Northern Ireland Assembly, 12 October 2026

485 contributions from 68 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Act (Northern Ireland) 2026 became law on 7 October 2026. It is chapter 8.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Act (Northern Ireland) 2026 became law on 7 October 2026. It is chapter 9.

Members' Statements

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I welcome the Secretary of State's statement on late Friday evening, which banned the Orange Order procession from the Garvaghy Road. This is not about a victory over one side of the community or the other. It is not about one-upmanship by anyone. It is about lifting a huge amount of pressure off the Garvaghy Road community and allowing that community to breathe. I acknowledge and welcome the way in which the statement was greeted by the Garvaghy Road community with dignity and respect. That is how the residents have carried themselves over the past weeks and, indeed, perhaps even longer, considering how long the issue had been going on before the most recent episode of the debacle.

There are opportunities in Portadown for communities to continue to engage with each other, grow with each other and learn from each other, and I have no doubt that there is a will across many sections of society in Portadown for that to continue. They should be given space to do so. I urge politicians to mind their words and to understand that words have consequences. I refer particularly to the use of language such as "using all tools in our armoury". When someone associates themselves, as the MP for the area has, with Mr Bryson, who is an associate of loyalist terror gangs or of individuals in those gangs, the word "armoury" has a menacing undertone. My colleague Councillor Paul Duffy arrived at his workplace this morning to find graffiti threatening his life and warning him to stay away. Words have consequences, and Councillor Duffy saw those consequences this morning. Again, I say this: allow the people of Portadown to continue the good work that they were involved in; allow them to engage with each other; and allow them the space to get on with their lives.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I will bring us back from the parallel universe that we have just heard about.

Police officers are expected to exercise their duties without fear or favour, and the same should apply to the Chief Constable. Clearly, however, on this occasion, he has disregarded that. The Chief Constable has questions to answer. What did Jon Boutcher mean when he said that policing the commission's lawful determination would have had "catastrophic long-term consequences"? Where were those consequences coming from? Where were the threats coming from? Jon Boutcher has been less than clear on that.

He also needs to spell out exactly what evidence he used for his assessment and what contact he had with senior politicians from different political parties. For my part, my party leader and I met the Chief Constable. We did not threaten the Chief Constable or insinuate that there were any consequences for anything in Northern Ireland; we just sought answers from the Chief Constable on how he was going to police the legal determination and the lawful right of the Portadown district. What did he mean by that, what representation was made by political parties, and, of course, what threats were made? What were those potential threats? From whom did they come? What intelligence was there? The spokesperson for the Garvaghy Road residents said that he had confiscated some petrol bombs and would confiscate more. Did he get them all? Were there weapons on the Garvaghy Road? How serious were those consequences for the Chief Constable to come to the determination that he did?

Of course, we can draw a parallel between another part of his statement and the situation faced by the two officers on the Ormeau Road who acted without fear or favour. The then Chief Constable threw them under the bus because of the actions and threats of Sinn Féin, only for us to find out in the courts that he had indulged himself in the political arena. It is clear that, on this occasion, the current Chief Constable has done the same. He has talked about these institutions, but, with respect to him and all his colleagues, these institutions are not part of his role in the determination. His role in the determination was about getting that lawful parade down the road. The consequences or otherwise for this place are none of his business, but he needs to tell us who was threatening these institutions. I am very clear: my party leader and our delegation made no such threats to the Chief Constable.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Today, I will speak about the protest that I attended on Friday against Translink cuts, which was organised by students and trade unions. People across Northern Ireland have been stunned by Translink's recent proposals to cut services during the week; raise standard train and bus fares that are usually considered off-peak; and slash the young people yLink discount from 50% to 33%.

Public transport is not a luxury; it is a lifeline for many, taking them to school, jobs, family and friends. The Department for Infrastructure already does not adequately prioritise public transport. It can and should be improved, not cut. The cuts will disproportionately impact on young people, people who work shifts and those in rural communities. People build their lives around public transport, including where it goes and what it costs. They decide what jobs they can take and what plans they can make on that basis.

The proposals have caused a ripple of concern across my constituency of North Down at a time when the cost of living is exponentially on the rise. I have heard from many constituents who use the Bangor to Belfast train line for work on weeknights, whether that is in hospitality or healthcare, about how this will directly impact on the shifts that they can take and the money that they can bring into their household. Constituents in areas such as Groomsport, Millisle and Donaghadee have been in touch to ask why the proposals penalise those who enjoy living in the more rural parts of the constituency and rely on bus connections to Ards or Bangor.

Many young people and students have been in touch to highlight their concerns. My Alliance Party colleagues and I were proud to stand with them last Friday outside Grand Central station in Belfast to protest against the proposals.

The building of a greener and more sustainable society relies on significant investment in public transport infrastructure, but the proposals take us in entirely the wrong direction. I wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure over a month ago to ask what steps she is taking to intervene in the looming crisis and what steps she has taken to support Translink and find more funds for public transport in Northern Ireland. The cuts to services and increases in fares will hold back our economy, our healthcare system and our education system. They will hold back our communities from reaching their fullest potential. I was proud, on Friday, to stand against those cuts.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Agriculture Minister sat down for an in-depth interview with the 'Belfast Telegraph' last week. I want to put a few things from that interview on record. He talked about death threats and an assault: such things are wrong, and I condemn them unreservedly. However, it is the substance of that interview that I want to deal with.

The Minister should read his Department's figures. He said that 90% of farmers were doing the right thing and that:

"about 7pc of farmers produce about 70pc of the phosphorus".

Those are his words, not mine. A few minutes later in the interview, he said that, if people keep opposing him, we will have to look at the size of the herd in Northern Ireland, naming dairy. Which is it? If the problem is 7% of farmers, why is the warning being pointed at everybody's stock? Saying, "Work with me, or we will cut your herd" is not working in partnership with industry, and it is not the 7% who will feel the result of that. I ask the Minister's party this straight question: is degrowth now Alliance Party policy for agriculture? The Minister has ruled out a buyout scheme, and I take him at his word on that. A buyout scheme is not needed, however, when it can be done slowly through enough small decisions, cut by cut, until a family farm can see no way forward and the next generation does not take the farm on.

On the subject of the nutrients action programme, farmers want clean water — I am yet to meet one who does not — but will not accept being pointed at as though it is their problem alone. The Minister's figures show that it is not. Work with them, Minister, and you will get somewhere; back them into a corner, and you will not.

The Minister is right that about 90% of farmers are doing the right thing, so where is the support for those people? In 2025, the Department offered not £1 — not one — in farm capital investment. Farmers being left alone by the Department is not the same as being backed by it. There is a bigger point that the Minister needs to hold on to: food production matters to this country. Taking acres out of production here will not mean that the world eats less; it will mean that it will be grown by somebody else somewhere that has none of the standards that we impose on our farmers. There is no victory in clearing our conscience by importing beef that has been produced off the back of a cleared rainforest.

My father held the Agriculture office at a time when a Minister of Agriculture understood that he was there to back the industry. This Minister talks about farming as a set of problems to be managed: it is not. It involves thousands of families, and it is what holds rural Northern Ireland together.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I pay tribute to Michael Canavan, who has sadly passed away at the remarkable age of 102. He was an extraordinary gentleman, and I held him in high regard. Michael was a giant in Derry's civil rights movement and a founding member of the SDLP who dedicated his life to standing up for his city and its people.

It is difficult to do justice in just a few minutes to everything that Michael achieved. He was on Duke Street on 5 October 1968, when peaceful civil rights protesters were met with violence. He witnessed at first hand the discrimination and injustice that so many people in Derry faced. He served as the secretary of the Derry Citizens’ Action Committee, was involved the Derry Citizens' Defence Association during the battle of the Bogside and was chair of the central committee at the time of Bloody Sunday. Michael refused to stand by when he saw injustice. He believed that everyone deserved to be treated with dignity, fairness and respect, and he was prepared to stand up and demand it.

Michael's contribution to Derry went far beyond the civil rights movement. He was John Hume's election agent in 1969, helped to establish the SDLP and was elected to the Assembly in 1973.

He was also involved in establishing Derry Credit Union, an organisation that continues to make a real difference to people across our city.

One of the causes closest to Michael's heart was the campaign for a university in Derry. He was part of the University for Derry Committee. In 1965, when the decision was made to locate the new university in Coleraine, he refused to accept that Derry should simply be left behind. At a time when our city was losing rail connections and economic opportunities, Michael was writing to industrialists across the world, encouraging them to invest in Derry and the north-west. That tells us everything that we need to know about what kind of man he was. He was not prepared to accept that Derry should settle for less, and he certainly was not prepared to give up on its future. Sixty years later, Michael was still campaigning for greater investment in our city and in the university, which generations of people had fought to secure. I had many lively conversations with Michael on a range of economic issues, and I always came away feeling much richer for them.

As someone who continues to campaign for regional balance and fair investment in the north-west, I feel that there is an enormous amount that we can learn from Michael's determination. He understood that Derry deserved the same opportunities as everywhere else — not special treatment but equal treatment — and that achieving that fairness required people who were prepared to keep making the case, even when others refused to listen.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Our city is a better place because of Michael's —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is very much up.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— courage, determination and lifelong commitment to the city.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I am pleased to welcome the Court of Appeal's ruling last Tuesday to allow the A5 road upgrade to progress. It was a hugely significant day for the people of West Tyrone, who have waited far too long for that road to be upgraded and made safe. In the Chamber, I have said time and time again that the most important reason for upgrading the road is that doing so will save lives. More than 50 people have been killed on the A5 in the past 20 years, and countless families and communities have been left devastated by those losses and severe injuries caused by accidents on that road.

On Tuesday, it was very emotional at the courts when the news filtered through that the A5 upgrade had been given the green light. There were families there who had lost sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts and uncles. There were people there who had lost school friends. Although there was obvious joy that the road upgrade had been given the green light, there was also a sense of sadness at the fact that people had to suffer the worst losses in order for us to get to this point. I take the opportunity to thank and pay tribute to those families for the incredible dignity, strength and patience that they displayed during what was a long process. It is a testament to their sense of community and humanity that, having endured the most tragic losses, they dedicated themselves to ensuring that nobody else has to.

I also thank the Minister for Infrastructure, Liz Kimmins, the previous Minister for Infrastructure, John O'Dowd, and officials in the Department for Infrastructure for all their hard work and determination to progress the A5 project. Despite the many obstacles put in their path, they remained steadfast in their commitment to delivering the A5. John and Liz understood the suffering that families had experienced and felt a responsibility to do all that they could to deliver the project.

The A5 upgrade also offers West Tyrone and the wider north-west of Ireland an enormous economic boost. The construction of the road will bring significant investment to the area by creating many jobs and much work for people locally. It will also provide a boost for local businesses and the local economy. Additionally, by reducing travel time to and from Dublin, the A5 will open up the north-west to more investment, increased trade, faster commuting, more tourism, the promotion of job creation and regional balance. It represents a £1·6 billion investment in a part of the country that has suffered from historical underinvestment and a lack of critical infrastructure. It is important that we come together now to deliver the A5 at pace.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Last week, the Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins, told the Assembly that landowners would know in a matter of days when their land would be re-vested, who would own it and who would have access to it. We are approaching a week from that statement, and landowners are still waiting for answers. The way in which they have been treated throughout the process has been nothing short of disgraceful. They have endured years of uncertainty and disruption to their land and farming businesses. They have had to reclaim their land, carry out work to restore it and try to get their businesses back on track, only to be faced with the prospect of having to hand back the land to the Department once again.

What are they told about compensation? They are told that compensation will be based on 2024 land market values. Let us put that into perspective. Imagine that the Department was trying to buy your house in 2024 and you were told to put things on hold and wait until the Department came back to you. Two years later, in 2026, the Department returns to complete the purchase. You know that your house has increased in value and that you could achieve a better price on the open market. Would you accept an offer based on 2024 prices? Of course you would question it, yet that is the prospect facing approximately 400 landowners along the A5 route. Why should they be expected to accept a valuation that may not reflect the current market, particularly after years of uncertainty and disruption?

Let me be clear: I recognise the importance of the A5. Improved connectivity in the west is vital, and the road has the potential to bring real benefits to our communities and our economy. We need to deliver major road projects in Northern Ireland, but supporting the A5 does not mean accepting that landowners should be treated unfairly. The farmers and families whose land, livelihoods and businesses are directly affected deserve to be treated as partners in the project, not as an afterthought.

Last Tuesday evening, Minister Kimmins attended a meeting at Tyrone GAA, where the decision to proceed was welcomed. It will be a safer route, and I understand the news being welcomed. However, I have to ask this: why was the Minister not sitting down on Tuesday night with landowners, working through their concerns and helping them to understand the next steps? That should have been a priority. Landowners need clarity on investment. They need ownership, and they need understanding. We can build the A5 and still treat people fairly. We can deliver progress without leaving families to carry the burden of uncertainty. Landowners deserve answers, fair compensation and respect, which should come with any —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

— major public infrastructure project.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Danny Donnelly.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Minister needs to provide clarity now.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

How many times must we hear about another scandal in the health service, and of how it has failed patients, before we take meaningful action? The urology services inquiry cost over £9 million. It found failures in leadership, governance and oversight that allowed patients to suffer serious harm. People waited for diagnosis and treatment, including cancer care, while the systems that were meant to protect them failed. The chair of the inquiry, Christine Smith KC, said that the findings were rooted in the experiences of patients and families who had been let down by the system. While one clinician was the catalyst for the inquiry, the report made clear that failings were deep-rooted across the trust.

That is just another scandal in a long line of failures. The Muckamore inquiry exposed systemic staff bullying, physical abuse and severe neglect of vulnerable adults. That crisis triggered the UK's largest police investigation into adult safeguarding and led to numerous arrests and suspensions. The neurology inquiry examined the recall of over 5,000 neurology patients linked to consultant Michael Watt and the failures by Belfast Health and Social Care Trust over a decade. The Southern Health and Social Care Trust cervical screening review was a major review that forced health authorities to recheck smear tests for 17,500 women, dating back to 2008. Campaigners and affected families have so far been denied a full statutory inquiry into how the screening errors occurred and whether other trusts were impacted on.

There is also the infected blood inquiry. Northern Ireland victims have been heavily impacted on by the UK-wide infected blood scandal, where thousands were treated with contaminated blood products. The public inquiry condemned successive Governments and health bodies for systemic cover-ups and ignoring safety warnings. The Dunmurry Manor care home investigation, carried out by the Commissioner for Older People for Northern Ireland, uncovered severe failures in the standards of care, safety and regulation for dementia patients.

Each of those cases has massively impacted on the lives of the victims and their families, some of whom have lost loved ones. Each of the cases deserves attention in its own right. Together, they leave us with this question, which another apology cannot answer: who is responsible for ensuring that this changes?

We have only a short time left in the mandate, but we need the robust duty-of-candour legislation that Justice O'Hara recommended in 2018. Families have waited long enough.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We have heard some awful, hurtful and hateful rhetoric in recent weeks. I condemn all of that, and I condemn any abuse levelled at any politician or person regardless of their background or persuasion. With that in mind, I want to speak specifically this afternoon about comments made over the weekend by the North Antrim MP and leader of the TUV, Jim Allister, when he said that, a fortnight ago, the Garvaghy Road should have been "sanitised"; "sanitised" is the word that he used. I urge everyone to think about what that means. The implication, of course, is that the people of the Garvaghy Road are dirty. That is a strategy and a mindset that was employed by the apartheid regime in South Africa. Fascist leaders in Europe in the 1940s used that same strategy. When you consider a people or a community to be subhuman or dirty, you have licence to abuse them. That strategy was employed by the British when they colonised India and when they colonised Ireland. That allowed for the genocide that occurred here and for the denial of rights to nationalists in the North. Ultimately, it allowed for nationalists to be beaten off the streets, targeted and murdered by the state.

What Jim has done is to say the quiet part out loud. He thinks that the people of the Garvaghy Road should have been beaten off the streets by the PSNI. He thinks that the Orange state should still own the police, just as the RUC were owned and encouraged to drag people off the streets and beat them over the head with batons in days gone by. He wants us to go back to 1969, when the former leader and founding member of the DUP, Ian Paisley, told us that Catholics multiplied like vermin. I have a message for Jim Allister: the people of the Garvaghy Road are some of the proudest, most resilient and kindest people that I have ever had the privilege to know and stand alongside. The nationalist people of the North are not vermin. We are not dirty. We are not subhuman. We will not be dragged back. We know our rights, and we are not going to be beaten off the streets as in the days of yore. We are not going back: not today, not tomorrow, not ever. Sin é.

[Translation: That is it.]

