to provide us with the funds to deliver for people here, and we see how chaotic an arrangement that is.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Claire, you have an extra minute.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I appreciate your contribution, Emma, but I struggle to accept the points that you made, because, after 10 years, the first Minister is a Sinn Féin Member, but we are not seeing any progress. Are you saying that you are failing in that respect? If you are —

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Did you listen to what I said?

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I did listen to what you said. I have been listening to what Sinn Féin has been saying for the past 10 years. If we are going to describe Northern Ireland as a failed state, parties across the Chamber that have been involved in the Northern Ireland Executive need to take responsibility for that failure.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

The purpose of a jurisdiction is not simply to satisfy identity but to organise society in a way that allows people to live well. It is about public services, opportunities, security, rights, responsibilities and helping people to build a decent life. I do not accept that the answer to every difficulty in Northern Ireland is to move that responsibility elsewhere. We are essentially advocating for our responsibility to be taken away.

Under devolution, many of the powers that people are concerned about — powers over housing, education, justice and economic development — already exist. Therefore, when people point to failure in those areas, we should be honest enough to acknowledge that many of those failures are not failures of the United Kingdom but failures of devolved government, failures in decision-making and failure to reform, which, at times, have been caused by the absence of government, for which both of the big parties in the House have been responsible in the past 10 years. Changing the constitutional status of Northern Ireland will not automatically fix that.

The motion makes a fundamental mistake by trying to link frustration with British politics to support for constitutional change. Yes, I have concerns about the rise of Reform UK and the type of politics that it represents. Populist politics, if anything, thrives by exploiting that frustration rather than solving problems. It offers simplistic but usually wrong answers to deeply complex issues and tells people that all their problems are somehow someone else's fault. People feel abandoned. They have watched successive Governments promise change while public services deteriorate and living standards decline. That frustration is real, even if I profoundly disagree with some of the political conclusions that people are reaching because of it. It is also important to note that it is not just a rise in right-wing politics; it is a rise in the middle and the left.

Political frustration does not automatically translate into a united Ireland. Elections are not border polls or opinion polls. The Assembly is an example of that. I do not believe that its make-up would ever represent how people outside it might vote. They vote for all sorts of reasons. Some are against parties rather than for them. Sometimes, people feel that they are politically homeless. Sometimes, they are angry, and, sometimes, they simply feel that no one represents them. That does not amount to evidence that constitutional change is inevitable or even close. In fact, I do not even think that we are anywhere near it.

There is a danger in constantly pushing the idea that major constitutional upheaval is around the corner. People often say that Brexit brought us closer to that, but, if anything, it took us further away. We cannot have another constitutional upheaval on these islands —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

— and that includes the island of Ireland.

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

I did not intend to speak in the debate, but some of what has been said in the House deserves to be challenged. Members are giving the leader of the Opposition a fantastic birthday treat today, as he celebrates another year: happy birthday to Matthew.

It is important to point out that, whilst DUP Members are very quick to get to their feet to challenge the SDLP's vision for the island and the future of all our people, they do a poor job in laying out their stall as to why we should remain a part of the United Kingdom. In fact, unionism is united in that course, because I am yet to hear any positive contribution from unionist Members as to what is delivered by the UK or the British Government. What we hear daily —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will not right now.

[Interruption.]

You had your opportunity, Steve, and it was the same rumpled, old unionist line: "We must remain in the United Kingdom, but we cannot tell you why".

However, they can tell you what is wrong with the UK. They tell us every single day that the health service is a disaster, that our schools and roads are crumbling and that we are underfunded. In fact, they have just said that all we get from the British Government are crumbs from the table. The DUP has never really been happy with many British Governments, particularly the most recent Tory Government, when it was tricked into Brexit and accepted a huge cheque for nearly a billion pounds, yet it still cannot tell us what the benefits of Brexit have been.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will not, Jonny, although, to be honest, you are more than entertaining.

It is high time that, if we are really going to have a meaningful discussion about the future of this place, unionism is honest with itself.

The UK is a disastrous mess. If you look at waiting lists, the state of our schools, the state of our roads or the state of Northern Ireland, you see that there is no delivery for people on the ground. If that is not the fault of the British Government, maybe the DUP needs to look closer to home: at how it has presided over this place for almost 20 years in government with Sinn Féin and delivered little. In fact, things have got much worse.

Mr Buckley said that people are not talking about the constitutional question. He might be right in that they are not talking about it daily, but they are certainly challenging where we are today, because this place is not working. I will tell you what they are talking about, Mr Buckley: they are talking about how useless the DUP and Sinn Féin are in government, about how useless their Ministers are when it comes to delivering on anything and about how they cram in legislation at the end of a mandate so that they look as though they are doing something meaningful, only to reverse after an election, should it be on car parking charges or anything else. The truth is that you two in government are the greatest advert for why we need change, why we need to move to a new Ireland and why we need to get away from the orange-and-green chaos of distraction. You can deliver absolutely nothing.

