Official Report: Monday 13 October 2025

Mr Speaker: Before we begin today's business, it is important that I, as Speaker, recognise that last week was extremely disturbing, with the despicable events of the bomb attack at the constituency office of Liz Kimmins and then the mob that gathered at the home of Naomi Long. The Assembly was established on the principle that, whatever differences we have — we have plenty of them — we express them through the democratic process in the Chamber; not on the streets through violence, intimidation, threats or harassment. The Assembly should, therefore, stand as one to condemn attacks on constituency offices and intimidation at people's family homes. Politicians are as entitled to privacy and a family life as any other member of the community.

I wrote to Members on Friday about an event that I will be hosting with the PSNI next week to highlight its MLA safety strategy. Members will have the opportunity to seek advice from the PSNI and Assembly officials on the support available to them. I encourage all Members to take that opportunity. All parties agree that it is of serious concern that abuse and harassment and last week's extremist incidents have reached a point where they not only have an impact on serving Members but risk deterring people, in particular, women, from seeking election or re-election to this place.

I will conclude by saying that we have to challenge the notions that politicians should somehow be able to accept abuse, attacks and intimidation as a normal part of their job. It is not, and it cannot be allowed to be, the case. Thank you, Members.

Mr Speaker: Eóin Tennyson has been given leave to make a statement on the intimidation towards Naomi Long at her home, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. Members will have up to three minutes to speak. I remind Members that there will be no interventions.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I utterly condemn the disgraceful intimidation that took place at the home of Minister Naomi Long and Councillor Michael Long last week. I also take the opportunity to express my solidarity to Minister Liz Kimmins and Dáire Hughes MP on the foot of the disgraceful attack experienced at their office.

Last week was a shameful week for Northern Ireland. An attack on any politician from this Chamber is an attack on our democratic process. Naomi and Michael have been in public life for over 25 years. They are no shrinking violets. They have never shied away from robust debate, engagement with people from different perspectives and robust public scrutiny. When a mob of over 40 people — some of whom were in masks — gathered at their home in the dark of night, it was not protest or scrutiny. It was intimidation, abuse and harassment. The irony is not lost on me that many of those in that mob who intimidated a woman in her family home, a Minister with a stronger record than anyone in the Chamber on tackling violence against women and girls in our society, would have claimed to be defenders of women and girls.

It is also true that the scenes last week have not developed in a vacuum. We have seen the rise of far right misinformation and disinformation, driven by malign elements, over months and years. We also have a responsibility in the Chamber. The words uttered in this Building are not without consequence. We all must now reflect on the tone and tenor of our contributions to public discourse.

For our part, Alliance will not be deterred from working for everyone in our community and standing up for the shared, inclusive and united future to which I believe the majority of people in Northern Ireland aspire. My party is no stranger to intimidation and abuse. However, I am conscious that, in all those years of protests, attacks on offices and threats towards public representatives, a mob has never turned up outside the private sanctuary of one of our elected representatives. It is the first time that such an incident has occurred, and we must all resolve that it surely has to be the last.

Ms Ennis: I utterly condemn the actions that occurred outside the home of Michael and Naomi Long last week. It was a dark week for politics here: as Mr Tennyson and the Speaker have said, there were attacks on my colleagues' constituency office and then the mob outside Naomi Long's home. There is no justification for that. It is completely unacceptable. I hope that we never again witness the scenes that we saw last week.

Language and rhetoric have emanated from the Chamber in recent weeks that have not helped matters. Week in, week out, we have heard a bingo card of dangerous rhetoric from the unionist Benches. It is not enough to stand in the Chamber and condemn those recent actions. Condemnations with a "but" are not condemnations. What message are some Members across the Chamber sending out? Week in, week out, it is a message of fear and suspicion. Members have a responsibility to speak factually about the important issues that face our communities, not to send out lazy dog whistles. We have seen a rise in that over recent weeks and months. There can be no justification for the shameful actions that we saw last week. I hope that no one else, in the Chamber or anywhere else, has to suffer the attacks and abuse that our colleagues suffered last week.

Mr Frew: I, too, condemn the intimidation that we all witnessed last week through not only the attack on Sinn Féin's constituency offices but the mob that turned up at a politician's private residence. Naomi and Michael Long have my sympathy, as do the Sinn Féin representatives. It is absolutely wrong to go to someone's sanctuary — their private family home. However, this is not the first time that it has happened. I recall when a mob surrounded the home of councillor Maurice Mills, a district policing partnership chairperson in Ballymena, way back in, I think, the late '90s. Sammy Brush is another person who comes to mind. No one has a monopoly on intimidation. Many unionist politicians from all ilks and parties have suffered intimidation. It is really important that the parties here do not use the atrocious behaviour of last week for political point-scoring. That is absolutely atrocious. Only last week, one of my colleagues had graffiti sprayed on his constituency office. That was not mentioned by this party. I was the victim of a libellous whispering campaign, also only last week. That was not mentioned in the Chamber. Why would I mention it? We all suffer the same activities.