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

I rise to acknowledge the historic four-day visit of the Royal Navy's flagship aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth to Belfast. Seeing that truly magnificent vessel, which is a titan of British engineering, standing proud against the Belfast skyline was phenomenal, as was borne out by the many — my husband included — who parked their cars along our roads and walked a considerable distance to take photographs of the massive super-carrier on that historic occasion.

It was not just a routine port visit, however. It was a truly historic milestone for our capital city and, indeed, for Northern Ireland. It has been 61 long years since a Royal Navy aircraft carrier last graced the waters of Belfast harbour. HMS Centaur arrived here in 1965, when most of us were not even born. Northern Ireland has waited for over six decades, and what a sight it was. I was privileged to be invited to tour the ship by Brigadier Andrew Muddiman and to enjoy lunch aboard, but I was hugely disappointed — honestly, I was gutted — not to be able to avail myself of that kind invitation, especially having previously toured the historic USS Midway. I record my sincere thanks to Brigadier Muddiman and his team and to wish them well as they leave our shores today.

Belfast — East Belfast in particular — has deep and unbreakable generational naval and maritime roots. We are the city that built the Titanic and whose world-famous shipyard built 140 warships during the Second World War. We are a city built on engineering brilliance, heavy industry and maritime heritage. The presence of that tremendous carrier should serve as a reminder of who we are and what our people can achieve when afforded the opportunity. It is so great to see our shipyard doing well again. The visit should also inspire us not simply to rely on past glories but rather to keep striving to ensure that Northern Ireland always punches well above its weight and lives up to its potential.

As the flagship of the Royal Navy and a vital command platform for NATO, HMS Queen Elizabeth represents the very best of British resolve, strength and security in an increasingly volatile world. Further, having her here reminds us of our enduring place within the United Kingdom and the security that the Royal Navy provides to these British Isles. It is as well that we are not relying on the Republic.

To Brigadier Muddiman, his officers and every member of the almost 800 crew, we hope that you were able to experience something of the legendary warmth and hospitality of the people of Northern Ireland during your stay. Belfast harbour, and the people of East Belfast and beyond, are proud to have had you here. We thank you for your service, we thank you for bringing that magnificent ship to our shores, and we wish you every success in your endeavours as you strive to keep us safe.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr McReynolds, you have two minutes.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As chair of the all-party group on neurology, and as someone who is living with multiple sclerosis, I rise to again highlight the issues facing those living with a neurological condition in Northern Ireland. Just last month, I stood on the steps of Stormont alongside the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance (niNCA) as it launched its report, 'Left Behind: The Price of Inaction on Neurology Reform'. The report spells out the economic impact of neurological conditions, how failing to invest costs more than investing, and the current crisis in neurology services. The Health Minister stood with us that day for photos, so you can imagine my interest when a written ministerial statement on the regional review of neurology services arrived in my inbox last week. As I read it, I was reminded of the £65·4 million needed to transform services for people here, but that interest turned to surprise when I saw him advise that he cannot commit to the level of funding required to fully deliver against the review's recommendations. Instead, we have £11·5 million over the next five years, not £65 million. That is less than 20% of what is required.

Neurology has the longest waiting times of any speciality in Northern Ireland, with 28,188 people waiting for a first neurology appointment and some waiting for more than seven years. The sector has long called for action and is deeply concerned that it is being overlooked. As highlighted by niNCA, urgent investment is needed across every aspect of neurology, including consultant capacity, specialist nursing and allied health professionals — I could go on. It welcomes the fact that some money is coming but stresses that what is proposed is simply not enough to fully transform services and the lives of those living with a neurological condition. Moreover, the neurology delivery team must have the leadership, accountability and authority to drive real change and take bold decisions, which we did not see from its predecessor.

As chair of the all-party group on neurology, I will continue to champion getting more money and intervention to support those living with neurological conditions across Northern Ireland. The issues are complex, but that does not mean that they should not be taken seriously and addressed.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Colin McGrath has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to present this petition on behalf of the people of Kilclief, particularly the children, parents, staff and wider school community of St Malachy's Primary School who are fighting to protect the future of their school. For generations, St Malachy's has been at the heart of Kilclief. It is a place where children have learned, friendships have been formed and generations of families have passed through the doors, but today that future is under threat.

We need to remember something important when we talk about closing rural schools. When a school in a small rural community is closed, it is not simply a building that is closed. A major piece of that community's heart is taken away, and once that is gone, it is very difficult to get back. I acknowledge the excellent schools throughout the wider Lecale area. We are fortunate to have dedicated teachers, staff and governors working tirelessly to provide the very best education for our children. We are blessed with fantastic schools in St Joseph's Primary School, Strangford; St Mary's Primary School, Dunsford; St Patrick's Primary School, Saul; St Patrick's Primary School, Legamaddy; and St Nicholas' Primary School, Ardglass, to name but a few neighbouring parish schools. One of the most disappointing aspects of the Department of Education's approach to school closures is the way that it pitches neighbouring schools and communities against one another, leaving them competing for survival. I reject that approach. Every school has its own identity, its own contribution to make, and its own place in the community that it serves, and we should not have to argue for the survival of one school at the expense of another.

Of course, I recognise the financial pressures facing the Department, and nobody can ignore those realities.

Surely, however, with all the expertise and resources available to the Department, we can find more imaginative solutions than simply closing schools. The option that is cheapest on paper is not always the best one for our children and our communities. I am increasingly concerned that rural communities, particularly across South Down, are being asked to bear the consequences of such decisions.

The children of Kilclief deserve access to local education; their families deserve to have their voices heard; and their community deserves a future in which its school continues to play a part. Today, I and the 5,000 people who have signed the petition ask the Minister to listen to those voices, to properly explore the alternatives and to reconsider the proposed closure of St Malachy's. Once we lose such vital community institutions, we may never get them back. The people of Kilclief deserve better than that.

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

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

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

I ask Members to take their ease while we change the Table.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair)

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 12 October 2026.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 12 October 2026.

Executive Committee Business

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group of 15 amendments that deal with temporary water use bans, regulation and commencement.

I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debate on the group of amendments, they should address all the amendments on which they wish to comment. Once the debate has been completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear — I think that it is — we shall proceed.

Clause 1 (Water use: temporary bans)

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

We now come to the single group of 15 amendments. Members may wish to note that amendment Nos 3 to 7 are paving amendments for amendment No 9, amendment Nos 10 and 11 are consequential to amendment No 9 and amendment No 11 is a paving amendment for amendment No 13.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

In page 3, line 31, at end insert "and

‘(c) by such further means as the undertaker considers appropriate.’".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 3, line 40, at end insert "and

‘(c) by such further means as the undertaker considers appropriate.’". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

No 3: In clause 2, page 4, line 17, leave out "person" and insert "body". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

No 4: In clause 2, page 4, line 19, leave out "person" and insert "body". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

No 5: In clause 2, page 4, line 22, leave out "person" and insert "body". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

No 6: In clause 2, page 4, line 28, leave out "person" and insert "body". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

No 7: In clause 2, page 4, line 35, leave out "establishment or appointment of a person" and insert "appointment of a body mentioned in subsection (7A)". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

No 8: In clause 2, page 4, line 39, leave out "to the Department or any other public authority". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

No 9: In clause 2, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

"(7A) For the purposes of subsection (5), the bodies are—

(a) the Department,

(b) a sewerage undertaker.". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

No 10: In clause 3, page 5, line 20, leave out "person" and insert "body". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

No 11: In clause 3, page 5, line 32, at end insert—

"(aa) may substitute a different amount for the amount for the time being mentioned in section 3A(1)(a),". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

No 12: In clause 3, page 5, line 36, leave out "approver established or appointed" and insert "sewerage undertaker appointed as approver". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

No 13: After clause 3 insert—

"Regulations: notices and offences

3A.—(1) Regulations under section 3(3)(b) creating an offence of failure to comply with a notice must provide for the offence to be punishable—

(a) on summary conviction, by a fine not exceeding £100,000, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, by a fine.

(2) Regulations under section 3(3)(b) creating an offence of obstruction of an authorised person—

(a) must provide for that offence to be triable summarily only, and

(b) may not provide for the offence to be punishable on conviction by a fine exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3) For the purposes of this section and section 3(3)(b)— (a) “notice” means any of the following—

(i) an enforcement notice,

(ii) a stop notice,

(iii) a temporary stop notice, and

(iv) a breach of condition notice,

(b) “offence” includes an offence concerning—

(i) commencement of construction without approval,

(ii) breach of conditions of approval,

(iii) construction not conforming to approved proposals,

(iv) removal or modification of a drainage feature without approval,

(v) failure to comply with a notice issued under the regulations, or

(vi) obstruction of a person authorised by the approver to exercise a power of entry for the purposes of an inspection.". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

No 14: In clause 6, page 7, line 2, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

"(6) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly.". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

No 15: In clause 15, page 10, line 4, after "days" insert ", falling within the period of 12 months beginning with the day of Royal Assent,". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

There are 15 amendments that, I believe, strengthen and clarify the Bill. The amendments reflect the detailed work carried out by the Committee for Infrastructure, the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), the Examiner of Statutory Rules and officials in my Department. I thank all who were involved in the process for their efforts.

I am extremely grateful for the support shown for the Bill. In particular, I thank the Committee for Infrastructure, including former Chairperson Peter Martin, for its positive engagement and thorough scrutiny of the Bill. During Committee Stage, the Committee engaged positively with officials, and, as a result, I tabled amendments to address any concerns that it had raised. I am pleased that the Committee has agreed to support the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, subject to my proposed amendments.

Amendment Nos 1 and 2 widen the potential means of advertising a temporary use ban in clause 1. Clause 1 updates the list of activities that can be subject to a temporary use ban under article 116 of the Water and Sewerage Services (NI) Order 2006. The Committee asked whether clause 1 could be amended to include the use of social media in the advertising requirements for a temporary use ban in addition to giving notice in at least two newspapers circulating in the area and on the undertaker's website.

However, such exact wording would present a problem in how social media could be legally defined. Therefore, a slightly different terminology has been used to widen the scope of the advertising requirements to achieve the same result.

Amendment Nos 1 and 2 to clause 1 will enable a water undertaker to give notice of the commencement or revocation of a temporary use ban

"by such further means as the undertaker considers appropriate."

That will give greater flexibility than specifying social media in the legislation, although social media will also be covered by the wording. The amendments provide for more widespread public awareness of any potential temporary use ban and, in all likelihood, greater compliance.

Amendment Nos 3 to 9 amend clause 2 and better define the scope of the future processes for the approval of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). Through the amendments, I have clarified that the approvers for sustainable drainage proposals will be either my Department or NI Water as the sewerage undertaker. An amendment has been drafted that will provide for the appointment of a body to carry out the approval role rather than a person. The body, which, as I have stated, will be either my Department or the sewerage undertaker, may act as approver and may also provide advice or guidance. As a result of that amendment, there are consequential amendments. For example, the references to "person" in clause 2 will be replaced with "body". The approval body may also provide advice on all things related to sustainable drainage systems for developers, industry etc. The suggested amendments will provide greater clarity and assurance on how SuDS approval will be delivered in the future.

Amendment Nos 10 to 12 will amend clause 3, which provides supplementary detail on matters such as enforcement and penalties in relation to SuDS. Amendment No 10 provides for the use of the term "body", as with the previous amendments, and amendment Nos 11 and 12 provide supplementary powers in respect of fines referred to in new clause 3A and clarification of the Department's role in the provision of guidance.

Amendment No 13 inserts new clause 3A to provide clarification on notices and offences. The definitive offences and penalties with regard to SuDS are given clarity in the Bill by the new clause, which provides for the specific offences and an express cap on penalties that may be imposed under clause 3(3). The amendments also further define the types of notices that may be used as part of the enforcement regime. Those include a temporary stop notice, an enforcement notice, a breach of conditions notice and a stop notice. The new clause also includes examples of some of the offences envisaged and any consequential amendments. The amendments allow for a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale for obstruction of an authorised person who is exercising powers of entry and a maximum fine of £100,000 on summary conviction for the offence of failing to comply with a notice. The Minister of Justice has confirmed that she is content that the proposed criminal offences and penalties are consistent and proportionate and will not have a detrimental impact on the justice system.

Amendment No 14 amends clause 6 to require that regulations made for a homeowner flood protection grant scheme should be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. That will allow for greater Assembly control over any such regulations.

Amendment No 15 amends clause 15 to require my Department to commence clauses 1 to 12 within 12 months of Royal Assent. The Committee had suggested that I consider an amendment to require my Department to lay a report before the Assembly that sets out the reasons for any delay in the commencement of those clauses. However, on reflection, I have concluded that that would be inappropriate and have instead proposed amendments that set definitive timings for commencement.

That concludes my comments on the amendments. I thank Members for their contributions to date and look forward to receiving their support for the amendments.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

As Deputy Chairperson, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Consideration Stage of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill on behalf of the Committee. I record the Committee's appreciation of the contributions by former members to its examination of the Bill and the associated provisions and for the diligence, effort and time that they devoted to scrutinising the legislation at Committee Stage. I also thank the Minister for Infrastructure and her departmental officials for their engagement with the Committee throughout the process. In addition, I acknowledge the many organisations, stakeholders and individuals who submitted detailed written evidence, appeared before the Committee to provide oral evidence, hosted Committee visits and otherwise assisted the Committee in its deliberations. Those contributions provided not only much-needed clarity during the Committee's examination of the Bill but a strong evidence base to inform its deliberations on the Bill's provisions.

The Committee's scrutiny of the Bill was thorough and extensive, and I am pleased to set out today the work that it carried out and the conclusions that it reached.

The Bill was introduced on 23 June 2025 and was referred to the Committee after it successfully passed Second Stage in September 2025. The Committee considered the Bill and related issues at 29 meetings, as well as doing pre-legislative scrutiny prior to the Bill's introduction, and Committee Stage concluded in July of this year. While the policy intent of the Bill was broadly supported, the Committee approached its scrutiny with one overarching objective: to determine whether the Bill would deliver in practice the outcomes that the Assembly and the public expect.

To inform its work, the Committee issued a public call for evidence, and it received submissions from a wide range of stakeholders, including other Statutory Committees of the Assembly, councils, environmental organisations, professional bodies, industry representatives and public bodies such as Northern Ireland Water, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the Royal Society of Ulster Architects (RSUA), the Woodland Trust, the Construction Employers Federation (CEF) and the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). The Committee supplemented that written evidence with oral evidence sessions with key stakeholders and departmental officials. Committee members undertook a site visit to a sustainable drainage scheme in Antrim to see at first hand how such systems operate in practice. In addition, the Committee held an external meeting in Downpatrick that provided an opportunity to hear directly from representatives and communities affected by flooding events.

Throughout Committee Stage, members were assisted by detailed research papers prepared by the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe), and I thank them for that. The papers included a substantive review of the evidence concerning sustainable drainage systems. As would also be expected, the Committee commissioned and considered legal advice from the Examiner of Statutory Rules, together with legal and procedural and advice from Legal Services and the Bill Office.

The evidence received demonstrated broad consensus on the Bill's overall objectives. There was widespread support for the measures aimed at improving water management, enhancing hosepipe bans, reducing flood risk and promoting more sustainable approaches to how we manage surface water in new developments. Support for an objective did not necessarily equate to support for every mechanism in the Bill as introduced. Indeed, while a number of provisions attracted relatively limited criticism, the Committee's scrutiny increasingly focused on three areas: the proposed framework for sustainable drainage systems in clauses 2 and 3; the future operation of the homeowner flood protection grant scheme in clause 6; and the commencement arrangements in clause 15.

Clauses 2 and 3 generated by far the greatest concern. The Committee was fully supportive of the principle of having sustainable drainage systems. Evidence provided to the Committee consistently demonstrated the important contribution that SuDS can make to reducing flood risk, improving water quality, enhancing biodiversity and reducing pressures on ageing drainage infrastructure. No member questioned the value of those objectives. It became increasingly apparent during scrutiny, however, that many of the critical policy decisions underpinning the future SuDS framework had not yet been taken and would instead be determined through regulations at a later date. While recognising the need for a degree of flexibility in an evolving area of policy, the Committee became concerned that the Assembly was being asked to approve a legislative framework without sufficient clarity about how some of its most significant provisions would operate in practice.

Following legal advice, a particular concern arose about the proposed approval body. Clause 2(5) provides for regulation-making powers:

"for the establishment or appointment of a person"

to carry out approval functions in respect of sustainable drainage systems. Members questioned who such a person might be and whether an issue of that significance, potentially involving the creation of a new public body, should be determined through future regulations rather than set out more clearly in the Bill. The Committee spent considerable time examining those issues. Members sought legal advice, engaged repeatedly with departmental officials and challenged the Department on whether greater clarity could be provided in the primary legislation. That was not always straightforward, and while it recognised the need to preserve a degree of flexibility for future policy development, the Committee was resolute that flexibility should not come at the expense of legislative certainty or Assembly oversight.

