Debate resumed on amendment to motion:

That this Assembly notes with concern the growing disparity in the cost of rail fares between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; acknowledges the significant role of affordable public transport in promoting social mobility, reducing carbon emissions and facilitating economic growth across the island of Ireland; recognises that Northern Ireland’s lack of ambition in relation to public transport has led to significant fare imbalances, creating inequality for cross-border commuters; and calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to work with the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the Economy to bring forward proposals to better align rail fares between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the context of the all-island strategic rail review and to undertake an assessment of the feasibility of creating a unified fare structure for cross-border rail services that encourages greater economic integration, reduces barriers to movement and promotes regional development across the island of Ireland. — [Mr McNulty.]

Which amendment was:

Leave out all after "economic growth across" and insert: "all jurisdictions; welcomes the four ongoing rail feasibility studies focusing on plans for the electrification of the railway from Belfast to the border, the reopening of the Antrim to Lisburn railway line, with an additional stop at Belfast International Airport, the reinstatement of the Portadown to Armagh route, and a new line between Portadown and Londonderry; recognises, however, that a lack of ambition in relation to public transport in some areas, including County Fermanagh, has led to significant imbalances, creating inequality regionally, in addition to fare disparities for cross-border commuters; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to work with the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the Economy to bring forward proposals to better align rail fares and service planning between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the context of the investment in cross-border and regional rail infrastructure, envisaged by the all-island strategic rail review and the Union connectivity review; and further calls on the Minister to undertake an assessment of the feasibility of creating an aligned fare structure for cross-border rail services that encourages greater economic growth, reduces barriers to movement, and promotes regional development in all jurisdictions."

On behalf of Sinn Féin, I welcome the motion. We all know the importance of public transport in each of our constituencies and right across the island. Improved connectivity, a boosted economy and further decarbonisation are all positive outworkings of an improved all-island transport infrastructure. As a small island, it is imperative that we seize those benefits.

Contrary to the motion, however, good progress has been made on all-island travel. That includes the opening of Belfast Grand Central station and the increased hourly train service between Belfast and Dublin. Most notably with regard to all-island rail, the endorsement of the all-island strategic rail review by the Executive and the Dublin Government demonstrates huge ambition for better rail infrastructure right across the island.

However, while improved rail connections and a more frequent service between destinations will help with our goal of reaching net zero and to encourage more people to use public transport, it is undoubtedly the case that pricing is a factor in people's decisions on whether to use public transport. While prices have been subsidised in the Twenty-six Counties, the reality here is that all our public services are stretched because of the chronic underfunding of the Executive and an austerity agenda that we have felt the brunt of for many years. The effects of partition are felt across our public services, and public transport is no different.

We must be optimistic and ambitious about the opportunities that lie ahead and the potential that all-island rail and public transport have for this island. We need to develop our rail network in the North and the public transport infrastructure across the island to unlock economic opportunities and ensure that workers and families have greater access to public transport. I support the motion and the amendment.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, which, I think it is fair to say, is on two separate topics. On the one hand, the SDLP motion is about the fare imbalances between the North and South of Ireland, and, on the other hand, the broader DUP amendment is about the electrification of the network, the opening of key lines and the need to address connectivity imbalances. We support all those things in principle. I spoke in the Chamber before, shortly after the restoration of the Assembly and Executive earlier in the year, about the merits of investing in our rail network to realise benefits for our climate, economy and connectivity.

It is so important that we get public transport right, and it is disheartening that rail fares on cross-border services are significantly more expensive in Northern Ireland than in the South. We are fortunate that the new Grand Central station is open in Belfast. That should be welcomed, but the cost of fares is the significant factor in whether someone uses public transport or resorts to a private vehicle. We are still in a cost-of-living crisis. People will not make greener choices if that means digging deeper into their pockets. Greener choices have to be cheaper and supported choices if we are to have any hope of stimulating the modal shift that we need to see.

I just chaired a meeting of the all-party group on road safety, as the proposer of the amendment knows. One point that was brought up as a topic of conversation was that better access to public transport, specifically rail, can play a key role in reducing fatalities on our roads.

As I read the motion and the amendment at the weekend, I could not help but be reminded of a comment that the Infrastructure Minister made during the all-island rail review debate a number of months ago. He said that, in the course of that debate, Members had "spent a few billion pounds". So many of the debates that we have on infrastructure matters show that they require significant capital investment and strategic planning. That is why we support not only input from the Fiscal Council on those matters but the creation of an independent, expert-led infrastructure commission to guide us on matters such as those and to inform us of the solutions that are out there and the options that are realistically open to us. We also require multi-annual budgets to support Translink in a way that is comparable to the way in which its counterparts in the South are supported. Time and time again, we see major Departments in Northern Ireland being drip-fed money annually or via monitoring rounds. That is unsustainable for infrastructure projects specifically. I look forward to, hopefully, the return of such budgets to be able to deliver on the aims of both options.

I will make a further point about the need for collaboration between Departments and a collective will to address financial imbalances and improve our connectivity while reducing congestion, because let us face it: the public are at the heart of this debate, and they deserve fairness on cross-border lines. I understand the frustration, which we have heard about today, of people who regularly avail themselves of cross-border rail services and feel especially short-changed when the price depends on what side of the border they purchase their ticket.

I look forward to the Infrastructure Minister's response and to hearing what steps he will take forward with his Executive colleagues to deliver on the aims of the motion and the amendment.

I thank the Members who tabled the motion and those who tabled the amendment.