Parties should be very careful not to exploit such atrocious actions for political point-scoring. Even today, when we have the opportunity to unite, we have had attack. That is horrific, and I will tell you why: it is the Chamber that should fill any void or vacuum. The Chamber is where we hold Ministers and politicians to account. The Chamber is where there must be robust debate. The Speaker is a champion of robust debate in the Chamber, as I am. No political party should seek to score political points in order to diminish our role as scrutinisers of this place, of Departments and of individual Ministers. That is what concerns me about what I have heard this morning from the two Members who have spoken. It is wrong to use that atrocious behaviour for a political point-scoring manoeuvre. I ask the Members who have spoken to consider their wording and remember that the Chamber that we sit in is the champion of democracy, and that there should be robust debate.

Mr Allen: Mr Speaker, I associate myself and my party with your remarks at the outset. Normally, on matters such as this, most Members say, "I would like to associate myself with the comments of all Members", but, unfortunately, on this occasion, I cannot do that.
What we saw last week was wholly unacceptable. There is no justification whatsoever for it. The intimidation outside the Sinn Féin constituency office of Dáire Hughes MP and Minister Liz Kimmins was totally unacceptable. Those are actions of the past that nobody in this place wants to see happen now and many did not want to see happen in the past.

I thank the Member for submitting the Matter of the Day. When I heard what had occurred outside Naomi and Michael Long's home, I was appalled. I am not often on Twitter, for some of the very reasons that have been discussed, but I immediately took to Twitter to show my solidarity with Naomi and Michael. In this place, we often have robust debate, and that is what it is: robust debate. Ministers, Members and parties are held to account, but there is no justification for the actions that we saw last week. Those who were responsible should not only desist from but reflect on their actions. Anybody who attempts to justify such actions is plainly wrong, and I challenge them also.

Mr Durkan: Let me be clear: there is no place in our society, or in any democratic society, for threats, intimidation or harassment, especially against those who stand up and step forward to serve the public, and there never was. We may sit on different Benches and stand for different things, and we may disagree, often passionately, on direction, policy and approach, but there is and must always be one fundamental truth: violence and threats are not tools of political expression. They are tools of fear, division and destruction. Minister Long has shown strength, courage and dedication in her role. The recent intimidation of her at her family home and the recent intimidation of Minister Kimmins and her colleagues at their office are attacks not just on those people as individuals or on their political parties but on democracy itself.

We in the SDLP have always stood against violence and threats, and we stand firmly with our colleagues from different parties and their families. I call on everyone here and on every leader in our communities to stand united not only in condemnation but in action.

We must challenge the culture that allows and, sometimes, even encourages such behaviour to fester. We must ensure that voices of peace always shout louder than those of hatred. The Assembly must be a place of civil discourse even when our differences are huge. We owe that to one another, but, more importantly, we owe it to the people whom we represent.

Mr Gaston: I join Members in condemning the protest outside the home of the Justice Minister. Regardless of the public profile of any of us in the Chamber, we are all entitled to a private family life. There is a fundamental right to freedom of speech and to protest, and those are values that I will always defend, but I do not want to see protesters outside my house and will not defend anyone who goes to protest outside another politician's house.

Of course, one cannot comment on such an event without noting the irony of some who have commented on that protest continuing to defend the murder of Rev Robert Bradford MP, who was shot while sitting behind a desk at a constituency surgery. It is the height of hypocrisy for Mrs O'Neill to express concern about protests being directed at politicians while she continues to defend the murder of Rev Robert Bradford and similar horrors.

I must express my disappointment at the way in which the Alliance Party has sought to use the protest. As I understand it, the protest was about the housing of alleged sex offenders, yet the Alliance Party sought to use it to delegitimise criticism of their decision to side with Sinn Féin on the Irish language debate in Belfast City Hall and to attack those who pointed out their backing of an amendment in the House, tabled by the Old Bailey bomber, which removed from a motion the distinction between innocent victims and the Shankill bomber, who blew himself up. The incident outside Mrs Long's home was wrong, but it cannot be used to delegitimise and to silence criticisms in the Chamber. We have heard it from the Alliance Party today, and we have heard it from Sinn Féin — their little helpers — who like to try to use other means. I say this to the Alliance Party: what happened outside Mrs Long's house was wrong but do not bring in other decisions that you have taken in an attempt to muddy the waters.

Mr Carroll: There is no doubt that the right to protest should be respected and protected for everyone. Protest is a human right and a vital mechanism for holding those who are in power to account. What happened outside the Justice Minister's house on Wednesday evening was no protest, however, and it was not legitimate protest. Individuals showing up in masks outside a family home is a blatant act of intimidation and harassment and should be condemned, as should the attack on the Infrastructure Minister's office last week.

Everyone has the fundamental right to privacy. That right should extend even to those with whom we have significant political disagreements. It should extend to Ministers, MLAs, councillors and, most importantly, to citizens. Acts of personal intimidation are completely unacceptable and clearly cross a line. It is worth commenting on the fact that some parties think that it is OK for the Alliance Party to be upset as long as they do not dare to mention anything political that is obviously connected to the attack. It is political — of course it is. Shame on those who try to limit the conversation.