Clause 3 provides a framework under which the regulations could create offences and penalties relating to the SuDS regime. The Committee was concerned that the clause did not specify a maximum fine for certain offences. Having considered the legal advice and evidence, the Committee took the view that, where the Assembly is granting powers to create criminal offences through secondary legislation, the parameters of those powers should be clearly defined in primary legislation. Again, that became the subject of significant discussion between the Committee and the Department.

The Committee also considered clause 6 in detail. Members welcomed the principle of placing the homeowner flood protection grant scheme on a statutory footing but were keen to ensure that any future scheme would operate under clear regulations subject to Assembly scrutiny. Evidence received from communities affected by flooding reinforced the importance of transparency, consistency and fairness in the operation of any grant programme. Similarly, the Committee devoted considerable attention to the commencement provisions. Members wanted to be confident that, once engaged, the legislation would not simply remain dormant indefinitely. The Committee therefore explored whether stronger commencement arrangements could provide greater certainty regarding the implementation of the Bill's provisions.

By the later stages of the Committee's scrutiny, members had identified a range of areas where amendments could strengthen the Bill. The Committee wrote to the Department seeking draft wording and detailed responses in relation to several clauses and instructed the drafting of potential Committee amendments. While the Department indicated a willingness to address a number of the Committee's concerns, draft amendment text was not available before Committee Stage concluded. Consequently, when the Committee undertook formal clause-by-clause scrutiny, it agreed clauses 1 and 6 on the basis of assurances that departmental amendments would be tabled to give effect to the positions that had been agreed during discussions between the Committee and the Department. The Committee agreed the remaining clauses but reserved its position on clauses 2, 3 and 15, pending sight of the Department's final amendment proposals.

I am pleased to say that the amendments subsequently tabled by the Minister address all the key issues repeatedly highlighted by the Committee during its scrutiny of the Bill. The collegial and productive engagement between the Committee and the Department underlines the importance of Committee scrutiny in developing and improving legislation. It allows for meaningful and necessary changes to help ensure that the legislative aims and safeguards are clearly defined, while retaining sufficient flexibility to support efficient policy development.

The amendments to clause 2 replace "person" with "body" and provide expressly that the function may be exercised only by the Department or sewerage undertaker. That provides significantly greater clarity regarding future governance arrangements than is present in the Bill as introduced. The amendments to clause 3, together with the proposed new clause, establish statutory parameters for offences and penalties under the SuDS network. Those provisions ensure that the important matters relating to criminal liability are addressed directly through primary legislation.

The amendment to clause 6 requires that the regulations established in the flood grant system be subject to draft affirmative procedure, thereby ensuring a higher level of Assembly oversight.

The amendment to clause 15 introduces a requirement that commencement orders be made within 12 months of Royal Assent, providing greater certainty regarding implementation.

Finally, the amendments to clause 1 strengthen public notification arrangements relating to water-use restriction.

The Committee's scrutiny of the Bill demonstrates the value of the Committee Stage. From the outset, the Committee broadly supported the policy objectives, but that support could never remove the need for vigorous scrutiny of the legislative detail. Throughout the process, the Committee sought to ensure that the important decisions were properly scrutinised, that delegated powers were appropriately constrained and that future accountability mechanisms were clear. While there were occasions when progress required substantial discussions and persistence, particularly in relation to clauses 2 and 3, the Committee believes that engagement between it and the Department will ultimately produce a stronger Bill, provided that the House supports the amendments today.

The Committee looks forward to the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill and, ultimately, implementation of legislation that will contribute to improved water management, stronger flood resilience and more sustainable drainage arrangements across Northern Ireland.

That completes my remarks as Deputy Chair of the Committee. I will now make some brief remarks as infrastructure spokesperson for the Ulster Unionist Party. First, I thank the Minister and her departmental officials for all their engagement throughout the process. The Committee's role in scrutinising the Bill has been really worthwhile. It has been a collegial process, and I thank the Minister for that. I also thank each of the stakeholders who engaged with us; I felt that they did so in good faith. We listened to their concerns and any points that they raised throughout the process. That is reflected in the amendments.

On amendment Nos 1 and 2, I raised the need for clarity at Second Stage. We all know what it is like to try to get information out there in the modern age, when it comes to promoting hosepipe bans or any communication that NI Water or the provider has. While I had suggested potentially including social media there, I understand where the Minister is coming from with the wording of those departmental amendments. I appreciate that that is now an acceptable landing ground for that.

On amendment Nos 3 to 9 on clause 2, there was considerable discussion of the issue at Committee Stage. I welcome the clarity that approval functions will rest with the Department's sewerage undertaker rather than with a specified person. That gave us a lot of concern at Committee Stage, so it is important to get that clarity.

There was a lot of discussion on amendment Nos 10 to 13 and creating that offence. I welcome the amendments, which provide clearer statutory parameters for offences and penalties. Minister, you will be aware of just how many questions members of the Committee raised with you and departmental officials. It is really worthwhile and welcome that we have that clarity now.

On amendment No 14, on the homeowner flood protection grant scheme, I am particularly pleased that regulations to establish the scheme will now be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. That gives more guarantee and confidence to people who could be affected by that going forward.

I am glad to welcome the Bill and see it progress. As a member of the Committee, I will continue to do all that I can to make it the best that it can be.

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

As members of the Infrastructure Committee, we support all the amendments that have been proposed and see them as providing important tidying up and clarification of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill.

In my role as an MLA and as a civil engineer, I have spoken with industry, which has expressed a strong appetite for guidance on sustainable urban drainage systems that are not just hard SuDS. The current guidelines in the North provide only for limiting the storm water run-off from any site to 10 litres per second per hectare and to accommodate storage, generally on-site, in underground tanks or oversized pipes. Provisions have been made with regard to soft SuDS and offsetting. However, those have been agreed and determined only on a very local, ad hoc and individual basis. Developers are crying out for guidance and criteria that they can design to for approval in relation to construction of soft SuDS solutions like swales and ponds.

The expectation is that the Bill will provide clarity on design guidance and for responsibility and maintenance of such. The SuDS Bill is long overdue to help to alleviate flooding and provide associated flood remediation, define and regulate SuDS design and construction, regulate water use and make provisions regarding communication with sewers. As laid out in the July 2026 Turley report, waste water has become a major growth constraint for construction. It is estimated that around 55,000 homes are delayed or impeded due to some level of capacity constraints: no drains, no cranes. The Turley report states that the SuDS Bill will reduce future pressure on the waste water system but not as a near-term solution to the current capacity crisis. Therefore, while the Bill is a positive step forward, the Department must collaborate with industry to find long-lasting solutions to address the waste water capacity crisis that is a barrier to construction and economic development to the tune of £11 billion in an economic opportunity gap by 2040. I will say that again: the current lack of capacity in our waste water system and the lack of a plan to address that inadequate capacity will cost our economy £11 billion by 2040.

Paul Boggs (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Consideration Stage of the Bill, important legislation that the Minister is bringing forward as part of her three-pronged approach to tackling issues with our waste water infrastructure, particularly when it comes to capacity.

Addressing the challenges in waste water infrastructure is much more than an issue just for the Infrastructure Minister: it affects every aspect of public services from building new homes to hospitals to schools. However, the Bill and the way in which the Minister has worked with the Committee show that she is committed to doing all that she can to improve a challenging situation.

The Committee's report, albeit that it was published before my time as a member of the Infrastructure Committee and as an MLA, has conveyed that most stakeholders support the need for a legislative framework to address water management, sustainable drainage and flood resilience: the Bill provides that.

That is more important than ever as we face a climate with more adverse weather conditions, including flooding.

I know that the Bill's principles were debated at Second Stage, and therefore I will not rehash them. Looking at amendments No 3 to 9, which are to clause 2 — specifically amendment No 9 — it is clear that the Minister has listened to the concerns of the Committee and stakeholders and has now named NI Water as the undertaker and the Department for Infrastructure as the body responsible for SuDS approvals. That removes the nervousness that some had about additional responsibilities for councils or different approaches that could be taken by each, and the path has now been laid to avoid necessarily setting up a new SuDS approval body. That is welcome.

As the Deputy Chair said, there was significant Committee discussion about clause 3 and amendment Nos 10 to 13. I will not focus on those amendments too much. I will just say that we are content with the clarity that they provide in offences and penalties. Hopefully, the Department and NI Water will not need to use those powers in too many instances.

I turn to clause 6. The Department's intention to place the homeowner flood protection grant scheme on a statutory footing is positive news, and I know that it will be welcomed, particularly by those who have been impacted on by flooding in the past but also by those at risk of flooding in the future. Amendment No 14 simply ensures that the Assembly has greater oversight, through draft affirmative procedure, of the regulations that will be made. That is totally acceptable.

Finally, amendment No 15, which is to clause 15, simply mandates the Department to commence these provisions within a reasonable time frame of 12 months rather than that being at the Department's discretion. We are keen to support that through the amendment that the Minister has brought.

In closing, I again thank the Minister and her officials, who have worked constructively with the Committee to get to this stage. I put on record that we will support the Minister's amendments today, and we look forward to the next stage of the Bill as it progresses through the Assembly.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

As a member of the Infrastructure Committee, I too welcome the opportunity to speak during the Consideration Stage of this important Bill. As others have said, a considerable amount of work has gone into getting to this stage through the Committee processes, during which the Committee, I believe, took the opportunity to properly scrutinise the Bill. I also welcome the Committee Chair's joining us for this item of business.

There has been good cooperation across the Committee to get the Bill to the place where it is today, strengthened and improved since we previously debated the issue in the House, when some elements of the Bill could have been seen as simply a mere enabling framework rather than a fully detailed legislative scheme. That is progress, and it is to be welcomed. The role of stakeholders who have contributed to get us to this point should also be acknowledged, as well as the work of our dedicated Infrastructure Committee staff.

The measures in the Bill — strengthening flood resilience, promoting sustainable drainage, reducing pollution and improving water management — are all objectives that we can certainly share. We know the devastation that flooding can cause — homes ruined, businesses disrupted and families displaced — and we know that our ageing drainage infrastructure is also under increasing strain. The Bill provides some of the legislative tools that we need to respond more effectively to those challenges. However, the Bill will not be a silver bullet and will not really scratch the surface of the waste water crisis that we currently face here in Northern Ireland.

Throughout the Committee Stage, one of our greatest concerns centred on clauses 2 and 3, which relate specifically to sustainable drainage systems, otherwise known as SuDS, alongside clause 6, on the homeowner flood protection grant scheme, and clause 15, which concerns the commencement dates. We recognise the significant benefits that SuDS can deliver, including reducing flood risk, improving water quality and protecting biodiversity. However, there were genuine concerns that several important decisions about how the new framework would operate had been left simply to future regulations, without sufficient detail in the Bill. In particular, the original wording about the body responsible for approving SuDS arrangements lacked clarity, and we talked about that at length and considered it extensively during the process. It was rightly questioned whether such an important governance decision, potentially involving a new public body, should be more clearly defined in primary legislation.

One concern that was shared in the Committee — it was a concern that I had — was the potential risk of an approval body coming from across our 11 councils, which could potentially have seen 11 different bodies, adding more confusion and potentially having 11 different variations in interpretation of the regulations right across Northern Ireland. We also sought greater safeguards around the creation of offences and penalties, believing that appropriate limits must be established by the Assembly rather than left too widely to secondary legislation.

On clause 6, we supported placing the homeowner flood protection grant scheme on a statutory footing but emphasised the need for fairness, transparency and proper Assembly oversight. During Committee Stage, we heard directly from residents who have been badly impacted on by significant flooding in the south Down area. As an MLA for North Down, which includes areas identified as being at substantial flood risk, I recognise the risks, challenges, fears and concerns that are out there. Hearing that directly makes it important that we put such provisions in place to support those who are most impacted on. We also wanted greater certainty that the Bill's provisions would be implemented promptly following Royal Assent. Those issues prompted extensive engagement with departmental officials, consideration of legal advice, as has been mentioned, and requests for amendments to strengthen the legislation.

We maintained our previous position on clauses 2, 3 and 15, pending the Department's final proposals. I welcome the amendments that the Minister subsequently tabled, which address many of the concerns that we raised during scrutiny. It was certainly better late than never. They clarify that SuDS approval functions may be carried out only by the Department or a sewerage undertaker. They establish clearer statutory boundaries for offences and penalties, and they require that the regulations governing the flood grant scheme undergo the draft affirmative procedure. Importantly, they also introduce a 12-month deadline for making commencement orders, and they strengthen public notification arrangements concerning the water-use restrictions, on which the Deputy Chair touched earlier. That process demonstrates the importance of robust Committee scrutiny and that our responsibility is not simply to support good policy intentions but to work to ensure that legislation is clear, proportionate, accountable and strengthened where it can be.

We believe that, overall, our engagement with the Department has helped to secure meaningful and lasting improvements. I look forward to Further Consideration Stage, and, hopefully, we can all start to see some of the benefits of the legislation progressing.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill in my capacity as infrastructure spokesperson for the Alliance Party. We have supported the general principles of the Bill and continue to do so.

The three main aspects of the Bill are the implementation of temporary bans on water use, sustainable drainage systems and flood prevention and remediation. All those points have been addressed in depth at various points in the Bill's passage through the Chamber and Committee, so I will not dwell on them. However, at this stage, it would be remiss of me not to thank the Committee Clerk and the staff for their work and how they facilitated the scrutiny of the Bill. Likewise, the advice received from Assembly staff has always been of great help in assisting the Committee to arrive at its considered positions. Briefing papers compiled by RaISe staff have also been of great assistance. The Minister and Department were also responsive to many of the critiques made by the Committee, which allowed consensus to be reached. As we have heard from the Deputy Chair, we thank the Minister and her Department very much. Finally, the Committee took a collegial approach to the Bill throughout, so, at this stage, I thank the Deputy Chair and former Chair Mr Martin, who is not in attendance today but did a good job in facilitating some of the meetings. Thanks to all who responded to the consultation or gave evidence to the Committee.

Part of the Committee process involved a visit to see how sustainable drainage systems work in Antrim town. Seeing that was very helpful, and I express my thanks to those who helped to facilitate that. The other visit involved bringing the Committee to Downpatrick. There, we heard of the challenges from Downpatrick businesses and Newcastle homeowners, who have, unfortunately, witnessed at first hand the destructiveness of flooding. Again, I thank them for their evidence at Committee.

In my Second Stage speech, I expressed my hope that the Bill would strengthen resilience in the face of heavy rain and drought, help to reduce pollution and facilitate more environmentally friendly solutions to manage water resources. As I said then and repeat today, those are all important goals that the Alliance Party has championed for a long time. I have to admit that, at one point, I thought that the Bill would be a straightforward Bill to approve. Indeed, much of the Bill remained uncontroversial throughout Committee Stage, as reflected in the scarcity of amendments today. However, some issues were raised by way of advice on drafting, as the Deputy Chair touched on and explained in a bit more detail. All of those required a fair amount of back and forth with the Department and some compromise and goodwill on the Minister and Committee's behalf. I believe that a satisfactory solution has now been achieved, and, again, I thank the Minister and her Department for that.

The amendments balance the need for constitutionality with the Department's legitimate desire to retain some flexibility and develop a more detailed evidence-based policy further down the road. We are happy to see this important Bill progress, and we support the proposed amendments. Thank you very much.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

First, on a point of housekeeping, I apologise to the House for my not being in the Chamber for the start of the debate, particularly given the fact that I am the Committee Chair. I thank the Deputy Chair for stepping in at late notice to read out the Committee remarks. I was not a member of the Committee during its detailed scrutiny, so it was perhaps more appropriate for the Deputy Chair, who was there, to make those remarks. I make my remarks as the Democratic Unionist Party's spokesperson on infrastructure.

The DUP supports the broad objectives of the legislation, because nobody can seriously dispute the need to improve water quality, strengthen flood resilience and modernise our drainage infrastructure to ensure that Northern Ireland is better prepared for not only drought conditions, such as those that we have seen recently, but periods of extreme rainfall. Those objectives are sensible and necessary. We have seen first-hand in recent years how flooding can have such a detrimental impact on local families, businesses and farmers. I reflect on Portadown in my constituency where that has undoubtedly been the case recently. The Bill has to be tailored in light of concerns around water capacity and waste water infrastructure, because both issues have become particularly acute as time has gone on. The challenge before us is not about whether action should happen or is required but about whether this particular legislation delivers that action in a practical, proportionate and affordable manner.