I am an advocate of rail. It brings many benefits, and the provision of rail will build a better interconnected and interlinked Northern Ireland. That said, however, we need to see rail fares being reduced and more capacity on rail routes. Members will understand me when I say that, for the people of Fermanagh, we first need to see the re-establishment of a rail service in Fermanagh before I can support rail fare parity with the Republic. A comprehensive all-island rail service can go North/South, but it should also go east-west.

When the Minister proclaimed an all-island strategic rail review at Enniskillen Castle in August, there was much optimism that Fermanagh would be serviced by trains once again. It is safe to say that there was much astonishment at Fermanagh's omission from the review — the only county in the entire island of Ireland to be omitted from an all-Ireland strategic rail review. The review was seen as a way of addressing regional imbalance and inequality in our transport network, but it is clear that it lacked ambition. The Minister said that the decision would be reviewed in 10 years' time, but I doubt whether many of the projects in the review will be delivered within a 10-year time frame, so why not include Fermanagh now?

I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree that the review puts us in Fermanagh at a huge disadvantage? Other projects will have years to get feasibility studies and other things in place, but the review leaves Fermanagh behind again on all that preparatory work.

I thank the Member for her intervention. I agree entirely with the sentiment that she has expressed. We need to have interconnected and interlinked infrastructure to facilitate economic growth and regional balance.

When I speak to my constituents, they ask, "Why are we forgotten?". The obvious response is, "The line to Enniskillen could cost over £300 million", but, when my constituents see over £340 million being spent on an integrated railway station in a city centre where there were already five railway stations, I cannot honestly say that the line to Enniskillen is not worth it. We genuinely have to ask ourselves whether we want to see more investment in our public infrastructure, so that rail is available to every community in Northern Ireland, or rail fares as low as possible at the expense of those who do not have access to rail services.

It is ambitious to think that we can have both, but fares will have to remain fair to ensure that we have the necessary resources to expand the network, increase passenger numbers and ensure that we have a better interconnected and interlinked Northern Ireland where no community is left out. I therefore cannot support the motion but will support the broader amendment from the DUP.

My daughter is studying in Dublin and quickly learned to get a single ticket down at the start of term and purchase return tickets from there in order to avail herself of the price difference. The differences are much wider than just the cost of the Belfast-Dublin train, however. Linking to the Luas is cheaper, with a daily cap to encourage more use of public transport. The bus route between Belfast and Dublin has a similar cost whether you travel from the North or the South. The motion focuses simply on the cost of train tickets, and I get the particular issue of it costing less to travel to Belfast from Dundalk than from Newry. I understand that, and I agree that a rate should be applied across the island so that we pay the same price.

I want to bring up a couple of other issues, because the motion is so narrow and lacks any ideas to bring change. First, it has to be acknowledged that there has been major investment in our transport network. We have seen that with the new Grand Central station in Belfast, which has allowed the service between Belfast and Dublin to become an hourly one. The other side of that has brought a few problems to our constituencies, whether it is overcrowding on trains that do not have enough carriages or the station's lack of drop-off points or connections to taxis or even to the Glider. There is an issue of reliability and of needing greater investment in our train rolling stock to provide greater capacity on the network so that people can avail themselves of the station.

It is strange to use a train service between Dublin and Belfast that is booming as the example of a restriction of usage. I agree about the pricing, but the question of who pays for the subsidy to reduce the ticket price is not answered or addressed in the motion. We need greater investment to increase the number of trains and to improve interconnection with and integration between all forms of public transport.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, sure.

Is it the Member's contention that keeping rail travel fares hiked is a proper incentive for commuters to use trains?

No, I said that you are talking about a train line that is really busy at the minute, so I do not get that argument.

The motion refers to a unified fare structure: I agree with that, but maybe the SDLP is talking about free transport for pensioners. The age for ours is 60; in the South it is 66. Are you calling for that to be realigned? Is there a saving to be made there that you will use to reduce the ticket price? Is that what we are discussing? I will give way again, if you want to clarify that.

It is hugely positive that a bright and shiny new transport hub has been constructed in Belfast. The cost of that has been huge, but that should not be passed on to commuters. It is totally unreasonable that people travelling from Newry have to pay more than people from across the border who are travelling longer distances.

I get that. I totally understand about the price, and I agree about it. However, if you are asking for that on the one hand, are you saying that, on the other hand, you do not want 60-year-olds with free bus passes here to get free travel on the same route and we should have the age at 66, as in the South? That is what the motion says.

Will the Member give way?

For the third time, yes.

I am asking for a unified approach to train fare costs across the island. A unified island down the line is something that you cannot ask for, but it is something that we will firmly ask for.

I absolutely agree with the point about the unified approach, and I will go further.

[Interruption.]

I have given way three times.

Given the disparity in economic growth between the North and the South, surely the price of a ticket on a route only scratches the surface of the economic disparity and the disparity in investment across our island. Surely the debate and action should be focused on our economy and the massive growth in the South, yet we are arguing over the price of a train ticket.

We should look at public transport as a whole. We should look at connecting all our services. Whether it is me getting the train to Dublin and jumping on the Luas or somebody from Dublin coming to Belfast and jumping on the Glider or a bus, there has to be a serious wider discussion about the integration of our transport. Ticketing integration needs to happen across the island. None of that is in the motion. I get it that you are from Newry, and that there is a local issue there — I totally understand that — but the wider piece about integration is not coming through.

Around the world, we see ticketing options whereby you jump on one mode of public transport, tapping on and off with a bank card, and that automatically integrates with every other form of public transport. We do not see that here. There may well be discussions about that and plans for that to happen, and the Minister can address that. If we were to address that North and South, it would boost the tourism industry. It would help us here, whenever anybody comes to the North. There are lots of solutions that we could drive forward.