The Alliance amendment is not surprising but very disappointing. Trying to drive up the middle of the road without hitting something is a big risk. You need to choose which direction you are going in. The truth is that the Alliance Party is irrelevant in the debate; it is not engaging in one of the most important conversations of our time. My firm opinion is that our people across the island, whether Catholic, Protestant, unionist, nationalist or whatever, would be much better off in a new Ireland. There are clear ways —.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will not. You are not taking a position on anything right now, so I will not let you in either.

Mini Nigel in the corner has the DUP shaken, but God help the TUV if Reform were to start to run in Northern Ireland; it would be wiped out.

I remind the DUP — it will not like to be reminded of this — that, in 2017, it had 10 MPs. It is down to five; it is losing seats. People are turning away from the DUP's continually regurgitated nonsense about how this place is working and delivering; it is not. People are worse off today than they have ever been. That is down to you guys and your bedfellows in government, Sinn Féin.

It is an important debate. We are on the same page as Sinn Féin about the direction of travel for this place, but the SDLP's way is different, as we will persuade people and bring them along. We are not sticking up billboards saying, "Let's have a border poll tomorrow. We want a united Ireland". It is about sitting down, having a meaningful conversation and creating a pathway and a clear policy direction on the key issues that Mr Tennyson raised, such as the health service, pensions or schools.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up, Daniel.

[Interruption.]

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

It is important, folks.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

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

You do not like the truth.

[Interruption.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up. OK. You all need to chill your jets.

Paula Bradshaw will now make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Paula, you have five minutes.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. What an entirely predictable debate it has been so far. I was not going to get dragged into it, but Daniel's contribution was enlightening. He said that we are an irrelevant party in the debate, but we have 17 MLAs. Before the most recent election, we said to the voters, "Our focus is on education, health, fixing our economy and having better government here". We were rewarded in the polls. Maybe the SDLP should reflect on that as we approach the election in 12 months' time.

I spoke in the Chamber last week about the predictable rush to the microphones following the election results in Great Britain earlier this month. Once again, every result was immediately interpreted through the narrow lens of constitutional division, identity politics or the culture war. I acknowledge the historic nature of the three First Ministers of the devolved Administrations, as Emma Sheerin outlined, but, in my opinion, the clearest message from those elections was something entirely different: for far too many people, politics simply is not working. Perhaps we should all reflect on what happens when large numbers of people lose their faith in politics and seek a political home elsewhere. Timothy Gaston raised that. We should reflect on what fills that vacuum when trust in institutions collapses, when public services deteriorate and when communities feel ignored, because into that vacuum step those who offer easy answers, simplistic slogans and someone else to blame. I totally agree with Gerry Carroll that people start trying to blame the most vulnerable and marginalised people, including migrants, who have something positive to contribute to society.

The context that we are moving into now is one where populism grows. My party colleague Eóin Tennyson highlighted that, as did Declan Kearney. While there were particular circumstances in England, Scotland and Wales, one statistic that should be of concern to all of us is that turnout in the Scottish Parliament election collapsed to barely half of those eligible to vote. The biggest winner was not one political party but disengagement, frustration and antipathy towards politics itself. There is a risk of something similar happening here. Indeed, one of the greatest dangers facing our politics is that people increasingly conclude that the Chamber is incapable of focusing consistently on the issues that matter in and impact on their daily lives. We should be honest enough to acknowledge that our institutions sometimes encourage precisely that failure. For so long as our political system remains built around communal designation and sectarian veto, we should not be surprised when, as we see in the Chamber today, too much political energy is consumed in constitutional positioning instead of practical delivery.

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

Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Go ahead.

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

This is a really important point for me personally and for our party. Do you accept that issues around communal designation and identity are not exactly the same as constitutional positions? That conflation is really pernicious. Do you understand that it is possible to take a position on the constitution without that automatically being deemed tribal, communal or cultural?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member will have an extra minute.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I was not sure that I was getting one.

We have said many times, Matthew, that there are people in the Alliance Party who take a number of constitutional positions. Some people are for a united Ireland; some people want to remain in the United Kingdom; and some people just feel natural and comfortable being Irish, British or both. I recognise that there is a distinction, but we focus our energy as a party on making this place work for people.