The DUP took a constructive approach to its scrutiny of the Bill. The former Committee Chair Peter Martin, as mentioned, previously outlined that the legislation seeks to reduce pollution, strengthen resilience to floods and droughts, promote sustainable drainage systems and improve water resource management. Those aims command widespread support in the House, and, as a result of some of the Committee's draft amendments, some concerns were identified.

As a party, we have always been consistent and have emphasised that environmental ambition must be matched by economic realism. Northern Ireland faces an unprecedented crisis in housing. Families are unable to access housing because waste water infrastructure has not kept pace with demand. Developers face uncertainty and delay, and communities are frustrated by decades of underinvestment in water and sewerage infrastructure. The DUP has consistently argued that resolving waste water constraints and facilitating housebuilding must remain a central priority for the Executive. Infrastructure policy should unlock development, not inadvertently create further barriers to it.

Similarly, we are acutely aware of ongoing costs. At a time when households are already under significant pressure, farmers are facing uncertainty and businesses are continuing to wrestle with rising overheads, the Assembly must ensure that any new regulatory obligations do not simply transfer additional costs to homeowners, landowners or developers. Good legislation requires clarity about who pays and who is responsible for the obligations that will be enforced.

One of the DUP's core concerns throughout the scrutiny of the Bill has been the extent to which significant matters are being left to future regulation. In a sense, the Bill provides the framework, but many of the detailed arrangements will emerge only through subordinate legislation at a later date. Whilst I have no fear or hesitation in saying that regulations undoubtedly have their place, Members should always be cautious when primary legislation delegates substantial policy decisions to Ministers and Departments. Notwithstanding those reservations, the DUP recognises the progress that was made through the Committee Stage and supports the continued passage of the Bill.

I will now turn directly to some of the amendments. Amendment Nos 1 and 2 provide additional flexibility regarding the way in which temporary water use restrictions are communicated to the public. The DUP has absolutely no difficulty in supporting those amendments.

If Northern Ireland faces drought conditions or a serious rainfall shortage, it is entirely reasonable that Northern Ireland Water should have the flexibility to use modern communication methods to ensure that the public receive timely and accurate information. The effectiveness of restrictions depends on public awareness of them, and amendment Nos 1 and 2 are practical and proportionate.

Amendment Nos 3 to 10 and amendment No 12 largely relate to governance arrangements for sustainable drainage systems and clarify that approval functions can be exercised by a body such as the Department or a sewerage undertaker rather than by an individual person. The DUP understands the rationale behind the amendments and accepts the need for legal clarity. I stress again, however, that governance structures are only one part of the equation. The key questions remain those of accountability, capacity and cost. If Northern Ireland Water is expected to undertake additional responsibilities within the framework, it must be properly resourced to do so. It would be wholly unacceptable to place additional statutory responsibilities on an already overstretched organisation without giving it the necessary funding and operational support. Time and again, we ask agencies to do more work out of the same funding envelope. Members have to be acutely aware of that concern.

Amendment No 11 will enable regulations to be made to substitute different financial amounts in future enforcement regimes. The DUP notes its inclusion and recognises the need for some flexibility in any regulatory framework. Powers relating to financial penalties should always be exercised cautiously, however. The Assembly should be careful to ensure that sanctions remain proportionate and are not used in a manner that imposes excessive burdens on households, businesses or developers acting in good faith.

Amendment No 13 will introduce a new clause on notices and offences. It is undoubtedly the most significant amendment before the House. It will establish the framework for future enforcement notices, stop notices, temporary stop notices, offences and penalties, including fines of up to £100,000 on summary conviction and unlimited fines on indictment. The DUP accepts that legislation without enforcement mechanisms is often ineffective. Those who deliberately disregard obligations, create pollution risks or undermine flood management measures should face consequences. Enforcement powers must always be accompanied by safeguards, however. When we have such regimes in place, the ability to apply common sense is often lost. We therefore urge the Department to ensure that any future regulations are proportionate, transparent and fair. Particular care should be taken to distinguish between deliberate non-compliance and situations in which individuals or organisations have made genuine errors or acted without malicious intent. From dealings in their constituencies, Members will realise that, on many occasions, a genuine error has been made and that no one was deliberately at fault or intended any malice. We must bear that in mind as we prepare for all eventualities. Many people will be concerned to read the references to fines of up to £100,000 and unlimited penalties. Although such powers may be justified in the most serious cases, they must not become part of an overly bureaucratic system that discourages development or imposes unreasonable risks on those seeking to comply with the law.

Amendment No 14 provides that regulations made under clause 6 must be approved by resolution of the Assembly before they can take effect. I welcome the amendment, because it goes to the heart of what I said earlier. Throughout its scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee highlighted concerns about the volume of matters that are left to subordinate legislation. For that reason, having enhanced Assembly oversight is a positive development. The Committee highlighted that during Committee Stage and will continue to engage on the matter throughout the rest of the legislative process. If Ministers are to exercise significant powers through regulations, it is only right that elected representatives have a meaningful opportunity to scrutinise and approve proposals before they become law. Amendment No 14 would strengthen accountability, so it merits support.

Amendment No 15 would introduce a requirement relating to commencement within 12 months of the Bill's receiving Royal Assent. The DUP supports the principle behind that amendment. Too often, legislation progresses through the House, only for its implementation to drift. Setting clear expectations around commencement provides certainty for stakeholders and helps to ensure that the legislative intent is translated into practical delivery.

In conclusion, the DUP, as I have noted throughout, supports the Bill in its current form. We support measures to strengthen flood resilience; action to improve water quality; and the wider use of sustainable drainage systems where they are practical and effective and deliver value for money. We also support the efforts to future-proof Northern Ireland's water infrastructure against the many challenges that it faces. However, policy must work in the real world. That means ensuring that costs remain proportionate; that housebuilding is facilitated, rather than hindered; that Northern Ireland Water is properly funded; that householders, businesses and developers are not burdened with unclear obligations; and that powers that are delegated to the Department remain subject to robust scrutiny in the House. Subject to all the concerns that I have highlighted, the DUP will continue to work and engage constructively with the Bill as it progresses through the House.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Minister, I call on you to make a winding-up speech.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I thank all Members for their contributions. I note and really appreciate the collegial and positive way in which the Bill has been discussed. I know that Members appreciate the importance of the policies that are included in the Bill, and that they will benefit everyone in the North.

As many Members have said, the amendments that I have tabled are mainly minor and technical in nature. They provide clarification, and I hope that they remove any confusion, particularly about the potential SuDS approval body, to which many Members referred in their remarks. The amendments do not deviate in any way from the original policy intention of the Bill; indeed, they provide greater clarity on its operation.

I have listened carefully and will now address some of the specific issues that Members highlighted. The Deputy Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, John Stewart, mentioned the lack of clarity. I appreciate his comments about the work that my officials have done with the Committee, stakeholders and me. That is the approach that should be taken to legislation. We should listen to concerns and, as far as possible, work to find ways in which to address them so that we can move forward in a way that satisfies everyone concerned. This is a really good example of such an approach.

Justin McNulty raised the important point about the need for clear guidance on SuDS, particularly for industry. Officials are working closely with industry experts, representative bodies and key stakeholders through the SuDS advisory group and the SuDS stakeholder group to ensure that they are actively engaged in policy development and kept informed of the emerging requirements. Although there is still significant work to be undertaken in developing the implementation framework for the new regulatory regime, I am keen to issue guidance on the SuDS standards at the earliest opportunity to provide that clarity for the industry.

The Chairperson of the Committee, Jonny Buckley, raised a number of issues, the first of which was about housing. My Department continues to work closely with colleagues in DFC, the Housing Executive and NI Water to identify solutions to unlock waste water capacity through the housing supply strategy group. My predecessor John O'Dowd and I have provided £30 million to unlock almost 5,500 properties across the North since 2024. I am pleased that the Executive, including the Member's colleague the Communities Minister, recently agreed to prioritise waste water infrastructure, as they recognise exactly what he said: that waste water infrastructure underpins the achievement of many other Executive priorities, particularly housing. That is important, and it is a good step forward for us as an Executive to ensure that we follow our words with actions and achieve what we want to achieve.

The options for the new SuDS regulatory arrangements will be costed and assessed through a business case, informed by further public consultation. It should be noted that some functions of any new public body may replace existing functions and may therefore not give rise to additional costs. My Department will continue to engage with key stakeholders on that as work progresses.

Finally, the Committee was interested in the enforcement of SuDS. I agree with the comments that any new enforcement regime for SuDS must be proportionate and fair, and my Department will undertake further consultation, in due course, to ensure just that. In my opening remarks — I know that the Chair of the Committee was not able to be in the Chamber at that stage — I stepped through the different stages of that, including a temporary stop notice. I hope that that gives some assurances that we are taking steps, at the earliest stage, to ensure that the regime is fair and proportionate.

I again thank the Committee and all Members for their support in the Bill's progressing to this stage and for their valuable contributions to date. I hope that they feel that they have been listened to and that their issues have been addressed in the most comprehensive way. I ask Members to support amendment Nos 1 to 15, which we discussed today.

Amendment No 1 agreed to.

Amendment No 2 made:

In page 3, line 40, at end insert "and

‘(c) by such further means as the undertaker considers appropriate.’". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 (Sustainable drainage systems: regulations)

Amendment No 3 made:

In clause 2, page 4, line 17, leave out "person" and insert "body". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

Amendment No 4 made:

In clause 2, page 4, line 19, leave out "person" and insert "body". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

Amendment No 5 made:

In clause 2, page 4, line 22, leave out "person" and insert "body". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

Amendment No 6 made:

In clause 2, page 4, line 28, leave out "person" and insert "body". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

Amendment No 7 made:

In clause 2, page 4, line 35, leave out "establishment or appointment of a person" and insert "appointment of a body mentioned in subsection (7A)". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

Amendment No 8 made:

In clause 2, page 4, line 39, leave out "to the Department or any other public authority". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

Amendment No 9 made:

In clause 2, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

"(7A) For the purposes of subsection (5), the bodies are—

(a) the Department,

(b) a sewerage undertaker.". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 (Section 2: supplementary)

Amendment No 10 made:

In clause 3, page 5, line 20, leave out "person" and insert "body". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

Amendment No 11 made:

In clause 3, page 5, line 32, at end insert—

"(aa) may substitute a different amount for the amount for the time being mentioned in section 3A(1)(a)," — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

Amendment No 12 made:

In clause 3, page 5, line 36, leave out "approver established or appointed" and insert "sewerage undertaker appointed as approver". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Amendment No 13 made:

After clause 3 insert—

"Regulations: notices and offences

3A.—(1) Regulations under section 3(3)(b) creating an offence of failure to comply with a notice must provide for the offence to be punishable—

(a) on summary conviction, by a fine not exceeding £100,000, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, by a fine.

(2) Regulations under section 3(3)(b) creating an offence of obstruction of an authorised person—

(a) must provide for that offence to be triable summarily only, and

(b) may not provide for the offence to be punishable on conviction by a fine exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3) For the purposes of this section and section 3(3)(b)— (a) “notice” means any of the following—

(i) an enforcement notice,

(ii) a stop notice,

(iii) a temporary stop notice, and

(iv) a breach of condition notice,

(b) “offence” includes an offence concerning—

(i) commencement of construction without approval,

(ii) breach of conditions of approval,

(iii) construction not conforming to approved proposals,

(iv) removal or modification of a drainage feature without approval,

(v) failure to comply with a notice issued under the regulations, or

(vi) obstruction of a person authorised by the approver to exercise a power of entry for the purposes of an inspection.".

— [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 (Flood protection grants: domestic buildings)

Amendment No 14 made:

In page 7, line 2, leave out subsection (6) and insert—

"(6) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Assembly.". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 (Commencement)

Amendment No 15 made:

In page 10, line 4, after "days" insert ", falling within the period of 12 months beginning with the day of Royal Assent,". — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).]

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Take your ease while we change the top Table.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Private Members' Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Danny Baker to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Moved.—[Mr Baker.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group containing all 14 amendments. The amendments propose alternatives to existing clauses 1 and 2. They also set a minimum daily allowance, provide the Department with regulation-making powers concerning holiday periods and address commencement of payments. There are also a number of technical amendments. I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debate on the single group, they should address all the amendments on which they wish to comment. Once the debate is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate.

New Clause

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

We now come to the single group for debate. Members should note the following links between amendments. Amendment Nos 2 , 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive to amendment No 1 and will not be called if amendment No 1 is made. Amendment No 3 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 2 and will not be called if amendment No 2 is made. Amendment No 4 is consequential to amendment Nos 2 and 3 and will not be called if neither amendment No 2 nor amendment No 3 is made. Amendment Nos 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are consequential to amendment No 1 and will not be called if amendment No 1 is not made. Amendment No 7 is an amendment to amendment No 6. Amendment Nos 13 and 14 are consequential to amendment No 8 and will not be called if amendment No 8 is not made. Finally, amendment No 12 is consequential to amendment No 11 and will not be called if amendment No 11 is not made. I hope that all that is clear to everybody.

I call the Minister of Education to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

Leave out clause 1 and insert—

"Arrangements for payments during holidays

1.—(1) The Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 is amended as follows.

(2) In the title of Article 59, for “Article 58” substitute “Articles 58 and 58A”.

(3) In Article 59, in paragraph (1), after “Article 58” insert?“, or under Article 58A(1) to (9),”.

(4) After Article 58 insert—

“Payments over holidays in lieu of school meals

58A.—(1) The Authority must, in accordance with arrangements approved by the Department, make financial payments due to parents or guardians of qualifying pupils with respect to weekdays during periods of school holidays.

(2) The arrangements are to contain provision—

(a) stating that payments due are payments determined according to the daily sum of the amount specified by the Authority to apply in lieu of free school meals, and

(b) defining qualifying pupils as such pupils of schools as are entitled to free school meals outside periods of school holidays.

(3) The arrangements are to ensure that the daily sum applies irrespective of whether qualifying pupils are (or are ever) offered free school meals during periods of school holidays.

(4) The arrangements are to depend on—

(a) what free school meals outside periods of school holidays are generally understood to be, and

(b) the rules or processes through which pupils acquire or retain entitlement to free school meals.

(5) The arrangements are to cover school holidays by reference to—

(a) Summer (at least eight weeks in July and August),

(b) Halloween (one week),

(c) Christmas (two weeks),

(d) February mid-term (one week), and

(e) Easter (two weeks).

(6) The arrangements are to require payments by the Authority to be in favour of nominated bank accounts or completed by alternative means for recipients with no bank accounts.

(7) The arrangements are to require the Authority to—

(a) keep records of payments made under the arrangements, and

(b) share the records with the Department.

(8) The arrangements are to require the Authority to publish on the Authority’s website the amount of the daily sum as specified by the Authority.

(9) The arrangements are to require the Authority to specify the amount of the daily sum as equal to either of these as selected by the Authority as appropriate for whichever category of case is under consideration—

(a) the unit price of school meals (as known to the Authority), or

(b) the daily allowance for free school meals (as implemented by the Authority),

and the arrangements are to enable the Authority to specify the daily sum as different amounts for different categories of case accordingly (including by reference in particular to nursery, primary or secondary education).”.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In clause 1, page 1, line 23, at end insert—

"(1FA) The daily allowance specified under paragraph (1F) shall be equal to either of these as selected by the Authority as appropriate for whichever category of case is under consideration—

(a) the unit price of school meals (as known to the Authority), or

(b) the daily allowance for free school meals (as implemented by the Authority),

and the daily allowance may be specified under paragraph (1F) as different amounts for different categories of case accordingly (including by reference in particular to nursery, primary or secondary education).". — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

No 3: In clause 1, page 1, line 23, at end insert—

"(1FA) The daily allowance under article 58(1F) shall be no less than any charge imposed for a school meal, in accordance with arrangements approved by the Department.". — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).]

No 4: In clause 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert "and article 58(1FA).". — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).]

No 5: After clause 1 insert—

"Updating of list of relevant holidays

1A.—(1) The list (including the lengths of time mentioned) in Article 58A(5) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 may, for consistency with changes to school terms or the school calendar, be altered by regulations made by the Department of Education.

(2) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution.". — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

No 6: After clause 1 insert—

"First holidays to count for payments

1B.—(1) The first period to count in the operation of Article 58(1A) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 is as described (along with the start date) by regulations made by the Department of Education.

(2) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.". — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

No 7: As an amendment to amendment No 6, in subsection (1), leave out "58(1A)" and insert "58A(1)". — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

No 8: After clause 1 insert—

"Power to make ancillary provision

1C.—(1) The Department of Education may by regulations make such provision (of any kind) as the Department considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of or in connection with Article 58A(1) to (9) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

(2) Regulations under this section may—

(a) include provision to which that Article is (to any extent) subject, or

(b) modify (in any way) any Northern Ireland legislation or Act of Parliament.