I have a got a cold and feel grumpy

[Laughter.]

I have been good all year, and it is Christmas, so I ask, please, that motions from the Opposition include ideas and solutions — constructive stuff — rather than there being two and a half more years —

It is an idea. Unified rail prices is an idea.

Can I get a word in? Can I finish? Another two and a half years. I have been good all year. It is all I ask for for Christmas.

The Member's time is almost up.

Thank you.

I remind Members that it is a basic parliamentary convention that Members always address the Speaker. That includes a process of two-way agreement on giving way and interventions. Even if those interventions are acknowledged at the time, they should be acknowledged to the Chair.

I call Matthew O'Toole.

What an apposite moment to be called: it means that I can respond to some of the comments that the Member for Lagan Valley made about constructive motions from the Opposition. I take profound exception to the suggestion that the SDLP has not put forward serious and constructive proposals; in fact, it is, frankly, asinine to say that we have not done that, given the seriousness with which we have approached our role in opposition.

We have been constructive and serious throughout. Occasionally, we are robust, and we make no apology for that, because that is our job. In the most recent Opposition day, we put forward a series of constructive and serious proposals on regeneration and childcare. Yes, one of our motions included condemnation of Ministers who had been found to have broken the ministerial code. Another one was on our future relationship with the European Union; indeed, we are publishing a paper on that tomorrow.

Mr O'Toole, will you address the matter of rail fares as well, please?

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

I will. It is very reasonable of you to bring me back to the point, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I needed to address the absolutely absurd accusation that the SDLP has not been putting forward ideas.

We have been doing our job in opposition, which is fundamentally holding the Executive to account. We have put down a range of practical proposals. We do that constantly and will do it tomorrow.

On the important motion that we are discussing today — I am slightly surprised to hear the Member who previously seemed to agree with everything in the motion say that he does not like it — it is critical that we effect what many people know now to be one of the most vital agendas for the rest of the century, which is moving away from the addiction, created in the 20th century, to getting everywhere by car. We are one of the most car-dependent regions and islands in the developed world. The car is not going anywhere. We are all aware that, as part of the migration to net zero, we will need to reform through the greater use of electric vehicles. The car will continue to be critical, particularly in rural areas and, indeed, urban areas. I am, however, proud and unashamed to say that I want more of us across the island to be able to take train routes, including those who live in County Fermanagh. I am sure that the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee would be deeply offended if I did not mention that.

My colleague the former SDLP Infrastructure Minister set out a clear intention. She commissioned the first all-Ireland strategic rail review. I am glad to see that the Minister has stuck with that agenda. We will continue to press him and his Southern counterpart to progress that. Presumably, it will be his new counterpart in the South, because there will be a new responsible Minister down there at some point in the next month or two.

We destroyed our rail network, particularly in the North, during the middle of the 20th century. We are only now starting to construct the ambition towards rebuilding the network. Grand Central station is in the middle of Belfast. By the way, the associated roadworks are causing huge disruption to my constituents, but I will never criticise it for existing, because I want that potential. I want the extra platforms and extra capacity in Belfast to build the muscle memory and capacity for rail connectivity across the North and across the island. That is what is really important.

The motion touches on a very specific issue, which is the alignment and unification of the fare structure. That will be a short-term bureaucratic challenge, but we certainly want the Minister to progress it, insofar as he can, with his Southern counterpart. It is deeply frustrating not just for people who live in border regions but those who regularly use cross-border rail services that the system is clunky and that there are cost disparities. It is, yes, cheaper, but also, in many ways, more straightforward to book a ticket south of the border that gets you north of the border. It is far too complicated. We should make it as easy and cost-effective as possible for people to use public transport, particularly our rail network. We are unabashed and proud of that, and it is one of the most important agendas facing us for the rest of the century. Let us make progress on the matter. Our motion today is about putting it on the Assembly's agenda.

There are a lot of constructive suggestions in the DUP amendment. We might not have worded it in exactly the same way, but it has a lot of constructive suggestions and things that are important to progress. I am glad that the Assembly is debating the motion from my colleague Justin McNulty. We look forward to progressing the motion and continuing to robustly put the case for rebuilding our all-island rail network, putting it on the agenda and holding the Executive to account for delivering on it.

Members, before we proceed, it came to my attention, and it may have come to yours, that a Member crossed the Floor of the House in front of the Speaker's Chair during the debate. I inform the House that the Member indicated apologies to the Chair, and I want that written into the record.

In April 2022, the Irish Government cut public transport fares by 20% across the board in recognition of the cost-of-living crisis, and that included tickets for Enterprise journeys that originated in the South. In the North, Translink fares were frozen between 2019 and 2023, but fares have been hiked again, and more and more people are finding travel by bus and rail unaffordable and inaccessible. We need to remove those barriers immediately.

During the debate, we heard that rail passengers travelling from Newry to Belfast are paying more than double the price of a ticket from Dundalk to the same destination, even though the journey from Newry is shorter. It beggars belief. The Infrastructure Minister said that the price difference is primarily due to the greater level of subsidy provided to Irish Rail by the Dublin Government. The obvious question to raise is this: why is the same level of investment not being provided by Translink? What is the point in spending over £350 million on a brand-new shiny centre, with £11 million wasted on consultation fees for it, if people cannot afford or are priced out of getting on trains? Train travel is the safest and cleanest, and it could be the cheapest, form of travel for everyone.