As I said, meanwhile, the public rightly want us to focus on improving healthcare, reforming education, growing our economy, delivering housing, strengthening infrastructure and creating opportunity. This is a rare occurrence where I will agree with Jonathan Buckley and Phillip Brett, who both pointed to that in their contributions. Those are the issues that are being discussed around kitchen tables, and they are what we are being told about on the doorsteps. Those issues will also determine whether young people choose to build their future here, and I think that that is something that Daniel McCrossan did —.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. We were cast as irrelevant in the debate: will the Member agree that many of the people who vote Alliance will be decisive in the outcome of any future referendum and that maybe Mr McCrossan should not be so complacent and should show our voters some respect?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I totally agree with that.

As we head towards another Assembly election in less than a year's time, we see today attempts to drag politics back into an endless constitutional headcount. Steve Aiken pointed to that as well. In some ways, this is about people gearing up for the election. Frankly, it is astonishing that, almost three decades on from the Good Friday Agreement, our political structures still directly incentivise that dynamic. As my party colleague Eóin Tennyson clearly stated, the agreement absolutely and rightly provides the mechanism through which constitutional questions are resolved peacefully and democratically, and it recognises the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely expressed by the majority of people here.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Matthew O'Toole to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Matthew, you have 10 minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Thank you to everybody who participated in the debate. Perhaps predictably, when we debate issues in the Chamber, even if they are framed in way that is hopeful and positive and does not fall down along what might be called traditional, tribal framing lines, that framing is placed on it by others. I would have expected that from some across the Chamber; I was disappointed to hear it from colleagues in the Alliance Party, because, on multiple occasions, Members from the Alliance Party have sought to frame the question of people in Northern Ireland, whether they are unionist, nationalist or do not designate — by the way, lots of people who vote for my party are somewhat bored by traditional labels —

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will in a second.

— having a view or seeking to have a debate, seeking to use the Assembly to debate the future after what was, clearly, an historic council election with regard to the results in Great Britain, reflecting on that and talking about it and us, as elected officials, saying that the public in Northern Ireland, whether they have no designation preference or have minimal preconceived identity issues, seeking to reflect on it and offer our views on the future is inherently and categorically divisive and tribal —

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will in a second.

— is deeply problematic.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the leader of the Opposition for giving way. Just to clarify, nowhere in my or Paula Bradshaw's remarks did we say that this was divisive or tribal. We said that the motion comes with a predetermined outcome, and the conversation that we want to be part of is putting some meat on the bones and testing what the proposition would be before coming to a position.

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

Multiple statements were made, some of which I have. I am sure that Hansard can be consulted afterwards. There was this phrase that was used, I think, by Paula, whom I have a huge amount of respect for by the way as a constituency colleague, where she talked about constituency colleagues and identity politics. She talked about a constitutional headcount: that is not particularly constructive when it comes to anyone having a debate. The point was made that others were focused on making this place work and that us having a debate about the future was not about making this place work. It is a constant pernicious framing. I am afraid that Claire Sugden, whom I also have a lot of respect for, did that, too.

Our party makes absolutely no apology for believing that bringing the people of Northern Ireland together and bringing the people of these islands together in a new Ireland is —

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will give way in a moment. Your ill-timed intervention cost me the conclusion of my speech last time, Andrew. I will give way, I promise, but I will be slightly more judicious about when I offer to. I just want to go through some of my points.

Our motion was not intended to thrash out a kind of tribal green-orange debate, as Daniel McCrossan said. Those who frame it as such will have a problem. We have a problem talking about the status quo, because, if anyone talking about change is accused of engaging in some kind of green-orange slanging match, that is a problem, and it says a lot about the status quo.

I will just go through some of the remarks that were made and reflect on them, because it is important to respond to them. It is important to say, as I said in my opening remarks, that we talk constantly in the Chamber about decisions made in Britain and frustrations with the British Government. I heard Timothy Gaston talk about the awfulness of the Labour Government. Clearly, they have not been anywhere near the expectations of even their most supportive followers. Clearly, the Tories were 15 years of austerity, chaos and Brexit. I would like to hear from a unionist politician about the kind of British Government that they would like to see, because I hear them talk in the Chamber time after time about the limitations and frustrations of different British Governments. Then, whenever we say, "Could we think about planning carefully" — yes, Gerry Carroll, it is important that we plan carefully — "over the years and decades ahead a new future for ourselves on this island that would, by the way, involve a new and close relationship with jurisdictions on the island of Britain?" — we hear, "No, no, that's divisive. That's backward", and I find that deeply frustrating.

The elections in Britain were a legitimate reason for us to debate our response to it in Northern Ireland. That is what we are using Opposition time to do. Yes, we use Opposition time, and we will use it today to talk about a 111 service and Caleb's Cause. The idea that the official Opposition do not come here and constantly hold the Executive to account for their delivery — mostly lack of delivery — is obviously absurd. The idea that we are not constantly putting issues forward to hold the Executive to account on health, education, transport and everything else is not just offensive; it is daft and self-evidently ridiculous. Executive parties would do better to agree their own Budget rather than smearing the official Opposition for using Opposition time to debate motions.