(3) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.". — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

No 9: Leave out clause 2. — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

No 10: Leave out clause 3. — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

No 11: In clause 4, page 3, line 4, leave out "section comes into operation on the day after the Act receives" and insert "Act comes into operation on the day after the day of". — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

No 12: In clause 4, page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (3). — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

No 13: In clause 4, page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (4). — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

No 14: In clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out subsection (5). — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In moving amendment No 1, I will also speak to amendment No 2 and amendment Nos 5 to 14. I will also refer to amendment Nos 3 and 4, which have been tabled by the Chair of the Education Committee.

I will make my comments under three headings. The first is redrafting amendments, which preserve the Bill's policy intent while improving its legal drafting. The second is an amendment to give clearer effect to the Chairman's intention regarding the value of the payments. The final one is amendments that would require the date of the first payments to be set in regulations subject to the approval of the Assembly.

I wrote to the Committee Chair and the Bill sponsor on 6 October, enclosing the text of the amendments and explaining my rationale. My opposition to the Bill overall remains unchanged. I set out my view at Second Stage that this is, effectively, a welfare intervention, and I continue to believe strongly that the Bill will result in funding being diverted from key educational services that are already under huge strain, particularly in the context of an unprecedented increase in demand for special educational needs provision.

More fundamentally, it is also a poorly targeted welfare measure. The purpose of free school meals is to ensure that every eligible child has access to a nutritious lunch during the school day, supporting their participation in education and readiness to learn. If the objective is instead to address food poverty, it is difficult to justify a payment that is linked solely to the value of lunches on school days. Food poverty does not begin and end between Monday and Friday, nor does it disappear at weekends. If the concern is that families cannot afford to put food on the table, why would a welfare payment be tied only to school day lunches while ignoring breakfasts, evening meals and, crucially, the weekend? That highlights the fundamental flaw at the heart of the Bill. It seeks to address a wider welfare issue through a mechanism designed for an educational purpose, and, worse still, it proposes to fund that intervention from an Education budget that is already insufficient to meet the needs of our schools.

Whatever my views on the Bill, as Minister, I also have responsibility to ensure that legislation is drafted appropriately. If the Bill is to become law, it should be law that actually works. I have, therefore, tabled a number of amendments to protect the statute book. Those amendments, which would rewrite the Bill without changing any aspect of the policy intent agreed at Consideration Stage, are amendment Nos 1 and 5, amendment Nos 7 to 10 and amendment Nos 13 and 14. The initial draft, as is so often the case with a private Member's Bill, was so inadequate and poorly drafted that close liaison with the Office of the Legislative Counsel was required to completely reconstruct it. The most effective way of addressing the drafting issues is an almost complete rewrite of clause 1, rather than piecemeal amendments. Members will be assured that, as a result of these amendments, the Education Authority would make holiday meal payments to parents of pupils who are entitled to free school meals for the relevant holiday periods. Nothing in these amendments reopens that decision.

Amendment No 1 leaves out clause 1 and inserts a new article 58A into the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 in order that the holiday meal payments would sit clearly apart from existing school meals arrangements in article 58 of the 1986 Order. Amendment Nos 5 and 8 place the power to update the list of holidays and the power to make ancillary provision in clauses of their own. Amendment Nos 9 and 10 leave out clauses 2 and 3, and amendment Nos 13 and 14 leave out subsections (4) and (5) of clause 4, because the rewrite makes those clauses unnecessary. Amendment No 7 is a consequential change to amendment No 6, which I will return to later. It updates a reference so that it points to new article 58A(1). I encourage Members to support those amendments, as they do not change any of the provisions of the Bill but are simply a set of sensible drafting improvements that have been developed with the Office of the Legislative Counsel and are designed to ensure that the legislation functions as intended.

This is about having effective legislation, notwithstanding my opposition to the Bill. This is what I have been asked to do as a Minister. I could have taken the approach to say that it is entirely up to the private Member and that, despite the inadequacies of the Bill and because of my opposition to it, I am not going to bring forward what the First Legislative Counsel told me would be required to have effective law in statute. As the Minister, I have taken the decision to act responsibly and table amendments that make the Bill's intent effective. Members, if you do not want to vote for it, you do not need to vote for it, and you will have an ineffective piece of legislation. However, if you want the Bill to do what you want it to do, despite my opposition, you will vote for these amendments, because they make the Bill effective. It is entirely a matter for Members as to how they decide they want to create a statute book in respect of these issues.

Amendment No 2 is a stand-alone amendment to address a drafting issue in the amendment that was moved by the Chair of the Education Committee. The Chair's intention is clear that holiday meal payments should never be worth less than the value of free school meal provision during term time. However, as drafted, that amendment is not operationally workable. It provides that the holiday payment must be no less than any charge imposed for a school meal. The difficulty is that, in post-primary schools, there is no single school meal charge. Individual items are priced separately, and pupils who are entitled to free school meals receive a daily allowance.

Legal advice has confirmed concerns that there is no single defined charge against which that provision could be applied. As a result, the drafting is open to challenge and requires amendment. That issue is addressed in the revised drafting as set out in new article 58A(9) in amendment No 1. However, if amendment No 1 is not agreed, amendment No 2 would resolve the drafting problem as a stand-alone amendment. It provides a clear and definitive basis for calculating holiday meal payments, by linking them either to the price of a school meal or, in the case of post-primary pupils, to the value of the Education Authority's daily free school meal allowance. That would mean that holiday meal payments in nursery, primary and special schools would be equivalent to the relevant school meal charge. Crucially, it would also ensure that post-primary pupils receive a holiday meal payment that is equal to the daily free school meal allowance that is provided during term time, which is currently £3·34. I hope that the Committee Chair will agree that that approach provides the necessary clarity and still delivers on the Committee's intended outcome.

To conclude my opening remarks, I will now turn to amendment Nos 6, 11 and 12, which would allow the commencement date for payments to be set through future regulations. To be clear, no one in the Chamber disputes the importance of helping families with the cost of food, but that is not the issue that is before us today. The issue is a simple one: where will the money come from? My Department is already under immense financial pressure. Based on the current Education Authority meal prices, the Bill will require around £7·2 million this year, more than £22 million in 2027-28 and approximately £32 million by 2033-34.

At the same time, Budget discussions are ongoing, and difficult decisions about public services lie ahead.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Minister give way?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Sorry, is someone looking for me to give way?

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

May I ask a wee question?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thought that I had heard something. Feel free, Danny.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Thank you. Before you continue, will you break down the £7 million figure for this year, please?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

After the Bill goes through Final Stage and receives Royal Assent, we will be coming into the Christmas period, after which we will hit half term and Easter. We therefore considered the provision's becoming a legal requirement on the granting of Royal Assent and worked through what that will mean for the cost associated with giving effect to the legislation. Sorry, do you want to come in again?

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

That is great news. I hope that we can have the legislation in place by Christmas, so it is good that you are on that page. Thank you.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is to do with the timing. Once the Bill gets through Final Stage, and if Royal Assent is granted, the legal impact of the legislation will take effect immediately, and, as it stands, that will mean an associated cost of £7 million. There are then the figures that I outlined for next year and the following years to consider. That £7 million would have to be found not from the Department of Finance or from ring-fenced funding but from within the Department of Education, which is a Department that, if we take the John O'Dowd Budget as the starting point, is facing a £500 million deficit. From where therefore are we to get the money? The Bill does not ask for it to be ring-fenced in the block grant but to be taken out of the Department of Education's budget. It is therefore a welfare payment that is to be paid for out of its budget, and, as I said, based on Sinn Féin's draft Budget, the Department is already looking at over half a billion pounds of a deficit.

One could be supportive of the provision had Sinn Féin put forward a draft Budget that ensured that funding was available for it, but it did not do that. It was an inadequate Budget, with over £500 million in education cuts, and the Bill not only adds another £7 million but makes it a legal requirement that the provision take priority over all else. Before a Minister of Education can get to decide their priorities, legislation therefore states, "Whatever your allocation, this is the first priority. Before special educational needs, this is the first priority", and the Minister is then constrained in identifying their priorities. We are taking part in discussions with the Secretary of State and the Treasury on our financial position, yet here we have an Assembly wanting to add more financial challenges for the Executive. How does that land with the Secretary of State and the Treasury? How does it give the Finance Minister any credibility when he is talking to the Secretary of State about the Executive's being able to take difficult decisions? That is a contradictory position.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for taking an intervention. I am seeking clarity on his point about the legislative imperative in the Bill. My understanding is that the Department implements a range of programmes, such as the extended schools programme or programmes to tackle educational disadvantage. Minister, are you saying that money would first have to go to meeting holiday meals payments and that those programmes could be under threat?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That is precisely the point, and Mr Martin has hit the nail on the head. Something has to give, and, in order to give effect to the legislation, it has to give not from within any other Department but from within the Department of Education. About what other schemes that the Department is currently funding would Members say, "Don't do that. Stop funding it"? Would it be the extended schools programme? Would the eligibility criteria for those who qualify for free school meals need to be changed in order to finance free school meals over 12 months and not just in term time? Those are issues that my officials are grappling with to see how effect can be given to the provision. One proposition that is being actively considered is removing the current level of income for free school meals to balance it against the total cost increase from this pressure. That is a serious issue for those families, and it is the kind of issue that officials in my Department now have to grapple with.

Against that backdrop, Members need to ask whether it is responsible to create a permanent spending commitment that runs to tens of millions of pounds without first identifying how it will be funded. We are already struggling to fund essential services. Schools are under pressure, hospitals are under pressure and the question is not whether the proposal is well-intentioned — it is a well-intentioned proposal — but who will pay for it. Are Members prepared to see millions of pounds diverted from Education budgets to fund what is, in effect, a welfare payment? If so, they should be honest about the consequences, which will be felt not in departmental spreadsheets but in classrooms and support services and by children across Northern Ireland. Indeed, some of the children most affected may be among those whom the Bill is intended to help.

The amendments offer a responsible alternative. They would allow the Bill to come into operation following Royal Assent while providing for the commencement of payments to be set by regulations that are subject to the draft affirmative procedure. In other words, the Assembly would still decide when payments begin, but it would do so with full knowledge of the funding position. That seems to me to be a reasonable and responsible approach that allows us to demonstrate our commitment to families and our responsibility as legislators.

By contrast, proceeding without identifying a sustainable funding source is like taking on a major new financial commitment when you cannot meet the bills that you already have: it does not solve the problem but simply transfers the pressure elsewhere. If a family were facing financial difficulties, it would think carefully before taking on a significant new and permanent cost without knowing how it would be paid for. Government should be no different.

If the amendments are agreed, the Department will undertake a review of affordability that will include consideration of the final budget position. That is not delay for delay's sake but basic financial responsibility. I propose the draft affirmative procedure because it ensures that Members will retain the final say. Payments would commence after the Assembly had considered the evidence and voted accordingly.

I will be frank with Members: if the Bill is commenced without the funding to sustain it, the impact will be felt elsewhere in education. Funding cannot be spent twice. Every pound committed to the Bill is a pound that is unavailable for other educational priorities. Members who oppose the amendments should therefore be clear about what they are asking schools and pupils to give up in return.

I said at Second Stage that good intentions alone do not fund public services, and that remains true. I say this to Members: proceed with supporting the Bill, if that is what you wish to do, but support it in a responsible way. Let us identify the funding and understand the consequences. Members can then decide on commencement with their eyes wide open as to the impact. That is what good government demands and what the public expect us to do.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. When we return to the debate, the next Member to speak will be Nick Mathison, Chair of the Education Committee.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 1.54 pm and resumed at 2.01 pm.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — Finance

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

1. Ms Brownlee asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the consideration of management fees as part of the review of the regulation of management of residential properties. (AQO 4068/22-27)

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

4. Mr Durkan asked the Minister of Finance to outline the progress that will be made on reform of shared property management before the end of the 2022-27 Assembly mandate. (AQO 4071/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

With the Speaker's permission, I will answer questions 1 and 4 together.

A recruitment exercise to establish a dedicated team with the expertise required to take this work forward has now closed, and the team will be put in place in the coming months. Once established, the team will undertake detailed policy development work and prepare a framework for public consultation. As part of that process, the Department intends to engage with interested parties through a call for evidence and/or a public consultation. That engagement will help shape future policy proposals and inform the development of legislation in this area during the next mandate. Given the limited time remaining in the current Assembly mandate, the work undertaken during this period will lay the necessary foundations for reform, and the Department intends to continue the policy development and legislative preparation into the next mandate.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. That is good news. It is something I hear about daily in my constituency, but it is a problem across Northern Ireland. I see homeowners being taken advantage of, and it is really unfair, so it is great to hear about the work that you are doing. Can the Minister provide a more detailed timeline of when the consultation may be open? Will you commit to ensuring that councils are one of the main stakeholders and can engage with the consultation process to ensure that all voices are heard?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The issue crosses all constituencies and has been raised in the Chamber many times. It is one of the reasons why I wanted to move forward with preparing the groundwork for the legislation, which will be enacted in the next mandate. Councils will play a vital role in the consultation, and I commit to that being the case during my mandate. I cannot give you a more detailed time frame at this stage. Land and property law is complex, and we have had to recruit a specialist team to do this. As I said, the recruitment is now closed, and we will put the team in place in due course. Once I have more information, I will share it with the Member.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

This is an important issue, particularly in my constituency of South Belfast, where there are many residential apartment blocks. Can you outline the progress that you hope to achieve before the next Assembly election?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

My priority is to ensure that the foundations for reform are firmly established. I expect the dedicated team to be in place within the coming months and to begin detailed policy development and stakeholder engagement. It is preparatory work to help ensure that the informed policy proposals can be taken forward and that the legislative reform can progress at pace during the next mandate.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Those who live in apartments, especially but not exclusively, often encounter a convoluted management structure that leaves them feeling powerless. Minister, you previously said that a registration scheme for management agents could be progressed during the mandate. You outlined some of the progress that has been made. There has been a bit, but it has not been as much or as fast as we would have liked. What comfort can you give residents trapped in that situation?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I can give them the comfort that work is now under way to give them the legal protections that they require under the law. As I said to the original questioner, it is a hugely complex area. Land law and property law here differ from England and elsewhere. You cannot simply lift legislation and transfer it over. We have to work through our legislative processes here to ensure that we get it right.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Finance Minister for the update. It is a really important issue for my constituents in South Belfast. Minister, do you have any idea of how many management company structures there are in Northern Ireland? The issues are complex. I have worked on five or six cases with different problems with management companies. Do you have any idea how people will be individually supported going forward?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I do not have those figures to hand and do not know whether they are available. If they are, I will make them available to you. I am aware of the issue. I deal with those matters in my constituency and see the complexities that residents have to deal with. I hope to simplify that and bring in protections for them, but it will take some time to get that preparatory work done, and legislation will be delivered in the next mandate.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

2. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister of Finance to outline any representations he has made to the UK Government in relation to Northern Ireland public authorities and businesses being placed at a disadvantage compared with their counterparts in Great Britain in terms of access to the National Wealth Fund. (AQO 4069/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The issue has been raised on a number of occasions with the British Government as part of wider discussions on the Executive's Budget and funding arrangements. I have been clear that we must have fair and equal access to the fund and that we should not be disadvantaged simply because our governance structures are different.

In England, many functions that benefit from National Wealth Fund investments are delivered by local authorities or privatised companies. Here, equivalent responsibilities, including infrastructure, economic development, strategic transport, regeneration, housing investment and energy policy are largely delivered by Executive Departments and arm’s-length bodies. Treasury officials have indicated that borrowing from the fund by those bodies would count against the Executive’s reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing limits. That would create an unequal outcome, requiring us to use scarce borrowing capacity for functions that, elsewhere, may sit outside central government control.

The principle is straightforward: access should be determined by the merits, value and viability of an investment opportunity, not by differences in administrative structures. If all Administrations are to have equal access to the National Wealth Fund, its arrangements must be flexible enough to reflect our differing constitutional and delivery models. The absence of English-style local authorities must not become a barrier to investment in projects that support growth, infrastructure and regeneration. I will continue to press the Government to ensure that the Executive can benefit from the National Wealth Fund on a fair and equitable basis.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer and for confirming that he has made representations on this. The National Wealth Fund provides much potential for many here. You have outlined your view that funding should be based on merit, but the reality is that public authorities and businesses in Northern Ireland are placed at a disadvantage. Is any work going on in the Department with those authorities and businesses to help them with that access — to provide them with support and guidance — to deliver the key objectives of the fund, which he has set out?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

That function would largely fall under the Department for the Economy. As I said, we have been engaging with the British Government on this for some time, and I have no doubt that the Budget will arise later in Question Time. It has also formed part of the Budget discussions. There appears to be a lack of understanding in the Treasury of the differences between how English local authorities and local authorities here operate. Until that message is understood, we will have continued difficulty around the matter. However, there are huge opportunities here if we can get the issue resolved for our local businesses.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Can you clarify whether the Executive would miss out on some investment if the British Government do not grant access to the National Wealth Fund?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

We will continue to miss out on that, as will our local businesses. There is a huge opportunity for the fund to be an economic driver here in allowing businesses, local authorities and Departments to invest. In my opinion, that comes down to a misunderstanding of how Administrations work here and elsewhere. I will continue to engage with the Government on the matter. As I said, it has formed part of our Budget discussions as well.

