I beg to move

That this Assembly is alarmed at the continued failings in the delivery of major capital projects, as highlighted in recent reports by the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC); and calls on the Executive to establish an infrastructure commission by the end of the mandate.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that eight minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

For too long, our delivery of capital projects has been broken, plagued by delay, duplication and dysfunction — arguably, a microcosm of the Executive themselves. We are left with a legacy of delays and overruns, compounded by the malaise of those who are in power and have responsibility.

It is unforgivable and unjustifiable that, at this time of deep financial uncertainty, when many of our schools are crumbling like our roads and thousands of families are without a roof over their heads, we are told that the coffers are empty. Meanwhile, a £3 billion overspend has been squandered across major capital projects in a five-year period. Of course, we recognise the impact of recent cost increases — anyone who has had any work done anywhere knows about that — but it is not just a recent phenomenon. We have seen a decade of lack of delivery and broken promises — Casement Park, the children's hospital, an all-island rail network and the remediation of Mobuoy — and the silence from the leadership is deafening. Report after report from the PAC and the Audit Office have been clear: we have had systemic failure here in how major projects are procured, funded and delivered. It would appear, however, that that clarity has been lost on leadership parties. Recommendations to crack down on duplication, tackle excessive bureaucracy and improve oversight mechanisms and the overall efficiency of capital project management have gone ignored.

An infrastructure commission is not just a nice little extra; it is a necessity. Other jurisdictions have seen the merit and benefits of such a provision. Why have the Executive not done so? Do not just take my word for it. The most recent Audit Office follow-up report revealed that only one of the Executive's seven flagship projects that were announced a decade ago has been fully completed. Other statistics in the report are astonishing, but this is about so much more than number crunching; it represents a systemic failure to change the status quo. The absence of any oversight of projects is leading to fragmented accountability and allows those in power to pass the buck. We feel that that is exactly what the amendment attempts to do. The establishment of an infrastructure commission is the vehicle by which to deliver on promises on access to housing and healthcare, decent buildings in which our children can be educated and greater alignment with climate goals.

It was SDLP Minister Nichola Mallon who first moved the conversation from aspiration to action in 2020 with the ministerial advisory panel, beginning the steps towards a commission that could anchor infrastructure delivery in evidence, expertise and long-term vision, rather than one that worked to election cycles. The Executive agreed to move that forward. Members may recall some fanfare around that. Of course, we had the collapse of the Assembly in 2022. It is frustrating that, since we have come back, despite my numerous questions in the Assembly and questions for written answer — I am not the only one — the response from the Executive Office has remained largely the same for the past 15 months: the report of the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) review is being considered and the way forward will be a matter for the Executive in due course. The irony of the delay in deciding even to set up an oversight body that is meant to address delays will be lost on no one.

Decade-long delays and eye-watering overspend have become accepted as the norm. We heard huge furore around a £150,000 spend on Irish language signage for Grand Central station — a debate that dragged on for weeks — but there was not so much as a whisper or whimper about the fact that the station project itself ran £45 million over the projected £295 million cost. The truth is that the two big parties are complicit in those failures, preferring tit for tat to the tête-à-tête that is required to move projects and this place forward.

The commission is not a magic bullet, but it is a start, one that will provide independent expert advice and long-term planning and ensure that every penny spent delivers for people. It must be established alongside planning reform in order to create a more efficient, coordinated approach to building the infrastructure that supports sustainable growth, regional balance and future prosperity. We need leadership that plans not just for the next election but for the next generation. I propose the motion.

Thank you. I call Cathal Boylan to move the amendment.

I beg to move the following amendment:

Leave out all after "Committee" and insert: "recognises the impact that legal challenges and inflation have had in delaying infrastructure projects; and calls on the Executive to explore the benefits of an Infrastructure Commission alongside prioritising the delivery of signature projects."

Thank you. you will have five minutes to propose the amendment and three minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other speakers in the debate will have three minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. However, at the outset, I will say that it is disappointing that, as part of the proposal of the motion, an opposition party that is fully funded did not consider bringing forward some proposals as to cost options in relation to —

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

The proposal is in the motion that we tabled. We proposed that the Executive create an infrastructure commission. This was brought to the Executive four or five years ago, but the parties have failed to move it forward. There is the proposal —

Cathal Boylan. Interventions should be brief.