The energetic Jonny Buckley was up and down. I am not sure whether he is a supporter of Reform UK. The DUP is not normally shy about making its views known, but there appears to be a wee bit of a tentative —.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes, I will give way if he is going to tell me if he supports Nigel Farage being Prime Minister.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. I certainly would support Nigel Farage over a Zack Polanski who believes that women can be hypnotised into growing their breasts. I would like to see a UK Government who reward hard work, secure their borders and are bedded in common sense. The SDLP falls far short —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order. When one Member gives way — in this case, it was Matthew — and then rises, you have to sit down. That is what happens.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No, it is not a point of order.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

OK.

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

[Inaudible.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Matthew —.

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

[Inaudible.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Matthew —. Matthew, he has asked to make a point of order.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

My reading and understanding of Standing Orders is that — I actually fell foul of this rule — when one Member allows an intervention, the Member making that intervention can talk for whatever his permitted time is. It is not for the other Member to dictate how long that is.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That is not my understanding, but I will take that back to the Speaker and get you a ruling on that. You may continue, Matthew.

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

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I was somewhat amused to hear Mr Buckley accusing the SDLP of being obsessed by ideology. It takes one to know one. There are lots of mirrors in the Building, Jonny: feel free to consult one when it is next convenient.

Phillip Brett talked about mysticism and predicting dates. This debate is not about saying when a border poll should happen. It is not even about forcing that question. It is about how we need to reflect on decisions made in Britain that we cannot control and choosing a new future. We make no apology for putting that proposition to the Assembly. It is not responsible to constantly name arbitrary dates for border polls. What matters is building a case, persuading people and then making the argument for a hopeful new future on this island.

The idea that politicians should not talk about this, as Mr Tennyson seemed to suggest, is, by definition —. By the way, I have no issue with the Alliance Party not taking a position on this, but elected representatives should be able —.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

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

Will you let me speak, please? Elected representatives are, by definition, here to advocate for their political positions, including constitutional arguments. It is absurd to argue that we should not do that. Mr Tennyson said that his amendment indicates that it is for the people of Northern Ireland to make the decision. That, of course, is the case. No one disputes that that is the mechanism by which constitutional change will ultimately happen, but the idea that, in advance of that, politicians should not make arguments is absurd. The argument is, of course, that there should be more detail and more meat put on the bone. Who is going to do that? By definition, it has to be elected politicians. That is our job.

A Member

We will engage on that.

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

By all means, engage on it. Some of us will lead that debate. We will not just engage or be passengers in that debate. We will lead it, we will persuade people, and we will make no apologies for that. That has always been the job of our party. We are proud of it, and we believe in it, and the constant implication that we are engaging in divisive and distracting politics is absolutely ridiculous.

I want to make Northern Ireland work. In the here and now, we will champion accountability. We will constantly hold the Executive's feet to the fire for failure to deliver. However, we will also make a hopeful new argument for Northern Ireland being back in the EU, and the only way that we can decisively shape that future, genuinely, is via a new Ireland. Despite all the heat in the Chamber today, I did not hear anybody else make that argument. I will give way very briefly.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Thank you. You mentioned "a new Ireland" numerous times. I wonder what new bits the Member will endorse: a new flag, a new constitution, a new legislature, new citizenship or admission to the Commonwealth? I wonder which of those will be endorsed by the Member.

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

There is a whole range of things that we can discuss that would be different in a new Ireland.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

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

I have just over a minute left in the debate.

I would not be doing justice to it if I were to list of those things now. However, I am glad that you agree that it is a legitimate subject for debate.

We did not table the motion simply to have a green versus orange shouting match. We did so because the people of Northern Ireland deserve to have a serious proposition put in front of them and to have a serious debate on the topic that Northern Ireland should have the opportunity to live in a country that is not run by Nigel Farage. More broadly, they should have the opportunity to choose a new Ireland that is back in the European Union. Whether you take no constitutional position or have a strong constitutional perspective — whatever your identity — you have a right to make that choice. At some point, we will make it. We make no apology for seeking to persuade and inspire people of that vision, and I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Question Time begins in a matter of seconds. This business will continue after the question for urgent oral answer, when I will put the Question on the amendment.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Question 10 has been withdrawn.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

1. Mrs Dodds asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to provide the longest and shortest response times from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) to planning applications in the past five years. (AQO 3554/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

In the past five years, the shortest and longest response times for planning applications were on the same day as received and 515 days respectively. The varying time frame for application responses can be due to the complexity of the case and the capacity of consultee teams. Response times can also be affected by poor-quality applications and insufficient provision of information from the outset, leading to requests for further information and a reconsultation. The median response time of 11 days for all planning applications in the past five years therefore provides a better overall performance indicator.