We also have to recognise that we did not get to where we are now by accident. We got here as a result of government policy that was designed to thwart public transport along the policy of partition and to decimate border communities in the process. It is quite remarkable, if you think about it. Sixty or 70 years ago, you could travel by train from Belfast to Ballycastle and move from Derry to remote Gweedore by rail, but now, Donegal and much of the north-west is a wasteland when it comes to rail. Those areas were previously busting with steel lines, carrying cargo and people.

We have to mention that the Beeching report also sped up the decimation of rail. It was stated, literal government policy to roll back on the availability of rail lines. Today, we are still dealing with the after-effects of that in Ireland, but so too are many, many towns and cities in Britain. The Government and their functionaries put a wager on the expansion of cars, and we are breathing the polluted air as a result of those aggressive and wrong decisions. It is totally unacceptable that we live on a small island, yet there are swathes of areas without proper access to rail and public transport.

When car traffic piles up, as it did recently in Belfast city centre, rather than introduce more frequent buses and trains etc to get people out of their cars, we see DFI revert to type by allowing more cars to funnel into the city centre. That should be used as an opportunity to break old habits and patterns, not to repeat them. The volume of cars in our society today is having a harsh impact on not only our health but our roads, with repeated journeys, heavy traffic and wear and tear. It is questionable whether that is a wise use of public money year after year. Investing more in public transport is surely the better way.

I also want to mention electric vehicles, and this is from somebody who was almost a convert to them. They are very carbon-intensive in extracting the resources that make up the batteries for them. They raise ethical questions about people in the Global South reshaping their communities and countries towards the expansion of the West and the economic model here as well.

How Governments spend money reflects their priorities. Investing in roads at the expense of public transport means that we value unsustainable, polluting travel by private car above free and frequent public transport. We should also broaden the SmartPass criteria to include free travel for people with disabilities — I will tackle the sort of "Bah humbug!" points that the Member who spoke earlier made — students and asylum seekers, with a view to making public transport free for all.

Will the Member give way?

I am happy to give way on that point if the Member wants to come in.

I completely agree. I was trying to question whether this is all about fare costs. It is not about public transport; it is about the cost of fares. Where is the money coming from? Maybe the SDLP's idea is to align that to get more money. That is all. I totally agree with what you are saying.

I thank the Member. Our position is that the Government should be investing in widening the SmartPass criteria, reducing fares and moving towards free transport. I will come on to how that should be funded in a second.

The Minister said in September that, due to funding pressures, he will not be taking forward any of the options, which would increase the costs of the SmartPass scheme. In February, he said that he had no plans to provide free public transport to everyone. Those are both unfortunate and disappointing positions and statements. The cost of implementing the recommendations of the all-island strategic rail review is around £30 billion, but the benefits to society include reduced journey times, road decongestion, better health and a reduction in greenhouse gases. You cannot put a price on those. Not only is investment in rail economically sound but it is urgently needed in order to meet our net zero obligations. We need to reach net zero before 2050, and there is an urgency to reach it by 2030, if we are being realistic. Look at Valencia, where the warmer temperatures and the atmosphere mixing with warmer and rising sea levels caused a whirlwind storm, terrible weather patterns and death and destruction across the region.

We need to put more pressure on the likely incoming coalition Government, who have the biggest surplus in the history of the Southern state. This should be a time to push them for proper investment in free transport and rail. There is a €13 billion tax windfall from Apple as well. If we want to triple the number of people who use the rail system across Ireland, we need to make fares consistent across the island, with the aim of making public transport free for everyone. It is not rocket science. We have already cracked it —.

Time is almost up.

Thank you.

I call the Minister for Infrastructure to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I thank the Members who tabled the motion. It is a very important topic, and it has been a useful debate. By way of background information, the current Enterprise service was introduced in 1997, and, for most of this time, the fares offered by NI Railways have generally been lower than those offered by Irish Rail. Various considerations need to be taken into account when setting fares for the Enterprise cross-border service, not least the local fares offered by both rail companies and the received levels of government funding. Translink and Irish Rail are subsidised in different ways. As Members have noted, in April 2022, the Irish Government reduced fares on all public transport, including Irish Rail, by 20%. It is worth highlighting the impact that this 20% reduction has had on standard fares compared with those of NI Railways. A single ticket from Belfast to Dublin would be the same price when issued by Translink, £33, but, with the discount, this falls to £26·43 for Irish Rail customers. A single ticket from Newry to Dublin would have been cheaper with Translink at £21·50 compared with £23·91 with Irish Rail, but the 20% discount reduces that to £19·13.

As Members will know, the Department has been operating in a very difficult financial environment for a number of years and will continue to engage and support public transport where and when it can. However, Translink, in conjunction with Irish Rail, has amended the rail fares on offer and now provides a more flexible online fare. This enables customers to benefit from online prices up to 90 minutes before the train departs, compared with the 72-hour cut-off currently in place. Online discounts still show a difference in price, with a return journey from Belfast to Dublin available for as low as £29·98 from Translink while the same ticket is available for approximately £23·30 from Irish Rail. Translink has made efforts to ensure that all rail lines offer a reasonably equitable fare structure. However, if Translink were to emulate the reductions provided in the South, it would have a major impact on the sustainability of delivering public transport services elsewhere.

Since 2010, Translink fares have increased by some 27%, which is significantly less than inflation over the same period, which is 44%. In November 2022, the then Secretary of State set out what steps would need to be taken to improve Translink's sustainability through uprating Translink fares. This reversed my decision to freeze fares before the Assembly fell, when I recognised the need to maintain lower public transport fares moving forward. Following that statement from the British Government, Translink increased fares in March 2023 by an average of approximately 7% across its services. Those were the first fare increases in five years. Translink subsequently standardised rail fares in November 2023 to resolve some anomalies and to simplify the fare structure. In January 2024, again in the absence of local Ministers, my Department's permanent secretary continued with the Secretary of State's request to again increase transport fares, with an average rise of 8%.