— there is the alternative.

Thank you for the intervention. I wish that the Member had let me finish what I was going to say without jumping at me. I said that you, as a party and as a fully funded Opposition, have brought no proposals to the table. You keep complaining. Numerous Ministers have said to you over the last period —

Here is one.

No, I have not heard any explanations. I will not go back over it. Moving forward —

[Inaudible.]

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

We can all agree that the delivery of major capital projects is an area of concern for many of us across the Chamber and, more importantly, for the people we represent. That, clearly, was highlighted by the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member.

A commitment to improving our infrastructure is contained in the Executive's Programme for Government (PFG). Delivering major projects will be vital to delivering on other commitments in the PFG also. Investing in water and waste water, roads and transport and other major projects will encourage business to invest, enable housebuilding and improve connectivity across the island.

While Sinn Féin is broadly supportive of the motion, it is important that we, too, reflect on the reasons why many major capital projects have been faced with delay. The amendment that we propose recognises that delays to major capital projects are multifaceted. We know that major road infrastructure projects such as the A5 are key to improving road safety and driving the economy. However, that project has been mired in legal challenges, causing delay after delay, while the majority of people wish to see delivery that will benefit us all. In addition to that, inflationary pressures, coupled with the impact of successive British Governments' austerity agendas in the North and the continued approach of single-year Budgets, have stifled the speed at which progress can be made on the delivery of major capital projects. It is therefore important that we continue to explore the benefits of an infrastructure commission, alongside prioritising the delivery of signature projects in the here and now. I ask the Members to support our amendment.

Infrastructure investment is vital, and it is appropriate that we ensure that money is spent wisely, with projects delivered on time. While I recognise that major capital projects have failed to be delivered on time and within budget, we must be live to some of the challenges that have resulted in that outcome. Mainly, infrastructure projects face legal challenge, and, in the intervening periods, inflation increases costs. Not only that, but, in some cases, planning matters can have an impact.

Northern Ireland already has the Strategic Investment Board, which should hold such projects to account. We have to be honest and ask ourselves what an infrastructure commission will achieve. Will it be another talking shop or quango? More important, how much will it cost? The SDLP did not provide an indication of how much it will cost an already cash-strapped Executive. It is important that we understand the costs of this.

Will the Member give way?

I have a lot to get through. You did not mention it in your speech. I have a lot to get through

[Interruption.]

Without the teeth to deal with the issues, I wonder whether an infrastructure commission would be able to deal with the issues that I have raised. Could it truly stop people taking the legal challenges that cause delays to our infrastructure projects? Will an infrastructure commission be able to do that or stave off the inflation that has crippled projects in recent years? Those are the things that we need to look at, if we are going to create an infrastructure commission.

We need to truly get to the nub of the challenges. The recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report on the funding of Northern Ireland Water (NIW) made general remarks about planning. It did not reference an infrastructure commission, but it recommended that relevant stakeholders work purposely towards establishing appropriate arrangements to effectively coordinate and manage such investment. That is where our focus remains.

We are not beholden to the idea of a commission. We recognise that improvements could be accelerated through other means, including taking forward the changes that stem from the review of the Strategic Investment Board and the outworkings of the investment strategy for Northern Ireland (ISNI). Progress will also be realised by ensuring that the right skills and expertise exist in our Departments and robust measures are in place to increase accountability and the oversight of public money across the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS). There should be an onus on all Executive Ministers to put their shoulders to the wheel for that. Therefore, we will not support the substantive motion.

Before I call the next speaker, I remind Members — some Members in particular — that, when a Member is clearly not giving way, they should not persist and disturb them.

I rise as the Alliance Party's infrastructure spokesperson. I am delighted that we have a day of infrastructure debates in front of us.

As Members will know, I have highlighted several times in the Chamber and in Committee that Infrastructure is a Department that does not get the respect that it deserves. When we get it wrong or miss opportunities to improve it, our environment and our ability to get around and create necessary homes and jobs are affected. Major capital projects are what Northern Ireland is built on. The problem is that they are now increasingly complex, as we have heard from the proposer of the amendment, and we can no longer just think it and build it. Delays and cost hikes are the norm rather than the exception, and there are other factors that delay the completion of projects and mean that they are not completed on time and on budget.