The statutory performance of DAERA and other statutory consultees is monitored and published quarterly and yearly by the Department for Infrastructure. The performance rate of all statutory consultees over the five years from 2020 to 2025 ranged from 69% to 77%, with my Department’s performance rate ranging from 59% to 72%.

My officials are committed to doing better. There is an early indication of improvements in performance from the outworkings of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency planning improvement plan.

Since 1 April 2026, my Department has received 510 planning applications, of which it has responded to 364. It responded to 99% of those within the statutory target. In the outstanding cases, the Department is on track to meet a similar performance rate. Tackling planning applications that are outstanding from 2025-26 remains a priority, and my officials are taking forward targeted actions to secure steady and measurable reductions. To date, 90% of applications received during the 2025-26 financial year have been responded to. My officials aim to clear all remaining outstanding consultations by the end of September of this year.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Minister. One of the things that frustrates us greatly — you will understand what I am talking about, because we have spoken about it — is the length of time that it takes significant planning applications that have an economic impact to get through the system. What are you doing to measure the length of time taken versus the economic impact, or does the NIEA simply exist in a vacuum? It never responds to MLAs, including me, about planning applications. It is an appalling service.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Diane. I recognise your frustration about the matter. We have put in place the planning improvement plan to turn things around so that we provide speedier responses. Councils have a role to play in making sure that, before applications go to the NIEA for a response, they are of high quality so that we do not get into a situation in which the NIEA reconsults on an application on perhaps six occasions, which is in no one's interest. A prioritisation process is available to councils. I know that they have used it in cases associated with economic development.

I understand that the previous process for providing updates, including to elected representatives, came into effect in 2021. I sought to fix the process to ensure that people get a much more detailed response, and a new process has been put in place in recent weeks. We are really keen to ensure that there is better customer service. We need speedier responses but also better communication. Officials are focused on that, and I met them recently to emphasise the case for improvement.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In February, the AERA Committee received an update on the NIEA planning review. In that briefing, the NIEA acknowledged that simple residential applications had been delayed for two years because they had been shelved. That was not the responsibility of the council involved. One example was an application that the NIEA could not sign off on because of a bat review that had been shelved simply as a result of there not being enough staff. The office that MLAs hold is not being respected, given that there are no responses whatsoever —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Question, Ms Finnegan.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Given that we are now in late May, will the Minister give an update on the progress of that review and outline what tangible actions have been taken to address the ongoing backlog in planning consultations?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I respect the office that MLAs hold. As I outlined, we have provided for more detailed updates to be put in place. Those are taking place now. I have inherited an arrangement that existed previously. I understand the importance of making sure that you get timely, detailed updates, and that is what we are seeking to achieve. We are trying to strike a balance. When we ask for updates, we take officials away from dealing with the consultation to give us those updates. There is now a process in place to provide more updates. The sheet of paper that I am holding outlines significant pieces of work that have been done and that are ongoing, and I will write to the Member to set those out.

It is important that we give responses in a timely manner, but it is also important that we respect environmental law, because NIEA has an obligation under that law. District councils have a role to play to make sure that, when applications come in, queries are dealt with, primarily through the agent, before going through the engagement process with NIEA. Some go through that process six times. That is in no one's interest.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Minister, will you give the House an update on Northern Ireland Water's waste water policy, known as the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI) and its ability to permit pollution? The House needs an update on that.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am conscious of that, and it will be covered later in Question Time. It is not right or fair that a separate regulatory regime is in place for Northern Ireland Water, and I am seeking the support of my Executive colleagues to bring that to an end.

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

I share the frustrations of Mrs Dodds and others in the House. In fact, this area unites the House in frustration. In response to questions for written answer from me in February, your Department stated that 364 consultations had exceeded the statutory consultation deadline. This May, that figure stands at 459. Things seem to be getting worse. When will you get a grip on the issue, show some leadership and get it sorted? It is creating huge frustration for my constituents.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

As the Member will be aware, I have outlined the actions that have been taken on that and how we are focused on turning that around as part of the planning improvement plan. One of the key issues is resourcing. The Member will be aware, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, that a recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report stated that it takes approximately seven months to get someone into post in the NI Civil Service (NICS). The process of recruiting and putting people into post is far too slow and is holding back delivery on this issue and many others. That needs to be addressed. It is of great concern to me. There are posts that we want to fill but cannot because NICS HR is far too slow and ineffective.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

2. Mr Carroll asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline any actions he is taking to support Colin Glen Forest Park. (AQO 3555/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

In 2018, Colin Glen Forest Park and Colin Park were transferred to Colin Glen Trust via a community asset transfer under a 999-year lease. That innovative arrangement was designed to ensure that public assets are used to maximum benefit for communities and the wider public good. That aligns with my objective of promoting the accessibility of natural spaces, parks and recreational routes. The transfer included a three-year programme of funding to support Colin Glen Trust as it worked towards long-term financial sustainability. That is an ongoing process, and my officials continue to work closely with the trust to support its efforts to achieve that goal.