It is worth pointing out that older people and people with disabilities can currently avail themselves of significantly discounted and free concessionary travel on Translink services, which are funded by my Department in the region of £47 million annually. The motion refers to the role that affordable transport plays in promoting social mobility, but it is not only about social mobility. Making public transport affordable is also about tackling social exclusion and ensuring that the most vulnerable people in our society can be part of it. That is why the Department provides a concessionary fare scheme and why, despite the very challenging financial environment, I made the decision to protect the scheme and to keep the age of eligibility for the scheme at 60, enabling older people to live active, healthier and independent lives and boosting the local economy.

As a number of Members have pointed out, it is important to recognise that, in the South, to qualify for an older person's pass, a person must be aged 66 or over. When we talk about alignment between North and South, it is important to recognise that, in some respects, our passengers are better off than their peers south of the border. That is not just in relation to concessionary fares. I have seen significant improvements in public transport here in recent years, which I believe reflect our ambitions for public transport. Many Members have mentioned the recently opened Grand Central station, and we have also refurbished York Street station. I fully recognise the need to address regional imbalance and better connect our communities, including those in the north-west. This year, I have, therefore, ring-fenced £4·7 million of funding in my budget to ensure that the Coleraine to Derry phase 3 project proceeds as quickly as possible.

Will the Minister give way?

I will.

The Minister has placed a major emphasis on discretionary fares. Will he confirm whether those who are eligible for a half-fare SmartPass in the North, including disabled people, can avail themselves of the statutory entitlement when using cross-border services?

I did not catch all of the Member's point. Is he asking whether they can use their concessionary pass when using cross-border services?

Those using a SmartPass.

Yes, they can.

The budget allocation for the Coleraine to Derry phase 3 project is additional to the £5·3 million that has already been spent on the project. That funding will allow Translink to progress the project as planned and seeks to ensure investment in public transport across the entire region. In this financial year alone, Translink has been allocated a budget of almost £320 million, which is about 25% of the total non-ring-fenced budget that is available to the entire Department.

I will turn now to other projects. The estimated cost for the north Belfast to south Belfast Glider route is in the range of £142 million to £148 million. Although £35 million of the funding has been secured through the Belfast region city deal, a considerable shortfall of £110 million remains. Work on the feasibility of extending the route to Glengormley and Carryduff has been finalised, and I commissioned work on the delivery options that could be implemented, utilising the £35 million funding envelope from the Belfast region city deal. The outline business case is being finalised in line with the feasibility reports and delivery options. Subject to approval of the outline business case, it is proposed that the detailed design process be initiated to implement the proposals. I welcome the £35 million contribution from the Belfast region city deal and recognise that significant investment will bring enhancements to the city centre and the wider public transport network and assist in tackling the current and ongoing traffic congestion in Belfast city centre. It is another public transport option for people to use.

I thank the Minister for giving way. He will know that I have written to him on a number of occasions about extending Belfast Rapid Transit (BRT) to Glengormley. Can he confirm where the outline business case envisages the final destination to be at this stage for the north Belfast phase?

I hope to be able to confirm that before the Christmas break, although I may not be able to do so until early in the new year.

The projects that I have mentioned are examples of the significant investment that my Department is making to help achieve a modal shift from car to bus or rail services. An effective public transport network is vital for the economic, social and environmental well-being of society.

Earlier this year, in July, in partnership with Minister Ryan, I published the all-island strategic rail review. It was the first strategic rail review of its kind on the island of Ireland. The final review report includes 32 recommendations, which, if delivered in full, will transform rail services across the island through such improvements as new and reopened rail routes, higher-speed trains, increased frequency and additional capacity, thereby connecting many more communities to the rail network. For the North, it will see a decarbonised rail network; new rail lines from Portadown to Armagh, Lisburn to Antrim, Belfast to Newry and Portadown to Derry; new cross-border routes from Portadown to Mullingar and Derry to Letterkenny; new and improved rail connections to our airports; increased frequency; and faster journey times.

I understand that many people who live in Fermanagh will be disappointed that a new rail line from Enniskillen was not included in that list of interventions. The constituency's representatives quite rightly made that point today. As Members will know, following the public consultation on the review report last year, I asked the report's authors to further consider the viability of rail services to Fermanagh. That review included consideration of future population growth; potential demand and journey times; tourism; and various potential corridors through Enniskillen, including to Omagh, Belfast, Dublin, Derry, Sligo, Monaghan and Cavan. A new rail line did not appear to stimulate sufficient demand to support rail services in the time frame of the review, however. As has been mentioned, the cost of building a 40-kilometre single-track line between Enniskillen and Omagh has been estimated at £335 million. I accept Diana Armstrong's point that when rural communities look at Belfast and see £344 million being spent, they rightly ask, "What's the difference?". In this case, the business case for Grand Central station proved to be value for money, but the current estimated business case for the Enniskillen connection does not represent value for public funds. However, in a recent meeting with a delegation from Omagh and Fermanagh District Council, I made a commitment to them that, as part of the Fermanagh transport plans, if new information comes to light, I will review that decision ahead of the 10-year time frame that has been built into the review. It is not a closed chapter; it is definitely open and will be returned to again if and when new evidence comes to light. I have committed to working with the council on that.

I thank the Minister for giving way. I appreciate and welcome that he will look at that again if new information comes to light. At this time, economic growth is very important for my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Businesses will plan their operations and where they go based on where the transport routes are, so I just want to impress upon the Minister their importance for economic stimulus in my area.