Key for me in the debate is the fact that, in 2021, the Assembly and the Executive agreed with the conclusions of the ministerial advisory panel that our infrastructure was not delivering for our people due to the delivery and governance structures being too fragmented and lacking a strategic long-term view. For that reason, an infrastructure commission would empower us to deliver cleaner, greener, sustainable and inclusive growth for all. It is there in black and white on page 27 of the consolidated COVID recovery plan, which states that there should be a

"strategic and public engagement approach to long term infrastructure planning."

That is what infrastructure projects deserve and require. However, four years on, we are in the exact same place, and, true to form, nothing has changed.

Alliance believes that the creation of an independent and expert-led — those are key words — infrastructure commission is essential for guiding our approach to major infrastructure projects. We need to have engineering experts at the table during the planning and formulation of projects, delivering what is needed free from political interference, while helping us meet our climate targets. What we have at the moment is an internal working group that is not accountable and does not publish reports. Groundhog Day.

I welcome the motion and thank the Opposition for tabling it. Can we please just get on with what we agreed in the past and start making this place function on evidence and expert input?

Apologies for not being on the speaking list; I do not know what happened.

I rise on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party to join many organisations, including the Construction Employers Federation, the Northern Ireland Business Alliance, the Institution of Civil Engineers and many others in supporting the establishment of an independent infrastructure commission for Northern Ireland. I thank the Opposition for bringing the issue forward for debate.

An infrastructure commission is vital if we are serious about improving how we deliver public-sector capital projects and restoring public trust in how taxpayers' money is spent. As others have done, I commend the work of the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Office, which have compiled numerous reports on the back of evidence that they sought. Reports from the PAC and the Audit Office have consistently highlighted serious concerns about delays, spiralling costs, poor long-term planning and a lack of rigorous project management, where major capital projects are late and over budget and fail to deliver the full benefits that they promised.

We simply cannot continue to make those mistakes.

In its 2023 report, the Public Accounts Committee was blunt, concluding that Northern Ireland lacks the necessary oversight and strategic direction to ensure that public infrastructure is delivered efficiently and effectively. The Audit Office added that, without major reform, public services will continue to be undermined by poor capital delivery. The Comptroller and Auditor General went further than that in 2024, saying:

"it remains extremely concerning that, more than four years after my Office’s last report on this issue, there is little evidence of improvement or past lessons learned being applied to new projects. Even among the flagship projects, identified as the Northern Ireland Executive’s highest priority, progress has been very limited. It is clear that departments are not achieving value for money in the delivery of these major capital projects. Successful completion of capital projects is crucial for Northern Ireland in supporting our economy and ensuring the effective delivery of public services ... A comprehensive transformation project must be established to overhaul the system for commissioning major capital projects and ensuring stronger accountability for how these projects are delivered."

That is a damning reflection by the Audit Office. We owe it to our people to do better. An infrastructure commission would give us the tools to do just that by operating independently to provide expert, long-term advice on Northern Ireland's infrastructure needs. It would assess major project proposals, track delivery and intervene early whenever problems arise, helping to ensure that projects are built on time, within budget and to the highest standard.

We have heard from the proposer and other Members about the litany of capital projects to date that have invariably gone over budget and over time and not been delivered as required. That includes the money that has been spent so far on the A5 western transport corridor, on which still no work has been progressed; the millions of pounds that have been spent on the York Street interchange, which has been a capital project priority for years, although we are still nowhere near to seeing the project being delivered — the list goes on. We could all point to dozens of examples, in our constituencies, of schools —

Time is up.

— hospitals or other capital projects that invariably go over time and over budget.

Time is up.

I thank the Opposition for tabling the motion. I welcome the motion and agree with both parts of it independently, although I am not convinced that one will fully address the other. Alliance has long called for an independent, expert-led infrastructure commission to improve long-term strategic planning. We want the commission to have a 30-year vision to prioritise, report on and drive the delivery of infrastructure projects. It should assume the responsibilities of the existing Strategic Investment Board to assist Departments to deliver projects. Unlike the Strategic Investment Board, it must be independent. Independence is the norm for similar bodies across the globe and is widely supported by experts. We should not lag behind on that. The commission would support stability and could bring much-needed long-term perspective to strategic infrastructure planning, free from the pressures of electoral cycles. That is key to addressing some of the major challenges and long-term needs that we face as a society.