In addition, my Department has supported Colin Glen Trust in delivering significant capital investment and initiatives aimed at increasing visitor numbers. A range of projects have been supported through the rural business investment scheme, the rural tourism scheme, and the forest park enhancement and community trails development scheme.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Thank you. I declare an interest, as I worked there, 10 or so years ago. Minister, do you agree that Colin Glen is a green haven in west Belfast and that there is a lack of green space in the area, generally speaking? Will you detail any work that your Department is doing, alongside the trust, to increase access, repair footpaths and make sure that people who wheel and who have mobility issues can get proper access around the park?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I agree that it is a really valuable green space in an urban area. I have been there on a number of occasions as Minister and when taking part in the parkrun. I am grateful for the work that the trust does to maintain it. There are opportunities for the trust to make applications to the Department through the environment fund. We will be happy to consider those. We are keen to see the ongoing sustainability of the organisation and will continue to engage with it. Such spaces are really valuable, and I appreciate the work that they do. My Department will continue to engage with the trust to ensure that it has a strong and successful future.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

3. Mrs Erskine asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline any recent assessment that has been made of NI Water’s remit in relation to water quality at Lough Neagh. (AQO 3556/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The Lough Neagh catchment comprises the upper Bann, Moyola, Ballinderry, Sixmilewater, Braid and Maine, Blackwater and Lough Neagh local management areas. Northern Ireland Water has commissioned integrated environmental modelling to assess the impacts of its assets on river bodies and to support future investigations of pressures on Lough Neagh. The modelling will evaluate the relative contributions of nutrients from waste water, agriculture and other sources. Baseline results are now available for Maine, Ballinderry, Moyola and Blackwater. Those are being considered by my Department, and I have asked for a copy. In addition, a material-flow analysis for the Neagh-Bann catchment, completed under the EU-funded NEW Harmonica project, applied source-load apportionment modelling to estimate nitrogen and phosphorus flows for the 2021 reference year, and a copy of that is in the Assembly Library.

As set out in the Lough Neagh action plan, work is under way to develop an integrated data platform with enhanced modelling capability. That will strengthen the evidence base; improve understanding across spatial and temporal scales; and provide more detailed insights into nutrient inputs to inform policy and decision-making. My Department regulates sewage discharges through discharge consents, under the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, requiring treatment levels that protect receiving waters. My Department will continue targeted investigations to identify sources at failing sites and work with stakeholders to implement measures to improve water quality.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his answer, but there is a fundamental problem with overflows along the Lough Neagh site. Farmers are being continually singled out and blamed for the pollution of Lough Neagh, yet the evidence that I got recently following an FOI request on the performance of NI Water tells a very different story. There are 106 storm overflows in the vicinity of Lough Neagh. Of those, only 11 have been assessed, of which just 2·8% were deemed to be satisfactory. By my calculation — I am not good at maths — that means that less than one storm overflow has been assessed as satisfactory.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Is there a question, Mrs Erskine?

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes. I am coming to that.

Even more concerning is the fact that around 50% of those storm overflows are expected to remain unclassified. Minister, that is just not acceptable. It is a scandal that is happening under our noses. When will you and your Department stop disproportionately placing blame on farmers and skewing blame towards that one sector, and put your efforts into challenging the Infrastructure Minister to take responsibility and get proper data?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I will respond to a number of the points that you raised. On 3 March, I set out in the Chamber the work that we are doing to tighten waste water regulation and enforcement. For those who are not aware of that, they can look back at Hansard and see what I said in that regard.

There is no skewing of data. It is important that we respect the science and the evidence. I am very clear that waste water has an impact through pollution of our waterways and Lough Neagh, in particular, which is what the question is concerned with. I am very clear that there are a number of actions that we must take. One of those is to review the consenting methodologies and the standards in discharge consents. When I made that oral ministerial statement, I indicated the potential outcome.

