As the Member will know, there has been no detail about what Translink has been looking at. I have been engaging with Translink representatives. I met the chair of the board just last week, and I will have a meeting with Translink's wider board next week. The Member referred to information that the chief executive provided at Committee and alludes to the fare freeze that I announced a number of weeks ago. I took that decision in the context of the continuing cost-of-living crisis, as households face significant and rising costs that are beyond the control of us all and as we deal with the rising fuel crisis and things like that. For me, that was about protecting the public and people who are already struggling. It was about giving them some certainty and the option to use public transport instead of having to fill up their car to get to and from work, medical appointments or wherever they may need to go, so that they know that they have a lower-cost option that can help them to keep their head above water in these uncertain and challenging times.

We continue to work with Translink, because I do not want to see any service cuts. In fact, I want us to be able to enhance services. We have to be honest with the public, however, and say that those comments on the current assessment of what might be needed in the future are a result not of a fare freeze but of long-term underinvestment in the Executive's Budget and my budget for the Department for Infrastructure and of our inability to fully fund the needs of Translink and all our arm's-length bodies (ALBs). We have to put it in that context, but I continue to work hard with Translink to ensure that we avoid any potential service cuts. While those are operational decisions for Translink, when it comes to anything that it feels that it has to do, we will ensure that it protects its most vulnerable users, particularly those in rural communities, who, for many reasons, are more reliant on public transport.