I note the Member's comments. The Member will also understand that, as a guardian of public finances, I have to be able to prove value for money when spending public funds. I am looking to establish the proof that there is value for public funds in extending the rail line to Fermanagh. I can assure the Member that she is pushing at an open door with me on the matter.

On improvements to the Enterprise service, work to implement the rail review has started to progress already on rail services on the island and the development towards the review's vision. That includes an increase to the hourly train service between Dublin and Belfast, which commenced in October. Procurement has also started on a new, faster and more sustainable Enterprise train fleet for the Dublin to Belfast route, with funding of €25 million — £20 million — provided by the Government of Ireland, through the Shared Island Fund and the Irish Department of Transport. The hourly service represents the most significant expansion of services on the route in over a quarter of a century. That is another boost for public transport and the economy, and it will improve not only linkages between the two cities but connections along the entire North/South rail corridor. An expanded and improved rail network offers opportunities to drive jobs and growth, stimulate developments in regeneration and boost access to services and education. It will also help decarbonise transport and encourage a behavioural shift to public transport.

The flagship Enterprise service is a very visible and well-known symbol of North/South cooperation, and the replacement programme is a key priority for both Governments. I certainly hope it is a priority for the next Government as well — I do not doubt that it will be. The programme will significantly improve accessibility between the two largest cities on the island, with faster journey times and an increased number of services. The funding of the programme, under the PEACE PLUS programme and from both Governments, demonstrates the positive impact that cooperation has in meeting our shared goals for a cleaner, greener, interconnected, all-island future.

I assure Members that, as we move forward, I will continue to progress the all-island rail review. A number of feasibility studies are ongoing, as has been mentioned, that are funded by the Union connectivity development fund. They include the reopening of the Antrim to Lisburn line, with a link to Belfast International Airport; the Armagh to Portadown line; the electrification of the Belfast line to the border; and the Portadown to Derry line.

The main thrust of today's motion is about the regularisation of train fares between both jurisdictions. I assure Members that I will continue to explore all avenues to ensure that Translink is properly subsidised by the Executive, allowing it to keep train fares as low as possible, including cross-border rail fares. With regard to further discussions with the incoming Minister for Transport in the South, I will continue to engage on how both jurisdictions support aligned rail fares moving forward. Members will appreciate that the Dublin Government have quite a surplus to hand and can spend funds on matters that the Executive cannot at this stage, but I always think that you have to look for solutions rather than at the problems. Thank you.

Members, before I proceed, I am going to do something that I do not do lightly and it is read briefly from the 'Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House.' This is directed squarely at those Members who seek to speak and then leave. I want to remind Members and perhaps it could be conveyed by colleagues and Whips. No one is being named at this stage but that does not mean that they will not be in the future.

I will read from the rules:

"If you are hoping to be called to speak in a debate, your name must be on the speaking list. You should discuss this with your party Whip. Independents and parties without a Whip should notify the Business Office, or approach the Table, to indicate an interest in speaking. It is preferable that you are in the Chamber for the opening speeches, but you must be present for at least the two speeches before and after yours. If you have to leave later, you must also return to hear any ministerial response and the winding-up speeches. Members who fail to observe these courtesies may be given a lower priority when they seek to speak in future, or they may not be called at all."

I have read that out today because this is a parliamentary Chamber; it is not a speakeasy.

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

I call Phillip Brett to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope not to catch your wrath during my contribution. It takes me back to the days when I used to get scorned by you in the chamber of Newtownabbey council.

I thank all contributors to the debate. It has been a useful and positive discussion. It is good for me to be able to return to my old stomping ground of infrastructure, a portfolio that I covered until I was replaced by the much more capable Chair of the Committee, the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

That is the first time that I have been cheered by the Sinn Féin Benches for my remarks

[Laughter.]

It must be true.

The importance of public transport penetrates all forms of public life and all aspects on which the Executive want to work, be that delivering economic growth in all parts of Northern Ireland or, indeed, ensuring that we get the greener and cleaner society that will ensure that Northern Ireland continues to flourish. There have been important discussions about fares and pricing, but, before we get to that — the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone made this clear — it is all very well to talk about the cost of fares, but, if you do not have access to train provision, the issue of pricing is very much secondary.

In my constituency, North Belfast, an issue that my colleague Brian Kingston and I have been engaged in is that our constituency has a train station at one end, at Yorkgate, and a station at the other end, at Whiteabbey. All the communities who live in between, along the Shore Road and the Antrim Road, have absolutely no access to those services. They are expected to bear the brunt of the trains running at the rear of their homes throughout the night while getting no benefit from those public services. I previously wrote to the Minister about halts at Loughside and the Abbey Centre. I know that, given his constrained budget, he has committed to looking at new halts when the implementation of the all-island review has been completed. I encourage him to continue to look at that.

I had worried that the debate would turn into a case of, "It has to be about the all-island rail review; it cannot be about the Union connectivity review", but there has been a degree of maturity in the discussion: all these issues matter, we as an island and a set of islands are interconnected, and our people who want to get to Dublin or London do not care about who funds it, about the manner in which we do it or about the auspices under which we travel. They just want a well-connected set of islands. It better serves all our constituents and all communities in Northern Ireland if we talk about a positive aspiration for what we want to be available to our people rather than retreating to simple tribal debates about who funds those issues.

I thank the Member for giving way. One heard during the debate various Members lamenting the once much greater rail network across the island of Ireland. Does the Member agree that, historically, across the world, the development of the railways was a strong and positive feature of British rule and influence —

[Interruption.]

The Member has an extra minute.

— throughout the world.