There is a serious issue with sewage pollution in Northern Ireland. There is a need to tackle that and invest in the infrastructure that goes alongside it. We have to do that. I am on the record as consistently saying that. I am looking for support from my Executive colleagues to end the special dispensation that has wrongly been given to Northern Ireland Water through SORPI. I have also been clear that we need to give special designation to Belfast lough. A review of discharge consents must occur. We need to have stronger regulation and enforcement around waste water pollution in Northern Ireland. I am seeking to have that, and, in order to implement it, I am looking for the support of others.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Minister will be aware that, through the special circumstances, known as SORPI, for Northern Ireland Water, the public purse pays a public body to pollute, it pays a government agency to investigate the pollution and then it pays the penalty, if one is issued. Will the Minister provide an update on his efforts to remove those exceptional circumstances for Northern Ireland Water?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

In my oral statement on waste water regulation and enforcement that I delivered on 3 March this year, I set out my key interventions to strengthen the regulation and enforcement of waste water activities and to reduce pollution across our water environment.

Among those interventions is my proposal for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency to withdraw from the 2007 statement of regulatory principles and intent — otherwise known as "SORPI" — arrangement with Northern Ireland Water, and I am seeking support for that from my Executive colleagues. I seek agreement for that proposal with the aim of ensuring a consistent and level regulatory playing field for all organisations and individuals whose activities may impact on the water environment.

It is important that my Department delivers its respective statutory duties under the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017 and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007. I am seeking to bring in stronger regulations and enforcement for sewage pollution. It is important that we do that, because it has an impact not only on Lough Neagh but also on other waterbodies, such as Belfast lough. That is what I seek to do. Everything I do in life is about being fair, and that is why it is important that we have equity in the regulation and enforcement in relation to pollution. We all know there is a water pollution problem; it is set out in the NEW Harmonica report, which is in the Assembly Library. It is important that we take action on it.

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

Minister, hundreds of people protested at the lough shore yesterday, including our party leader and my colleague Patsy McGlone. There is a real sense that, despite all the talk about Lough Neagh and whether the source of the pollution is water or agriculture — clearly, both have contributed to the decay of the island's biggest body of water and the source of 40% of our drinking water — we are not meaningfully forward in restoring the lough to health. You have talked about your intentions on SORPI and nutrients: can you give us any clarity about what meaningful progress will have been made towards restoring Lough Neagh by the end of the mandate?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Matthew. I understand people's concern about the situation, because the communities that live around the lough are the most affected and we get 40% of our drinking water from Lough Neagh. Therefore, it is imperative that we address the issue. It means making difficult decisions. There are issues with regard to pollution, and I have set out what we seek to do about waste water pollution. We also need to have mature conversations about investment in Northern Ireland Water, and it is important that we do that. Alongside that, we consulted on the nutrients action programme (NAP) last year, and a stakeholder task and finish group has been set up to consider the outcomes of the consultation and any other proposals that people may have. I hope that that group will finish its work shortly, and we will do a further consultation on that. I hope that people will support that just transition for our farming community.

It is not just about agriculture. It is important that we respect the science but also take a holistic approach. There is also a climate change issue. You know that the issues associated with Lough Neagh are not unconnected with the rise in temperatures, and that is why I seek the Chamber's support for the climate action plan for Northern Ireland. I will also seek the Executive's support for a fisheries and water environment Bill, and, alongside that, there is a long-standing commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' for an independent environmental protection agency, but one of my partners in government has decided to block it. That makes the case yet again for why the institutions need to be reformed, and it is something that, I know, we are on the same page on.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Northern Ireland Water is responsible for the discharge of 200,000 tons of sewage and 70 tons of phosphorus into Lough Neagh's catchment each year. It is time to stop using farmers as the scapegoats for Lough Neagh turning green.

Minister, what timeline have you set with your colleague, the Minister for Infrastructure, to see a real-time reduction in the pollution of Lough Neagh by Northern Ireland Water?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

My concerns about that have been consistent. Northern Ireland Water has reported that more than 20 million tons of untreated sewage and waste water spill into waterways every year, with storm overflows discharging over 24,500 times annually. I will seek support at the Executive meeting next Thursday to end the arrangement known as "SORPI" and for a special designation to be made for Belfast lough. We also need to have a mature conversation about investment in waste water infrastructure, because that must occur not only to stop the damage to our environment but to address the constraints on housebuilding and economic development.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

4. Mr Mathison asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on his efforts to introduce a closed season for periwinkle harvesting. (AQO 3557/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Earlier this year, my Department made regulations to introduce a closed season for periwinkle harvesting between January and April each year in the Northern Ireland intertidal area. There was significant support for that in a public consultation in 2022. It was disappointing that the regulations had to be subsequently revoked after the AERA Committee voted in opposition to them a few weeks before they would have come into operation.

Strangford lough holds designations as a special area of conservation and a marine conservation zone. An Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) report on periwinkles in Strangford lough was published in 2022. It recommended a closed season from January to April to protect spawning stocks of periwinkles in Strangford lough. I have asked my officials to bring forward a statutory rule (SR) for a closed season for the gathering of periwinkles in Strangford lough based on the recommendations in that report.