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

3. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Finance to outline any additional funding he is making available to the Minister of Health in the remainder of the 2026-27 financial year. (AQO 4070/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Until the Budget is in place, it is not possible to make any additional allocations to Departments. The Member will know that decisions on allocations to individual Departments are for the Executive as a whole. I recently met the Health Minister to discuss the significant budgetary pressures facing our health service.

I fully support building on the progress already made in reducing health service waiting lists. As Finance Minister, I have demonstrated my commitment to prioritising funding for the health service. The 2025-26 Budget included an earmarked allocation of £165 million for the Department of Health to reduce waiting lists and increase elective care capacity. The draft multi-year Budget that I brought forward proposed maintaining that additional £165 million in each year of the three-year period. Together with support from the transformation fund, that investment has contributed to the progress made in tackling waiting lists during 2025-26 and continuing into 2026-27, delivering real benefits for people awaiting medical care.

More progress is needed. It is therefore vital that the Executive secure a fair and sustainable funding settlement for the health service and all our public services. The Executive remain ready to engage urgently and constructively with the British Government to secure sufficient support for the current financial year and a credible path towards sustainable public finances.

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

Minister, if the funding has not been earmarked, can you update us on how the Health Minister will ensure that our hard-working domiciliary care staff will get the real living wage that has been promised to them?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

My priority in setting our Budget in the short time ahead is for nurses, teachers and other public-sector workers to receive their pay uplift and the minimum living wage. That is a priority. The focus for us all in the time ahead has to be to agree a mechanism to ensure that teachers, nurses and other public-sector workers receive their pay uplift.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Minister, do you agree that it is for the Health Minister to ensure that the real living wage is awarded to our social care workers, particularly given that it has now been promised for almost two years, and that he must find that money from within his budget, however he does that, given that he made that commitment and that promise?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is only right and proper that all our workers are paid fairly and properly and that, when it comes to the real living wage, the workers who have been left behind are brought up to the level of that wage. I will do everything in my power, working with Executive colleagues and the Health Minister, to make that happen, but, ultimately, such decisions are for individual Ministers.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

5. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the baby loss certificate scheme. (AQO 4072/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Since the baby loss certificate scheme was launched on 22 June 2026, the General Register Office (GRO) has processed and issued nearly 8,300 certificates. As we mark Baby Loss Awareness Week, I want to recognise all those who have experienced the loss of a baby and the families who continue to carry that loss. No certificate can ease their grief. However, the response to the scheme shows that formally recognising a baby's life can make a meaningful difference. That recognition has been made possible by the parents, advocates and organisations who bravely shared their experiences and campaigned for the scheme.

I recently had the opportunity to meet the officials who process the applications and issue the certificates. It was an opportunity for me to thank them for the care, compassion and dedication that they bring to that important work every day. I believe that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation delivered during the Assembly mandate. It shows the real difference that we can make to the lives of the people whom we serve when we come together with compassion and a shared sense of purpose. I am proud of what we have delivered: a compassionate scheme that gives parents and families the formal recognition that they deserve.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, I thank you and your officials for all the work that you have done on that important scheme. It has certainly made a difference in the lives of the parents who have come to me in my constituency. Can you highlight exactly what your Department has done to promote the important baby loss certificate scheme?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

We recognise how deeply personal baby loss is and how important it is to bereaved families to have the certificate. My Department therefore continues to work closely with organisations and with health and social care trusts to raise awareness of the baby loss certificate scheme sensitively and compassionately. The Registrar General, Dr Philip Wales, will also participate in an event — I believe that it is on Wednesday — organised by the Finance Committee to mark Baby Loss Awareness Week. He also acknowledged the event on the steps of Stormont today, when he again highlighted the scheme. Such events make parents and loved ones more aware of the scheme. The decision on whether to apply for a certificate falls to them, but we are very keen to get the information out to as many people as possible.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

6. Mr Robinson asked the Minister of Finance to outline any provision that has been made in the Executive's finances to meet outstanding public-sector pay pressures during the 2026-27 financial year. (AQO 4073/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

We would not have public services without public-sector workers to deliver them. I recognise that it is essential that our public-sector workers be appropriately rewarded. That is why my priority is to secure a mechanism to enable delivery of public-sector pay awards. In normal circumstances, public-sector pay policy sets the overall parameters and principles for pay awards and provides a framework for that. The absence, however, of an agreed Executive Budget has meant that the public-sector pay policy has not yet been set for 2026-27. Any pay award must be affordable within agreed departmental spending limits. At present, as I said, Departments do not have the benefit of an agreed Executive Budget within which to plan or operate. The Executive remain ready to engage urgently and constructively with the Government to secure sufficient support for the current financial year, a credible pathway to having sustainable public finances and a pathway to securing pay uplifts for public-sector workers.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his response. What additional funding is required, beyond the current offer from the UK Government, in order to put the Executive's finances on a solid and sustainable footing?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Pressures across Departments in the current financial year are around £1·6 billion, while the offer that is currently on the table is around £525 million, so the Member can see that there is quite a significant gap. Public-sector pay alone is £500 million or thereabouts, and any settlement or agreement has to include money for pay uplifts for teachers, nurses and other public-sector workers. That is the current state of play.

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

Minister, you said in your initial answer that the Executive cannot conclude public-sector pay deals without setting a Budget, and the Executive have not set a Budget. Will you confirm for public-sector workers who want to know when they will get their pay deal that, unless the Executive agree a Budget, they cannot have a pay rise?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

In the absence of a Budget, we have not secured a pathway to public-sector pay uplifts. I continue to explore all options and have been engaging with the Executive's legal advisers. Without breaching confidentiality, I can say that there has been substantial discussion around the Executive table on the matter. I believe that it is the ambition of us all to secure public-sector pay uplifts for our teachers, nurses and others. Of course, the ideal solution is that we secure a sustainable and fair Budget, and that is why we continue to engage with the British Government.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Minister, you touched on the fact that some work is under way on the Executive to try to deliver pay awards for public-sector workers. Can you go into any other detail on what work is being done behind the scenes to make sure that those pay awards can be secured?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As I said, I am exploring all avenues, including engaging with the Executive's legal advisers and my Department's legal advisers to see what methods we can use to secure and deliver pay uplifts for public-sector workers. I continue to do that. The ideal way in which to do so would be to secure a Budget, but we would also have to have the money in that Budget to pay those workers. We have not been successful in balancing the two things thus far.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

7. Mr Kingston asked the Minister of Finance for an update on action to address the high levels of motor insurance premiums in Northern Ireland. (AQO 4074/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I recognise the significant pressures that high motor insurance premiums are placing on citizens across the North. While insurance regulation is a reserved matter, I have continued to engage with the British Government, regulators and the insurance industry to highlight concerns about affordability and to press those with responsibility to take action to improve outcomes for consumers. The industry has pointed to a range of factors that it believes contribute to higher premiums here, and my officials have been facilitating discussions between the industry and relevant Departments on issues that fall within their areas of responsibility locally. One issue that my officials continue to engage with the industry on is the extent to which the absence of regulations for claims management companies may be impacting premiums. I asked the Association of British Insurers (ABI) in February 2025 to provide written evidence on the matter. My officials received the ABI's evidence only late last week. While I am disappointed that I had to wait nearly 20 months for that to be provided, officials are now actively considering it. Once the evidence has been assessed, I will carefully consider the appropriate next steps.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for that answer. Indeed, that ABI report set out that, in 2025, motor insurance premiums were 9% higher in Northern Ireland than they were in the rest of the UK. It highlighted a number of factors, including that claims here were 59% higher than the UK average, and that bodily injury claims here were 78% higher than the UK average, due to issues in our civil justice system. The Minister mentioned that claims management companies are not regulated here, as they are in the rest of the UK. As you have said, Minister, there is a need for cross-departmental working —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Is there a question, Mr Kingston?

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

This is the question, Mr Speaker: given the need for cross-departmental working on the issue, will the Minister commission a working group alongside the Department of Justice, in particular, and, potentially, the Department for Infrastructure, to look at all the relevant issues?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I congratulate Mr Kingston on a well-researched question. That gave me a chance to catch a breather.

All of those factors come into play to varying degrees. Another factor is the lack of competition: as a result of Brexit, a number of insurance companies from the South pulled out of the market, which left a gap in competition. We have to look at all of those factors and ensure that we have a healthy, competitive market and that we are using all the regulatory powers at the disposal of either the Executive or the British Government to ensure that people here are getting a fair deal. I will want to see all the evidence presented to me before I make a final decision on where the problems exist. At the end of that, we, collectively, will have to form a mechanism that ensures that people here are getting a fair deal.

As for the working group, my officials are coordinating work between Departments on the issue. It may not be classed officially as a working group, but, once we have analysed the current information, if it is felt that we need to move to having a formal working group, I will be more than happy to do so.

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

Minister, many young people have become priced out of owning a car by extortionate insurance fees. Will you bring forward tighter regulations for insurance companies, particularly multi-national companies, so that younger people, especially those in rural areas, can afford access to a car? What representations have you made to the Department of Justice on the personal injury discount rate here, which, obviously, affects the cost of insurance in the North?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As the father of two young drivers, I assure you that I am acutely aware of the cost of insurance in this society. It is prohibitive to many and needs to be properly managed and regulated, as seen in a number of evidence sources, some of which Mr Kingston outlined. As I said, we are working our way through it. It has taken 20 months for the Association of British Insurers to send us the information that we currently have, which is disappointing. However, we now have that information, and we will analyse it. I will decide on what moves we can and should make next. By and large, this is not a devolved matter; it falls under the remit of the British Government. However, I assure you that I will do everything within my powers to ensure that young people — and older people — here are treated fairly by the insurance industry.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

8. Dr Aiken asked the Minister of Finance for an assessment of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council’s ‘Sustainability Report 2026: special focus – Public sector pay’. (AQO 4075/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The report makes an important contribution to the discussion on how fair and affordable public-sector pay awards can be delivered sustainably. In particular, it highlights the structural pressure created by the way that public services are organised and funded here, including where pay costs are not fully reflected through Barnett funding. That reinforces the need for the British Government to provide the Executive with a fair and sustainable funding settlement so that the contribution of public-sector workers can be properly recognised. I will continue to press the Government for that. Importantly, the Fiscal Council also indicated that its report is the start rather than the end of the conversation on those matters. My Department will continue to engage with it on that, and I encourage other public-sector stakeholders to do likewise.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister will be aware that, when the Treasury came to do the open-book exercise, one issue that was raised was the cost of providing public services in Northern Ireland compared with the costs in England and Wales. The Fiscal Council report looked quite closely at those differences, finding that some services were around 30% more expensive to deliver in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales, despite delivering less than those delivered in England and Wales. Is the Minister looking at doing any proper research on those issues, so that we can either better fight our case or look for efficiencies where we need them? Either way, the work needs to be done.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Treasury report was far off the mark regarding our society. That goes back to Diane's question about the National Wealth Fund. The Treasury does not fully understand how this place works or the differences between the roles of Departments, councils and arm's-length bodies (ALBs). When you compare apples and oranges, obviously, you will come out with the wrong answer to that equation. The Fiscal Council report is useful, as its reports always are. It is independent and the start of an analysis of that matter. The Fiscal Council is probably best placed at this stage to continue that work. I look forward to engaging with it on that matter, and I have no doubt that the Member and others will do so as well.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Minister for that assessment and for reinforcing the need for the British Government to adequately fund the North. Minister, you referred to this already, but do you agree that the Fiscal Council report is only the start of the conversation?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes. The Fiscal Council was keen to make the point that the report was the start of a conversation, rather than definitive conclusions on those matters. It is an interesting area of study, and we have to understand cost variations in a detailed way. The headlines, as I said to Dr Aiken, are about how we deliver public services here differently. Our rurality is another matter, as is the fact, which we should be proud of, that we have not privatised many of our public services, as England and elsewhere have. That is right and proper.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

9. Mr McGuigan asked the Minister of Finance to outline any action his Department is taking to encourage more young people to consider a career in the Civil Service. (AQO 4076/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Attracting more young people to the Civil Service is a priority for my Department. We promote the wide range of available careers through engagement with schools, universities and careers events. We also provide practical routes to public service through apprenticeships, skills academies, student placements and work placements. During 2026, more than 200 people were appointed through the operational delivery apprenticeship scheme, and phase 3 of the JobStart scheme provided 21 paid placements, with 15 participants accepting permanent Civil Service positions. This year, 108 students are undertaking placements across a range of disciplines and Departments. Recruitment for the 2027-28 student placement scheme will open this month, offering approximately 100 opportunities. My Department is also developing an employability scheme for care leavers, which will offer paid placements of up to 51 weeks, with the potential for permanent appointment on completion of the placement.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat,

[Translation: Thank you,]

Minister. Thank you for outlining the opportunities that the Civil Service can offer our young people. You touched briefly on apprenticeship offers. What apprenticeship opportunities can the Civil Service offer our young people?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Since 2024, we have offered apprenticeships in a range of fields, including heritage skills, such as joinery, stonemasonry and blacksmithing; ICT; work psychology; electrical, mechanical and civil engineering; and vehicle and plant fitting. During 2026, more than 200 people were appointed through the operational delivery apprenticeship scheme. In June, the second group of students graduated from the skills academy for civil engineering. That is an Assured Skills partnership between the Department for Infrastructure and Belfast Met, supported by the Civil Service's HR in my Department.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Minister, will you outline how any students with a disability can be assured that opportunities to be successful in the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) student placement scheme will be equitable?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Civil Service is an equal opportunities employer, including for students who come into the scheme. Measures are put in place to ensure that everyone has equal access to the workforce and within it.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

10. Ms D Armstrong asked the Minister of Finance to outline the timelines for setting the 2026-27 Budget. (AQO 4077/22-27)

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

11. Miss Brogan asked the Minister of Finance for an update on engagement with the British Government to secure a fair and sustainable funding settlement. (AQO 4078/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 10 and 11 together.

My priority remains to secure a fair and sustainable multi-year Budget that gives Departments certainty and enables them to plan, invest in and transform public services. Members will be aware that there has been extensive engagement with the Government over recent months, including with the Secretary of State and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Executive met last week in response to my calls for an urgent meeting to discuss the Secretary of State's proposal. During the meeting, the Executive considered the offer, assessed its implications for Departments and public services, and agreed to further engagement with the Secretary of State. Ultimately, agreeing a Budget and securing fair funding are inseparable. I remain committed to working with Executive colleagues and Westminster to deliver both as a matter of urgency.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, in light of the failure to pass this year's Budget, what baselines will be used for setting next year's?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I sincerely hope that we set a Budget before we get to that stage. My focus is on continuing engagement with my Executive colleagues and with the British Government.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We move on to topical questions.

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

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Finance, noting that we are now more than halfway through the financial year and have heard today about "continued engagement", and further noting that, as he acknowledged, there is no legal mechanism to give workers in the health service, in education or across the public sector the rise that they deserve and expect until the Executive agree a Budget, specifically when the Budget will be agreed and when public-sector workers will get a pay rise. (AQT 2681/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As I said to Mr O'Toole during Question Time, I am exploring all legal options to see how we can secure a pay rise for our nurses, teachers and public-sector workers. That is my ambition and my plan. The ideal way forward is to secure a Budget. In the absence of that, I will work with my Executive colleagues to secure a different way of doing it.

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

With the greatest respect, Mr Speaker, that is not good enough. Working for legal contingencies when the British Government could, at any minute, step in — a British Government who, we all agree, do not prioritise this place — and impose a Budget on this place, preventing pay rises, is a completely unacceptable position. I am aware, because someone raised the matter at a town hall meeting with me last week, of an FE college lecturer who has been laid off. People are losing their jobs in the absence of an Executive Budget. Meanwhile, all Members here are guaranteed a pay rise. That is not an acceptable position. I therefore repeat the question, Minister: when will there be a Budget, and when will public-sector workers be guaranteed the pay rise that they have earned?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As I have said three times now, I am working my way through the processes, legal and other, to see how we can secure a public-sector pay rise.