I also agree with the first half of the motion. Indeed, I am alarmed at the continued failings in the delivery of capital projects that have been highlighted so clearly in the recent reports of the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. The majority of our major capital projects experience unacceptably long delays and huge overspends. Despite earlier reports highlighting the same failings, those issues have not been improved on. The NIAO estimated that the cost to complete the 77 projects that were in the pipeline at the end of August 2023 would be £2·45 billion higher than planned. That is a 44% increase in spending — money that could have been invested elsewhere to improve our public services.

Importantly, I do not think that an infrastructure commission is the solution to all those issues. That is not because I do not believe in the merits of such a commission — I do — but because it would not address the root causes of the delays and overspends. The Strategic Investment Board looked into those root causes and found them to be excessively complex planning policy and regulations, insufficient attention to stakeholder engagement, lack of expertise in Departments and the unpredictability resulting from complex systems. The NIAO came to a similar conclusion in its report on the capacity and capability of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Those issues are at system and delivery level; they are not about strategy and are only marginally about advice. An infrastructure commission, as proposed by the independent ministerial advisory panel in 2020, would not be involved at the level of planning and stakeholder engagement in the delivery of infrastructure projects. It could advise on, but would not run, those projects. That is precisely where many of the problems causing delays and overspends originate.

Yes, we need an independent, expert-led infrastructure commission for the sake of evidence-based advice and improved long-term strategic planning. Equally, however, we must urgently address the substantial failings in infrastructure delivery in Northern Ireland. To achieve that, we must continue to reform our dysfunctional planning system and address skills and culture issues in Departments in which projects are delivered.

I thank the Members who have spoken. I call the deputy First Minister to respond. Deputy First Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions on this important topic and the proposer of the motion for giving us the opportunity to highlight what we are already doing to improve how we plan and deliver infrastructure and, importantly, the opportunity to reflect on what more needs to be done.

I begin by acknowledging the issues that the Public Accounts Committee identified and the updated NIAO reports, which highlight a significant overspend on major capital projects. I have no doubt that there has been a high degree of commonality across political parties over the years in our deep frustration at the lack of delivery, the slow delivery or the overspends on infrastructure projects. Over many years, I have had the privilege of working with many Ministers from different parties. Without a doubt, I know that no Minister goes into their role expecting or desiring not to deliver the capital projects in their portfolio.

On the point about accountability that the proposer of the motion referenced in his speech, I will say that Ministers are accountable for the capital projects in their portfolio. There is no doubt about that. Some of those projects can be cross-cutting, which presents a different set of unique challenges to be overcome, but neither is there any doubt that the way in which we are doing things is not working. It is not working for Ministers, not working for the Executive, not working for this place and, most importantly, not working for the people who require services, such as the much-desired York Street interchange. Think of all those people sitting in traffic, wasting precious minutes and hours of their life every week, who could really benefit from that scheme. Of course, it would be remiss of me not to recommend using public transport as a sustainable option. It is, however, not just about people wasting their time but about what they could be doing with that time to be productive, to contribute to the economy and to make their life happier and more content with friends and family instead of sitting there.

Delays with capital projects have a real-life impact that is felt not just on roads but on hospitals, schools and so many other things that have been set out by ministerial teams in the Executive year after year and that, unfortunately, because of delays and overruns, the Executive have not been able to stand over and say at the end of the mandate, "We have delivered this". I know that the Executive want to address and fix the issues, no matter how difficult and challenging doing so might be.

I thank the deputy First Minister for giving way. She makes a valid point, specifically about the York Street interchange and the time that many people spend sitting in traffic, but she also highlights the economic impact. A recent fiscal study established that not developing the York Street interchange costs the local economy £1 billion a year. How do we factor in the cost and impact of not doing something versus the cost and impact of doing it?

I agree with the Member that it is about the cost of the lost opportunity and the wasted hours and about the additional bureaucracy, staffing or whatever else that may be required in order to operate within infrastructure that is not fit for purpose. When we look at NI Water's infrastructure, for example, we see that the challenge is the stopping of housebuilding and of the economic development that we require in order to grow our economy.