Throughout the world, indeed. I think that the angry comments from People Before Profit come more from that party's election result in the Irish Republic than from anger at the motion.

I will turn to Members' contributions. Mr Boylan for Sinn Féin clearly articulated the joint mission and aspiration of the Executive to continue to deliver state-of-the-art public transport to all parts of Northern Ireland. Mr McReynolds showed what an exciting weekend it must have been in the McReynolds household for him to have spent Saturday evening reading the motion and the amendment.

[Laughter.]

I will not comment any further on that.

The leader of the Opposition made a number of remarks, but given that he was chastised by the Principal Deputy Speaker this morning for turning up 28 minutes late to Members' statements and then trying to speak, then for walking in front of the Chair and the Principal Deputy Speaker during a debate and then for leaving after he made his contribution, I do not think that he needs any further chastisement from me at this stage.

[Laughter.]

I welcome the discussion that took place between the Member for Lagan Valley and the Member for Newry and Armagh; the debate was turning into a discussion between Mr Honeyford and Mr McNulty. Given that there is disunity on those Benches, perhaps one of those parties might want to join us next week and vote with the DUP on the continuation of the protocol arrangements. Given that there is clearly a fallout in that corner over there, you will be very welcome to join us in the Lobbies next week.

Ms Armstrong, the other Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone who spoke, articulated very well the shared concerns of all the Members who have the pleasure of representing Fermanagh and South Tyrone. There is a clear ambition from all parties that they want to see the people of the most westerly constituency in the United Kingdom having access to the same services as those in any other part.

The Minister, as always, was generous and flexible with his time, allowing Members to make further points of clarification. He articulated well the financial pressures that the Executive face in delivering public transport. In the past number of years, important progress has been made across Northern Ireland in delivering services. There is more to achieve, and, together, the Assembly can ensure that our transport services are fit for the 21st century.

Thank you, Mr Brett. I call Mark Durkan to make a winding-up speech and conclude the debate on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to close the debate on the motion. I thank everyone who contributed to it and reaffirm the SDLP's long-standing commitment to establishing an all-island rail network that meets the needs of a modern society while addressing entrenched regional disparities. Disparity in fare structures either side of the border is creating barriers for commuters in the North, making it harder for individuals to access jobs, education and essential services. Aligning fares is a simple but effective catalyst required to achieve zero-emission climate goals and ensure that the North can share in the economic growth of regions that have historically been overlooked.

The need for investment in public transport has not been met by the Executive. Indeed, the draft Programme for Government is notable for its lack of commitment to, and detail on, future spend or commitment to public transport. Treasury figures show that public spending on public transport per person in the North is the lowest across UK jurisdictions, with just £193 per head spent here compared with £465 per head in England and Scotland. That is astounding. While Governments elsewhere are driving investment towards public transport and passing on improved services and savings to passengers, the North continues to lag behind. In the South, they are full steam ahead, with record public transport investment and record passenger numbers. The disparity in action is perfectly exemplified, as the motion highlights, in the ludicrous fact that rail passengers travelling from Belfast to Dublin pay double the price that those going in the opposite direction pay.

During her tenure as Infrastructure Minister, the SDLP's Nichola Mallon implemented two separate freezes on public transport fares during a period of significant inflation in an attempt to alleviate financial pressures on people but also to drive greener modes of travel. As caretaker Minister, Minister O'Dowd outlined his intention that fares would also be frozen the following year, but, a short time later, in the absence of an Executive thanks to the DUP, passengers were hit with a 7% hike. In fact, we then saw three separate hikes in just 15 months.

The Executive have failed to grasp the significant opportunity offered by public transport. It is ludicrous to include "Planet" as one of the key missions in the draft Programme for Government yet not have improving the affordability of and accessibility to public transport as a prominent and defining feature. Even more frustrating is that one of the key components of the Finance Minister's revenue-raising plan is to increase Translink's travel fares even further. I hope that I am wrong, but it would appear that that measure is one of very few left standing, given that the deadline to remove the rates cap for the North's most expensive homes has been missed. I hope that that does not mean that the fare increase will be even more than stated and that commuters end carrying an even bigger can.

When I asked the Infrastructure Minister for the year-on-year per capita spend on public transport per council area, the Department was unable to provide the figures. That inability is indicative of the lackadaisical approach to the issue by the Department and/ Translink. If it has not been assessed, it will not be addressed.

We have an Executive who prioritise vanity over sanity. At a time when public transport fares are becoming more unaffordable to the average person and further increases are being used as a crutch for revenue raising, we have, as Mr Carroll mentioned, spent £340 million on the Grand Central station in Belfast and £11 million on management fees. Without developing rail and bus routes, reducing costs or even tweaking timetables to bring benefits that will improve public transport and increase passenger numbers, that station runs a real risk of becoming a white elephant. I apologise for any offence caused by Mr McNulty's analogy earlier. Deputy Speaker Aiken thought that it was below the belt.

The approach is akin to embarking on a kitchen renovation when you do not have the money to stock the cupboards. We have seen some modest, incremental improvements in rail timetabling, such as an alignment of the Derry to Belfast train schedule with that for the Belfast to Dublin service. That alignment ensures that passengers do not have to wait as long for connecting trains, but more connectivity is required. Since the hourly Belfast service from Derry was introduced in 2017, we have witnessed exponential growth in passenger numbers due, in no small part, to the lobbying of Into the West and others. That is the living embodiment of the phrase, "If you build it, they will come". It stands to reason that if we make public transport more affordable and more accessible, even more will come. Public transport journeys are on the rise, despite multiple fare increases and fairly limited rail networks, which is proof of the public's desire to use more sustainable modes of transport.

I will touch on some of the contributions by Members. My colleague Justin McNulty proposed the motion and spoke of the enormous and unequal burden on people who are travelling from the North that is created by the difference in fare structures. He gave numerous examples. Of course, the one closest to home and closest to his heart is that of a ticket from Newry to Belfast costing more than twice the price of a ticket from Dundalk to Belfast. At the heart of that is inequality. Affordable and accessible public transport is not a luxury; it is a necessity.

Our inability to address those issues undermines efforts to meet climate obligations and reduce our carbon emissions. Affordable public transport benefits so many people, including students, and so many areas and aspects of society. It will combat congestion in and around our towns and cities, and it will relieve pressure on parking and on the Minister to deliver residents' parking schemes. It is a question of fairness, and it is ironic that prices in the Six Counties are going north while prices in the Twenty-six Counties are going south.

The Chair of the Committee moved the amendment, which we will support. She pointed to a perceived shortcoming in our motion, in that it does not name every county. However, I remind the House of the very first motion that the SDLP tabled in the reconvened Assembly, which made that call and made specific mention of Fermanagh, as I am sure the Committee Chair will recall. She told us that the DUP does not support unification. That came as no great surprise, but we are happy to support its call for alignment.

Cathal Boylan disagreed with the motion's assertion that the North had demonstrated a lack of ambition. We fully get that we have been hampered greatly by a lack of investment. Peter McReynolds also lamented that lack of investment and the lack of a strategic approach. He then echoed the SDLP's long and loud call for the establishment of an infrastructure commission to oversee all those massive and expensive projects, many of which were later described by the Minister.

I come to his party colleague David Honeyford. I will see your grumpy and raise you. He said that our motion was "narrow". I know that Alliance motions are normally sufficiently broad to include motherhood and apple pie. As for his assertion that the motion lacks any ideas, "asinine" was the term that Matthew O'Toole used to describe that. The motion latches on to one idea to make a wider point. It is about the economy — I will stop there. It is about the environment, people and places. Improved connectivity will improve our all-island economy. The Member asked where the money will come from. It will come from addressing the cost of division.

Matthew O'Toole spoke of the importance of engaging with the new Minister in the South to further all-island rail. I look forward to the Minister's engagement on that. The Minister spoke of the difficult financial environment in which his Department and all Departments are operating. We recognise that, of course. He outlined some of the bargains to be had on Translink. I encourage the Minister to encourage Translink to do more to promote and raise awareness of those.

Without question, rail is the most environmentally friendly transport option. Its success is core to achieving a greener future on the journey to zero emissions by 2030. Aligning fares on an all-island basis is a simple but necessary solution. The Executive must recognise the tremendous opportunity provided by rail. Making rail the choice for daily commutes means improving accessibility, reducing travel times through high-speed networks, controlling costs and connecting people and places. Failure to act and invest now will hamper future prosperity and hinder our ability to meet our Climate Act obligations.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes with concern the growing disparity in the cost of rail fares between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; acknowledges the significant role of affordable public transport in promoting social mobility, reducing carbon emissions and facilitating economic growth across all jurisdictions; welcomes the four ongoing rail feasibility studies focusing on plans for the electrification of the railway from Belfast to the border, the reopening of the Antrim to Lisburn railway line, with an additional stop at Belfast International Airport, the reinstatement of the Portadown to Armagh route, and a new line between Portadown and Londonderry; recognises, however, that a lack of ambition in relation to public transport in some areas, including County Fermanagh, has led to significant imbalances, creating inequality regionally, in addition to fare disparities for cross-border commuters; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to work with the Minister of Finance and the Minister for the Economy to bring forward proposals to better align rail fares and service planning between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the context of the investment in cross-border and regional rail infrastructure, envisaged by the all-island strategic rail review and the Union connectivity review; and further calls on the Minister to undertake an assessment of the feasibility of creating an aligned fare structure for cross-border rail services that encourages greater economic growth, reduces barriers to movement, and promotes regional development in all jurisdictions.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I verbally indicate my apologies for walking in front of the Speaker's Chair some moments ago. I was rushing, but, obviously, that is in breach of protocol, so I apologise.

On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will respond to some of the commentary that was made during the debate about me in my role. I would say that I contribute more to plenary debates in the Chamber than any other Member. If anyone wants to do a time-in-motion exercise, they can do one about my and the Opposition's contribution to debates and our work in holding the Executive to account. It ill behoves anyone who speaks on behalf of Executive parties to challenge the Opposition on our contribution to debates when their Ministers take £40,000 trips across the Atlantic and miss important Assembly debates. I have made my point. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Carroll, I will respond to the first point of order, if you are OK with that.

Mr O'Toole, I will ensure that any remarks about conduct that other Members have made in relation to you are taken back to the Speaker's Office for advice.

I will clarify a statement that I made — I said that I did not do it lightly from this Chair — about Members leaving before they had heard the Members following them speak or the Minister respond. I stand by that. If anyone needs clarification on it, it is available at point 1 in the 'Rules of behaviours and courtesies in the House'. The other matter can go to the Speaker's Office. As for your apology, I noted that earlier. I put on the record that it had been signalled to me.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the debate, the Member for North Belfast made an inaccurate comment, and I suggest that he correct the record. He praised the British Empire's role in rolling out rail across the world. I suggest that he correct the record and pick up a copy of the 'The Blood Never Dried: A people's history of the empire' for Christmas, although I will not be buying it for him.

Would the Member like me to respond, or will he take a point? I suggest that he might want to watch a bit more Michael Portillo when he is off over Christmas.

I think that those matters have now been dealt with.

Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair).]