It is an important topic that Mr O'Toole raises with me, but I thought that he might also use today as an opportunity to apologise to me for comments that he has made in the Chamber over the past two years about the A5. I have just looked back over his comments, some of which have flowed through his conversation today. He has accused me of:

"extreme incompetence" — [Official Report (Hansard), 30 June 2025, p14, col 1].

A:

"failed planning process that you"

— meaning me —

"oversaw". — [Official Report (Hansard), 30 June 2025, p47, col 1].

He has also accused my officials and I of needing to have:

"given more careful scrutiny" — [Official Report (Hansard), 30 September 2025, p37, col 2].

While also referring to:

"basic work simply not being done on your watch". — [Official Report (Hansard), 21 October 2025, p39, col 1].

I hoped that Mr O'Toole would take the opportunity to apologise to me. He has not, but I assure him that all the things that he has accused me of in relation to the A5 were false. The failings that he accuses me of around the Budget are also false.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

At least he did not call you a plonker.

[Laughter.]

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

T2. Mr Sheehan asked the Minister of Finance for an update on his engagement with the British Government with regard to Executive finances. (AQT 2682/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Conversations and letters have gone back and forth over the past week or so. Last Tuesday — I am trying to get the days right — we had an urgent Executive meeting to discuss the latest offer from the Secretary of State. There was significant engagement around the Executive table. We discussed our priority of securing pay lifts for our teachers, nurses and public-sector workers. As I said in previous answers, I continue to explore that.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

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

Does the Minister believe that further progress could be made if the British Government were to take a constructive approach to the negotiations?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As with any negotiation, both sides have to approach it with a constructive mindset. The Executive are doing that. We have set out plans of how we see reform and efficiencies. However, the amount of money on the table at this stage simply does not meet the basic pressures that the Executive face. No one from the Government, whether it be the Secretary of State or the Treasury, has been able to answer the question that I keep putting to them, which is this: why do you fund Scotland at £3 billion above its level of need, Wales at £1 billion above its level of need and us at below our level of need? It is about fairness and equality. No one from the Government side has been able to respond to that.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

T3. Ms Brownlee asked the Minister of Finance for an update on Jade's law. (AQT 2683/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

We are preparing a consultation on Jade's law. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement in the next number of weeks, possibly in November. We are making progress.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

I appreciate the Minister's response. Does he agree — I am sure that he does — that it is absolutely impossible to justify a situation in which someone who has murdered or attempted to murder their partner continues to exercise parental responsibility for their children? Urgent action is required. Will you commit to doing everything in your power to progress that issue as swiftly as possible?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I agree that further legal protections need to be put in place, particularly for the children and the bereaved families concerned. Although Jade's law is on the statute books in England, it has not yet been enacted. It is well-intentioned legislation, but it is such a complex area that it has not been implemented. I want to reach a point at which we have not only legislation on the books but legislation that can be implemented and fulfil its purpose.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

T4. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister of Finance what amount of capital funding is currently available to progress key infrastructure projects following the Court of Appeal's decision on the A5. (AQT 2684/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I do not have those figures in front of me. Each Department is working to its indicative budget, as set out by the permanent secretary, but the A5 is a flagship project, and, therefore, the funding for it is ring-fenced.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his response. Obviously, compensation to landowners based on November 2024 valuations is unacceptable. What re-evaluation mechanism for those landowners are the Minister and his Infrastructure colleague looking at?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I understand that the Minister for Infrastructure is involved in that matter and will report back to the House or the farmers involved as soon as possible. It is a matter for the Minister for Infrastructure. The valuations are carried out through Land and Property Services, independent of interference from any Minister.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

T5. Miss Brogan asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the work of his Department to automatically remove parental responsibility from anyone convicted of the murder or voluntary manslaughter of a person with whom they share parental responsibility. (AQT 2685/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On 30 April, I announced my intention to bring forward proposals to reform aspects of family law, including parental responsibility, to ensure that our legal framework continues to protect children and reflects public expectations. Since that announcement, officials have been progressing work on a range of policy options and engaging with key stakeholders to inform the development of policy proposals. That engagement has included discussions with organisations representing families and victims, legal and family justice stakeholders, elected representatives and individuals with lived experience of serious domestic abuse and other serious offences affecting families.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin.

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

Will the Minister outline when his Department intends or hopes to consult on that, le do thoil

[Translation: please?]

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I hope to be in a position to publish a consultation on it shortly. I will bring more information to the House about that, given the seriousness of the issue and Members' interest in the process. While much of the public discussion is focused on cases in which one parent murdered the other parent, my Department's consultation will consider a broader range of circumstances, including other serious offences committed against the child or the child's other parent.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

T6. Mrs Mason asked the Minister of Finance for an update on how the Back in Business scheme helps towns and high streets, having noted that he recently visited businesses in Newry that have benefited from the scheme and that that is positive. (AQT 2686/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I recently visited a business — a cafe — in the Harbour estate that opened as a result of the Back in Business scheme. The enthusiasm of the owners in taking on the huge challenges of opening their business was infectious. They were clear that the Back in Business scheme gave them a bit of breathing space to open, invest in and keep the business afloat.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat.

[Translation: Thank you.]

Thanks for that, Minister. On the back of that, will you give us an update on the non-domestic vacant rating consultation?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

My Department recently completed a consultation on the proposals for a business growth accelerator scheme and changes to non-domestic vacant rating. The proposals arose from work that was undertaken last year with business representatives through the strategic review work. My officials are reviewing the responses to the consultation, which formally closed on 23 September, with extra time granted for some late responses that were received before the end of September. As the policy relates to the rating scheme, any resultant decisions will be taken by the Executive.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

T7. Ms Flynn asked the Minister of Finance for an update on how procurement policy supports social value. (AQT 2687/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Social value and ensuring that we use government spending power to promote it has been a key factor of the procurement policy throughout my time and that of a number of my predecessors. Since February 2025, the revised social value in procurement policy has provided a stronger framework for monitoring and reporting social value outcomes. The Strategic Investment Board recently provided an update on social value outcomes that have been achieved since 2018: over 8,000 people who were long-term unemployed or disadvantaged in the labour market have gained employment; 479 social enterprises have been part of the supply chain; and over 16,000 hours of volunteering, almost 40,000 hours of skills development activities, over 6,000 weeks of work experience, almost 40,000 hours of health and well-being initiatives and over 11,000 hours of environmental initiatives have been achieved. It has been a worthwhile project.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister for that update. Will the Minister outline how important it is that prompt payment is made to support local businesses that provide services to government?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Cash flow is always a challenge for businesses, particularly those in the SME sector. Paying suppliers on time remains a key priority for the Department. I recognise the important contribution that local businesses make. The Executive's prompt payment policy encourages Departments to aim to pay 90% of valid, undisputed invoices within 10 working days while adhering to the statutory limit of 30 days.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

T8. Mr Brett asked the Minister of Finance, having noted that he was right to pause the Reval2026 exercise, whether he is aware that hospitality providers from across Northern Ireland, some of which have contacted the Member, have since received correspondence from Land and Property Services (LPS) stating that it will carry out individual revaluations of their premises and that the hospitality sector seems to think that, having been unable to catch them in Reval2026, LPS is going after businesses individually. (AQT 2688/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

That is not the case. Pausing the revaluation does not mean that the current valuation list should no longer be maintained. The list must be updated as properties are created, altered, demolished, divided or amalgamated. Where a new property is created or an existing property undergoes physical changes such as an extension or improvement, LPS must consider whether that property's valuation should be updated. That is normal valuation list maintenance, and the work is carried out across all sectors. Since the decision to pause Reval2026, LPS has completed more than 7,100 valuation cases, fewer than 100 of which relate to hotels and licensed premises.

Almost 60% of those cases arose from applications or challenges by ratepayers.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Minister. Your officials clearly knew that I might ask that question, so I thank them for the detail. That being the case, how many of those hotels requested the valuations that are taking place currently? Will you commit to continuing your dialogue with the sector to ensure that we have a fair and balanced outcome for all sectors across Northern Ireland?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I commit to continued dialogue with the sector and look forward to its bringing proposals to me. I do not have the figure for how many hotels requested a valuation, but I am sure that the Member will agree that if a hotel, or any other premises or property, has been extended or had significant works carried out on it, it, in turn, should pay its fair share of rates.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

T9. Mr Blair asked the Minister of Finance to provide an update on the outcome of the recent public consultation on the business growth accelerator and proposed changes to non-domestic vacant rating. (AQT 2689/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The consultation closed last month. My officials are evaluating the consultation responses.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he believe that it is possible for any changes to rate relief, including those previously consulted on, such as the small business rate relief, to be implemented in the next financial year?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There is opportunity, but it is up to the Executive. My previous reports and recommendations on rates have been blocked at the Executive by the DUP. If there is a will, there is a way, however.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That concludes questions to the Minister of Finance. Before we move on to questions to the Minister of Health, I again remind Members not to walk between two Members when they are engaging. On this occasion, it happened when the Minister and Mr Brett were doing so. When Members come into the Chamber, they should try to ascertain who is asking the question and who is answering it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Health

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

1. Ms Brownlee asked the Minister of Health to outline any immediate action that he will take to improve access to health service dentistry in East Antrim while reform of general dental services is being developed. (AQO 4082/22-27)

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question. Access to general dental services remains a priority for me. Although the most recent dental statistics show a continued decline in patient registration across Northern Ireland, the rate of decline has reduced substantially compared with the previous year. In East Antrim specifically, the number of registered health service dental patients increased by 2% in the 12 months to June 2026. Although that is encouraging, I recognise that many people continue to face difficulties with accessing health service dental care. The wider decline in registration reflects a trend of general dental practitioners reducing their health service commitment and increasing private provision.

On 16 September 2026, I published the general dental services cost-of-service review, which identified the gap between the current remuneration for providing health service dental care and the cost of delivery of that care. Publication of the review represents an important step towards reform. Officials are now progressing an options appraisal to consider measures that will improve patient access and support the long-term sustainability of health service dentistry across Northern Ireland, including in the Member's constituency of East Antrim.

Residents of East Antrim who are not registered with a health service dentist and who have an urgent emergency or pressing dental condition may be able to access treatment through the dental access scheme. That scheme funds participating dental practices to provide appointments for unregistered patients who are experiencing dental problems. In addition, the enhanced child examination scheme is a regional initiative that supports improved oral health outcomes for children through enhanced preventative care, oral health advice and earlier intervention. Taken together, the initiatives demonstrate the Department's commitment to improving access to health service dentistry and to supporting better oral health outcomes for people throughout Northern Ireland, including in East Antrim.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his response. Something that concerns me is that, in the past few months, over 2,500 people have been deregistered in East Antrim. That development may not be included in the Minister's stats. The figures are stark: only one third of adults in rural communities are registered with a dentist; 67% of children are registered; and a quarter of a million people across Northern Ireland have been deregistered. That is serious. The British Dental Association (BDA) is warning that the service requires urgent investment.

Does the Minister accept that a decade of inaction has contributed to the crisis? What specific measures will he take now to increase NHS dental provision across Northern Ireland?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question. There are a lot of things to consider in this regard. I do not like the position in which we find ourselves regarding dental waiting lists and access to dentists, but I do not think that there has been inaction for 10 years. We are in that position because we have been underfunded and under-politicked. We could have been facing a much better situation, however steps are being taken. It is essential that we have a sustainable dental workforce to improve health service dentistry. Additional funding was provided in 2026-27 to support six additional dental foundation training places, increasing opportunities for newly qualified dentists to undertake their training in Northern Ireland. That investment will help to strengthen the dental workforce pipeline and forms part of the wider work to support the long-term sustainability of dental services and improve access for patients across Northern Ireland.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

Minister, you mentioned the general dental services cost-of-service review that your Department published last month. You have accepted that there is a significant gap between the hourly rate paid to dentists and the cost of providing dental services. What actions are you taking to ensure that the gap can be closed, even if that is done over time rather than in just one leap?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. As with every challenge that I face in Health, it is really important that we establish the voice of the service user and of the clinicians who provide the service — in this case, our dentists. Therefore, engagement will be absolutely key. There will be early engagement with the dental profession and key stakeholders through the British Dental Association. Dentists will play an important role in developing reform proposals for general dental services. It is important that relevant stakeholders actively participate in that process to ensure the success of any reform. Following the publication of the report, the director of primary care attended a Northern Ireland Dental Practice Committee meeting to discuss the report and next steps. Officials will continue to engage with the British Dental Association and other key stakeholders as the appraisal options progress. I had a meeting with my departmental officials on this last week. It is an issue in which I am acutely interested: I want to ensure that there is equity right across Northern Ireland, regardless of a person's circumstances.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Minister, the 'State of Child Health' report that was published a couple of weeks ago identified that, in child dental extraction rates, inequality between the least-deprived and most-deprived areas has increased significantly. The gap, which was 1% in 2020, had risen to 11% by 2024. Is the Department doing any specific work to target the areas that are most deprived and have greatest objective need?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question. I can comfortably say that that formed the biggest part of my conversation with departmental officials and my analysis of the risks that we still face. I see access to NHS dentistry as a goal that we should all try to attain. As the Member rightly pointed out, across the health suite — and across life, unfortunately — social disadvantage can be a cruel determinant for young people, particularly children.

My Department has committed an additional investment of £8 million in general dentist services in 2026-27. That is to provide support to health service dentistry across Northern Ireland. The investment is intended to improve access by supporting the sustainability and capacity of general dental practice. Measures include enhanced fees for key treatments, increased activity payments to directly support practitioners who continue to provide health service dentistry and investment in workforce measures to support service provision in the medium term. Taken together, those actions are intended to improve the resilience of general dental services and to support access for patients. The Help with Health Costs scheme provides assistance with the cost of health service dental treatments, helping to ensure that financial circumstances do not act as a barrier to accessing necessary dental care. I look forward to working with the Member in the coming years to ensure that there are no such barriers.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Minister, I certainly welcome the ongoing action that you have taken to improve access. What new action is your Department taking to recruit, train and retain dentists in order to improve access to health service dentistry across Northern Ireland?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. There are workforce pressures throughout the health and social care system, and dentistry suffers from that same pressure. Opening up places requires resource, but we have no shortage of people who are willing to take up those posts. Extra funding was allocated in 2026-27 to support six additional dental foundation training places. We have to get ahead of the situation in order to anticipate the growing need, particularly of those who cannot access NHS dentistry, and to ensure that any future provision matches that growing need in the community across Northern Ireland. We have to remain agile in that regard and consider it on an annual basis.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The reform that you have outlined does not give me a great deal of reassurance. The situation is urgent, and we need urgent steps to be taken in order to stop dentists leaving the health service. What urgent steps can you take to stop that immediately? There are dental deserts across all of our communities in Northern Ireland.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question and the way in which she put it. There are multiple crises across the health and social care system. The review will give us a platform to engage proactively with all stakeholders. As I have said many times, the stakeholders — in this case, our dentists and the BDA — are central to the solutions that need to be found. As the Minister of Health, however, I am absolutely committed to ensuring that service users are central to any transformation and development of service provision. That door needs to remain open, and I have asked my officials to stay agile in that space and to monitor it, almost on a daily basis, in order to ensure that we start to see improvements and develop them.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

3. Mr Bradley asked the Minister of Health, in light of concerns that the removal of emergency general surgery from Causeway Hospital could undermine other acute services, whether he will ensure that no permanent change takes place until the independent reconfiguration committee has examined the wider consequences for the hospital, travel times for patients and whether investment in staffing could sustain a safe service at Causeway Hospital. (AQO 4084/22-27)

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. I understand the ongoing concern in relation to the provision of emergency general surgery at the Causeway Hospital and the potential impact on other acute services as a result of any change. However, let me be abundantly clear; any decision on a permanent change to a Health and Social Care (HSC) service must follow established guidance and governance processes. I have not yet been asked to make a decision, and no final decision will be made until I am content that the outcome, whatever it is, has been fully scoped and is supported by robust evidence, including on the points that the Member lists in his question.

A detailed process is under way, which already includes significant scrutiny, with the trusts working closely with my strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) and other stakeholders. As that work is ongoing, I cannot give a definitive timeline for the finalisation of the proposal or for any subsequent decision. I have already made clear my commitment to ensuring that the wider implications for the Causeway Hospital and other areas of the HSC, as well as patients, staff and local communities, are fully understood before any permanent decision is taken. That includes consideration of clinical safety, service quality, the workforce, patient experience, the impact on other hospitals and the long-term sustainability of services across the system.