At the heart of everything that we want to do — it is right there in the Programme for Government — is an objective to grow our economy. We can do that only if we fix and improve how we do infrastructure, because infrastructure is at the heart of it all. In the Programme for Government is a desire to genuinely improve people's lives, and that must mean addressing the vital public services of education and health in order to deliver for people. The infrastructure that is required to deliver those services for people is again at the heart.

We therefore acknowledge the concerns that have been raised. Indeed, we share them. We also share a commitment to tackling the issues that we face, but, as Members have said, although the motion suggests one potential solution, we need to look much more widely. We do not believe that simply creating another commission will be the panacea for the issues and challenges that we face. Whatever we do must address them. Although we talk about oversight, the establishment of new bodies and independence, democratic accountability is important in all of this. It is about joined-up working, not necessarily about the creation of a new body. We are not ruling that out as a possibility at this juncture, nor are we saying that it is the only option on the table. We are absolutely open to looking at a range of options that may be available to us as long as they work. We want something that works, and I am giving a genuine commitment on behalf of the First Minister and myself, because, as I have said many times, we are focused on delivery.

Will the Member give way?

We know that delivery has not been achieved in the way that other Ministers have wanted it over the years, but we have a determination to fix and change what needs to be done in order to deliver in this term and beyond. I will give way.

I thank the deputy First Minister for giving way. That is what I was pointing to in my contribution. It is important that we have the right skills in place and that we get to the nub of the issues. For example, when legal challenges take place, community engagement pieces must be done correctly to avoid the misinformation that can lead to delays in our infrastructure projects.

Absolutely. There is a huge incentive across government to do better when it comes to big infrastructure projects, but to do that we must identify the problems and barriers to delivery. We have the slowest planning processes anywhere on these isles. We know that: so how do we fix it? If the costs are projected 10 years before the final costs come in, of course, there are going to be factors, such as overruns, that influence the costs and related increases. However, those issues are by no means unique to us. Research carried out by the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) identified similar issues across the UK, but it also found that UK costs were, in many cases, not dissimilar from international benchmarks.

It is something that every Government across the globe struggles with, but, by working collectively — not just the parties in the Executive but with the official Opposition — we will, hopefully, find a number of interventions to significantly improve the roll-out of capital development and delivery in Northern Ireland.

I assure the House that a number of different initiatives and projects are under way. We hope to bring our investment strategy to the Executive very shortly. Unlike previous iterations, the new investment strategy will take a longer view and look out to 2050. We hope that it will mean that longer-term planning will support the delivery. Indeed, we raised our concerns about the single-year Budgets directly with the Chancellor, because we need multi-year Budgets to enable us to plan for our longer-term investment strategy. It will set out a pathway for investment in infrastructure for the next 30 years to stabilise, deliver and transform.

Of course, the investment strategy will also have an enabling action plan. The work will be developed, assessed and monitored, because that is essential to ensure delivery. We are looking at all those structures, including the use of the internal delivery unit that we have established in the Executive Office to work with all Departments in seeking to improve on a number of the barriers. The assessment that was carried out identified over 100 actions, and those have been rationalised to 12 key actions, including addressing capacity and capability barriers in infrastructure delivery. My colleague highlighted the skills that the Civil Service requires to oversee project delivery. Skills are also needed to tackle things when they do not go right, which often happens in capital projects, and to find swift solutions.

We are looking at the business case process. It takes a huge amount of time for business cases to work their way through the system. I often think about the A5 project: Ministers in a five-party Executive were fully, politically behind that, some 17 years ago, in 2007-08, along with the Irish Government; yet, despite that political will, the road has not yet been built. Again, it is about identifying the barriers.

The important question in the debate is whether an infrastructure commission would have addressed that or whether there are serious issues throughout the process, including in our planning system and its appeals process, that need to be addressed. Otherwise, no matter how many independent bodies we set up, the same challenges will be encountered as those that Departments and Ministers have faced when rolling out projects.

Procurement expertise is another key area, and integrating the key concepts of the social licence is an important part of that.