My Department remains committed to meeting its environmental obligations and promoting the long-term sustainability of our fisheries and will take timely and proportionate action, where that is necessary, to protect marine resources.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for that update. Will the Minister provide further detail on whether he expects to see a closed season for periwinkle harvesting in place in Strangford lough before the end of the mandate?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

It is my intention to introduce a closed season for periwinkle harvesting for Strangford lough by the end of the mandate. I will seek the support of the Committee and, if necessary, the Chamber for that. It is important that we respect the designations that are placed on Strangford lough and that we protect important habitats, features and species. The AFBI report sets out clearly the recommendations in that regard, and it is important that we regulate the issue and introduce the closed season. I look forward to the support of my colleagues in that regard.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

The Northern Ireland fishing industry is in crisis and, in its own words, facing a "perfect storm", with rising fuel costs, reduced fishing opportunities, restrictions that have been enforced by the Isle of Man Government and issues with foreign workers' visas. Sadly, many rely on gathering periwinkles, especially during bad weather, to supplement their income. Will the Minister stand up for the fishing industry and take account of the impact that such policies will have on the sector?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am conscious of the pressures that our fishing industry faces. That is why I travelled to the Isle of Man to make representations on the specific issue that the Member outlined. The Secretary of State and I engaged on the pressures, particularly those regarding fuel and the migration policy that the UK Government are implementing. I will continue to explore what is possible within Northern Ireland's limited budget, but I recognise those issues, and there will be significant engagement.

On the issue at hand — the closed season for periwinkle harvesting — it is important that we respect the science and protect our environment. That is what I seek to do in a proportionate manner.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

In his answer to the tabled question, it seemed that the Minister was apportioning blame to the Committee for not passing the SR in the limited time that we had.

Minister, do you accept that, in reality, the AFBI report and science relate to Strangford lough? That is what the evidence relates to. You wanted to put a ban on periwinkle gathering across the shores, up the eastern seaboard of Northern Ireland, when, in fact, the science tells us that, due to global warming, the water is getting warmer and the periwinkles are moving north.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

A few weeks before it was due to come into place, the Committee expressed a position that it wanted to annul the regulations. I was conscious of the decision that the Committee took. I was also conscious of the fact that, in seeking to introduce it more widely than Strangford lough, we were seeking to address the concerns regarding displacement. I am trying to find a way forward that protects Strangford lough, respects the science and protects our environment. That is why I will seek your support on that. I am happy to meet the Committee in due course, as are officials, to discuss the matter further.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

5. Mr McMurray asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an assessment of the environmental damage caused by recent wildfires in the Mournes. (AQO 3558/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

It was absolutely devastating to witness the recent spate of wildfires across our landscapes, including the Mournes. Using satellite imagery, we can estimate the extent of the area in the Mournes that was impacted on by the wildfires. Initial estimates are that the fire to the north of Bloody Bridge extended to approximately 93 hectares; the fire to the south of Bloody Bridge extended to approximately 726 hectares; and the fire in the western Mournes extended to approximately 1,339 hectares.

We will have to wait for a period to see how badly the habitat itself has been impacted on. There is likely to be a regrowth of vegetation in most places over the next year or two, but we will have to see whether species composition is adversely affected in relation to the expected condition of the site and whether intervention measures will be needed. Over that period, we will also be able to get an indication of whether any areas have been severely damaged and seed bank lost. In such areas, additional measures may be needed to ensure that the vegetation recovers.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Thank you, Minister. What work is ongoing to prevent future fires in our natural environment? What actions is the Minister taking to promote the recovery of nature and the environment? Will the Minister meet stakeholders in the Mournes in order to see at first hand some of the effects of the fires?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I have been really clear that the work to prevent wildfires in the Mournes and elsewhere has to be a collective endeavour. That is why I recently launched the wildfire action plan, which will run to 2030, as part of the strategic framework that we launched last year to tackle the increasing threat of wildfires. The action plan focuses on five main objectives: prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and enforcement. Those strategic objectives are supported by 35 areas of development as part of the action plan, which should ensure regional capability to better address wildfires in Northern Ireland.

As part of the implementation, DAERA recently appointed a consortium of international wildfire experts to deliver a range of wildfire mitigation and management work across Northern Ireland, including wildfire management and response plans in the Mournes. It is important that I thank the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service for its work in extremely challenging circumstances alongside many other agencies, including my officials, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and relevant organisations in the Mournes, particularly the Mourne Heritage Trust and the Mourne Mountain Rescue Team.

The most important action that we can all take is that, if we know anyone who is deliberately lighting malicious fires, to report that information to the police or Crimestoppers.

I would be delighted to accept the Member's invitation to come down to the area.