The provision of safe and sustainable services will remain central to my consideration of any final proposal. Any decision that I make on whether to refer the proposal to the independent reconfiguration committee will be informed by the evidence that is available to me when I am asked to make a decision on a permanent change. While it is premature to pre-empt the outcome of that process, I can assure the Assembly that I will make a decision only when I am fully satisfied that any proposal has been subject to full and rigorous scrutiny.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. Does he agree that, along with any reconfiguration, there needs to be reform of the five health trusts and a delve down into whether they reflect the wider system pressures and whether their use of funding, strategies and staffing have created the problems that we are now experiencing? There is a correlation between the reduction in the number of hospitals and the increase in waiting lists.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question, and his passion for his local area and its hospital. I am not going to say yes or no to his question, even though it is a fair question.

I have been Health Minister for just over six weeks, and I have had the pleasure of meeting each of the health trust leads and their senior leadership teams, and I am convinced that they have the same single ambition as anybody in the Chamber, including myself, which is to improve on and provide the best health and social care service. It is undeniable, however, that there are issues and problems. We have waiting lists, and our inboxes are full of issues that our constituents face daily. However, work is under way at a very high level on cross-trust collaboration, and I am actively involved in that conversation with the trusts. That collaboration needs to be developed further, and some people could, perhaps, consider that in the future.

Northern Ireland has a population of only 1·9 million, and, in a compare-and-contrast with across the water, there are those who say that a single trust approach would work. The experts have so far said that that would not be the right approach for Northern Ireland. We need to ensure, however, that the further transformation is informed by clinical practice and by those who receive care, and that we consider every effect and impact that any change will have at any level. However, we need to look at driving ambition and continuing to work in the same vein as we have for the past 10 years and inject some positivity and service improvement right across the system.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Minister, you spoke a few weeks ago about pausing not the overall reconfiguration but the hospital network system. You just mentioned the committees in common across all the trusts, but our waiting lists will not get better in the long term if we do not change and deliver healthcare in a more sustainable way. Given that you said that you are parking that initiative, where do we go from here in which hospitals deliver what services and what is the best for everyone in Northern Ireland? That is how it has to be looked at on the whole.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I really do thank the Member for her question, because it gives me the chance to address something that was maybe misconstrued. There has been no pause on any network reconfiguration. What has been paused is how we name services and what we call them. It is literally a pressure that I identified when I talked to service users. Sometimes we overcomplicate the system. We relegate and promote systems by giving them a terminology that maybe does not best fit the system and the service that they have. That causes unnecessary nervousness and a disconnect from the very people whom the hospital network is designed to serve.

On

[Inaudible]

, I have not paused any work in that space. What I have asked is that we drop the four names that were developed for the purpose of describing a hospital. As I have said many times, depending on where you live, you already experience healthcare delivery in a different way. If you live rurally, it is a bigger challenge to get a domiciliary care package, and there is sometimes a nervousness if a person has a long drive to a hospital for acute care. In the short time that I have — I will not be able to address it in six months — I want to re-establish the social contract between service user and service provider. As I have said many times, we all want the same thing, which is better health outcomes. We have the best clinicians and the best people in the world, and we need to ensure that the service is understood and that health is not done to people but with people. Hopefully, that arrests that line of thought.

To reiterate, tackling waiting lists and providing better health and social care remains my absolute ambition and commitment.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, following the unplanned collapse of emergency services at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) in Enniskillen, there were several inadequate — indeed, shambolic — consultations. So inadequate were they that your predecessor had to pause the move, and finally it was withdrawn. What steps will you take to ensure that there is genuine and meaningful consultation with communities about the health services that they require?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. I will respond in two parts, if he does not mind. The temporary suspension of emergency general surgery at the South West Acute Hospital remains in place. It is important that people know that the suspension is temporary. The Western Health and Social Care Trust is developing a longer-term vision for services across its hospital network, and it is engaging with staff, patients and the wider community in that space. That work is expected to inform the trust's proposals for the future of the South West Acute Hospital, including emergency general surgery.

No permanent decision has been taken. Any proposals for permanent change must follow the Department's guidance, which includes appropriate consultation and the provision of assurance, and they would require my approval. The Member will be well aware that, within two weeks of taking up my post, I visited the SWAH. Contrary to popular belief, although there are challenges in health, I will absolutely go as far as I can to meet people and speak to them face to face, because that is really important in gaining their confidence.

The Member makes a really good point. It goes back to my ambition of establishing a social contract whereby health provision is done with people rather than to them. I absolutely respect clinicians' advice. When the clinical advice stacks up and has better patient outcomes at its core and when people are informed that that is the case and can believe it, we have nothing to fear from any wider service transformation. That is the system that we need to embed, because we have finite resource; we have a growing list of health problems; we have an ageing population and a diminishing birth rate; and we have complex comorbidities. All that is making medical provision even more difficult. There are things in train, however, and I am really excited about the neighbourhood model. If we can deliver that, it will deal with a lot of our pressures.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

4. Mr Burrows asked the Minister of Health whether the Executive have approved the ministerial direction request to deliver the 2026-27 pay awards and the implementation of the real living wage for health and social care staff. (AQO 4085/22-27)

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. Regrettably, Executive approval has not yet been secured. Approval should, of course, be accompanied by sufficient recurrent funding to assure affordability in this year and future years. I emphasise to Executive and Assembly colleagues as well as the UK Government the increasing urgency of decisions on the matter.

Industrial relations across Health and Social Care (HSC) are becoming increasingly fragile. Resident doctors, consultants and specialty, associate specialist and specialist (SAS) doctors have already taken industrial action twice this year. The Royal College of Nursing intends to ballot its members shortly, and other unions are expected to follow early in November. We now face an increasingly precarious position. Staff have waited considerably longer than colleagues in England to receive their 2026-27 pay award. That further delay risks a significant deterioration in relations with staff and trade unions and increases the prospect of industrial action during the winter period — the worst time of the year for that — which would have severe consequences for patients, waiting lists and service delivery.

There is also an important operational consideration, My officials have advised that the window of opportunity to implement the arrangements through payroll in this financial year is rapidly narrowing: it closes day by day. The earlier a decision is made, the easier it will be to manage implementation. If the window is missed, there is a risk that implementation will be pushed later into 2027, which would have a severe impact on not only industrial relations but patient safety. It is no longer simply a question of timing. Every week of delay increases industrial relations risks and reduces our ability to implement the award in this financial year. We are approaching the point at which the remaining payroll implementation opportunity could be lost. I therefore strongly urge Executive colleagues and the UK Government to support an immediate decision.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. Does he agree that there are those in this place who, by their selfish actions, seem to want to collapse the institutions and that the first casualty of that collapse would be public-sector pay?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

That is without doubt. I sat with colleagues last week in my fourth Executive meeting, and I will be fair to my Executive colleagues: it was the number-one item on the table. Whilst I agree — we all agree — that it is the first priority, addressing it comes with complexity, and bringing down the Assembly would mean that we could not deliver it. It is as simple as that; that is what we are talking about. We are talking about going into winter, and I am rightly being cross-examined on winter preparedness, because all Members in the Chamber want our hospitals and our GP practices to work and want access for their constituents.

We are facing into the time of year of greatest risk. I have spoken to the unions a number of times. They feel deflated and defeated, because they should not be in this position — they really should not — and I do not blame them for their thoughts. I hope that they do not take industrial action, but I expect that they will. Those who seek to bring down this institution need to factor that in.

As I said, within the next month, I expect the ballots to indicate a vote in favour of taking action. It is incumbent on us, whether at Executive level or Assembly level, to make this place work, because making this place work means that we can help to heal the health service.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It would be helpful if your party leader and colleague would clarify whom he thinks is going to pull down the institutions, because that is calling it out for what it is. It certainly is not those on these Benches.

A Member

He is away.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I see that he is away.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Is there a question?

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Minister, I understand that you cannot give the pay increase until the ministerial direction has been approved. I fully understand your position on that. However, may I get some clarity on the real living wage? I believe that you are in a position to move forward with that if you are able to find money within your budget. It is not always about getting more money; sometimes, it is about how you spend what you have. May I get some clarity on that?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question. Whilst everybody in the health service regardless of their clinical practice, whether they are a band 5, a band 6, a band 7, a band 8, a consultant, a doctor or a dentist, deserves to be fairly remunerated, for me, one of the most important issues to address is the real living wage for care workers who work in the community or other settings. Whether they are a band 2 or a band 3, they really need our help at the moment, because they are facing not only an unfair pay packet but, for those who drive and travel, the pressure of rising fuel costs, and there is not enough agility in the system to reflect that.

I say this to the Member: if I do not get a budget agreed, I do not recognise the ability within my current budget to meet the need that the Member alluded to. If we do not get a budget agreed — we are not talking about additional moneys coming over — I already know that I am going to overspend this year, so no matter what I do, and no matter what I commit to, even with the Secretary of State's final offer, as he called it, there is not enough money in my budget to make those decisions. They therefore need to be made collectively and at the same time.

The other pressure that I read into the record a minute or two ago is the mechanism involved. It is not complex, but it takes time. If there was an agreement at the Executive, it would probably still be in the region of 10 to 12 weeks before that money hit pay packets. If you look at the calendar, you will see that the probability of getting it in before Christmas is less than slim, even if we acted now.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, with your answers focusing on the value of staff in our health and social care system, you will also be aware of our voluntary sector and its equal value in complementing your Department in a considerable way. To that end, you will be aware of the work of incredABLE in my constituency and its important adult short-break service that has operated safely and effectively for over 20 years. I understand that it has been in touch with you about an urgent matter concerning the insistence of the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) on registration. However, you will be aware that the unique and vital service that incredABLE provides does not neatly sit within the existing categories under the RQIA's remit. Minister, will you therefore give every effort and attention to the matter and seek to explore all available avenues with incredABLE staff in order to find a resolution that ensures that this vital short-break service continues to operate, given its immense importance to everybody whom it assists?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member. He has been here only a short time, but he has managed to weave an incredible supplementary question into this topic. I am very alive to the issue. It is something that I have been contacted about not just because I am the Health Minister but because people understand my acute interest in the space of learning disability and respite services.

I am fully aware of the issues relating to the provision of services by incredABLE in the Southern Trust area and the issue of the cease-and-desist letter, which is the piece that people are talking about in the media at the moment. The closure date was to be around 13 October or perhaps the end of October. The RQIA has subsequently agreed to extend the cease-and-desist date to 31 December — something that I contacted it about — and notified all relevant parties accordingly. My officials continue to engage with the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority as a matter of urgency, as I fully recognise the importance of trying to find a solution that will allow the service to continue.

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

I will be brief. The Minister said that he wants to give workers a pay rise but that that cannot happen in the absence of an Executive Budget. Will he agree that, if we all get a pay rise but the many tens of thousands of healthcare workers who deserve a pay rise do not, it will bring this place into utter disrepute?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I absolutely agree. Thank you for your question and for the manner in which you put it. My 10 years of working in this place have been incredibly frustrating. What I do know is that, when parties in this place have been pressurised into finding agreement, it has been on the back of the pressure felt by Health and Social Care workers. We need only think back to COVID, when we clapped and gave them all a pat on the back. That appreciation was probably lost in the two most recent pay negotiations, because they quickly recognised that it is about politics in this place.

It would be not regrettable but disgraceful if we were to lose the opportunity to show our Health and Social Care workers what they mean to us and to prioritise the transformation and reset that everyone in Northern Ireland so desperately deserves. This place's number-one function should be to make things better, and there is nothing more important than making someone's health better. We have plenty of pressures to face, plenty of inequalities to address and plenty of work to be getting on with, and it is about time that we started to get on with it.

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

5. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Health whether any concerns have been raised regarding identification of a cancer cluster in the mid-UIster area. (AQO 4086/22-27)

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. I assure him that the Department takes concerns regarding suspected cancer clusters very seriously and recognises the impact they can have on local communities. There is no higher priority than ensuring that any potential public health risk is properly investigated and addressed.

Departmental officials first became aware of concerns regarding a suspected cluster of childhood cancer cases in the mid-Ulster area in July 2025. The Public Health Agency was asked to work with the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry to assess whether there were any unusual patterns or rates of childhood or rare cancers in the area, compared with those expected across Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Cancer Registry analysed validated cancer incidence data up to the end of 2023 and concluded that incidence rates of childhood cancers, including acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, among children aged from zero to 14 living in the mid-Ulster area, were not significantly higher than the Northern Ireland average.

Unfortunately, validated incidence data is currently available only up until 2023. My predecessor was briefed by the Public Health Agency, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and a senior clinical specialist from the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children and was assured of the robustness of the analysis undertaken. I am also being briefed on the issue and will continue to be kept informed of any developments. The Public Health Agency continues to monitor the incidence of childhood cancers and is working with the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry to improve data timelines. I will keep the matter under review as further validated data becomes available. The Member will be aware that my office is arranging a meeting with him, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss his concerns further.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We will now move on to topical questions.

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

T1. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Health, having noted that it has been a difficult fortnight for politics here but that, as ever, it has been a difficult and busy period for our health service, what the impact on health services for the rest of the mandate will be if either the First Minister or the deputy First Minister resigns and collapses the Executive, given that we have already heard about the impact on pay rises. (AQT 2691/22-27)

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. I spent the weekend feeling genuinely concerned about the future of this place and about the ramifications of, shall we say, a staged walkout or if Stormont were to cease. The evidence shows us that, when we do not have Stormont for two or three years and we have compromised Budgets, people come to harm. Successive Ulster Unionist Ministers of Health have not ducked the pressures. There are pressures and failings, but we are facing into them, and we are seeing some green shoots of recovery in elective care and waiting lists

I have to go back to the issue of pay, because we cannot neglect the elephant in the room, which is public-sector pay and not just nurses' pay. It cannot be ignored that, if there were no functioning Executive, I would have limited powers even if I were to take on a caretaker role for five or six months. I would have to live within the resources that I had. I could not move to further transformation and reset. My imminent fear is about winter preparedness. I cannot be clearer about this: destabilisation of this place, in any sense, impacts on public service delivery; it really does.

I do not want to prioritise subsets of what I am looking at, but there is absolutely no doubt that it would be almost impossible to deliver elective care and address the waiting lists. Significant spending decisions would be well beyond my remit. Workforce plans and safe staffing legislation, which are absolutely vital if we want to establish a safe workforce plan for future health and social care provision, would be beyond my remit. We need to ensure that we deliver those things in this mandate.

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

Thank you, Minister, for the reply. It is notable that some of the people shouting loudest for this place to be collapsed are not even of this parish; they are of a parish over in London. For five of the past 10 years, courtesy of Sinn Féin and the DUP, there has been no Executive. What impact has that had on getting our health service to where it is today?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his point. It is a point that I have made many times regardless of the portfolio that I have held. It is inarguable that political dysfunction and not being financed appropriately is a recipe for disaster. Last week, we had Professor Bengoa with us. While, in public and private conversations, Professor Bengoa said that we have made progress and that he understands the impact of COVID, for instance, he also recognised the impact of the failure to have leadership from the Department for five years. There are green shoots, there is potential, and we have a plan, but we need leadership, whether that is from me as Health Minister for the next six months or from someone else who picks it up in April.

We have learnt from the failures of our recent past, and there are many in the Chamber who served during that time. We did work on the mental health strategy and on suicide prevention, and you sat with me on many of the all-party groups. We put our shoulder to all those things, but, unfortunately, we are years behind on delivery, and we have to cherry-pick what we do because we do not have enough resource.

These things are also impacted on by our workforce. We have 6,500 vacancies across the health and social care sector. My Department is working at pace to better understand that and develop a workforce policy that delivers for the future. However, it requires us to make mature decisions around budgets. Health does not happen just in the Health Department; it happens in Communities, Education, Justice — it happens across the piece. That is why we need the Executive to speak the same language on those priorities.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

T2. Mr McReynolds asked the Minister of Health how he intends to deliver the recommendations of the regional review of neurology services, given that the current funding falls short of what, his Department said, was required. (AQT 2692/22-27)

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. We recently announced £2·3 million of funding for that, which is not a significant amount of money given what we commit at the minute. The review team has been working at pace to do what it can with that pot of money. We have an idea of what the full cost would be over a number of years, but there are still challenges. We can learn from the past and, going back to the questions that were raised before, get confidence in neurological services, support and clinical practice. We are determined to get it right. We are determined to deliver on the answers that the review provided. I need to ensure that the voices of those who are impacted will be at the table and will be heard. The door will be open, and the team will be available in the further roll-out over the next number of years.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for that response. The regional neurology alliance will form the core of that new neurology delivery team, but I have not heard what measurable outcomes the alliance has delivered since October 2025. What governance, decision-making authority and accountability arrangements will you put in place to ensure that the team can resolve disagreements on how to improve service delivery; deliver on recurrent funding; and, ultimately, implement the review's recommendations to start delivering for people living with neurological conditions across Northern Ireland?