I am conscious that I am rapidly running out of time. At this juncture, we do not agree to support simply the option set out in the motion, but we are content to look at the amendment's specific proposal in line with other actions that would be required. We will bring that back to this place and to the Executive as we look at a road map for a way forward, because we are determined to deliver capital projects better, on time and on budget, if at all possible.

Thank you for that response, deputy First Minister. I call Nicola Brogan to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Nicola, you have up to three minutes.

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

There is no denying that the failure to deliver a number of major capital projects across the North is alarming. It is important that we get to the root cause of why those projects are yet to materialise. Certainly, all of us here must shoulder our share of the responsibility for that. However, we must not be blind to other sources of delay. The British Government themselves admitted that even basic infrastructure projects in the North have been chronically underfunded for generations. It should be no surprise that, when underfunding is coupled with inflation, major capital projects are slow to progress. We need only look at the development of Casement Park and the lost 2028 Euros for evidence of that.

Another major hurdle that the projects face is one that is directly addressed in our amendment. Legal challenges coupled with inflation lead to delay after delay, which, in turn, leads to ever-increasing costs until, eventually, the project feels the impact of Stormont's ever-tightening Budget. Of course, there must be room for people to raise their concerns about and opposition to certain projects, but it cannot become an endless cycle of delays and reviews that effectively blocks much-needed projects from being developed.

As you will all know, the people of West Tyrone have been waiting for the upgrade of the extremely dangerous A5 road for over 16 years. That is over 16 years of missing out on major investment in the north-west and being denied the economic boom that would come with being part of increased all-Ireland connectivity. Most important, however, it is over 16 years during which people have been driving on such a treacherous road. Over 50 people have been killed on the A5 in that time. Families and communities have been left devastated and torn apart in the years that we have been waiting. There is no doubt that the ongoing legal challenges have caused lengthy delays to the project. There can be no more delays to the A5 road upgrade.

A chairde,

[Translation: Friends,]

the benefits of an infrastructure commission should be assessed, and the role that it would have should be considered, but that should be done alongside the prioritisation of important Executive projects.

I call Justin McNulty to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Justin, you have five minutes.

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

"Casement Park will be built on my watch."

Who said that? The First Minister said that. Casement Park has not been built. Casement Park was not built in time for the Euros. There is no sign of Casement Park being built. There is no direction on Casement Park. It stands still. A generation of Antrim footballers, hurlers and ladies footballers is missing out on the opportunity to play on Casement's hallowed turf because of false promises by this failing Executive.

Sinn Féin's spokesperson for excuses and passing the buck has questioned the SDLP Opposition's proposals and the lack of proposals being brought forward. This is a proposal: get with the programme, Sinn Féin, get with the programme. The SDLP has produced multiple policy papers. We will pass them on to Sinn Féin so that it can maybe plagiarise more of our policy — slow learners. Sinn Féin tried to assert the rights of opposition parties in Dublin, but it does not like any scrutiny at all in Stormont. It is all about making excuses and passing the buck. Expert pass the buck-ers: that is what Sinn Féin Members are.

We hear Executive parties waxing lyrical about getting projects across the line or, in many cases, to the starting blocks, but there has been little or no scrutiny of and even less talk about the chronic overspends and colossal delays caused by inefficient government and the, frankly, chaotic delivery structures that have been allowed to persist. Departments work in silos, defending their own turf rather than delivering shared outcomes.

The parties are good at blackguarding. They are experts in that when it comes to small issues that can rile the public. Meanwhile, they overspend by millions and billions, failing through their lack of organisation, lack of vision, lack of joined-up thinking and lack of determination to make progress on our shared future by moving this place forward so that we can unite the island. They are interested only in pointing the finger and blaming others. The Executive parties are parties of blame, of making excuses and of passing the buck. I am sick of it.

Thank you. That was a wind-up

[Laughter]

but perhaps not the wind-up to the debate that I had anticipated, Mr McNulty.

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

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly is alarmed at the continued failings in the delivery of major capital projects, as highlighted in recent reports by the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC); recognises the impact that legal challenges and inflation have had in delaying infrastructure projects; and calls on the Executive to explore the benefits of an infrastructure commission alongside prioritising the delivery of signature projects.

I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm, when the next item of business will be Question Time. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.51 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —