Northern Ireland Assembly, 6 October 2026

285 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Today, the £63 household electricity discount comes into effect. I commend the Sinn Féin Minister for the Economy, Caoimhe Archibald, for bringing in the scheme and for putting money back in people's pockets. Electricity suppliers will implement the discount automatically, with the £63 being credited to bills or added when prepaid meter or pay-as-you-go customers top up their prepaid meter card.

The discount comes at a time when people are continuing to struggle with the cost-of-living crisis, as high fuel and grocery costs prevail, thus making it much harder for them to make ends meet. As we move into the winter, people will be using more electricity in the home, so it is a timely intervention. The £63 electricity discount does not, however, deal with all the pressures being felt by households. We will therefore continue to work to support people here. That includes continuing to insist on having a Budget that protects people, that properly invests in public services and that ensures that people get the services and support that they need.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Yesterday, in the House, we talked about the vile sectarian abuse that was being pushed on to the people of my constituency by Sinn Féin. Whilst there was, rightly, much focus on that topic, one thing that was really apparent was the lack of response from the First Minister and her party colleagues to what can only be described as the most vile and misogynistic abuse towards my constituency colleague Carla Lockhart MP.

Over the past week, that lady, a democratically elected politician, has been bullied, abused and vilified by a Sinn Féin-whipped-up mob. Outside the court, we saw democratically elected Sinn Féin politicians with loudhailers, calling on the mob. The mob spat at her, abused her physical appearance and took issue with her cause, but that was not enough for it. That continued during the week, and its online rent-a-mob did the same. Michelle O'Neill, the First Minister for all, is a lady who has talked in the House many times about a strategy to end violence against women and girls. That was all just hot air from a First Minister who, when asked in the House on not one but two occasions — potentially even three occasions — to condemn those abusive personal attacks, did not do so. Mrs Mason is in the House this morning and has made her Member's statement. She also did not do that today.

I say this, folks: you can have political disagreements with any Member from this party, but to subject anybody to such vile hatred and abuse is wrong. It is not just Carla Lockhart; my colleague Diane Dodds has received the same abuse. As democratically elected representatives for Upper Bann, we have been vilified for standing up for our community. It is not going to happen. Carla Lockhart is a mother, a daughter, a sister and a representative, and she deserves respect, not vile, ramped-up hatred from Sinn Féin or any other person who has been elected to the House.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I will talk about ordinary people who live ordinary lives, because the Chamber underestimates just how far people have moved forward in the past while. The fleadh was a brilliant example that showcased that. People from every background came together, enjoyed themselves and shared this place. That is Northern Ireland today. People are getting on with their lives, working, raising their families, building businesses and enjoying sport, music and our culture. They are looking forward. They struggle to understand why anybody wants to drag us back to the arguments of the past. Why should a tiny minority that is determined to keep division alive get to dictate the future of everybody else who is living an ordinary life? The vast majority of people here have moved on. This is their home. Whether they are British, Irish, both or neither, most people are proud to be from here and to call this place home.

What they ask us to do is pretty simple: deal with the things that actually affect their lives. Right now, one of the biggest issues for them is the cost of living. Diesel prices have hit over £2 a litre and are expected to rise. For people who go to work and our farmers, hauliers and small businesses, that increases their costs. Those costs do not disappear, as people will pay them in their weekly shop. Mortgage rates look like they will rise, which will push rents up. We see the soaring prices of heating oil, gas and electricity. People are worried about the cost of getting to work, heating their homes and putting food on the table. They expect the House to focus on those things. They expect us to bring down those energy costs, to work together to help them and to shout from the rooftops to the UK Government so that they help our people and so that the people who live here have more money in their pockets.

The people who are outside this Building are miles ahead of the politics that we hear in it. They have moved forward, and this place has not kept up. They want us to focus on their lives, their families and their future, not on the internal party noise, the culture war distraction and the fingers being pointed at one another. They want delivery. They demand delivery. We need to share our home to build our future. That is exactly where the House needs to focus and where we need to be.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I am absolutely delighted to spend a few moments talking about the achievements of one of my constituents, Reuben Kernohan from Ahoghill, who is one of the finest motor sport competitors in Northern Ireland, the island of Ireland and, indeed, the United Kingdom. He is an absolutely dedicated and talented young man, and, in the past two years, his achievements have been outstanding. In 2025, Reuben was crowned Rotax all-Ireland champion. He was then given the opportunity to represent Ireland at the world finals in Bahrain. In 2025, he really cleaned up. He was named driver of the year by the Ulster Karting Club, and he won the all-Ireland championship, the Ulster championship, the Ulster points championship and the Tommy Rogers memorial trophy. He also finished that year as runner-up in the Irish Grand Prix. What an outstanding season. He came back for more in 2026, retaining the Rotax all-Ireland championship title. He also secured victory this year in the Irish Grand Prix and cemented his position as one of the outstanding talents in motor sport in Northern Ireland.

In life, success does not happen automatically; it happens through years of hard work, support from parents, practice, determination and getting over the setbacks. Reuben's journey began with racing teams in England, where he achieved numerous victories and podium finishes. In 2021, he became the junior T4 Tillotson world champion. He has shown versatility in different types of kart racing, but what stands out about Reuben is not just his talent and skill but his character. He is respected throughout the motor sport community for his professionalism, sportsmanship and determination. He gives 100% and is a role model not just to young people but to everyone in Northern Ireland.

In November, Reuben will head off to Portugal to compete in the Rotax world grand finals, where he will once again represent the people of our country. Everyone in Ahoghill, in North Antrim and across Northern Ireland will be cheering him on. I pay tribute to his family, who are here today. Their support has been instrumental to his success. Reuben has accomplished more in his 18 young years than many do in a lifetime. We often talk about the negatives in Northern Ireland. We often talk about things that really do not matter, but our young people are what make us proud, and no one makes me more proud in my constituency than Reuben Kernohan, who has achieved a lot through his determination and tenacity and is supported by a wonderful family. Congratulations, Reuben.

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

I rise to announce a public rally in Hill Street, Newry, at 2.30 pm on Sunday 25 October to save maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital. I speak for midwives, maternity teams, health workers and, most importantly, the mothers and families of Newry, south Armagh and south Down. I speak because something fundamental is at stake. I speak because the maternity service at Daisy Hill Hospital is under threat. I say clearly that the women and families of our border region deserve safe, accessible maternity care close to home.

The Southern Health and Social Care Trust has confirmed that it faces serious workforce pressures in the maternity service at Daisy Hill Hospital following consultant obstetrician retirements and resignations. The trust has said that, unless sufficient staff can be secured, it may have to temporarily consolidate births and inpatient maternity care at Craigavon Area Hospital within the next six to eight weeks. Let us be absolutely clear about what that means. It is not simply about a hospital building. It is not about where mothers give birth. It is about where families go when pregnancy becomes complicated. It is about emergency care. It is about antenatal and postnatal services. It is about midwives, doctors and other maternity staff who have built a remarkable service that families across the region rely on. It is about whether people living in our part of the North can continue to have access to essential healthcare close to their community.

The trust has said that the overriding priority is the safety of women and babies. We agree. Safety must come first, but safety cannot simply be used as a reason to move a service. If the proposed alternative is to transfer all births and inpatient maternity care to Craigavon Area Hospital, including up to 1,900 births a year, how can patient safety be claimed as the justifying rationale? Where is the detailed capacity assessment? What additional staffing would Craigavon require? What about all the jobs that are relied on in Daisy Hill Hospital? Where will they go? Will people be forced to stay quiet, as is the case now? Will the unions not be backing people to come out and talk honestly and openly about what is happening and about their fears for the future, including for mothers who might be forced to have their babies on the side of the road between Newry and Craigavon? Mothers are scared. Staff are scared.

We have seen our First Ministers in Drumcree, which is a very important issue, but our First Ministers are not being upfront about maternity services in Daisy Hill Hospital. Why are they not shouting about it? Why are the Executive not taking the lead to protect maternity services at our hospital in Newry? Why is that not happening? Why are they not visible? Why are they not vocal in protecting our maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital? It is not good enough.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Eight of the world's largest companies have made $93 billion profit in just three months of Israel and America's ongoing war against Iran. We all know that escalating food, oil and energy costs are exacerbating the ongoing cost-of-living crisis for ordinary workers and families. This is a time when families are being forced to choose between heating and eating, so it is an absolute travesty that, during this cost-of-living crisis, the working-class community of the Garvaghy Road should be subjected to the irrationality of a triumphalist sectarian parade and reactionary politics being forced upon their area.

Earlier this year, the world's top oil and gas companies made $30 million profit every minute during the early stages of that war. Some have quadrupled their profits in a period in which we are experiencing unprecedented levels of global inequality and hunger. The case is now compelling: the British Government should redistribute existing windfall taxes to support working people. They should cut tax and VAT on oil, petrol and diesel to reduce costs for consumers. It is time that the big corporations were brought to heel and compelled to pay their fair share of taxes, and it is time that ordinary workers and families were given a break.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Very sadly, Ray Close, the Belfast-born boxer who made Bangor his home, died last week at the age of just 57. He will be warmly remembered as not only one of Northern Ireland's finest boxers but a complete gentleman.

Ray turned professional in 1988 and went on to win the Irish super-middleweight title before claiming the European crown in 1993. However, he is best and most fondly remembered for two very memorable battles with Chris Eubank for the World Boxing Organization title. Many of us in Northern Ireland would say that he was robbed by the judges in at least one of those fights.

Ray's contribution to boxing went well beyond his own career. He started boxing in Ledley Hall in east Belfast, and, in later years, he gave his time and experience to young boxers in Bangor Abbey Boxing Academy. Ray was always very willing to encourage others and pass on the knowledge that he had accumulated over many years of boxing. He certainly did that with his son William.

I will remember Ray through a much more personal connection: when I was mayor in 2013, I had the great pleasure, perhaps showing very questionable wisdom, of taking part in a five-round exhibition match with Ray's son William Close. William was, quite frankly, a giant of a man in both frame and power. I lost substantially, although I think that the judges very graciously called it a draw on the day.

The fight was organised by another local boxing legend Sandy Rice, who brought us together for that very memorable occasion. A photo of the fight between William and me is on the wall of my constituency office in Bangor.

Ray's passing represents a significant loss to his family, his friends and the boxing community in Bangor, across North Down and throughout Northern Ireland. He leaves a proud legacy in the ring, perhaps most importantly for the many young boxers and other young people whom he encouraged throughout his career. Ray Close was a champion, a mentor, a gentleman and a family man. He will be much missed by many in North Down and by his family in particular.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

The cervical screening scandal in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust is a story of failure. Three years ago, news of the scandal broke when 17,500 women received a letter to tell them that their cervical screening results were being reviewed. It is hard to convey the impact of receiving that letter. Before opening it, those women knew only that they had done the right thing: they had gone for their smear, received the all-clear and carried on with their lives. Then they opened that letter and experienced shock, fear, concern and uncertainty.

That letter was not the culprit but the messenger. The failures were systemic and extended across 13 years. Two women died after their cervical smears were read incorrectly. Lynsey Courtney and Erin Harbinson were young women and mothers. Their lives were cut tragically short. I say this to their families: I am desperately sorry for your loss; no words can ever fully convey the pain of losing someone you love in those circumstances. There must, however, be accountability. Six reports have been produced, and there have been reviews, recommendations and commitments, but, three years on, women and families are still waiting for accountability, transparency and the answers that they deserve.

Let us not forget the women who survived: women went through cancer treatment — surgery, chemotherapy and other invasive and deeply personal procedures. Those experiences may have been avoided had the system worked as it should.

I make a direct appeal to Minister Butler to act: act not simply as a Minister and a departmental representative but as a father and husband. Minister, put yourself in the shoes of those women and their families. Those women deserve more than sympathy, meetings and photo ops; they deserve answers and accountability. That is why I am joining Ladies with Letters and MLAs from across the Chamber to call on you, Minister, to deliver a statutory public inquiry for Lynsey, Erin and the 17,500 women affected by the scandal. We owe them nothing less.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Double taxation continues to be a huge issue for people across many border communities such as mine. It is a block to many people in accessing employment. Partition continues to create barriers, and Brexit has made them worse. The recent Irish Business and Employers Confederation and CBI report on all-Ireland labour mobility highlights huge potential, but it also highlights the barriers that remain around taxation, social protection and employment.

A recent Economic and Social Research Institute report states that up to 19,000 people regularly move from the North to the South and from the South to the North for employment. As a result, we see that trade, investment and supply chains are increasingly operating across Ireland, but our systems have yet to catch up. We therefore have a system in which people who move between Derry and Donegal or Newry and Louth, and in many of our other border communities, face double taxation and a system that treats them unfairly, first in accessing the workplace, and, secondly, in how they interact with the workplace, particularly with regard to taxation and administration. We see that particularly in the case of remote and hybrid working. Employers can be reluctant to recruit people in the North because of the cross-border arrangements, which are much too complicated.

I recognise the work of my colleagues John O'Dowd, Caoimhe Archibald and Conor Murphy on that issue, alongside, in particular, Border People, the Centre for Cross Border Studies and the chambers of commerce, which have pushed the practical solutions.

We also need to see the removal of barriers to student mobility, ensuring lower student fees, increased post-graduate loans and improved maintenance support, so that our economy is as integrated as it can be and we see the best employment solutions and the best opportunities for all of our young people and workers across Ireland.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yesterday, when the First Minister finally came to the Chamber, she was asked a number of times to condemn the language and vile abuse that has been directed at Carla Lockhart and Diane Dodds, but she refused to do so. The First Minister has a lot of grand titles. She previously told us that she was "First Minister for all", and yesterday she told us that she was:

"the First Minister of what is right." — [Official Report (Hansard), 5 October 2026, p45, col 1].

What is right? Is it right that someone who is mother, a daughter and a wife should be subjected to horrific abuse and threats simply because she is a woman in public life? Is it right that a woman should face threats of physical violence, intimidation and misogynistic abuse, and that the First Minister for Northern Ireland cannot bring herself to simply say, "Stop"? The Executive whom the First Minister claims to lead, have made ending violence against women and girls a priority. That cannot simply be a slogan or a strategy document.

Leadership matters most when it requires you to speak out, including on occasions when the women who are being targeted happen to be your political opponents. Other Sinn Féin representatives have managed to do exactly that. I welcome the fact that John O'Dowd went on the radio this morning and condemned the activity, and that Catherine Seeley condemned it publicly this morning. Clearly, they have recognised that the abuse crosses a line, yet the First Minister — the woman who holds the highest office in this place and tells us that she represents everybody — cannot do the same. Right now, the First Minister stands alone, and there is a wedge between her and her party colleagues. Her silence, by not calling out the abuse of DUP representatives and asking for it to end, is stark.

This should not be about party politics. It is about basic decency. No woman should be threatened with violence because of her political views, and no woman should have to accept vile abuse as a price of her public service. Therefore I ask the question again: First Minister, will you condemn the threats and abuse that have been directed at Carla Lockhart and Diane Dodds? Will you, clearly and unequivocally, tell those responsible to stop? If we cannot unite around something so basic as that, what does the term, "First Minister for all" actually mean?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

On 7 October, three years ago, the worst atrocity since the Holocaust was committed on the Jewish people. On Simchat Torah, one of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar, thousands of Hamas terrorists, Palestinian jihadists and so-called Palestinians crossed into southern Israel. They murdered, raped and tortured 1,300 men, women and children — in many cases, the did so in the most barbaric fashion. Particular attention was given to women, many of whom were brutalised whilst being raped; children of all ages, who were burnt alive; the old; the disabled; and the likes of Liel Hetzroni, a young girl who just wanted to go to school the next day. There was one common factor: they were slaughtered by the sectarian mobs because they were Jews.

There is no doubt that a terrorist and sectarian mob conducted those atrocities. We know, because they livestreamed their attacks on social media. The beheadings and mutilations were not from someone's sick imagination or scenes from a horror movie: they were crimes against humanity and were proudly recorded by those intent on pure antisemitic evil. To pretend otherwise is to deny reality.

While the terror of 7 October was still occurring, the perpetrators' antisemitic fellow travellers were already praising the terror, with "From the river to the sea" and "Long live the intifada" streaming across social media.

This while Tamar, Yonatan, their five-year-old twin daughters Shahar and Arbel and their son, Omer, aged two, were being burnt to death by Hamas.

Nowhere has the stream of vile antisemitism been more prevalent than on this island. Those who parrot the phrase "No alternative to terrorism" have issued streams of outright antisemitic propaganda. The continued parroting of those untruths, packed with vitriol, as so-called facts has resulted in this island's being rightly called out as one of the most antisemitic places in Europe. Judging by the intolerance shown on the field of sport, in our legislative Chambers and in biased reporting, even including conspiracy theories when commenting about a hijacking that was thwarted by brave Israeli passengers and an Indian pilot, it very clearly is. As we reflect on happened on 7 October 2023, we need to be asking much deeper questions about the psyche that exists on this island, because it never starts with antisemitism or ends with it. I stand, as I always do, with our embattled Jewish community and all the innocent victims of terror. Am Yisrael chai.

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

I will talk today about the pressures facing the fishing industry, an issue that is so relevant to my constituency, given the prominence of Kilkeel and Ardglass harbours. Mr Speaker, as a former Agriculture Minister, you will know that fishing is one of the most difficult and labour-intensive roles to perform. It is a dangerous job, and it is very often a dirty job. Our fleets work long hours and are at the mercy of the tides and the weather. Those of us who enjoy a fish supper on a Friday night do not see all that goes into how it gets on our plate, but those in the industry are not seeking acclaim, nor are they looking for special treatment. They are simply looking to have a fair chance.

Fishing is an industry, and a competitive one at that. For it to be viable and for our fishermen to continue providing the service that they do, it needs to be able to make money. Its ability to do so is becoming increasingly hampered, given the constraints on the industry, which are becoming more numerous and inescapable. I often liken it to being in a room with all four walls coming in and slowly squeezing you. Difficulties have included the massive ramifications of Brexit, and, although there may have been opportunities with quotas, there have been severe restrictions on the ability to recruit staff, which has forced skippers to look internationally, even as far as Southeast Asia. That has resulted in overseas staff being employed on inordinate salaries, and the administrative gymnastics alone that is required to obtain those staff is ridiculous and unsustainable.

Another wall is enforcement. The UK's Marine Management Organisation is now carrying out numerous stops on our vessels, with checks ranging from checking crew paperwork to checking to size of nets right down to the millimetre. Such stops interrupt work, have resulted in punitive fines and create even more frustration for an industry that already feels ignored. There is then perhaps the most literal squeeze of all, which is the lack of space in which to fish. In the Irish Sea, English fleets reach in from the east, Scottish fleets from the north and Irish fleets from the south. In the centre, the Isle of Man has primacy. That could once have been settled through agreements between those who fish the waters, but our fishermen are now left with a tightly constrained stretch of sea. The squeeze is all too real. Despite that, our Agriculture Minister, who should be standing up for those fishermen and saying, "I've got your back", is consulting on proposals that would make that small stretch of sea even smaller. He has already failed to deliver the fishing and seafood development programme, and our fishermen cannot afford another squeeze.

Our fishermen are not asking for special treatment. Rather, they are asking for the space in which to work, people to crew the boats and a fair chance to make a living. Perhaps the next time that we have some fish for our dinner, we can spare a thought for those who are working and how we can possibly help them more.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Justin McNulty has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member has up to three minutes in which to speak.

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

The petition was launched by Catherine Sherry's brother, Martin O'Hanlon, who is in the Public Gallery with his aunts Anne and Marie Garvey. It has been signed by 6,562 people to date. The petition states:

"We ... call on the Northern Ireland Executive to promptly commission CAR-T services closer to home and to immediately begin negotiations with the Irish Government to establish all-island access to CAR-T cancer treatment now."

If you stand at the front of Parliament Buildings and look west, you will see Belfast City Hospital. The patients in ward 10 North, which is the City Hospital's blood cancer ward, and their families can see Stormont from their window, but they cannot see whether their political leaders care about them. Life-saving CAR-T treatment is available in 21 NHS hospitals in England and in hospitals in Scotland and Wales, and it has been delivered in St James's Hospital in Dublin since December 2021. It is now available in Galway, but it is not available here.

Two years ago, Catherine was a patient in ward 10 North. The life-saving treatment that Catherine needed was available in Dublin, one hour down the road, but our political leaders did not take care to make it available here or allow all-island access to it in Dublin or Galway. Instead, Catherine had to travel to London by aeroplane on three occasions, which separated her from her family when she needed their love and support the most. She was exhausted, immunocompromised and fighting for her life. As she sat waiting in ward 10, looking at Stormont, Catherine asked: "Why is the treatment available elsewhere but not here? What are politicians doing? No other family should have to go through this".

Catherine's family started this petition, and the thousands of people who have signed it have demonstrated their support. Many have commented that cancer services here can and should be better. We deserve better. It is imperative that political leaders step forward to provide that life-saving cancer treatment here and allow all-island access to treatment through cooperation with centres in the South.

The policy priorities that were published recently by Leukaemia and Lymphoma NI (LLNI), a policy and advocacy group that comprises patients, their families, clinicians and researchers, have clearly defined what is needed. LLNI calls for the local delivery of CAR-T and other cellular therapies, a review of barriers to CAR-T delivery and the publication of a clear road map to local commissioning in the current mandate.

Political leadership is needed, and the time to act is now. The thousands of people who signed the petition want political leaders to act now. After all, any one of us or our loved ones could need CAR-T treatment in future. I am very proud to table this petition on behalf of Catherine Sherry's family and the 6,562 people who have signed it to date.

Mr McNulty moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I will forward the petition to the Minister of Health and send a copy to the Committee.

Committee Business

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 11 December 2026 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

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

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

On behalf of the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Communities, I seek the support of the House for the motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill until 11 December 2026.

The Bill was introduced on 30 June by Colm Gildernew MLA and completed its Second Stage on 21 September, when it was referred to the Committee for Communities. The Committee's call for evidence ended on 3 September, after being agreed at our meeting on 2 July. At that same meeting, the Committee received a briefing from the sponsor, and, last week, it received briefings on the Bill from researchers from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe).

At Second Stage, I indicated that, throughout this mandate, the Committee has maintained a strong focus on housing need, temporary accommodation, homelessness prevention and the services that support people who are homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless, and that the Committee is acutely aware of the significant challenges associated with homelessness in Northern Ireland and the profound impact that housing insecurity can have on individuals, families and communities.

On 30 June 2026, the total number of households on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's waiting list with no existing Housing Executive or housing association tenancy at was 50,891, comprising 92,700 individuals. Of those, 39,617 households, comprising 73,223 individuals, were in housing stress, and 34,091 households, comprising 64,417 individuals, had full-duty application status, meaning that they are considered to be statutorily homeless.

The principle of intervening earlier to prevent homelessness is a policy intention of the Bill. The Bill proposes to amend the definition of "threatened with homelessness" in the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 to place a duty on the Housing Executive to provide support for people who:

"will become homeless within 60 days"

That replaces the duty to provide support for those who:

"will become homeless within 28 days".

It is the sponsor's view that that will reduce the likelihood of people becoming homeless and increase the likelihood of them being able to stay in their current home, where interventions are successful, rather than them having to rely on temporary accommodation.

The cost of temporary accommodation to the Housing Executive in 2023-24 was almost £39 million, and there was a £31 million increase in temporary accommodation expenditure between 2018-19 and 2023-24. Any increase or decrease in that spend raises important questions that warrant our full examination. Themes and discussions so far demonstrate that there are a number of areas that merit detailed consideration. Those include whether the proposed 60-day period represents the appropriate point for statutory intervention; the likely operational implications for the Housing Executive and potential financial consequences; the interaction between earlier intervention and potential pressures on temporary accommodation and existing housing supply; and whether provision should be made for the operation of the legislation to be reviewed after implementation.

Those, and the potential positive implications that the Bill may have for homelessness, as well as how the Bill may interact with any future homelessness commission, which was announced recently by the Minister for Communities, are why it is important that the Committee Stage provides sufficient time for effective scrutiny. The Committee must consider the submissions that it has received, identify matters that require further examination and hear oral evidence from relevant stakeholders. For example, we are yet to hear from people with lived experience of homelessness, organisations providing homelessness and housing support services, the Housing Executive, relevant professional and representative organisations, and other stakeholders with experience in this area. We must then consider that evidence collectively; return to the Bill sponsor, the Department and the Housing Executive where clarification is required; consider any potential amendments; undertake formal clause-by-clause scrutiny; and agree our report and commend it to the Assembly. As with many other Committees, the Communities Committee has an extensive programme of legislative and wider scrutiny work ahead of it this season. The proposed extension will allow the Committee to carry out those responsibilities alongside robust scrutiny of the Bill.

It is important to say that the Committee has no interest in delaying the Bill unnecessarily and is acutely aware that the end of the mandate is fast approaching. If we are in a position to conclude our scrutiny and report to the Assembly before 11 December, having been satisfied that key issues have been examined effectively, we will do so. The purpose of the motion is to provide the Committee with the necessary flexibility to do its job thoroughly and ensure that the legislation that returns to the House has benefited from robust and evidence-based scrutiny. The Committee wants to ensure that the Bill achieves the correct balance between effectiveness and practicality and, ultimately, that it works for the people whom it is intended to support. For those reasons, on behalf of the Committee for Communities I ask Members to support the extension of the Committee Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill until 11 December 2026.

Question put and agreed to.

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 11 December 2026 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

Private Members' Business

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That this Assembly believes the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has lost the confidence of farmers, rural communities and the wider public; and calls on the Minister to resign.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Business Committee has agreed to allocate up to one hour and 30 minutes to 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. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The 29 June was a watershed moment. It was a day on which my constituents witnessed the slaughter of 51 cattle outside Fivemiletown. It was a day on which a line in the sand was drawn. Farmers have had enough. The agricultural community has had enough. Rural life has felt under attack. Whilst there has been unprecedented protest — the union that represents farmers passed a motion of no confidence in the Agriculture Minister — the voices of that protest have still not been listened to, and their concerns have not been dealt with.

It gives me no great pleasure to move this motion of no confidence in a Minister, not least because the Minister is one who is supposed to represent our farming community. Why are we here? We have a Minister who is more concerned with penalising farmers than promoting them and with finding fault on the farm than finding answers in his Department.

I turn to the Fivemiletown cattle cull, as it has euphemistically been described. Let us be absolutely clear on what the debate is about and what it is not about. It is not a debate about whether a court order should be obeyed: of course it should. It is not a debate about whether animal welfare offences should be taken seriously: of course they should. It is not a debate about whether DAERA staff should be subjected to abuse or intimidation: they should not. It is a debate about judgement, leadership, transparency and ministerial accountability. It is about the response from the Minister when the public began asking serious questions, and that response differed from the one that I originally received.

Whilst the news cycle has moved on, my community has not. The issue is still discussed, and it is felt as rawly as on that summer's day in June. It is not me or the DUP saying that we have lost confidence in the Agriculture Minister: DAERA and the Minister have had multiple no-confidence motions brought to their door. The questions raised were not orchestrated by political opponents; they were basic questions from the man and woman on the street, and they arose from the Department's actions. Nobody in the Chamber is disputing the authority of the court or the seriousness of the animal welfare offences that led to the deprivation order. The issue before us today is different. It is about how the order was handled by DAERA; how decisions were made; what alternatives were considered; what happened on the ground in Fivemiletown; what the Minister knew and when he knew it; and, crucially, how he responded when serious concerns were brought to his attention.

People witnessed what happened — it happened in their community. They heard the gunshots, they saw what was happening, and they are still deeply distressed by what they witnessed and heard. My constituents contacted me because they wanted answers. They deserved answers. They did not deserve to feel that their concerns were being dismissed or that their account of what they had witnessed was somehow less credible than the account of a Department. That is where the Minister failed.

I wrote to the Minister on 30 June, the day after the operation began, seeking answers. The response laid blame at my constituents' door and doubled down on how DAERA handled the operation. I wrote again on 17 July. I did so because I believed that something had gone seriously wrong and that the Department needed to provide clarity. Minister, in the Chamber, I have heard you mock Members for fighting for the sake of their TikTok videos. I did not do that. I gave you the opportunity to listen to the concerns that I brought to you, but you failed. Statements came only after public pressure mounted, questions were answered only when they could no longer be avoided, and the public were left trying to piece together what had happened from media reports and statements and the accounts of those who had been there. That is not transparency; that is not accountability; and that is not good enough from a Department whose Minister repeatedly tells us that animal welfare is at the heart of his responsibilities.

In commissioning an independent external review, the Minister himself eventually recognised that questions remained unanswered, but commissioning a review after public outrage is not the same as providing leadership when concerns first emerge. The Minister's initial response mattered. His instinct should have been to listen; his instinct should have been to investigate; and his instinct should have been to reassure constituents and establish the facts.

Instead, too often, the response appeared to defend the Department first and ask questions later: that is a fundamental problem. When concerns were raised about what happened in Fivemiletown, the Minister praised the staff involved, and, later, he accused those seeking answers of creating a "frenzy of abuse". Defending staff from abuse does not mean that Ministers should shield decisions from legitimate scrutiny. We can condemn threats and abuse while still demanding answers. We can respect public servants while questioning the procedures that they followed and whether those were appropriate. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are essential to a healthy democracy, and that is why the motion is not about scapegoating individual officials; it is about political responsibility.

The Minister is the person who is accountable to the Assembly for his Department. When something goes badly wrong, a Minister cannot simply say that his officials made the decisions and that he will await a review. Ministerial responsibility means taking ownership; it means recognising when confidence has been lost. For me, the relationship between DAERA and the farming community matters enormously. Our farmers are not an inconvenience that has to be managed. They are the people who feed us. They are the people who care for our countryside. They are the people who live with the consequences of the decisions made in this Building.

Across Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I have heard repeatedly from people who feel that the Department has become detached from the realities faced by those who work on the ground. Fivemiletown has become the symbol of the breakdown of trust. The images and accounts from those days shocked people right across Northern Ireland. They shocked farmers and rural communities, and they raised serious questions about the Department's approach to animal welfare and whether it was being applied consistently and appropriately. We cannot have one standard for a farmer who has been scrutinised by DAERA and another standard when DAERA itself is carrying out an operation. If animal welfare is genuinely a priority, it must be the priority in every circumstance. That means not simply asking whether an animal was ultimately killed humanely; it means asking whether the entire process that led to that point was properly planned, proportionate and designed to minimise fear, distress and suffering. The public are entitled to have answers to those questions, and they deserve answers that are based on evidence, not spin, not political point-scoring and not defensive press releases. The Minister is responsible for his own policies. The Minister is responsible for DAERA's procedures, and he is responsible for restoring confidence when those policies and procedures are called into question.

Indeed, the Minister has commissioned a review. The findings of the review must be acted on. I am not asking the House to prejudge the findings of the review; I am asking the House to judge something that has already happened. We are judging the Minister's handling of a crisis. We are judging the failure to provide timely and transparent answers. We are judging the failure to recognise the legitimate concerns of the constituents from the outset. We are judging the loss of confidence that has followed. Leadership is about more than wanting somebody else to tell you whether you got it right; leadership is about recognising when the public has lost confidence in you, and the reality is that confidence has been lost. That is why we are standing here today telling the Minister —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

— that confidence has been lost.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

What happened in Fivemiletown has had a lasting impact on the local community and the entire constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. People witnessed the destruction of cattle on land that many of them travel past day by day. Many, including children, have been left with distressing memories and a deep sense of unease about how those events were allowed to unfold. The issues raised go far beyond the events of that day or the 48-hour period that ensued. Why did DAERA take the course of action that it did? Were its policies and procedures followed? Given the Department's previous involvement with the farm, could intervention have happened sooner?

During an emergency sitting of the AERA Committee in August, DAERA informed us that there was a court order in place, and the Department had a legal duty to act. However, that does not remove the need to examine the decisions made beforehand, the level of oversight exercised or the manner in which the operation was conducted. Those matters deserve careful scrutiny, based on all the evidence available.

For the people of Fivemiletown and south Tyrone, the story has not been viewed from a distance. It unfolded in a close-knit, rural community where relationships run deep and where many in the local area know the family involved. As a result, local people have had to deal not only with what they witnessed but with the lasting impact that it has had on the community's confidence.

Farmers must be able to trust that, when difficult situations arise, the Department will act fairly, proportionately and with respect for everyone involved. That trust is particularly important in rural communities where engagement with DAERA is a regular part of day-to-day and weekly life. Once it is damaged, rebuilding it is not straightforward. The concerns do not disappear when an operation such as that ends. They continue to be discussed across the farming community, in local marts and even in local shops.

Dr Martin Blake, who is undertaking the review into the operation, met informally with the AERA Committee a number of weeks ago. The scope of the external review that he outlined provides an opportunity to examine not only what happened during the operation but the sequence of decisions that brought matters to that point. The review will consider governance, accountability, animal welfare and the wider public interest. That breadth is essential because a narrow examination of the final two days of the operation could never complete or provide a full picture of what occurred.

It is right that the process is evidence-led. The testimony of those who were present, alongside the accounts of those responsible for key decisions, will be central to establishing the facts. Anyone with relevant, first-hand information has the opportunity to contribute, and I know that Dr Blake was very keen to engage directly with anybody who had seen the incident first-hand.

When the review is complete, the public will expect a clear explanation of what happened, the basis for the decisions that were taken, where accountability rests and, most importantly, what action will be taken and not simply a record of events but a pathway of actions. Where shortcomings are identified, the Minister must set out what steps will be taken, who will deliver them and how the progress will be measured.

I understand the strength of feeling behind the motion. The Minister now faces a significant task in restoring public confidence. The people of Fivemiletown and the surrounding community deserve clarity, accountability and transparency.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I would love to say that I am surprised that we are in the Chamber debating this silly motion today, but, given its genesis, I have to say that I am not. At a time when our institutions are under pressure and relations between communities are at a new low, I am almost incredulous that this is what is at the top of the DUP's priority list: castigating a Minister for doing his job.

Despite the performances that we have witnessed, let us be honest about the motivation behind the motion. It is not about empathy for farming, in which Andrew has invested millions of pounds during the mandate. It is not about a new-found commitment to animal welfare from the proposer because, just weeks ago, DUP Members lined up in the Chamber to defend dogs ripping foxes limb from limb in the name of sport.

[Interruption.]

It is not about concern for Lough Neagh because the DUP has done all that it can to stop the nutrients action plan (NAP) and block the creation of an independent environmental protection agency.

[Interruption.]

Two key practical measures that would curb the pollution of Lough Neagh and our other waterways. It is not even really about the serious issues around Fivemiletown, because the review that Andrew commissioned to examine that has not even concluded, yet the DUP wants to turn the Chamber into some kind of kangaroo court, irrespective of the potential findings.

[Interruption.]

No similar motions were brought when other court orders were implemented and other culls were undertaken, whether that was under Michelle O'Neill or Michelle McIlveen. What the motion is really about is that the party to my right cannot stand having an AERA Minister who takes his climate change and environmental responsibilities seriously and cares about all of his brief.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

This is a political stunt to distract people from the internal difficulties of the party to my right: a DUP that is mired in scandal and sleaze and that is led by the nose by Jamie Bryson.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am embarrassed and angry that the Assembly's time is being wasted on this motion when there are so many genuine issues that we ought to be trying to address —

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

— in the final few months of an already shortened mandate.

I have made it clear that I will not be giving way.

There are half a million people on waiting lists in Northern Ireland today. Some 25,000 food parcels are given to local children to stop them going hungry, while 60,000 people are experiencing some form of homelessness. Our roads are crumbling and our school buildings are falling apart. Those are real challenges that we have the power to address if some people could drag themselves out of the playground and into the present. Instead, we are here wasting time on debating a sham motion that will achieve absolutely nothing.

The Assembly has got itself into a doom loop of late. If we do not pull back from the brink soon, I am really concerned that it will be too late. The people whom we serve want to see delivery, not distraction, and progress, not posturing. They want us to be better, not bitter. The reason that so many people are disillusioned with politics these days is because of days such as today, when they turn on the news and see the Chamber once again totally detached from the realities and being

[Interruption]

used as a platform for personal attacks.

Let me finish by explaining to the Chamber what will change after the conclusion of the debate: nothing.

[Interruption]

In February 2024, I made the decision to appoint Andrew Muir to ministerial office. My confidence in his ability to do that job has only grown in the time since.

[Interruption]

My colleagues and I are proud of what he has achieved and of his diligence and professionalism in the face of abuse and heckling, including from the Member to my rear, all the time. Regardless of what the climate sceptics, flat-earthers and science deniers on the Benches to my right may say, of what any lobbyist outside the Chamber may say, of what those who heckle from behind may say and of what those who are happy to squabble while the environment burns may say, the end result will remain the same: Andrew Muir is the Minister of Agriculture, and he is going nowhere.

You can spend the rest of the hour and a half talking amongst yourselves about how terrible he is. Knock yourselves out. If you want pantomime politics, fine, but we will not be participating in a pantomime.

[Interruption]

Members on these Benches have real jobs to do, constituents to serve and progress to deliver. That is what we will be spending our time doing over the next hour.

Some Members

Bye-bye. Bye-bye.

[Laughter.]

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

That was quite a show.

I support the motion with a heavy heart but also with a deep sense of frustration on behalf of Northern Ireland's farming community. The events in Fivemiletown, and the Department's response to them, have exposed more than a single operational failure. Rather, they have exposed a failure of leadership, oversight and accountability at the very top of the Department. I am only sorry that the Minister is not here to listen to my concerns.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. Naomi Long mischaracterised a lot during her contribution. Notably, the motion was signed by 27 Members of the House, not by a singular party. Does the Member agree that, despite her talking about getting back to work, it is notable that Naomi Long has the lowest voting record of any Member in the House?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member has an extra minute.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his intervention.

As the Ulster Unionist MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I hear directly from farmers about a growing disconnect between the Department and the people whom it is supposed to serve. There was a time when the Department stood beside them and understood rural communities. Today, too many of them tell me that they feel ignored, dismissed and treated as a problem, rather than as partners.

A Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs cannot lead effectively when he has become so disconnected from the people whose confidence he requires. Earlier this year, the Minister stated:

"the days of the Ulster Farmers' Union dictating government policy are over".

Whatever his intention, those remarks were widely viewed as dismissive of Northern Ireland's largest farming organisation. At a time when relationships needed to be strengthened, those comments served only to deepen divisions between the Minister and the farming community.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I appreciate the Member giving way, because, like me, she is very close to the situation in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Will the Member agree with me that it is actually the Alliance Party that is detached from rural communities in that it cannot recognise that there is still a deep hurt and frustration over the way in which the Minister and DAERA handled the crisis? That is the issue: our rural communities have completely lost confidence in the Minister to act on their behalf.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank my MLA colleague from Fermanagh and South Tyrone for that intervention. Yes, that is resonating throughout all our connections and contacts with the farming community. Fivemiletown has become the clearest symbol of that breakdown in trust. That horrendous cull of 51 cattle in Fivemiletown shocked not only the local farming community but people right across Northern Ireland and beyond. The distress caused to the farming community and the widespread public concern surrounding that operation have left a lasting impact.

We are told that an independent external review will get to the truth of what happened, but I have to ask the Assembly this question directly: is that review truly independent? Dr Martin Blake, the reviewer appointed by the Department, is a former Chief Veterinary Officer of the Republic of Ireland. DAERA's gifts and hospitality register shows that Dr Blake personally hosted Robert Huey, Northern Ireland's then Chief Veterinary Officer, at a recurring biannual meeting and lunch with DAERA's veterinary service animal health group as recently as November 2022 and again hosted a lunch connected to a UK/Ireland bilateral Chief Veterinary Officers meeting in December 2023. Senior DAERA officials Neal Gartland and Catherine Fisher were invited to that same table. Mr Huey referred, on the record, to Dr Blake as "my colleague" to an Assembly Committee. Those were men who climbed mountains together for charity, who sat on panels together and who worked institutionally together for years. I do not say that that provides bias, but I do say this: when the farming community is already reeling from what it witnessed in a field in Fivemiletown, the very least that that community is owed is a reviewer with no professional history whatsoever with the people who are being reviewed. Instead, the Department hand-picked a veterinary insider who set his own terms of reference and gave farmers and witnesses nothing more than an email address to submit evidence to. There was no public hearing, no date and no transparency.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. She talks about the very least the Minister could do. I think that the very least that he could do is listen to this debate, during which he could hear about the very genuine concerns of the farming and fishing communities and rural communities and how those communities have no confidence in him. It is absolutely outrageous that the Alliance Party leader called the motion, which highlights genuine concerns, a "political stunt". Quite frankly, what is the definition of a "political stunt"? It is filling your Benches and then storming out like children.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for her intervention. Yes, it is regrettable that the Alliance Party chose to walk away. Its Members are no doubt listening on-screen now, but I would have much preferred them to be in the Chamber to hear the debate.

Regardless of where responsibility for individual decisions ultimately lies, responsibility for the Department rests with the Minister. That is the principle of ministerial accountability, yet, throughout this controversy, farmers have not seen a Minister taking ownership of what occurred under his watch. Instead, they have seen questions deferred, concerns unanswered and responsibility pushed elsewhere. We have also witnessed actions from a Minister whose focus is increasingly on addressing environmental initiatives while the fundamental production side of the agriculture industry —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

— is disproportionately regulated and penalised.

There is so much more that I could say. It is not a personal attack on the Minister. It is about the principle that Ministers must be accountable —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

— to the Departments that they lead. I support the motion.

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

First of all, I should say that I am speaking in lieu of our member of the AERA Committee, Daniel McCrossan, who, as people will understand, is at the High Court to hear the A5 judgement, which will come in momentarily.

As an Opposition, we believe, clearly, in the idea of accountability, and we believe that creating a culture of accountability in our politics is fundamental to how we should be doing things. There are very real questions about the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs' handling of the Fivemiletown cull. It is important that Ministers be held accountable for what happens in their Department. The farming community and others who care about animal welfare have grave concerns about the way that that incident was handled. There are questions to be answered by the Department about the review that is being conducted.

We will not support the motion of no confidence today, but that is not to say that the Minister should not be answering questions. Nor is it to say — I am going to say this — that I think that that was an appropriate response to the motion.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

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

Give me one second and I will give way.

People can ask about the motivations of the DUP in moving the motion, as the DUP did when I brought motions of no confidence in Ministers of that party. At that time, I said that ministerial accountability was important, whether you stand up and robustly defend the Minister of your own party or not. That still goes today. Even if I have questions and doubts about the sincerity of some of what is being said, ministerial accountability is important. The leader of the Alliance Party also has a point when she says that the public view the pantomime here with contempt. You will not make that better by pulling a stunt such as the Alliance Party did today. Even if they have profound concerns about the nature of the motion and the motivation behind it, simply getting up, walking out and engaging in your own pantomime is only likely to encourage the sense of contempt among the public, so I am concerned about the actions that just took place.

The Alliance leader also said earlier, in the Great Hall, in response to questions from the media, that the only person who had to have confidence in the Environment Minister was her. That is not true. For the record, this place has a mechanism whereby confidence can be expressed or no confidence can be expressed in a Minister. It requires thresholds that are a form of cross-community consent for motions of no confidence to succeed and sanctions to be imposed on Ministers, but that is not the same as saying that only one politician matters in relation to confidence in a Minister. Frankly, that is not an acceptable thing to say.

To go back to the main substance of the motion, I will give way, briefly, to Mrs Erskine.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The motivation behind the motion is for my constituents. This morning, in the Chamber, Alliance Members have turned their backs on my constituents by not listening to the real concerns that the agricultural community has. In my speech, I clearly outlined the reasons why the DUP moved the motion: it is because DAERA and the Minister have lost the trust of rural communities. If the effective Opposition cannot see that and support the motion, it has a problem, too.

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

Do you know what? You are entitled to stand up and make that point. That is why I gave way to you. I do not agree with it, but I also have no difficulty with debate. That is why I am slightly stunned that the Alliance Members got up and walked out. While bemoaning childishness and pantomime in our politics, they engaged in something that can only be seen as a panto stunt. That is not to say that I agree with the motion. As a constructive Opposition, we do not agree with everything that comes before us, and we have challenged every single Executive party at different times.

Let me be clear —

[Interruption.]

Let me be clear about why we will not support the motion of no confidence. First, while I acknowledge that there are questions about the Fivemiletown cull, there are also questions about the Minister's performance in relation to farming and the key ecological challenges that face this place. We think that a condition of entering the Executive should have been progress on the environmental protection agency. The Alliance Party is right when it says that the DUP has been instrumental in blocking the development of an independent environmental protection agency.

[Interruption]

The Member smirks, but I do not mind calling anybody out on these things. The Member smirks, but we have one of the biggest ecological crises on the continent of Europe. Does anybody disagree with that? Lough Neagh? The scandal of Lough Neagh should shame our entire politics. It is utterly, utterly unacceptable. We had expected and wanted to see faster progress on the nutrients action plan and all the other urgent areas in the Lough Neagh action plan. Part of that, and of improving our environmental governance more broadly, was the creation of an independent environmental protection agency, which was first agreed in New Decade, New Approach. More than half a decade on, we still have no progress. The proposer's party is a part of blocking that, so the Alliance leader had a point when she said that some of these things were being blocked by the DUP.

However, it would have been much better if her party had remained in the Chamber, made those points and debated the merits or otherwise of the motion before us today.

Our environment and rural communities face huge change. We are facing climate breakdown and rising cost inputs, which are impacting on ordinary farmers and their families and on their ability to earn an income. We also face multiple, interlocking ecological crises. All of those are really important.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

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

Today's motion is not an appropriate or constructive way in which to deal with it —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

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

— but getting up and walking out of the Chamber is not an appropriate way to improve our politics either.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I rise to speak in the debate, I am conscious that a critical issue for my constituency is being decided by the court. I am extremely hopeful that it will arrive at the decision on the A5 that my constituents need.

The situation that we are discussing today caused huge concern and, indeed, distress in my constituency. Coming from a farming background, I know that it is very difficult to look at what happened and not think, "Surely it must be done in a better way" and "There must be a better way in which that could have been done". In that context, we absolutely need to see openness and transparency and get answers about what went on. I am disappointed that the Minister has not remained in the Chamber to hear the concerns of my constituents in that regard.

The questions arising from the incident go well beyond what happened on the day. We need to understand how the chain of events unfolded and why a better way was not found at some point. This is not just a story for agriculture. People in the local area witnessed what went on, and that cannot be right. When the review is complete, we need to see a clear account of what happened, and we need to ensure that lessons are learned and that the learning is implemented, because we cannot witness such scenes in our countryside ever again.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

This is my tenth month in the House, and I am astounded by what I have just witnessed. I am encouraged by — I have seen this — how my party and the Members on these Benches never shy away from debate. We think of our Ministers, one of whom is here, who never shy away from debate. Gordon Lyons, who was put through the wringer, never shies away from debate. Yet, here we have a situation where a monologue has been presented, and Alliance has simply left the Building.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I will absolutely give way. I am not afraid to give way, and I will put that on the record.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Certainly not to your colleagues at least.

I thank the Member for his comments. He is right: my colleague Gordon Lyons and I had motions of no confidence brought against us. Both of us stayed and made our case. Both of us were held to account. Both of us explained our positions. Neither of us ran away.

Mr O'Toole talked about the need for certain thresholds to be met when it comes to exclusion. He did not apply those thresholds when it came to voting for a motion of no confidence in me. The leader of the Opposition applies a different standard to the Alliance Minister than he did to me as Education Minister.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I fully agree. It is not lost on me that, when we look at the Justice Department — I am sure that Minister Givan would not be in a comfortable position if, for instance, half the school body was not in attendance — we see that half the prison population is on remand consistently and has been throughout the past year. That is certainly not something to crow about. That would not be the case under our Ministers, who would very quickly take adequate action.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Can we get back to the debate, please?

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Yes, I will get back to the debate.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion of no confidence that was tabled by my party, and I thank everybody who signed it. I am the only MLA for Newry and Armagh who signed it. I take that to mean that I am the only person listening to the farming community in what is a considerably rural constituency.

The decision of the Ulster Farmers’ Union to include Minister Muir in its vote of no confidence was a seismic and unprecedented moment. It symbolised the complete breakdown of trust between Northern Ireland's agriculture community and the Department, led by the Alliance Party, which has gone AWOL today. The body that represents the collective voice of the farming community clearly signalled its discontent. I agree with the Ulster Farmers’ Union in that regard.

How did we get here? When appointed, the Minister promised to do things differently, and he certainly kept that promise. He has done things differently today by walking out of the Chamber. He has also done things differently by uniting such a broad swathe of people against him. Time does not permit me to cover every failure, so I will focus on a few of the most glaring examples. The initial roll-out of the NAP proposals united the farming community in anger in a way that I have rarely witnessed during my time in public life. Then, there is the TB situation. Herds continue to be devastated while taxpayers continue to foot a growing compensation bill. Even after securing an additional £4 million for the regional pilot, the Minister has little to show for it in either scope or delivery. What other Minister could receive £4 million yet fail to accelerate progress? My colleague Minister Lyons is in the Chamber. When he gets £4 million, he spends it for the benefit of the community.

I have left the worst to last: the farce at Fivemiletown, where 51 cattle were shot dead in a botched operation that left the public disgusted and the Department's reputation in tatters. Surprisingly, it was done in the name of animal welfare. Just as hapless as the events on the ground was the tone-deaf nature of the Minister's response. As a member of the AERA Committee, I was stunned by the lack of transparency and accountability and the complete failure to accept that the Department had done anything wrong. Simply brushing off legitimate questions by saying that the review will cover this, that or the other did not inspire confidence.

I cut short my family break to join the Committee meeting, but key staff did not do so. They did not show up. I felt that there was a complete over-reliance by the Minister on his officials to his left and right. He often looked at them for support and answers. I do not feel that the Minister adequately responded to the level of anger that existed in Northern Ireland's rural community and, indeed, that pushed into Northern Ireland's urban communities, where animal welfare concerns are perhaps felt most keenly.

With a cover story that had as many holes as a sinking ship, the cattle cull controversy was the straw that broke the camel's back for our farming community. That has been demonstrated by the strength of subsequent protests. That issue has not gone away. The depth of feeling has not gone away, and, just because the House may choose to debate other issues, it does not mean that the issue does not matter to those with a keen interest in our agriculture community as much as it did when the event took place.

I assure the Minister that it is not just so-called TikTokers who have lost patience, and some in the Alliance Party are the greatest TikTokers to ever walk the earth. I will put that on the record. I have been contacted by many constituents from all community backgrounds who are appalled by the events of recent months. That makes it even more shameful that not one nationalist representative has signed the motion. Once again, the DUP is left to be the voice for many right-thinking people in nationalist communities. Perhaps that says more about the Alliance Party's relationship with nationalism and republicanism than with anyone else.

Confidence is the operative word, and Minister Muir has completely lost the confidence —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Time is up.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

— of the agriculture community.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I was going to open my remarks by thanking the Minister for individual pieces of work that he has helped me with, but, since he has stormed out of the Chamber as part of the Alliance Party's political stunt, I will not even bother with that, to be honest.

As the only South Down MLA to have signed the motion, I am proud to stand here and speak up for our farmers, fishermen and rural community. I support the motion. The Alliance Party leader called the motion "silly" and a "sham", and her general tone was absolutely outrageous. It showed how detached her party is from our rural communities and agri-food sector in Northern Ireland.

Time and time again, the Minister has failed to listen to farmers and give them a voice. He has taken a specific direction that, understandably, has led to farmers passing votes of no confidence in him. We saw that with NAP and the inheritance tax matter. I know that not everything is devolved, but the farming community is looking for its Agriculture Minister to speak up on its behalf on what such things mean for farmers and their businesses. As my colleague Gareth Wilson said, for so many in that community, the cattle cull earlier this year was the straw that broke the camel's back. My colleague Deborah Erskine described in detail how she had given the Minister the opportunity to answer questions. She had done it quietly, as a constituency representative, through correspondence back and forward multiple times. Honest answers could have come out if the Minister had taken the matter seriously. The situation should never have escalated, but it did, and my colleague spoke to it well. She has been a strong local representative, and I know that the people of Fermanagh are glad that she has given them voice. I was down in Clady a few weeks ago, and it was the number-one thing that people spoke to me about.

The motion is about having no confidence in the Minister. I put on record that it represents more than just the farming community; it represents the fishing industry as well. Fishermen across the United Kingdom were some of the loudest campaigners for Brexit. They wanted to take back control of British waters. The failure to deliver Brexit for the United Kingdom has failed them badly. The fishing industry is under immense pressure across the board.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member very much indeed for taking an intervention. Is she aware that, every time that we have raised issues to do with the Windsor framework in the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, the Alliance Party, especially the Minister, has always said, "No, that is Brexit's problem"? The Minister does not listen to the fishermen or the farmers. He does not listen to anybody.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Member for that intervention. I agree, and the fishermen and farmers whom I represent agree.

The fishing industry is on its knees. It is being cut from all directions. It faces quotas and increased fuel prices. As we come to the end of the calendar year, it stands on a cliff edge of visa pressures. We have seen the squeeze on Isle of Man visas. Led by my colleague Michelle McIlveen, our party made strong representations on that. The Minister went to the Isle of Man and got his photograph taken, but he did not feed back to the fishermen or to any of us what came of that visit. The consultation on the fisheries management plan closed recently; once again, he is squeezing the waters in which our fishermen can fish. The Minister has lost the confidence of the fishing industry. He has lost the confidence of the farming industry. The fact that he and his party colleagues would not even stay in the Chamber to listen to the debate is, frankly, disgraceful.

I do not know whether I heard the leader of the Opposition correctly, but what I heard was that it was wrong to table the motion. It is OK to table no-confidence motions against DUP Ministers, but there is a problem with this motion, because the DUP tabled it. We know the political circumstances that we are in. Unionists have the right to table motions of no confidence in the same way as everyone else in the Chamber.

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

I did not say that you have no right to do it. I am sitting here and participating in the debate. I disagree with it, for the reasons that I outlined. I also disagree with and challenge the Alliance Party's walkout. I did not say that unionists cannot table a motion of no confidence. I said that you can table it and that it should be debated here. That is all.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Member for that intervention, but he questioned the motivation behind the motion. Our motivation is the farming industry, the rural communities, the fishing industry and all the people whom we represent. On this issue, I have to say, that includes unionists and nationalists, because there are a lot more in the agri-food sector than just those who traditionally vote for unionist parties.

I support the motion. My colleagues have done the right thing by tabling it. I am really disappointed that it has not been taken seriously. The Alliance Party will regret storming out. It will regret its political stunt here today, because the industries and the rural communities are watching.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Minister Muir is a decent man, but the motion is not about his personality. It is about his performance, and that has been catastrophically inept. It is also about his judgement and the signal that he sends to the farmers whom he is supposed to represent. What we have seen today is the staggering arrogance of the Alliance Party. The empty Chamber is also a staggering indictment of the other parties. If the debate were on something happening halfway around the world, the Sinn Féin Benches would be full, as would those of the Alliance Party and the Opposition. However, because it is about what happens in this country and about our farmers and our cattle, the Chamber is empty. That is an indictment of Members' priorities.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I will give way once and no more.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Does the Member agree that the purpose of the motion was to demonstrate collective frustration at the Minister's performance, not to set one community against another? It was a demonstration of frustration at a lack of empathy and delivery for our rural constituents.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Thank you. I want to make progress, but I will come back to that point in a moment. I will not give way any further.

The arrogance and tone-deafness of Alliance politicians is in contrast to our having the best farmers in the world. Diane Abbott — Members may be surprised to learn that I am not an Abbott fan — said that politicians have a job that is:

"clean, indoor work, no heavy lifting."

That is the polar opposite of the task that is faced by our farmers, who are out in all weathers, facing uncertainties and raw, physical danger. When I was in the Police Service, I used to go through the occurrences in the morning, and I recall how many farmers were injured or, sadly, on occasion, killed in the line of providing food for not only this country but our entire nation. They produce enough protein to feed 10 million people. We have the best farmers, and they deserve support. What did they get today? Nothing. Whether Members agree with the motion, the Alliance Party and its Minister did not even have the decency to listen to the representatives of farmers across the country. Farmers feel unsupported, over-regulated and not listened to. They feel that there was a catastrophic failure of judgement in the Fivemiletown slaughter.

Anyone hearing about the Fivemiletown slaughter would know immediately that it was a catastrophically dangerous operation. I know a little bit about firearms. The first time that one of those cows heard the crack of a rifle, there would have been mass panic. There would then have been moving targets running around, being shot at by people with rifles. If those rounds had missed, they would have travelled for miles. Shooting at moving targets without a solid backdrop, with rounds that would travel for a mile and a half should they miss, was the height of dangerousness. It was a public safety crisis, let alone inhumane treatment of cattle. What was the reaction, however? It was a bit like Minister Long's reaction to the catastrophic failures that led to a killer's being on the run. It was to pull up the drawbridge and say, "Nothing to see here. There are no issues". There are issues, however.

The Agriculture Minister's response to Fivemiletown was to denigrate the Ulster Farmers' Union, which represents farmers the length and breadth of this country from both sides of our community. That was outrageous and tone-deaf. Alliance seems to have no sense of the rural community. That is why our farmers believe that we have an Environment Minister but not an Agriculture Minister.

When we look at Alliance's response to the issues, we see a party that has failed the basic test of competence. It has failed our victims and our farmers. What, however, I find most troubling in a democracy is those empty Benches. I know in my heart that there are farmers who have different constitutional aspirations from mine. Who speaks for them? Nobody. The Opposition have become the Father Ted of Oppositions. They say, "Down with them, but, careful now, we'll not take any action", almost in defence of the Minister. Come on. The leader of the Opposition should provide the scrutiny that we need.

A lot of Members have spoken, and a lot more may wish to speak after me, so I will conclude. What happened in Fivemiletown was a catastrophe, inhumane and a risk to human beings. The response was tone-deaf, but it sums up the ineptitude and arrogance that has crept into the Alliance Party. I am glad to support the motion and to support our farmers.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I would like to have said that it is good to have the Minister here listening to the debate. Over many years in the Chamber, I have seen Ministers be held to account. Some Ministers have shown backbone by being here to listen to what is being said. It is up to Ministers to give as good as they get, to explain the situation, to defend their position or to answer questions. I was very surprised to see Alliance flounce out like that. We have been told time and time again by the party's leadership that it would not do pantomime-like activity, yet it has done just that. It is fundamentally important that Ministers be held to account. They need to be here. We have already seen an example this week of a Minister's being reticent to appear here.

One of the real issues — what this comes down to — is confidence in the system. Many Members will be aware of 'Yes Minister' and the degree to which Ministers seem to be manipulated by officials in that. Talk to anyone in agribusiness or the farming community about the Department of the Environment — people do not consider it to be the Department of Agriculture — and, time and again, they will say that the Minister is in the thrall of his officials and that the officials are setting the direction. Those officials seem to have forgotten the very clear dictum that officials are supposed to advise, and Ministers are supposed to decide. It seems that very little decision-making is going on in the Department of Agriculture. Time and again, the Department's direction of travel seems to be at the whim of the officials.

One thing about having politicians, not civil servants, running government is that Ministers are supposed to have their political antennae up for issues that are likely to be of considerable concern to the people. Someone who is supposedly a Minister of Agriculture must listen to farmers and the agribusiness community. If the agribusiness community is saying clearly that something is not right and that this is wrong, one would expect the Minister to listen, rather than to go out and castigate the people who are delivering the message. Doing that fundamentally undermines the faith and confidence that people have in the delivery of government.

We have heard a lot about how this place does not seem to deliver, but one of the fundamental aspects is for a Minister to actually do his job. If that means listening to the people whom he is supposed to represent, he should be doing that. I can tell you, right now, that our Health Minister listens avidly and that he will react to whatever has been said. To not even have an Agriculture Minister sitting in the Chamber as we discuss something that is so fundamental to animal welfare is extraordinary.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Certainly.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

The Member is very kind for giving way, and I thank him for that. Does the Member agree that, in a debate as important as this —? The cameras may not be picking up the fact that there are only five Members on the Benches opposite me. In fact, the Benches are practically empty from there, all the way round to Tim Gaston, over there. Does the Member agree —?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

[Inaudible.]

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

You got a namecheck in there, Tim.

Does the Member agree that, if we were talking about some foreign war, those Benches would be full, but that, because the debate is about farmers in Northern Ireland, and because there has been a walkout from the Alliance Party, Members on the Benches opposite do not seem to care?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member very much for that rather prolix intervention.

I will make one thing quite clear: I meet regularly with members of the farming community across South Antrim, and they have no confidence whatsoever in the Agriculture Minister or in the Department of Agriculture. They feel as though issues are being imposed on them, that there is no communication and that it is nearly as if there is an attempt to destroy their businesses when they have enough challenges as it is.

The substantial question that needs to be asked is this: what is the Minister scared of? Why is there an empty chair where he was? What is he hiding? What other issues are there? How many other cattle culls have there been? How many other issues concerning animal welfare has his Department failed on? How many failures have there been in the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) and checking on diseased animals? How many times have people raised significant environmental issues in laboratories that he has walked back on? Why is he scared of scrutiny? For that and no other reason, I have no confidence in him. I definitely do not have any confidence in the Alliance Party, which has flounced out rather than being here to expose itself to the scrutiny that any other Minister — well, most other Ministers — would.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

What we witnessed this morning was not the first time that Andrew Muir scurried away from scrutiny. It was not the first time that he ran away and turned his back on the industry. That is why Mr Muir, who no doubt sits in his office, watching from afar, will be known as the worst Minister ever to have held the brief that contains agriculture. During the Minister's time in office, he has prioritised his environmental ideology over championing the industry that puts food on our plates. Under Muir, dither and delay are the order of the day, and endless consultations and talking shops take priority over safeguarding our food security.

The Northern Ireland agri-industry was built from the ground up through hard graft and long hours. Farming is not a nine-to-five job. It is a way of life for many of our family farms. Whilst I recognise that the Minister has a varied portfolio, time and time again the agri-industry has been let down by a Minister who simply either does not understand or does not care. At any opportunity, he would rather throw it under the bus than stand up for our hard-working farmers. At a time when many of our family farms across Northern Ireland are suffering from policies made by environmental lunatics, farmers need a Minister who will stand up for them and not merely be a parrot for the Department.

Unfortunately, that is what we witnessed in the aftermath of the massacre in Fivemiletown. Instead of listening to the public outrage, the Minister's first response was to publicly defend and praise the DAERA staff who were involved, before having to cow back, bow to public pressure and commence his not-so-independent external review. Prior to sending in the inhumane hit squad to kill 51 healthy animals, Andrew Muir knew that it was going to happen. What did he do? Absolutely nothing.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member take an intervention?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am happy to give way.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Does the Member feel that there is a bit of a contradiction here? We have one Member from the Alliance Party bringing in the Hunting with Dogs Bill, yet we have a Minister who is quite happy to cull cattle that are perfect and which should not have been killed at all?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I agree 100% with the Member's intervention. Mrs Long did not take an intervention; I was going to make that very point to her. She was more interested in being angry and putting on a show than debating with Members. What happened in Fivemiletown torpedoed the myth that Andrew Muir has animal welfare as his top priority. Once he came under pressure and was rightly called out, the Minister, not for the first time, played the victim card, this time citing misogyny and sectarianism. Mr Muir, I have news for you: the farmers do not care about your religion; the farmers do not care what gender you identify as; and the farmers do not care what colour of dicky bow you turn up in. All they want is for you to turn up, stand with them and do your job. They want sustainable farms to pass on to their next generation.

Under Minister Muir, DAERA has, once again, been exposed as operating under the mantra, "Do as I say, not as I do". If the reckless actions that were deployed by the hit squad had been carried out by a farmer, their guns would have been lifted and they would have spent time behind bars. The Fivemiletown farmer had already found new homes for 21 of his cattle, yet, during its day-long massacre, the Department managed to shoot one of the cattle that had been sold. Minister, no amount of fudge could be cooked up and served with your external review that would cover the fact that a local farmer, who had already purchased six of the cattle, was willing to pay market value for the rest, but you decided, "No, those cattle should be slaughtered".

Look at the lunacy that was then exposed for all to see. Department officials allowed three calves that turned up in the days after the DAERA hit squad claimed that it had shot them, including a calf that had been shot through the neck, to be transferred to another farm. Why were the 51 cattle not allowed to face the same humane disposal?

All that we have to do is look at AFBI. He is a Minister for brushing things under the carpet. What did they do at AFBI? They said, "No, no. That happened long ago". What the Minister cannot answer to is this: the AFBI scandal was ongoing at the same time as is referred to by the court order —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— that ended up in the culling of 51 healthy cattle.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Gerry Carroll.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It is time that Minister Muir was out of office.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have clearly set out your expectations of Ministers who appear before the House. Did Minister Muir agreed to respond to this debate? What would be your ruling on a Minister who refused to attend or walked out of a debate? As Ministers, can we now pick and choose which debates we respond to? Do the rules apply to everyone, or can we simply do what seems right in our eyes?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

There is an expectation that Ministers will respond to debates. Members will know that, each week at the Business Committee, I ask whether Ministers are available, and, each week, the Executive Office will indicate Ministers' availability. Obviously, Minister Muir was available today, which was the response at the Business Committee. The Alliance Party has made a decision to withdraw its Members, including the Minister, which is regrettable. I would like to have heard the Minister's point of view and his defence of his position. However, he has failed to do that.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I have said several times that no Minister, including the AERA Minister, is beyond reproach. Repeatedly, I have said that the approach adopted by the Executive and the Minister to Lough Neagh in particular has been pretty disastrous and hands-off. Lough Neagh, it is worth reminding ourselves, supplies 40% of our drinking water and is dying in plain sight. It is being strangled and suffocated by policies adopted by this and previous Executives. It is an ecological emergency needing urgent action, but the Minister has talked about a timescale of years or decades. The lough does not have decades. The plants and the animals do not have decades; the fishing community does not have decades; and anybody who uses the lough or lives near it does not have decades. It is worth reminding ourselves that we have had another summer of toxic algae and still no crackdown on agri-polluters. Despite the accusations thrown at the Minister by the party to my right, he has, in many ways, gone out of his way to accommodate and meet the demands of the UFU and the big agri-farmers, which is not the right approach.

DAERA's derogations let some farms spread up to 250 kg of waste per hectare, and those derogations are now before the courts. The Minister has said that the days of the Ulster Farmers' Union dictating government policy were over, but, when you do a bit of scrutiny and dig deeper, you see that that is anything but the case.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. Did the Minister of Agriculture give him his statement to read out today?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

No. Unlike the Member, I do not need fake lawyers — people who stand on bin lids — to speak for me or give me advice. I can speak for myself. Thank you very much for your intervention.

I will go back to the point. When the industry pushed back on the Minister and his plans for the nutrients action programme, he responded to the wishes of the UFU and others in the sector and extended the consultation, handing it to a task and finish group with big farming and the agri-food industry at the table. I and many in the environmental sector would say that that was appeasing the big farming lobby.

There is still no independent environmental protection agency (EPA) in the North; we are the only part of these islands without one. Had the DUP Members tabled a motion that included some of that or all of it and had they banged the table and taken to the airwaves on those matters, I would have said, "Do you know what? There is much that I disagree with you about, but you are right about this, and I will vote for the motion", but they did not.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Maybe in a second, if I have time.

None of that, however, is stated in the motion. This is an attempt by the DUP to stoke another culture war. Fivemiletown is the pretext, but climate action is the real target, as some Members have let slip. The DUP likes to style itself as the champion of farmers, but, in reality, it champions big agri-food business and factory farms. Questions have been asked about Fivemiletown — people are right to do so — but there is silence on industrial-scale animal abuse by the likes of Moy Park. Nothing is said, and the Members to my right are offended when I and others dare to criticise Moy Park. They also like to kick migrant workers, but there is no recognition of the fact that it is the migrant workers in Moy Park who are making its fortune.

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

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I will give way to the Member.

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

I have made similar points. Big agri is not small farmers. Big agri, which intensifies for profit, has a lot to answer for. Does the Member agree that it would have been helpful had the Minister had the gumption to stay and make those points in the Chamber? It may be that he does not agree with them, but he is not here to tell us one way or the other. That is a shame, even if you agree or disagree with the motion.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Yes, I would have liked some answers to my points. I have been consistent about that.

The Member to my right wanted in.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way to me at last. He said that he has concerns that have not been answered by the Agriculture Minister. Our motion states that we have lost confidence in the Minister overall; it is not just about the Fivemiletown incident, though that is the catalyst for being here today. As I outlined clearly, a line has been drawn in the sand. Why can the Member not join us? If he has concerns that the Agriculture Minister has not acted, surely he also has no confidence in him.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for her intervention. My point is that the motion facilitates the anti-climate rhetoric of the DUP and others.

I have 30 seconds left, so I need to skip some stuff. There was the disastrous Going for Growth policy and other stuff. This is good for the DUP Ministers because it takes the spotlight off them. It is also worth saying that Minister Muir has faced homophobic abuse and that sectarian and misogynistic language has been directed at his officials: that should be condemned, challenged and called out. I missed Mrs Erskine's speech —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

— but I heard no word of condemnation from anyone in the DUP on that.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I rise as an independent with no party political baggage to respond to a legitimate motion in the Order Paper that was agreed by the Business Committee. The motion asks this simple question: "Do I have confidence in the Minister to lead this Department effectively?". No, I do not. As the unofficial opposition, I will be consistent in saying that I do not have confidence in any Minister to lead the Executive competently.

Having looked at the record, listened to those who have been most affected by the decisions of the Minister and his Department and considered the breadth of his responsibilities and remit, how can we honestly say that we have confidence? This is not about one incident; the concerns have been building for some time since he took office. Nowhere is that clearer than in agriculture. Last year, the Ulster Farmers' Union unanimously passed a vote of no confidence in DAERA. Following the Fivemiletown incident, it extended that directly to the Minister. You cannot simply brush that aside because you think that it is one stakeholder group being difficult. The UFU represents the body of farmers across Northern Ireland, and, when one of the principal organisations representing the people whom your Department exists to serve says that it no longer has confidence in you, how can any Member of the House continue to have confidence in you?

The Minister's response matters too. It is deeply regrettable that the Minister has walked out, because he is disrespecting every Member of the House who has a mandate. It is not about us as individuals but about the people whom we represent. I put this to the Members who are minded not to support the motion: after that stunt, how can you continue to have confidence in him when he will not come to the House?

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

I thank the Member for giving way. We do not agree with the motion, but I am not sure that the motion will go to a Division. The Minister's party is not here, so I do not know how we can be expected to shout against it and express confidence in him if he has not even turned up.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I appreciate that, but by that determination we are saying that the House supports a motion of no confidence in the Minister, and so be it. The Minister is not here to defend himself, which will go down on him.

One organisation should not dictate government policy, but there is a difference between refusing to be dictated to and refusing to recognise when trust has finally broken down. In my constituency at the weekend, farmers were telling me, "Yes, Claire, vote for a motion of no confidence. We're not being heard." They feel that decisions are too often being made about them rather than with them. Bovine TB, for example, is not just a policy problem at a high level: entire herds are being lost across the country. It is restrictions on business and years of disruption and pressure on family farms and rural communities. There is an emotional cost to it too. Those are animals that have been bred, reared and cared for. Farmers care deeply about the welfare of their stock, and they should not be reduced to numbers on a spreadsheet.

Then there is the nutrients action programme. Farmers do not deny that water quality has to improve — they know that agriculture has responsibilities — but, when people were being asked to contemplate major changes to how they farmed without feeling properly involved in shaping those proposals, stakeholders were rightly angry. Engagement is not an obstacle to good environmental policy; it is essential to it. Rural communities feel that they need a strong advocate at the Executive table, someone making sure that policies are designed centrally to work in places where services are further away, public transport is limited and isolation is on a daily basis. Rural communities are honestly saying that they are not being listened to and not being heard. On that point, I have no confidence in the Minister.

I also have serious concerns about animal welfare despite the Minister talking to his record on that. The reality is that animals are suffering. There are too many cases where the response is slow, responsibilities are fragmented and people struggle to understand who will act. The Minister says that that is a council responsibility: Minister, the councils are not doing anything. Animals are suffering, therefore you have to take the lead on that, and you are not. If enforcement is inconsistent, if resources are inadequate and if legislation needs to be strengthened, do your job. That is where leadership is required. Fivemiletown brought those issues into sharp focus. Fifty-one healthy cattle were destroyed in circumstances arising, ironically, from an animal welfare case. How is killing 51 healthy cattle a response to animal welfare? The public looked at that and rightly asked, "How could the process end in such a way?".

We are hearing about proposals for a version of Lucy's law. Yes, that is welcome, and I appreciate the Minister doing that, but where is it? Where is the policy? We can talk about good intentions all we want, but it is outcomes that matter. That is nowhere more visible than at Lough Neagh. Again, I appreciate the Minister speaking out about that, but, year after year, we see that problem get worse and escalate. It is something that we need to get a grip on.

When I consider all that and ask myself whether I have confidence in the Minister to lead the Department effectively, the answer is no. It does not matter whether it is an Alliance Minister, a DUP Minister or a Sinn Féin Minister: I will stand up and say what is right, because that is my job as an MLA for East Londonderry.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I would have called the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs at this point, but he is not here, so I call Jonathan Buckley to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. When preparing for the debate, my first question was whether the confidence of our communities in Andrew Muir as Agriculture Minister for Northern Ireland could sink any lower. That was what my mind focused on this morning, but the Alliance Party never fails to surprise us. This has been one of the most embarrassing acts in its time in office. Andrew Muir knows exactly what the feeling is among our rural constituents right now. He is not so aloof as not to understand their concerns — I am sure that he has an army of officials who understand just how fragile relationships are with our farming community — yet he chose to walk out. Along with every one of his party colleagues, he chose to turn his back on the Chamber, to turn his back on scrutiny and to turn his back on farmers' livelihoods. That is a damning indictment.

Naomi Long, his party leader, arrogantly came in and threw muck about this place like a muck spreader in a field. There was a bit for the DUP; a bit for the other unionists of the UUP and the TUV; and a bit for Sinn Féin and others. There was no accountability and no reflection on the Minister's actions. Mrs Long was keen to point out the flaws in debating the motion this week. The moment that there was a protest outside the Building during the summer, I pledged to table a motion of no confidence in Minister Andrew Muir. I said that it would not be party political, that it would be broad in its definition and that I would leave it in the Business Office to ensure that other Members had an opportunity to sign it. Twenty-seven Members signed the motion of no confidence. Twenty-seven Members therefore agreed:

"That this Assembly believes the Minister of Agriculture, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has lost the confidence of farmers, rural communities and the wider public".

I have not heard one contribution today that disagrees with that proposition. The Minister chose to turn his back and leave.

I thank the Ulster Unionist Party and the TUV for signing the motion. The Sinn Féin contribution was baffling, however, because I sensed in it huge outrage at what happened in Fivemiletown. I sensed in it a recognition of the loss of confidence in a Department and a Minister. I say this clearly: this is not about traditional party politics but about whether we have confidence in a Minister and his direction and leadership of a Department. I call on Sinn Féin Members to put action to their words and vote for the motion. Vote for the motion, because the Minister, in correspondence with my colleague Mrs Erskine straight after the event, tried to justify his Department's actions in Fivemiletown. Vote against a Minister who has shown complete disregard for the House and its scrutiny and for the farming community. That would be the courageous thing to do.

The first councillor to speak in outrage on the issue was a Sinn Féin councillor. That should tell us that the issue cuts across traditional party lines, but we will watch and the farming community will watch how every individual exercises their vote today. When we tabled the motion, I said, "We will see who speaks for the rural community. We will see who is prepared to stand up and speak for the farmer". Half of Sinn Féin's Members are missing from the Chamber, but how will they vote?

We have heard the official Opposition, the SDLP, meekly suggest, "We'll just stay silent. We'll not push it to a vote". Where is its backbone to stand up and speak out against a Minister who has lost control? It is pathetic, to say the least, that an official Opposition who were keen to sign motions against other Ministers to which no thresholds applied are missing in action. Again, the leader of the Opposition's vote today will tell us a lot.

Fivemiletown saw the culling — the shooting — of 51 healthy cattle. We see a Minister who attempted to smear, distract and mislead the public into believing that the 51 cattle were diseased, unhealthy and lame; it could not be further from the truth. In every image I have seen, they were healthy, calm and coherent animals. He tried to hide behind a court order that, he said, demanded the destruction of those animals: falsehood again. The court order did not call for the destruction of those animals.

We have a party that wants to smear others in its pursuit of animal welfare, yet, with a high-velocity rifle in one hand and a blue Bill in the other, it has to own the execution of those 51 cattle. Young calves were shot and left as walking wounded; cows were found dead in the field while starting to calf. There is no accountability for Mr Muir in the House today.

I have just been informed that the mailbox for the inquiry by Dr Blake is full of correspondence from farmers who want to get on record other instances where DAERA has acted disproportionately.

I say this to Minister Muir: you walked out of the Eikon Centre on thousands of farmers and turned your back to scuttle away from their concerns. You have been scuttling away ever since. You have attempted to deflect and blame others. It is time that you were held accountable.

Naomi Long came to the House to say that Alliance was in the business of getting on with its day job and is busy delivering for constituents and working on the practical realities of this place. She did not tell the Chamber that she has the lowest personal voting record of any Member of the House. She has the lowest physical presence of any Minister in the Executive. She has again been found missing in action. I would go further and say that she is the only member of the Executive who has confidence in the Agriculture Minister, but who is prepared to say it out loud? That will be the question today, because this is a Minister who has lost the farming community, whether it is about the nutrients action programme or the TB fiasco with healthy cattle, to the tune of millions of pounds, sent for slaughter every week because the Minister cannot get his act together to have a TB policy that protects livestock and the mental welfare of farmers.

It has been a hugely disappointing day for the rural constituents of Northern Ireland, but let them remember this clearly: let it never be said that the Alliance Party is a champion for their issues, their causes and their livelihoods. Let it never be said again that the Alliance Party cares about that portfolio. To Sinn Féin and the SDLP I say this: if Aontú were in the Chamber today, they would vote for the motion. I am watching carefully. This is the canary in the coal mine. We are watching exactly where you are. No distraction. What happened in the last week is an issue we can debate on another day. Today is about standing up for our rural constituents, and we will make sure that they know exactly how you vote.

Question put.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 32; Noes 38

AYES

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

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Buckley, Mrs Erskine

NOES

Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mrs Long, Miss McAllister, Mr McGuigan, Mr McMurray, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Ms O'Neill, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Dickson, Mr Donnelly

The following Member voted in both Lobbies and is therefore not counted in the result: Mr Beattie

Ms Ennis acted as a proxy for Miss Dolan.

Question accordingly negatived.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 12.52 pm.

On resuming —

Oral Answers to Questions — Education

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

1. Mr Allen asked the Minister of Education for an update on steps being taken to reduce delays in securing appropriate school placements and support for children with special educational needs. (AQO 4053/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My Department works closely with the Education Authority (EA) to plan and develop specialist educational provision across Northern Ireland in line with assessed need and demographic trends. It is recognised that, for children and families, the statutory assessment process can feel lengthy in the context of a school year. However, recent improvements to the process have increased efficiency, with the EA meeting statutory timescales in around 80% of cases. Digitisation of the statutory assessment and placement process, including the online live portal, is intended to improve efficiency, transparency and access to live progress updates.

The EA has a statutory duty to secure educational placements for children and young people with a statement of special educational needs. Placements are determined individually through the statutory assessment and review process, taking account of each child’s assessed needs, professional advice, parental preference, available provision and school capacity. For the 2026-27 school year, more than 4,400 children with a statement of SEN in transition years secured a school place before the start of term. The EA continually reviews demand for specialist placements and undertakes strategic planning. The EA's area planning, placement and commissioning processes are informed by pupil population data, statutory assessment information, projected demand and local geographical considerations. Those processes help to identify gaps in provision and support decisions about where additional specialist capacity may be required.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer and for the update on the improvements that have been made. I am sure that, like me, the Minister and other Members are all too often approached by families seeking representation to improve the process further. What assurance can the Minister give to families that he will work to further improve that process so that they and their children do not face the cliff edges that are all too routinely common?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Mr Allen raises a number of points. He is right about improving the performance. One area that we have sought to improve has been reducing the time frame for the assessment being carried out from 26 weeks to 22 weeks. That is part of the new regulatory framework that the Education Committee has delayed and did not actually vote through. That has led to a one-year delay in a legally binding framework being in place that will reduce the 26 weeks to 22. It is regrettable that the Education Committee took the approach to delay on that issue. We have already invested more than £100 million in preparing for that new framework, yet the Committee has failed to do its job, and not for the first time.

I am also looking to provide additional resources through the enhanced support model for schools. Before you even get to a statement of educational need, we want to create the flexibility in schools to meet the needs of a whole-school population because, by the time you have gone and got an assessment and a legal statement, the system has failed. We should not rely on a legal document, which often is difficult to implement, to provide what our young people need at every stage of their lives. That is what we are trying to do through the new enhanced support model. That would be hugely beneficial.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Minister, you mentioned the system failing. Can you give us an indication of how many children are counted as having a placement, but their needs cannot be met there, and they are on a reduced timetable? Do you accept that there is a suspicion out there that those children are effectively being moved off a list, and it is masking the true scale of the placement crisis?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Getting the right place is hugely important for a lot of children. Parents want that, and I support that. That is why I have communicated repeatedly to schools that it is not just for a small number of schools to respond: young people with special educational needs reside in every community and in every part of the Province, and every school has a responsibility to step up in order to provide support. That is why I am encouraged by the positive response from many schools that have come forward to say that they will offer support. Whether it be through specialist provision or the 150 schools where we are currently assessing the enhanced school model pilot, there is a clear desire to provide the right support. It is vital that it is provided in the right place. That is what we are trying to achieve.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

Can the Minister detail the oversight arrangements that are in place to review the EA's decisions to establish specialist provision in mainstream classrooms?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The EA has a comprehensive oversight arrangement that reviews decisions regarding the establishment of specialist provision in mainstream schools. The EA maintains internal oversight through its senior leadership team. All specialist provision proposals will undergo an eight-week consultation process. The EA will continue to work with all stakeholders when considering proposals, in accordance with the established framework and strategic operational plan.

I can therefore assure the Member that there is oversight of the process. I can also inform her that, when the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) carried out its first phase of assessment of specialist provision in mainstream settings, its report was encouraging about the quality of what was provided, which was good, and about its enriching the environment of the whole school, which is what we want by way of delivering an inclusive school population. The ETI is undertaking the second phase of its assessment process to provide assurances that specialist provision is working and to identify where improvements can be made, because, ultimately, we want to ensure that we do the best that we can.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Obviously, specialist provision in mainstream schools is really important. You mentioned how many schools will be involved in that. I have heard about the classes that will be involved. Can you tell us the number of places that will be provided?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In my response to the original question, I mentioned that there were 4,400 placements for children in the transition years. They had secured a place before the start of term. There were obvious issues with trying to get placements for the start of the academic year. That was a much improved picture compared with that of the previous three years. All children have a placement in schools, but, often, in the placement process, as children go through the period of rolling assessment, some children in their placement will identify that they have a need. That is why it sits outwith the normal allocation of places for other children. The EA will say that it is to ensure that pupils get the right place. Every child has a placement in place, and every child will be in that physical school environment over the next number of months. There is a very small number who are currently in contingency arrangements to ensure that they are getting the best possible education.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

2. Mr Bradley asked the Minister of Education to outline any steps he is taking to ensure that children with disabilities and special educational needs in East Londonderry have suitable and reliable home-to-school transport, including sufficient wheelchair-accessible provision. (AQO 4054/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Education Authority is responsible for the operation and delivery of home-to-school transport, including making the necessary arrangements to support the safe transport of children and young people with disabilities and special educational needs.

Transport arrangements for pupils with a statement of SEN are considered on an individual basis to ensure that their specific transport requirements are met. The EA also considers requests for alternative transport arrangements where a pupil's medical condition or mobility needs require additional support.

The EA provides transport assistance through a variety of means, such as its own yellow bus fleet, which includes wheelchair-accessible vehicles, Translink passes and transport procured from private operators. Where transport is provided by a private operator, the EA specifies any requirements for wheelchair access or other specialist provision.

I recognise the importance of ensuring that children and young people can travel to and from school safely and reliably. I will continue to engage with the EA on transport for pupils with disabilities and special educational needs.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for that answer. Given the rural nature of my constituency of East Londonderry and the distance that some children have to travel to reach specialist provision, will the Minister provide an update on the outstanding SEN taxi contracts?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member makes a really important point about the length of time and the distances that young people in his constituency have to travel. That is one of the reasons why we have engaged and sought to have all schools being part of the solution and the provision. It is also why we have mapped out a 10-year plan for significant capital investment in the special school estate. I have a paper before the Executive that is still being blocked by Sinn Féin that would have dedicated funding for specialist provision by way of enhancing the school estate. All of that is creating a problem with transport, and the increased cost of transport is partly as a result of the failure to invest in the school estate, which we are trying to do in a strategic fashion.

The position at the middle of September was that there were 62 contracts progressing through the EA's evaluation process. That was affecting 135 pupils whose taxi transport arrangements had not, at that point, been confirmed. However, the EA has advised that the large majority of those contracts have now been provisionally awarded and are awaiting completion of the required compliance checks. Obviously, financial support — a payment — can be provided to parents in circumstances where there is not a bus, an EA fleet bus or taxi provision. However, that is suboptimal, and, therefore, the EA is continuing to make provision available for those families.

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

The original question referenced wheelchair access. There is a school in my constituency, Lecale Trinity Grammar School, that took the jump to be an amalgamated school, but the accommodation is not 100% perfect. There are a number of disabled pupils, but they are not able to get access to some of the buildings in a timely manner because there are no ramps in place and they have to walk round the whole length of the building to get there. Is it possible for that issue to be prioritised? Those children are not able to get access to those buildings in bad weather, and it is impacting on their education. At the end of the day, a ramp needs to be put in; that is all.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am happy to look into the constituency case that Mr McGrath has raised. I visited that school, and I know about the amalgamation that took place. I will raise those issues with the EA and come back to the Member.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

3. Mr Martin asked the Minister of Education for an update on his Department's action in relation to Benedict's law and Owen's law, including providing allergy-related guidance for schools. (AQO 4055/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is vital that effective arrangements are in place to support children and young people with medical needs, including severe allergies, anaphylaxis and special dietary requirements, so that they can participate fully and safely in education. My Department is aware of developments elsewhere in the United Kingdom, including the introduction of Benedict's law and Owen's law and the measures being considered to strengthen support for children with severe allergies. My officials have reviewed the new guidance that was published in England in July in order to identify gaps in existing guidance here in Northern Ireland. Engagement has also taken place with stakeholder groups to understand their views on the appropriate way forward. There has also been detailed discussion with the Department of Health, the Education Authority and counterparts in other parts of the UK on the issue.

It is clear that more could be done to ensure that allergies are managed safely and consistently in all schools across Northern Ireland. Having listened to the evidence, specifically from the families of children who are directly affected, I can confirm that I plan to take action. It is my intention to launch a public consultation before the end of this calendar year that will seek the views of all interested parties on the development of stand-alone allergy guidance for Northern Ireland schools. That will explore what needs to be done to strengthen current allergy management arrangements, as well as consider administrative and legislative options to achieve that. The objective will be to ensure that schools have access to clear guidelines for the best practice in allergy management, ensuring that the well-being of all our children and young people is protected.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, that is great news. There will be parents watching today who have children, as you rightly cited, with severe allergies and are very passionate about the issue. There are a number of parents in my constituency, particularly mums, who have children with such allergies, and I have met them on a number of occasions.

Would you agree to meet them, Minister, to outline the consultation that you have announced today and hear some of their concerns and what they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I commend Mr Martin for the way in which he has raised public awareness and campaigned on the issue. I was pleased to meet parents and representatives from the National Allergy Strategy Group at the launch of its allergy strategy in Parliament Buildings in June. We had an opportunity to hear about the experiences of children and young people with allergies in our schools, and I spoke with a number of the parents and young people who attended on that occasion. Officials have also met the Benedict Blythe Foundation and Food Allergy NI to discuss their concerns. I am more than happy to continue with that engagement and meet Mr Martin and the constituents whom he has been representing on the issue.

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

This is not specifically related to the question, but I hope that the Minister will indulge me. The programme for international student assessment (PISA) shows a wide-spread decline in reading, alongside increased screen use, digital distraction and the emergence of AI. What is your Department doing to understand the impact of those changes on pupils' concentration, literacy and learning in the North?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I see no relation to the original question. Move on.

Brian Kingston.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Perhaps that supplementary question might apply better to question 4.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

4. Mr Kingston asked the Minister of Education for his response to the recently published ‘PISA 2025: National Report for Northern Ireland’. (AQO 4056/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank Mr Kingston for the question.

[Laughter.]

I welcome the latest programme for international student assessment, commonly known as "PISA", results for Northern Ireland. International studies such as PISA provide essential insights on our system’s strengths and highlight opportunities to learn from approaches that are used in other high-performing countries.

While our pupils continue to perform relatively well internationally, the findings highlight significant challenges, particularly declining attainment in reading and mathematics and persistent gaps linked to disadvantage and gender. Literacy and numeracy are fundamental to educational success, yet the proportion of pupils failing to reach the baseline level 2 standard has increased substantially over the past decade. It is particularly concerning that outcomes for lower-attaining pupils have deteriorated and that Northern Ireland is now outperformed across all three PISA domains by England and the Republic of Ireland. Those results reinforce the need for ambitious reform and targeted support, especially for disadvantaged learners. Through the Department's TransformED programme, we are focusing on improving teaching and learning, as high-quality teaching remains the single most important in-school factor in raising standards.

While Northern Ireland remains a strong-performing education system by international standards, we cannot be complacent. Our priority must be to raise standards for all learners, close attainment gaps and ensure that every young person develops the literacy, numeracy and wider skills needed to succeed in a rapidly changing world.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I welcome the Minister's commitment to ensuring the development of those core skills. Minister, how do the PISA results compare with the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) literacy and numeracy assessment results that were published last week?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Being able to get data is hugely important to inform the education system on how we are performing. We had the PISA, which was a snapshot of a representative sample, but, for the first time in more than 20 years, we also had data for children across Northern Ireland in all of our schools. That was published last week. They were the first literacy and numeracy assessment results, and, while the results of those assessments show that many pupils are performing well, they reveal significant challenges that Members cannot ignore.

The results show that almost three in 10 pupils are not reaching the expected standard in literacy and numeracy by the end of primary school and that, by the end of Key Stage 3, almost one third of pupils are not achieving the expected level in numeracy. PISA also found that nearly one third of our young people do not have basic proficiency in maths and nearly a quarter do not have basic proficiency in reading at the age of 15. That is simply not good enough.

Literacy and numeracy are the foundation on which all learning is built and the gateway to future success in education, employment and life. The literacy and numeracy results that were published last week and the PISA outcomes published earlier this month show why continued reform through TransformED is essential.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The PISA results reinforce what we have known for a long time, which is that there is a very long tail of educational underachievement here. The evidence shows that children and young people who fall behind in school do not catch up unless they get some sort of bespoke support. Forget this stuff about TransformED helping everybody. Will the Minister tell us what bespoke support he is providing for those children who fall behind?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I agree with Mr Sheehan on this occasion, because he is right. If young people fall behind in the early years, and if there is no intervention, it is very challenging for them to be able to catch up. We therefore need to assess fundamentally what has gone on in those early years. Setting aside the PISA results, CCEA's data has, for the first time in 20 years, raised real concerns.

The Member will know that principals of secondary schools often refer to the need to provide catch-up lessons, because so many primary-school leavers are not proficient in basic maths and literacy. That presents a real difficulty. We therefore need to ask ourselves this question: at a time when there is significant funding for free school meals provision and extended schools, and when tens of millions of pounds are being directed into areas of high disadvantage, why is attainment deteriorating? A serious look at the funding approach is required.

TransformED is about providing a curriculum that is accessible to all. That is why we need to make sure that the curriculum closes the attainment gap, particularly for those from a socially disadvantaged background. That underpins everything that we are doing through TransformED. Mr Sheehan is a social justice campaigner, as am I when it comes to education. If he wants, as I do, people from a working-class background to get the best possible support and for the gap to be closed between them and the more well-off who can afford tutors, he should support all the initiatives that I am taking.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Kelly is not in his place.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

6. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister of Education for an update on the consultation on the review of temporary variation policy and how his proposals can give parents greater choice when a school has capacity to admit their child. (AQO 4058/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On 16 September, I launched a public consultation on the proposals to reform the temporary variation policy. The consultation seeks views on a more flexible approach to school admissions that places greater emphasis on parental preference. The proposals recognise that parents often choose an individual school rather than a sector and seek to ensure that, where a school has the capacity to accommodate additional pupils safely, greater weight can be given to parental preference.

In particular, I am proposing a presumption of approval for temporary variation requests from primary schools and non-selective post-primary schools where sufficient capacity exists and where the school is satisfied that it can safely accommodate the additional pupils. I want the new policy to protect the rights of all children, however. Schools will therefore be able to take in additional children only where doing so does not adversely affect their ability to continue to accommodate children with special educational needs. The consultation also seeks views on providing greater flexibility for children who already hold a school place to transfer to another school where places are available and where that reflects parental preference.

The proposals are intended to make fuller use of available school capacity, to increase the likelihood of children securing a place at their preferred school and to ensure that the admissions system is more responsive to the needs of children and families. All consultation responses will be carefully considered before final decisions are taken.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that, when a school has capacity and is willing to admit additional pupils, parents should have the greatest possible opportunity to secure a place for their child in that school?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Mrs Cameron is absolutely right. It goes to the heart of why I am seeking to make the change that I want to make and why there is now a consultation process under way. The core principle should be parental preference. I have highlighted a number of caveats, albeit in a limited form. For example, there should not be an increase in intake if that will displace provision for children with special educational needs. Where capacity exists, however, and a school is willing and able to accommodate additional pupils safely, greater weight needs to be given to facilitating parental choice.

Ultimately, we ought not to be about sustaining education structures and frameworks, but they ought to comply with parental preference and choice. The frameworks and schools need to meet the needs of parents who express that preference. Notwithstanding the caveats that I outlined, where schools in which places are being sought have capacity, we should give greater weight to parental preference.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

Question 8, please.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

7. Ms Nicholl asked the Minister of Education when he will repeal the relevant section of Part V of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 to ensure that penultimate-age children do not continue to be inappropriately placed in statutory nurseries. (AQO 4059/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I think that it is question 7. Current legislation requires all statutory preschool settings to admit penultimate-age children who apply for a funded preschool education place if they still have places remaining after all target-age applicants have been considered. Research is clear that preschool education is not age- and stage-appropriate provision for penultimate-age children. The draft early learning and childcare strategy that was issued for public consultation included this action:

"Make legislative changes, subject to consultation, to amend the age range for funded statutory pre-school provision, removing the current requirement to enrol children in their penultimate pre-school year."

That issue has been raised with me by stakeholders on many occasions, and I have listened to their concerns. New legislation is required if we are to remove that requirement, and I intend to commence public consultation on the issue before the end of this mandate.

In advance of the final strategy, however, I have already provided support to enable the expansion of targeted early learning programmes, such as Sure Start, Pathway and Toybox, which can provide more age-appropriate support for penultimate-age children. Further actions to continue those expansions are proposed in the draft strategy and were strongly supported in the consultation responses. In addition, the strategy includes an action to provide access to age- and stage-appropriate:

"developmental provision for all children aged 2–3 (in their pre-pre-school year)."

I intend to bring the final early learning and childcare strategy to the Executive in the coming weeks. Progression of all actions will, of course, be subject to the necessary Executive approvals at all stages and the availability of funding.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

I apologise. I think that I was thrown by the Minister's identifying himself as a "social justice" advocate. That is good news to hear, because our view is very much that putting two-year-olds in nursery settings is not the right place to spend £5 million of a constrained budget. What will the childcare strategy entail when it comes to providing a fit-for-purpose programme that will allow for child development for two- to three-year-olds?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The strategy will build on what we have already implemented. I want to do more. We were able to expand Sure Start, for example, by making the temporary areas permanent. We also have been able to allow referrals to Sure Start settings from outside the identified catchment areas. I have been to a number of settings, as, I am sure, has the Member. In those settings, you see that that kind of support is more appropriate for penultimate-age children, who are younger, rather than their going into nursery school settings. The provision of Sure Start is one area that I want to see enhanced, and the strategy references that.

Getting a more tailored and bespoke approach for penultimate-age children and those who are younger is the ambition of the draft early learning and childcare strategy. I make the point that it has not yet been approved by the Executive, and, obviously, funding issues are attached to it. In seeking to remove penultimate-age children from nursery schools, we need to make sure that alternative provision is in place. I do not believe, however, that the current position is right, based on the evidence on what is best for the children involved. I will do the consultation on that, and people will get the opportunity to feed into it, and we can move forward from there.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

The Minister's recent changes to the use of the socially disadvantaged circumstances (SDC) criterion have been roundly welcomed by my constituents, but some others have sought to misrepresent those changes. Will the Minister outline what he hopes to achieve by those measures?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Like the Member, I found that the changes were welcomed in my constituency. I am not surprised by that, given the number of parents who were often deeply frustrated that their child was discriminated against. The SDC criterion was established in 1998 to maximise access to funded preschool places for children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. However, that was at a time when only 45% of immediate preschool places were being funded. All preschool places are now catered for by way of provision. The circumstances have significantly changed from what they were 30 years ago.

Welfare reform has also had an impact. As welfare reform has expanded provision, many more young people and families have been able to avail themselves of the criterion, because it has been incorrectly read into by EA. That was not the original basis upon which decisions were taken for the criterion to be applied. This not only corrects that change but ensures equality of access for all children.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We move on to topical questions. Cara Hunter is not in her place.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

T2. Dr Aiken asked the Minister of Education, after acknowledging that it was good to hear the news about the programme for international student assessment (PISA) scores, why German, one of the most important modern languages, is being dropped by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) at the end of the decade. (AQT 2672/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that question. CCEA took that decision as an awarding body. It provides the overwhelming majority of qualifications in Northern Ireland, but it reviewed the suite of qualifications that it provides, and German was one that it decided to remove. We operate an open qualifications framework in Northern Ireland. It is open to all schools to access German provision from other awarding bodies. In my constituency, one of the schools that has been impacted has indicated to me that it intends to continue providing German as an A-level qualification and will access an alternative awarding body to do so.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Minister. It is particularly telling that the previous British ambassador to Berlin, Jill Gallard CMG CVO, started her love of the German language at Ballyclare High School. Many more who have studied the language are particularly concerned by CCEA's short-term view. The Minister will be aware that funding for German language education and educational visits also comes from the German embassy and the Goethe-Institut. What dialogue is taking place between the Minister's Department, the EA, CCEA and German officials, and will the Department return the funding?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There has been correspondence, and various interested parties have made representations on the issue. We have responded to that. Ultimately, CCEA took this decision about what qualifications to make available. Few pupils take German through CCEA, which means that, when it comes to marking and grading, there is a small pool from which to grade As, Bs, Cs and Ds. That has a detrimental impact on pupils. If they will be competing against a much bigger pool of applicants using a different awarding body, schools will want to change. Those who understand how awarding takes place will know that there is a certain percentage of pupils who get an A, a B, a C, a D and so on. When that system is applied to a very small cohort — in this particular subject, they are often young people who perform very well — there is little margin to appreciate where they can fall within that banding system. Young people who get, for talk's sake, a C grade would get a higher grade from a different awarding body. People should therefore think carefully, once they understand how the awarding system works, about what is actually to the betterment or the detriment of pupils in Northern Ireland when it comes to this issue.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

T4. Mr Boylan asked the Minister of Education to explain how his decision to instruct departmental officials not to attend meetings of the Education Committee is consistent with his obligations under the Pledge of Office and the ministerial code in respect of the Assembly's democratic accountability. (AQT 2674/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member will know that I am making myself available to the Committee. The Committee has sought me to come before it, and we will put a date for that in the diary. I will attend the Committee in due course, when we have the date agreed. There will be no breach of the ministerial code in that respect.

I am pleased to see that Sinn Féin now values the ministerial code, the Pledge of Office and its own code of conduct, which it has flagrantly breached. Now, it has the audacity to raise the issue.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I asked about the permanent secretary, but I will accept what the Minister said for now. It is good to see that he is buddies with my colleague Pat Sheehan: they are on speaking terms again.

Will the Minister confirm whether the permanent secretary will attend the Education Committee tomorrow to answer questions on the Minister's diversion of funding intended for Iontaobhas na Gaelscolaíochta and the murky circumstances surrounding the proposed £30,000 for a football pitch in Richhill?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member has raised a number of points. He will have access to the correspondence that I sent to the Committee Chair. I made it clear that officials should go to the Committee to answer questions on matters that pertain to their areas of responsibility. I also made it clear that they are not there to be subjected to — this is not my definition but what officials have reported to their line managers — the bullying and harassment that has been taking place, enabled by the Committee, in the way that Mr Sheehan has conducted himself. As I said in the correspondence, I do not expect Mr Sheehan to break the habit of a lifetime, but I expect the Chairman and the Committee to ensure that civil servants are not subjected to inappropriate questioning, bullying or harassment when they come before that Committee. That is not an unreasonable position for me, as Minister, to take, given my duty of care when it comes to all the officials in my Department.

The Member has asked perfectly legitimate questions that officials and I are more than competent to deal with. However, when Members call officials before the Committee and do not ask them even one question about the subject that they were asked to come up for but use the opportunity to pursue their own vendettas, it is incumbent on me to act, which is why I have. I trust that the Committee will put in place the appropriate protocols to allow a resolution to the issue.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

T5. Mr Stewart asked the Minister of Education, who will be aware of the continuing concern about when the works at Central Integrated Primary School and Greengables Pre-school will be carried out, for an assurance that the Department of Education will do all that it can to work with the Education Authority to ensure that the temporary accommodation measures are temporary and that the school will open as soon as is physically possible. (AQT 2675/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am aware of the situation and thank Mr Stewart for raising it with me. Ms Brownlee has also raised it directly and personally with me on a number of occasions. In addition, I met some of the teachers from the school, who raised it directly with me.

The Education Authority has engaged with the school. I know that the current arrangements are far from satisfactory. The Education Authority looked at alternative provision that the school suggested to it, but that was deemed not to be the most suitable. I am very much alert to the issues. We continue to engage with the EA, because it needs to put in place the appropriate provision to address the issues.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer, and I commend all those in the community who have been involved. I pay tribute to Mrs Hall and Ms Stewart for their leadership and to the schools that have stepped up.

Minister, you mentioned the EA. Have you had an assurance from the Education Authority that all the support required during the temporary measures will be provided to the staff, parents and pupils to ensure that there is no detriment to education?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes. We have had assurances around the EA supporting the school, but, as I said in my response, it is not a satisfactory arrangement. The cause is the lack of investment in routine maintenance across our school estate. Unfortunately, it is not the only school in which that has happened: another school in Londonderry has had roofing issues, and temporary accommodation has been provided in a neighbouring school setting while it carries out significant restructuring. It is regrettable that the school in East Antrim has found itself in that position. I assure the Member that the EA is doing all that it can to put in place the appropriate provision, but that is suboptimal.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

T6. Mr Baker asked the Minister of Education whether he believes that his conduct on 9 June 2026 was consistent with the Pledge of Office, which he has highlighted. (AQT 2676/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Minister, I will jog your memory of that night. You were being interviewed in Lisburn in the midst of a protest that you attended and supported at which there was a crowd of masked men. We know what happened that night: businesses were instructed to close and were intimidated into doing so; migrants were subjected to abuse; and families were burnt out of their homes because of the colour of their skin. I ask you this again, Minister: do you believe that your actions that night were consistent with the Pledge of Office?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

T7. Mr Nesbitt asked the Minister of Education whether he is satisfied that enough is being done to tackle the social determinants of academic achievement. (AQT 2677/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is why we have embarked on the transformation of our education system in terms of academic achievement. I have made it clear that there is disadvantage in our society: there are those who have more opportunity and those who come from a more disadvantaged background. It is too easy for that to be determined as being a result of the 11-plus or the transfer test when it is the result of a vague curriculum that the independent review of education carried out by Lucy Crehan identified as a weakness in our education system.

How do we close the attainment gap? We embark on the process of reform that we are engaged in. I am immensely proud of all the teaching professionals who put their shoulder to the wheel when it came to the various working groups that drafted the curriculum that has been out for consultation; when it comes to pedagogical practice and all the evidence-based reforms that we are carrying out in considering the suite of qualifications and how that should align; and when it comes to teacher professional development and the way in which we engage with the initial teacher training colleges — St Mary's University College and Stranmillis University College, Queen's University and Ulster University. That work has been led by professionals in our education system. They want what I want, which is for every child to achieve their potential. That is what drives me, and I know that it is what drives the Member.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Does the Minister agree that those same social determinants are the cause of economic inactivity and health inequality and that those three areas could therefore form the kernel of the next Programme for Government?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I do not disagree with the Member. In terms of the ability to effect real change in society, education is the biggest driver that will help with those outcomes. So many people passionately believe in education because it is often the way in which someone can work their way out of challenging circumstances. Many issues will influence and impact on the outcomes of young people, but a good education is a fundamental human right. That is why we have embarked on the changes to our education system.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

T9. Ms Mulholland asked the Minister of Education to outline what engagement he has undertaken with the youth sector in relation to concerns about the draft youth work policy statement. (AQT 2679/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have met various youth organisations. They had relayed their concerns with the existing way in which that was being operated by the Education Authority. That is why we had a prolonged period of consultation and engagement taken forward by the EA. That has led to changes to the youth framework in that respect that have been received positively by many. From my engagement with a lot of those organisations, I can say that they have seen the benefit of the changes that have been put in place. I am, however, more than happy to continue to engage on that with the youth sector and with young people.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Has any consideration been given to exploring how solutions could be provided that would allow the community and voluntary sector to utilise EA facilities, especially when we are looking at statutory services stepping back, to allow them to deliver youth services?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The EA has a desire to have greater use of its facilities by communities. Part of the change around youth work and something of which I have been supportive is having a greater role for the community and voluntary sector. There should be statutory involvement only when the community and voluntary sector is unable to meet the need in a community. However, if you can have a community and voluntary organisation — they are often personally invested in improving the outcomes of the young people and their society — the statutory organisations — in this case, the EA — ought to enable and support it. That has been part of the driver for the change in the youth framework.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

T10. Mr Mathison asked the Minister of Education, given that many MLAs will have been contacted by Cruse Bereavement Support about its concerns about the lack of inclusion of bereavement education in the new draft curriculum framework, to update Members on whether he will give attention to that and attempt to correct it. (AQT 2680/22-27)

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The consultation for all of the curriculum has been out, and we are working through the responses. I am more than happy to assure the Member that, where the responses have highlighted issues that we need to address, all of those issues will be seriously looked at before a final curriculum is brought forward.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That ends Question Time. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment to allow Members to leave the Chamber and others to come in before we go on to the next item of business.

Private Members' Business

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly condemns the failure to deliver on the promise of health and social care transformation 10 years after the publication of the 'Systems, Not Structures: Changing Health and Social Care' report in 2016; agrees that patients are experiencing severe harm due to successive Ministers of Health delaying progress and avoiding decision-making on health reform proposals; notes with grave concern the conclusion of the British Medical Association that, due to the failure to deliver the recommendations of clinical experts, Northern Ireland is experiencing reform by service collapse; calls on the Minister of Health to change his approach and demonstrate the political leadership required to foster public confidence in the health reform agenda; and further calls on the Minister to outline his plan to make progress on health and social care transformation and improve patient outcomes before the end of the 2022-27 Assembly mandate.

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 to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As one amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Danny, please open the debate on the motion.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We are ten years on from the Bengoa report, 'Systems, Not Structures', and it is clear that, since then, we have not progressed the reforms that are needed. In 2016, an article titled, "A fresh, new strategy for the Northern Ireland health and care system?" discussed the new strategy for our health service and concluded:

"my overall verdict on the new strategy for the Northern Ireland health and care system is that it does, without a doubt, look like a very fresh, fresh start. Hopefully it will stand the test of time – 10 years to be precise – as well as the tricky politics and public debate that will inevitably come with it."

Reading that now, I wonder what the author would make of where we have arrived. The argument for transformation has stood the test of time, but the functionality of these institutions has not. Of course, the pandemic had enormous impact, but five years of political collapse and paralysis and a disastrously implemented Brexit had a hefty price tag attached, and we are still paying the price. No explanation relieves the Assembly of its responsibility or can become a permanent excuse for failing to move forward.

Having worked in the health service for 20 years, I have experience of seeing the decisions that are made here and experience of their consequences. I see colleagues across the system keep a health service going through goodwill and a deep sense of responsibility to their patients. Each year, they brace themselves for winter pressures. They know that, when someone cannot leave hospital because there is no care package or nursing home placement available, the consequences will be felt in increased corridor care and overcrowded emergency departments. They see the impacts when palliative care is unavailable to patients and their families, and they absorb the cost of medication shortages to continue patient supply.

They will do everything that they can to make those situations bearable, often at considerable cost to themselves.

When they come through another winter or another crisis, they are therefore faced with the expectation that they will find the strength to do it again. We are asking their commitment to compensate year after year for our failure to make the changes that they need to see made. As an MLA, I know that there are colleagues across the Chamber who care deeply about the situation. I have worked with them, and I do not doubt their desire to improve things, but that makes the distance between our intentions and what we deliver all the harder to accept.

People working in the health service have had to watch this place collapse, wait for it to return and then listen to the arguments that paralysed it threaten to consume it again. I have conversations with colleagues in the health service now about how little opportunity there seems to be to recover between shifts. They go into work already worried about whether they will be able to provide the standard of care that their patients need. There is evidence of the consequences of prolonged waits. They cause harm. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) has calculated that more than 1,000 excess deaths in each of the past three years were associated with long waits in overcrowded A&E departments. Twenty years ago, such things happened rarely, if ever, but they are commonplace today.

We have an ageing population, with the number of people aged 65 and over projected to increase by almost half in the next 25 years and those aged 85 and over projected to more than double in the same period. We have a lack of adequate social care and underfunded and under-resourced community care that is driving up corridor care and overcrowding in A&E departments, and that is having a huge impact on ambulance response times in our communities. There is an underfunding of community pharmacy, with an outdated clawback mechanism, medication shortages and a continued expectation that pharmacies will absorb costs and keep the service running by effectively subsidising the supply of medicines in Northern Ireland. We have the Department at odds with GPs, who are the main point of access to the health service here. GPs are unable to agree a contract or pursue engagement on the neighbourhood model. GP surgeries see over 200,000 patients every week in Northern Ireland, yet they are funded by only 5·4% of the entire healthcare budget. In other parts of the UK, funding is closer to 10%.

We have had a neurology review with no concrete next steps, while 26,855 patients wait for a first neurology consultant appointment, with a median waiting time of 77 weeks. We have no women's health strategy, despite the many issues that affect women in Northern Ireland having been highlighted in the Chamber. We have a mental health strategy from 2016 that has been underfunded and under-delivered, and it has now effectively been shelved. There are currently no commissioned services for ADHD assessment and treatment of adults in Northern Ireland, and there is a continued refusal of shared care arrangements for those who get a private diagnosis. There has essentially been a collapse of NHS dentistry. The Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, some 10 years after its passage, remains only partially commenced, with no indicative timetable for full commencement.

We are driving many people in Northern Ireland to spend huge amounts of money in order to access timely healthcare through becoming patients in the private healthcare sector. It is a two-tier health service. We have had three separate Health Ministers in this mandate alone, with a dispute over delay and transformation to thank for the most recent of those changes. The recommendations from the Health Committee's recent inquiry into palliative care are no further forward. There are shortages across many areas of the healthcare workforce, so we need a workforce strategy.

Cancer waiting times in Northern Ireland are currently the worst on record, with around seven in 10 patients — 71% — not starting treatment within the target time of 62 days of being referred to hospital. If that performance continues, around 20,000 people could miss that target over the next five years.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank my East Antrim colleague for giving way. He will know that I chair the all-party group (APG) on cancer, so my comment to him is made on a cross-party basis. It concerns cancer waiting times. Over the past 10 years, the 62-day target for seeing cancer patients has dropped from 95% to 29·5%. The 31-day treatment target has dropped from 98% to 88%, while the 14-day breast cancer appointment target has dropped from 90% to a shocking 5·5%. Does he agree that cancer services in Northern Ireland are in crisis today?

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

Yes. Thank you for that. I absolutely agree. I am sure that Members across the House have constituents who have raised such issues with them. Constituents have come to me with concerns about their very long waits.

This year, there is an additional pressure of having to cut 4% from trust budgets — or, rather, "make cash-releasing changes". The trusts will have fewer resources available to absorb pressure this winter. Like many who work in the health service, that is something that I am hugely concerned about. None of what I have mentioned, however, even scratches the surface of the issue. We know that we need transformation; we have been saying it for years, but what does that actually mean?

Transformation is defined as a complete or major change in appearance, form, character or nature of something or someone. It is fair to say that more than just our health service is in need of transformation. It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. It is easy to stand here and say that we stand up for our health service in a speech, but if we continually expect health service staff to take responsibility for their patients while we repeatedly walk away from our responsibility to them, we are failing in our jobs and in what we are supposed to do, effectively turning our backs on transformation.

For those colleagues who want to revisit the past, I suggest returning to the Bengoa principles of reform — returning to the case for change and asking what each of us is prepared to do in order to deliver it. Professor Bengoa, who is returning to Northern Ireland soon, stated in 2016 that we had to reform our health system because, as he put it, the platform was burning.

The platform has been burning for 10 years, and the need to reform is now urgent. The rhetoric of division does not die once we leave this Chamber, and the consequences of our decisions do not remain within these walls. I call on my colleagues in the Assembly to change the narrative and to work towards the transformation of our health service for people here. I call on the Minister today to outline his plans to make progress on health and social care transformation and to improve patient outcomes before the end of the mandate.

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

I beg to move the following amendment:

Leave out all after ‘service collapse;’ and insert: ‘commits to working constructively to agree and deliver a shared programme of health reform over the next five years; and calls on the Minister of Health to work with all political parties to establish a new consensus on health and social care transformation, capable of sustaining difficult decisions and delivering reform beyond any single Minister or electoral cycle.'

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Colin, you have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the debate and the proposal in the motion. I hope that our amendment can be seen as a small contribution to the motion, while not changing it massively. Our amendment revolves around the line in the Bengoa report that sums up where we are today better than anything else. The report said that "change is everybody's business".

That report was published 10 years ago, yet patients are still waiting and staff are under unbearable pressure. Communities too often find out about change when the service is right on the brink and about to collapse. The BMA's description is absolutely devastating; it says that we are witnessing "reform by service collapse". It says that difficult decisions have too often:

"been delayed, diluted or abandoned when they become contentious"

and that "reform cannot be endlessly discussed."

That is why the SDLP has tabled this amendment, which, we believe, strengthens the motion. The debate cannot simply end with another demand on one Health Minister to fix everything or to change his approach, and for him to demonstrate political leadership. Our amendment commits the Assembly to "working constructively" towards:

"a shared programme of health reform over the next five years",

and asks the Minister, whoever that Minister will be, to reach out and work with the other parties to build a consensus that is "capable of sustaining difficult decisions" and surviving changes of Minister or electoral cycles.

That is not about letting this Minister or any Minister off the hook. The Health Minister is responsible for his Department and he must make the decisions and show that leadership. Where decisions are delayed or mistakes are made, the Assembly should rightly hold him to account. However, the fiction that one Minister sitting in Castle Buildings can transform our entire health and social care system on their own has to end.

Health does not begin at the hospital door. It begins with somebody having a warm home, a child growing up in poverty or someone being able find secure employment. It is about whether schools equip young people to live healthy lives, whether our communities have decent public transport and whether older people are supported to remain independent.

Never mind Bengoa for a moment — does anybody remember the 'No More Silos' report? Mental health, addiction, poverty, housing, education, employment and isolation do not fit neatly into departmental silos, so neither can the solutions. The Department of Health itself has already acknowledged that. Its reset plan says that:

"healthcare interventions are only one element of improving well-being, alongside ... employment, housing, education".

The plan concludes that resetting health and social care:

"can be delivered only through a whole government approach".

That need for collective political responsibility is not simply our view. Professor Gabriel Scally, who has decades of experience in public health, says that public trust has been shattered. If we want people to accept difficult changes to services that they have relied upon for generations, we cannot simply announce those changes and tell communities that the experts know best. We have to bring people with us. We have to demonstrate that the alternative is genuinely better, safer and sustainable. Crucially, we have to stand together politically when the evidence supports change. That is what political leadership on health transformation should look like.

That was achieved in the South when Sláintecare was agreed in 2017. Whatever criticisms can be made of its subsequent implementation, its origins matter. In 2017, politicians from different parties came together around a 10-year vision for health reform. They recognised that reform at that scale had to reach beyond one Minister, one Government and one electoral cycle. That is precisely the political maturity that we need here. If that is the diagnosis, our politics needs to catch up with it. Health must become a collective Executive priority with collective Executive ownership. That means that every party that sits around the Executive table must resist the short temptation to land a few blows and remember that, as they so love to remind us, they are in the Executive.

Let us look at the Health Committee. I am supposed to be the sole Opposition member out of nine members, yet on that Committee it appears that one of the nine is the Minister's rep, who backs him up, and the other eight are in opposition. Yes, a Committee is meant to hold a Minister to account, but all that we ever see —.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

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

I do not get extra time, so please make it quick.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Does the Member accept that that is called scrutiny?

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

My goodness, that was short. Thank you. Yes, and that is exactly the point: we are there to hold the Minister to account. If the Committee is being oppositional, however, that points to the core of what we want to achieve with this amendment, which is to encourage everybody to be forward-looking together on transformation. If there was a whole Executive approach when it came to transformation, we could see agreed principles, an agreed direction of travel, and the space to make the necessary changes instead of what we see at the moment, which is simply collapse in the system. We cannot demand transformation in principle and oppose every difficult manifestation of it in practice. We need an agreed direction of travel that can survive the political pressure that inevitably comes when change reaches a particular hospital, service or community. That is what our amendment seeks to achieve.

There is another issue that we cannot ignore. We are entering the final five and a half months of this mandate. Where is the health legislation? In March, I asked the then Health Minister what primary legislation he expected to introduce before the end of the mandate. His response, on the day that he resigned, identified the control of data processing Bill, a safe and effective staffing Bill and the duty of candour Bill as legislation that he hoped to introduce. The answer was there in black and white, yet here we are and the only piece of primary health legislation that has been brought through the Assembly has been about overturning hospital car parking charges. That is baffling. How are we meant to achieve change in our health service when we do not even have legislation that can pass through the House? There is a danger — it is, I think, very much the reality — that our Executive have become good at describing the crisis but totally ineffective at changing it. They are rather good at amplifying or engineering a crisis but not so good at ending one. We need decisions; we need legislation; and we need delivery, but, for that to happen, we also need political courage. Bengoa told us 10 years ago that the choice was stark: resist change and watch services deteriorate towards collapse or embrace transformation and build a sustainable service.

Change is everybody's business, as I said. The public do not care which Department wins an argument around the Executive table. They just want the Government to work and to work right now. I defy Members to find one person who thinks that this place is operating as it should. It is time for maturity, decency and, dare I say it, even a dose of shared effort in our politics.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the amendment. I take exception to Mr McGrath's narrative of the Health Committee. It may dispel some of the public narrative when I say that I agree with my Health Committee colleague Diane Dodds — I am speaking not as Chair of the Health Committee but as my party's health spokesperson — that what we rightly do on the Committee is challenge the Minister in a constructive way. Indeed, in the short time since the Minister took office, he has asked us to challenge him and his decisions, as is our right. All of us on the Health Committee have done a reasonably good job of doing the right thing, which is to take politics out of the Health Committee. Health is far too important for us not to do so. I have said time and again that I do not care what political party the Health Minister comes from. I want the Health Minister to succeed in everything that he does, because health is far too important for the population that we all serve for him not to do so.

As the then Health Minister Michelle O'Neill announced 'Delivering Together' in response to the Bengoa report, she said that "whole system transformation" would be required across primary, hospital and community care, and she warned us of the consequences of not delivering planned and managed change in our health and social care system. Ten years on, we are, unfortunately, living with the consequences of delay and unmanaged change: staff shortages, overcrowded emergency departments, ambulance delays and patients remaining in hospital beds because the number of home care packages is insufficient to support safe and quick discharge.

Every week, I meet GPs, community nurses, allied health professionals, hospital clinicians, social care providers and home care teams, and I hear about the challenging environment in which they are trying to deliver services, be that in unsuitable buildings or with staff shortages and demand outstripping capacity.

Constituents contact me regularly with their personal stories of long waits for assessments, diagnostics and routine procedures that have become urgent; people losing their independence while they wait for services; and families forced to shoulder care because of the limited availability of home care packages. Those prolonged waits increase clinical complexity, lead to deterioration and cause moral injury to staff who know what good care looks like but cannot deliver it in circumstances where the system is either under-resourced or fragmented. That is especially difficult when it comes to red flag cancer care and time-critical appointments.

The focus has to be kept on the priority of getting to grips with our unacceptably long waiting lists. I welcome the Executive's commitment to tackling waiting times and the work that has gone into achieving reductions to date, particularly for those on the longest waiting lists. It has to be acknowledged, however, that we still have a long way to go. There are many challenges to be overcome if what we are doing is to be sustainable in the long term. Investment is needed, but that alone will not solve the problem. When the permanent secretary was before the Committee last week, he talked about the difficulty of changing the engine while driving the car. I agree that we have had decades of underinvestment, but we need to spend money in the right places. I was struck by Danny Donnelly's opening remarks when he detailed the raft of strategies that we have that are not funded and the raft of strategies that we do not have that are needed.

Genuine and impactful healthcare transformation is about much more than our hospitals, where they are located and the services that they provide. It begins with timely access to GPs, and it extends through to community and allied health professionals, robust home care services and sufficient staff to ensure safe and timely discharge from hospital. If there are any weak links in that chain, the whole system strains.

I was struck by the BMA's warning about social care reform by service collapse, and that should concern us all. We see it, time and again, most recently with the midwifery shortages at Daisy Hill Hospital and in discussions about services at the Causeway Hospital and the South West Acute Hospital. Patients deserve to understand the clinical evidence and the alternatives that have been considered and how the service will be protected.

I am rushing through my speech, because I am going to run out of time. We need to take the politics out of it, and I urge the Health Minister to take the politics out of it. His party leader —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

— introduced party politics into it, but we need decisions that are made on the clinical evidence and in the best interests —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

— of our patients.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

As I understand it, Professor Bengoa will be back in Northern Ireland at the Northern Ireland Confederation for Health and Social Care (NICON) conference to set out what needs to be done, and I am sure that he hopes to hear about what has been done. I looked at the Department's website to find out what had happened since the conference two years ago, which, ironically, was called "Accelerating Change". The Department's home page directs viewers to the transformation progress page on the departmental website. It contains three items: two are from 2019, and the most recent is from 2021. Minister, that is a sad indictment of where three Ulster Unionist Health Ministers have led us.

Many Members in the Chamber today have talked about the continuous reports on the state of the health service. Of course, when he was here 10 years ago, Professor Bengoa said that he thought that there was report fatigue and that we had exhausted ourselves analysing the problem but had not done anything about it. We are concerned about that and think that throwing out another committee, or whatever it is, is not going to cut it with the people out there who can see the crumbling services.

In an article for ‘agendaNi’ last November, the Health Minister's predecessor talked about transformation or, as we now call it, "reset". Minister, you are new to the post, but you are the third Ulster Unionist Health Minister. Two years ago this autumn, we had the public consultation "Hospitals — Creating a Network for Better Outcomes", and it was extended to December of that year. We are now two full years later, and we have no information on the consultation responses and an independent expert advisory committee. I am not sure whether Mr Burrows said that that was the way to proceed or not, but we all deserve more and better. You have now decided that the hospital network proposals will not be taken any further. You said that they cause you significant concern, and you have asked the Department not to progress them. That is what has been wrong with the idea of transformation in Northern Ireland. We decide on one thing, and then we decide that we are not taking it forward; we create something else, and nobody knows what is going to happen with that something else.