We cannot ignore the role that far right agitators have played, in recent weeks and months, in whipping up fear and spreading misinformation in Belfast and beyond. A few ringleaders have repeatedly violated the right to peaceful protest in Belfast and beyond, going up to people's faces, filming them, jeering at them and harassing them in an attempt to provoke those peaceful protesters. They dox those protesters online and, quite often, publish personal information such as names and workplaces. That, again, is harassment and intimidation, and it needs to be condemned and called out.

Those who engage in racist, far right dog-whistling instil fear in those whom they claim to protect with their vigilante patrols and protests outside family homes in east Belfast and elsewhere. I fully condemn those anti-democratic, cowardly acts of intimidation. I also condemn those who lead people to the top of the hill with their hate-filled, aggressive rhetoric and then, when the full consequences of their actions become apparent, walk away and say that it was nothing to do with them, whether that be in Belfast, Ballymena or elsewhere.

Ms Sugden: I begin by expressing my solidarity with Minister Naomi Long and her husband, Councillor Michael Long. What happened outside their home last week was not a protest; it was intimidation, and it was wrong. A genuine protest is open. It is about conviction and ideas. Intimidation is about fear. When people cover their faces and target a private home, it is not about being heard; it is about silencing someone else. That is not democracy in action; it is an attack on it.

We need to be honest about how we got here, however. As a society, we have started to dehumanise politicians and to forget that behind every decision and debate is a person: someone who goes home to a family who did not choose public life and did not sign up for the abuse that their loved one gets. No one — indeed, not politicians themselves — should have to make that sacrifice.

I do not know a politician who came into this job without good intentions. We may disagree, sometimes strongly, but most of us are here to make things better from our perspective. When we strip away that humanity and start to see people as fair game rather than fair citizens, we cross a dangerous line. We have seen where that leads: the murders of Jo Cox and David Amess.

As chair of the Women's Caucus, I have taken part in discussions about the growing abuse and intimidation that faces those in public life, particularly women. Mr Speaker, I appreciate your acknowledging that in your opening remarks and facilitating those discussions. It should never be normal for elected representatives to require security measures at their home or their offices, but that is now our reality.

Across the world, politics feels angrier and more polarised. We need to take a collective step back, because, ultimately, most of us, from the left, right or centre, are trying to reach the same place, which is safer communities, strong services and decent lives for the people whom we represent. Those who resort to threats or intimidation do not defend democracy; they dismantle it. You can hold strong views and still show respect. That is what democracy requires: disagreement without dehumanisation.

Let us send a united message that intimidation has no place in Northern Ireland politics and that our differences must never be met with fear. Let us stand up not only for Naomi Long, Liz Kimmins and Dáire Hughes but for every person who believes that democracy should be a contest of ideas, not a battle of intimidation.

Mr Burrows: I also unequivocally condemn the terrible scenes outside the Justice Minister and Councillor Long's house, as, last week, I condemned the terrible attack at the constituency office of Minister Kimmins and the graffiti attack on Mr Frew's constituency office. I genuinely believe that an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us in this place and that we all have a responsibility to defend democracy.

I am afraid, however, that democracy is under two attacks today: the attack from the mobs outside, and the attack from those in here who want to silence accountability and scrutiny and link the actions of a mob with the legitimate voice of people in the Chamber. That is shameful.

Mr Carroll: Dog whistle.

Mr Burrows: When democracy is attacked, the answer is more democracy, more scrutiny and more accountability.

Ms Bradshaw: Not violence.

Mr Burrows: Let me address something. I know what it is like to be attacked in your own home and not to feel safe in it. I lived under serious threat. I lived behind armoured glass. Members of my family sent me messages this week saying that an Alliance MLA had blamed me —

Ms Bradshaw: Grow up.

Mr Burrows: — for what happened outside [Interruption.]

Dr Aiken: There we go. Typical.

Mr Burrows: We talk about civility in the House, and I am told to grow up [Interruption.] [Inaudible.]

Mr Givan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: No points of order.

Mr Burrows: For me, as someone who has crossed the road to help people and who has had bones broken for helping people in need, to be blamed for bringing scrutiny and accused that my solidarity with the Justice Minister was somehow "feigned" — that is the language that a Member used — went against every fibre in my body. My nieces and nephews read those tweets. They read the responses to them. I express my full solidarity with the Justice Minister. The people who gathered outside her house were a mob. I am sure that the Ulster Unionist Party gets no support from them whatsoever. I know that some of the very same people were highly critical of my party's role during COVID, because many of them are anti-vaxxers. I condemn outright what happened outside the Longs' house. I condemn outright what happened at Minister Kimmins's constituency office.

Sinn Féin lectures us about our language and actions when it still defends the murders of thousands of people. Many people would have loved to have had only a protest outside their house instead of a masked man planting a bomb under their car or assassinating their father as he got into his car to go to work. Shame on you. We will defend democracy and challenge what happens out there, but we will also be robust in our scrutiny in this place.

Mr Speaker: That brings that Matter of the Day to a conclusion. I encourage Members to reflect on all the issues. We need to ensure that such things do not happen and that our constituency offices and homes are safe places. We also need to ensure that we are able to engage fully in the Chamber so that people outside do not feel the need to vent in some way. There is not any justification for people having engaged in what they engaged in last week. We have this place, our council chambers, Westminster and so on to which people can come and debate issues on behalf of the public who elected them. That is where such things should happen.

Mr Givan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member for South Belfast Ms Bradshaw has now left the Chamber, but, during Mr Burrows's contribution, I am confident that I heard her say, from a sedentary position, as Mr Burrows reflected on the terrorist threats that he had to endure that caused him to have to move house, the words "Grow up". Mr Speaker, if possible, I ask you to detect whether that was said, confirm that it was the case and then rule on whether it was appropriate language to have come from the Member for South Belfast.

Mr Speaker: The point has been noted. We will look at that. As we move forward, I encourage all Members to engage in a way that is constructive and, as far as is possible —. [Interruption.]

Order, please. We are straying from the subject a bit here. I encourage all Members to engage in a constructive way. We do not want another week like last week. We need to send a very clear message from the Chamber that we do not want it and that it is not acceptable. We need to send a message to the community and to those who engage in such activity that it is not acceptable. That needs to be the clear message from the House today.

Before we move on to the next item of business, I welcome back our colleague Ms Nicholl, who was off on maternity leave. Congratulations on the birth of your baby. I trust that you will be able to settle in once again and that we will be able to get on with business with you here.

Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on the Gaza ceasefire agreement, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. The usual rules apply. If Members wish to speak, they must rise in their place, and they will have up to three minutes in which to contribute.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the fact that, over two years after Hamas started the conflict, which, my goodness, began with the biggest massacre of Jews since the Second World War, it is finally drawing to a conclusion. I commend the work of President Donald J Trump and his team, which was vital in getting us to this point. Although many in the Chamber have unjustly attacked him, with even the First Minister using Gaza as the pretext for skipping a state banquet that was held to mark his visit to the UK, it was his Administration, not speeches from Sinn Féin Back-Benchers, who got us to where we are today.

What has happened today? The hostages who remain alive have returned home to Israel. At the conflict's outset, Israel made it clear that that was her objective. She has certainly achieved it. Now, with the return of the hostages, the war is all but ended. Those who have sought to slander the world's only Jewish state by suggesting that it had a policy of genocide towards the Palestinians have been proved wrong.

However, while I welcome the deal, I want to make it clear today that I recognise that it is not easy. The calling of the ceasefire has resulted in Hamas terrorists, once again, openly taking to the streets of Gaza. Hamas is the only army in the world that wears civilian clothes during the war and then puts on uniforms during ceasefires. Perhaps that is why it finds favour with fellow travellers in the House, but that must be very galling to the innocent victims of Hamas terrorism. My mind also turns to those who, as a result of the deal, will see the murderers of their loved ones released from the jails in Israel. That includes Mahmoud Atallah, who was serving a life sentence for killing a Palestinian woman whom he suspected of cooperating with Israel, and the members of the Hamas terror cell who carried out multiple bombings circa 2002 in east Jerusalem and elsewhere, some of whom are convicted of murder amongst other things. That reality is shamefully airbrushed by many, but I say to our friends in Israel that your pain and the injustice that you feel with that element of the deal resonates with many of us here in this part of the United Kingdom.

Mr Kearney: We must hope that the ceasefire announcement in Gaza will now mark a step change in guaranteeing a durable peace process for Palestine and the Middle East. It must open up a pathway to Palestinian self-determination and national sovereignty.

For two years, Israel has relentlessly bombarded the Gaza Strip, making it a graveyard for international law and the most dangerous place on the planet for a child to live. Israel has waged a genocidal war against the Palestinian people while being given political cover, funding and weapons by the US, Britain and other Western states. At the same time, annexation and ethnic cleansing are being systematically implemented in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. All of that must end if there is to be a permanent peace for Palestine and Israel. Therefore, the talks breakthrough presents a pivotal moment for the Palestinian people. It holds within it potential and significant challenges.

The immediate focus must be to alleviate the suffering and the starvation of Palestinians in Gaza. A potential opportunity now exists to establish a peace process based upon continuing negotiations that address all issues. New phases of talks must address the root causes of Israel's illegal occupation and apartheid system in Palestine and the creation of a permanent peace process, established within the framework of international law. Success will depend on all sides committing to negotiate with good faith. Agreements made must be honoured, and guarantees on implementation will be essential. That extends to all guarantors, holding Israel to its commitments and ensuring a withdrawal of all Israeli forces from the West Bank and from Gaza and the demilitarisation of the overall situation. In the meantime, increased global pressure to ensure compliance with international law is more urgent than ever. Multilateral institutions, the Arab world and progressive Governments and parties throughout the international community must act together and speak with one voice to ensure that the Palestinian people and their thirst for peace and justice and national freedom will finally be achieved.

Mr Givan: We remember October 7, when thousands of Hamas terrorists invaded the state of Israel. Over 1,200 victims were murdered, slaughtered — women and babies — by terrorism. Hundreds were taken hostage, held captive in the dungeons of Gaza. Israel rightly responded and mobilised the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). To the men and women of the IDF, we say, "Thank you". Israel and the rest of the world owe them a debt of gratitude for the work that they have carried out. They have decimated Hamas, and terrorists such as Al-Zawahiri have gone to face judgement in eternity. The Iranian nuclear arms have been destroyed — thank you, Mr Trump, for Operation Midnight Hammer, which destroyed their nuclear facilities. The Houthi leadership has been taken out. Hezbollah bleeped into eternity when their pagers went off. Thank you to the IDF.

The lands of Canaan were given to the people of Israel by God. It is the Promised Land, surrounded by enemies, the only democracy in the Middle East. Dictatorship and authoritarian regimes abound in those Arab nations, which refused to open their borders to the people of Gaza to let them in. Israel, a diverse community — a pluralist, liberal community, because it is the only democracy in the Middle East — was failed by the United Nations. It was let down. It was let down by the Republic of Ireland and let down by the United Kingdom, who both recognised a Hamas-led Palestinian state. President Trump made the difference. He has delivered peace through strength. The operations in Iran, the work with the Arab nations — he brought them to the table and secured the concessions from Hamas. We now have hope for a better future for the people of Israel and a better future for the people of Gaza, free from the tyranny of terrorists who used their own people as human shields. There was no genocide. There was terrorism that used its own people.

We are commanded to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. There is a season for everything; a time for peace and a time for war. I trust that the time for war is over and that we will now have that time for peace.

Ms Nicholl: A Jewish woman approached me a few years ago and said, "What is happening in Gaza is not an orange or green issue: it is a humanitarian issue". As a mother of three children, when I started engaging in the conversations around what was happening in Gaza, the real turning point for me was the death of Hind Rajab. I think about that almost every week. I do not say, "Thank you" to the murder in a car of a terrified child who was waiting to be rescued. I do not say, "Thank you" to anyone who is responsible for the death of any person. You can condemn what happened on 7 October and condemn the genocide that ensued at the same time. It does not have to be either/or. What strikes me about this is that, so often in this Chamber, we hear about Christian values. I do not know, maybe I have not read the Bible that recently, but I learned from it about love and humility, not judging, and the importance of treating people with kindness and respect. There is no justification for what has happened.

I started chairing an informal working group with members of the Palestinian community and interested MLAs and activists well over a year and a half ago. I remember a man who had just returned from Gaza coming to talk to us about what he had witnessed. It was harrowing. He talked about walking down a street with a child on his back and praying that the child would not see the dead bodies along the way. What sort of world are we living in where that happens; where children are exposed to that? What sort of world are we living in when politicians justify any violence?

This is a moment of hope for Israelis and Palestinians. I watched on TV the hostages being released. I can only imagine what their families went through: the fear for their lives. I can only imagine what they went through. It is awful, but what has happened in Palestine — in Gaza — is also awful. We do not have to make it either/or; we can just make it about humanity.

Several Members and I went to a very moving house of mourning with the Palestinian community. It ended in Muslim and Christian prayer, because it is not only Muslims who have been killed; Christians have been killed as well. I hope that this is the start of better for the people in Palestine and Israel. The only way that we can have lasting peace is if there is a two-state solution and people work for our common humanity. There is so much division in our politics and world. We need to remember our humanity, and we need to do better.

Dr Aiken: Today — 13 October — is Hoshana Rabbah, the final day of Succoth. It is the day on which Jewish people everywhere pray and look to the fate of the new year. As we have seen from the joyous scenes in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, today is also one of significant hope. The 20 living hostages are being restored to their families, friends and loved ones after two years of horror, barbarity, torture, sexual abuse and mental torment. Their recovery will be long and arduous, but I am sure that all here will join me in praying for their eventual healing.

It is also a time of immense sadness, not only for the families of the dead hostages who were murdered by Hamas and other Palestinians but for the millions across the world who were affected by the barbarity of 7 October. For them, there is no joy of reuniting and the resumption of disrupted lives. Instead, there will be further mourning and pain. They, too, are at the forefront of our prayers, and my prayers, today. The murder of those people, including women and children, will forever remain a stain on the Palestinian terrorists and those in Gaza who facilitated their murder and torture and the desecration of their remains. It is also a stain on those useful idiots and fellow travellers who chanted for global "infitada" and rivers to the sea while giving agency to the global surge of antisemitism, no less than on this Island. As we can continue to see, those lies are not only unproven but a clear example of propaganda and add to the Jew hate, which, ironically, purports to be the truth for far too many in the Chamber and elsewhere.

For those who say that there was "no alternative" to terror, the reality is this: if 7 October had not happened, many thousands would still be alive. The paradox is that the Iranian-instigated Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Sinn Fein's presidential-pick and friend, Assad in Syria and thousands of other useful idiots were all designed by Iran to destroy the Abraham peace accords and enable Iran to develop its nuclear bomb. Right now, Israel has restored deterrence; on 22 June, Iran's nuclear programme lay buried under 400 feet of rock; Hezbollah has been emasculated; the Houthi leadership has been destroyed; Assad, much to Catherine of Galway's chagrin, is gone; and Hamas has been crushed. However, more importantly, the restoration of the peace process and the normalisation of politics in the Middle East between the Gulf States and the Saudis has been achieved. That has been done by the support and help of one man: the president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, who several parties in the Assembly would not deign to meet during a trade mission. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Donald J Trump today.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Dr Aiken: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr O'Toole: First, I pause and reflect on a moment of hope amid a world that is frightening, divided and full of destruction. The release of the hostages who are living, and, hopefully, the speedy release of remains, is something that any human being with an ounce of morality has to welcome. The actions of Hamas on 7 October were not just wrong but appalling and against the interests of the Palestinian people. I have no difficulty with saying that. It has to be said. However, some of the Members opposite who have made related points cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the more than 60,000 Palestinians, many of whom were children, who have been killed in the past two years. Frankly, I find it unconscionable that Members can fail to acknowledge those lost lives. We, as individual representatives, need to take a long, hard look at ourselves if we cannot acknowledge that scale of human loss.

The peace plan is welcome, but I will not say, "Thank you" to Donald Trump, as some Members opposite want us to. I think that President Trump is a force for destruction in the world. On this occasion, I welcome the fact that there has been specific progress in relation to peace, so I will not be churlish about that, but there is a long, long way to go. I hope that there is a glimmer of progress for peace and stability in that region and the pathway to a viable and just Palestinian state.

Lots has been said about the security of Israel. It is important to say, although it has not been acknowledged, that many hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been wholly opposed to the regime of Benjamin Netanyahu. They have dissociated themselves from the genocide that has happened by their state — they have called it a genocide, by the way — but, for them to live in security, alongside that, there has to be a durable Palestinian state, living in peace and justice in Gaza and the West Bank. Gaza has been reduced to rubble. There will have to be accountability for the war crimes that were perpetrated against innocent Gazans. The West Bank is being systematically hollowed out by settler aggression and terrorism. Those issues will have to be dealt with going forward.

Mr Givan was wrong, by the way, when he said that Hamas is in charge of the Palestinian state. That is incorrect. The Palestinian state is run from the West Bank and is led by Fatah, which is an entirely different political movement, but I am afraid that it just speaks to some of the misinformed polemic that we hear from across the Chamber when it comes to those issues.

I hope today that there is a moment of peace for all those tens of thousands of Gazans who have lost their lives. I am glad to see the hostages returned. They should never have been taken in the first place. Like others, I hope and pray for progress.

Mr Carroll: Despite the self-congratulatory scenes and the back patting in the Knesset, it is awful to see warmongers gloat and celebrate. It remains unclear, at this stage, whether it is a sustainable and long-term plan for peace and justice for Palestinians and everyone in the Middle East, but I hope that it is.

Despite saying it a thousand times, it is worth repeating that the violence in the Middle East and the problems in and around Palestine did not begin on 7 October. They began in 1948 with al-Nakba, or the catastrophe, and the decades that preceded it, with the colonial expansion, settlement and theft of land, which was not owned by people who came to Palestine. It was all backed by colonial regimes in Britain, France, America and elsewhere. No doubt, the Palestinians hope and pray that there will be a lasting ceasefire and justice. However, early indications show already that the imperial meddling that has caused so much devastation and destruction for decades looks set to continue.

The fingerprints of Tony Blair are all over the deal. He is a warmonger and should have no role in determining the future for people anywhere in the world, least of all the Middle East. In the hours after the deal was finalised, we saw Israel's intentions. Palestinians in Gaza who were relieved and celebrating the ceasefire were still being killed. We saw Palestinian journalist Saleh Aljafarawi slaughtered by Israel after the ceasefire was announced, bringing the total number of journalists killed to at least 223, which is higher than all journalists killed in all the wars combined in the 20th century. Journalists are killed because Israel does not want the truth to get out. On top of that, we saw 10 Palestinians killed in Gaza after the ceasefire was announced.

There are huge questions about what happens now in the West Bank. Will settlers be allowed to continue their violence and the stealing of land or will that stop? I hope that the ceasefire remains, and despite the genocidal denial going on in the House, hundreds of millions of people across the world will not go back into their boxes and will not go back into their homes. They are awakened to the fight to end apartheid and for a free, sustainable Palestinian state.

The Member to my right used the term "idiots". I would not be as ungracious to call anyone an idiot in the House, but I remind him that it is not "infitada". He should maybe go and learn some Arabic, as the word that he is looking for is "intifada", and it is Arabic for uprising, despite his propagation of mistruths.

Ms Sugden: Like many across the Chamber, I welcome the reports of progress towards a ceasefire in Gaza. I do so cautiously, because hopes have been raised and dashed so many times that it is difficult to feel optimism without scepticism. However, if the agreement offers even the faintest possibility of ending the unbearable suffering that so many have endured, we must hold on to that hope.

I have never taken a side in the conflict because, in truth, I do not know much about it and, also, because I feel quite hopeless about being able to change anything. However I have always looked towards the inhumanity of what we have seen and been on the side of the children who have lost their parents; the parents who are searching for children; the children who have been emaciated; and the families, on both sides of the horror, who have been torn apart by violence. The brutal attacks and hostage taking that happened on October 7 were inexcusable and horrific, but so, too, is what followed: the relentless destruction, the displacement of a population and the denial of basic human dignity to millions of people.

When we look at the images coming out of Gaza, we are not watching a conflict between equals; we are witnessing people — men, women and children — who are trapped in a place where survival itself has become political. There are no winners in that, only loss. I give credit to the White House and others for the diplomacy that may have brought us to this point. It would be naive of any of us to think that the motives are entirely selfless, because geopolitics rarely is, but, if the consequence is peace or the beginning of it, that is a moment worth acknowledging. My hope, and the hope of all decent people, is that the ceasefire, if it holds, will be more than just a pause in violence and the start of a process that restores humanity; rebuilds lives; and allows Palestinians and Israelis alike to live free from fear and oppression and to build a future in which the atrocities that we have witnessed since October 7 are not repeated.

Miss McAllister: Like so many in the Chamber, I welcome the ceasefire in Israel and Gaza, and I hope for a long and lasting peace. Over the past week and, indeed, the past two years, my thoughts have been with many people. I still think of the people who were attacked by Hamas on 7 October 2023 — over 1,200 people were murdered and over 250 were captured — and the families who have suffered the pain and loss of loved ones. My thoughts are with the people of the West Bank, who have suffered racial oppression, discrimination and land seizure, which has multiplied since October 2023.

My thoughts have been with the aid workers, the journalists, the Palestine Red Crescent Society, which many of us know as the British Red Cross, and the health workers from around the world who flew to the war zone to help, literally running into the line of fire. I have often thought of the women who have waited, in their makeshift tents or lying on carpets on the road, for word from their families about whether they will return from trying to get a even morsel of food.

Mostly, over the past two years, I have thought of the children. More than 20,000 children's lives have been lost — deaths caused by guns, bombs and man-made famine. I think of the many children who have expressed a desire to go to heaven so that they can be fed. I think of those children and hope that they have lasting relief from war. Peace in the Middle East is often seen as unachievable — a dream — but we cannot just hope. For the future of humanity, decency and morality, it must be a long and lasting peace.

Miss Dolan: I welcome the Western Trust's decision to end consultation on the permanent removal of emergency general surgery from the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH). The consultation was flawed from the start. It lacked real engagement and public confidence, and ending it was the right call. However, the uncertainty for our community continues. It is now nearly three years since emergency general surgery was temporarily withdrawn from the SWAH. There have been three years of anxiety for patients, families and staff, and there is still no clear plan for the future. The Western Trust's so-called vision plan contains no timeline, no detail and no urgency. The people of Fermanagh and of west Tyrone deserve answers, and they deserve them now. In the interest of transparency, the Western Trust should publish the independent analysis that, it says, shows improved outcomes since surgery was removed from the SWAH, as well as the data on efforts to recruit permanent consultant surgeons. The public have a right to see that evidence.

I welcome the confirmation that the SWAH will remain an acute hospital, with a type 1 — 24/7 — emergency department, maternity services, an ICU and full resuscitation facilities. That commitment is essential and must be backed up with real delivery. Yesterday, I was made aware of a response to an FOI request from the local lobby group Save Our Acute Services (SOAS), which revealed that 26 new emergency medicine consultants are taking up post in hospitals across the North. That is welcome news, but the SWAH's type 1 emergency department is the only one that will not be getting any of those new consultants. Statistically, the SWAH treats one third of all emergency department patients in the Western Trust area. If there are to be three new emergency department consultant posts for the Western Trust, one of them obviously should be allocated to the SWAH.

The decision is deeply unfair to the SWAH staff, who continue to deliver an outstanding service under increasing pressure and sends entirely the wrong message about the future of our hospital. As the Western Trust's eagerly awaited vision plan is developed, the SWAH must be fully utilised as a cross-border acute hospital, as was originally intended. People in Fermanagh and in west Tyrone have fought hard for our hospital. We are proud of it, and we deserve a service that reflects that pride: one that is safe, sustainable and local.

Ms Forsythe: Last week, we heard some deeply disturbing comments from the former Sinn Féin MP Michelle Gildernew, who stated on a BBC podcast that IRA murders were "justified". No murder is ever justified. Sinn Féin's relentless justification of IRA murders and its glorification of IRA murderers and terrorism is disgraceful and scoffs at innocent victims across this country. For the self-proclaimed First Minister for all to state that there was no alternative to IRA violence is pure hypocrisy. I apologise for quoting Sinn Féin member Michelle Gildernew, Mr Speaker, but, on the same podcast, she went on to say that Northern Ireland is a "shithole".

The mask truly slipped. Michelle Gildernew's outburst tells us everything that we need to know about Sinn Féin. The shock and disgust on the faces of the young people in front of whom she said that was clear. Her comment was unprofessional and disrespectful and showed outright hatred for our wee country, proudly spouted by a senior Sinn Féin member. It set out clearly what Sinn Féin thinks of this place and of the people here, including many of its own voters. Is that why its Ministers do not bother? Is that why the Minister for Infrastructure is happy to let the roads fall apart or why the Minister for the Economy fails to champion Northern Ireland, promote and support our businesses and celebrate their successes? Is that why the Minister of Finance sits back and blames British austerity for everything yet seeks to do little for people here himself?

Let me be clear that Northern Ireland is an amazing country, which I am proud to call my home. From its natural beauty to its boasts of amazing tourist attractions — the Mountains of Mourne, the Giant's Causeway, Titanic Belfast, the Fermanagh lakelands and many more — it is a special place with good people. There are many key facts that Sinn Féin chooses to ignore in its opinion of this place. In education, our pupils lead the way, outperforming their peers across Britain and the Republic. In healthcare, our NHS is free at the point of need, unlike in the Republic, where a visit to a GP costs €80. The Northern Ireland economy exported £65 billion worth of goods last year. It has attracted world-class investors and, with its strong agri-food sector, is leading the way in farming and fishing. Unemployment is Northern Ireland stands at 2·6%, which is lower than the Republic's 4·6%. Housing in Dublin is in crisis, while homeownership here is still within reach for our working families.

Northern Ireland benefits from being part of the world's sixth-largest economy, that of our United Kingdom. That is what Sinn Féin refuses to acknowledge. Northern Ireland works, and it works for everyone. I will always be proud to defend Northern Ireland and its place in our United Kingdom.

Mrs Guy: I will highlight road safety issues outside Downshire Primary School in Hillsborough. The Department for Infrastructure does not take a risk-management approach to road safety. Rather, it waits for something to happen and then reacts. Well, something happened near that school. A child who was hit by a car is now recovering, and we are so grateful for that, but the school community is rightly demanding decisive action not just for its school but for others across Northern Ireland.

In the past, parents vocalised the road safety risks at the school but concluded that it was going to take an incident to get change. We have now had a serious incident, but we cannot wait for a tragedy.

Active travel is a key objective for the Department, but, if we are to encourage more walking and cycling for our young people, it has to be safe. I hope that the Minister will instruct her officials to act with urgency to create a 20 mph zone at the school and to engage with the school, the PTA, the PSNI and elected representatives to deliver clearly marked and well-signposted pedestrian crossings near schools, parks and residential areas; lower speed limits in school zones and residential streets; the installation of speed bumps, raised crosswalks or other proven traffic-calming infrastructure; increased enforcement of speed limits and traffic laws during peak school commute hours; and prominent signage to alert drivers when entering areas of high child activity.

As a parent said to me, this is not simply a matter of convenience; it is a matter of public safety and moral responsibility. No parent should have to fear for their child's life while they are walking to school.

Mr Burrows: The best place for the people of Northern Ireland is within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for our peace, prosperity, safety and security. That is something that the people of Northern Ireland need to hear more.

Members may have watched the recent BBC 'Panorama' programme that reported on how international drug cartels exploit the weaknesses of the Irish Defence Forces to flood Ireland and, by extension, the United Kingdom and Europe with cocaine. To hear the drug traffickers say, "Avoid British waters and focus on Irish waters, because the Irish have radios, but the British have ships", is a stark reminder of how vulnerable we and the entire west of Europe would be under a united Ireland. Thankfully, we have membership of NATO — the fifth largest military force in the world —— and we all live under the protection of our intelligence services, GCHQ and police services.

By being in the United Kingdom, we are safer from international terrorism, organised crime and, indeed, all the threats from countries such as North Korea, Iran, China and Russia. Furthermore, our peace is best protected in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland because there is an agreement that, largely speaking, has ended all violence. The republicans have given up and stood roundly defeated by the forces of law and order. Aside from the desperate remnants of dissidents, we now live in peace. To upset that by having a risky constitutional upheaval would be madness.

We are also better off as part of the UK with its big, deep and broad economy. The fifth largest economy in the world, it is a member of the World Bank and the IMF and is able to set its own interest rates and to deal with the shocks of things such as COVID or the credit crunch. That is why this country was able to give a preferential loan of £3·25 billion to the Irish Republic at a time when it needed it, which showed that we are always benevolent neighbours of the Irish Republic. The reality is that having a domestic market of 70 million people over a domestic market of five million allows the price of a chicken to be £5 in Northern Ireland and €8 in the Republic of Ireland. Young people were here with us earlier. In the Irish Republic, they would need an extra £25,000 to get on the housing ladder. It being 38% more expensive to live down south more than wipes out any increase in pay, and there is a huge risk of an economic shock from a united Ireland. As people begin to listen to the false narratives around a united Ireland, they will soon hear the facts that you are better off in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mr McNulty: This is Community Transport Week. Community transport is about so much more than a minibus. In rural parts of the North, distance can often be more than just miles on a map. It can mean the difference between getting the care that you need or going without. I will speak about those who bridge that gap: our rural transport organisations, in particular Armagh Rural Transport, which I visited last week. I give a shout-out to Dermot Mooney and Joanne Curran; two effervescent, relentless and determined live wires who make that organisation tick.

Every week, Armagh Rural Transport quietly ensures that hundreds of local people, many of whom are elderly, isolated or living with mobility challenges, can attend hospital appointments and GP visits and get vital treatments. For them, these are not luxury trips; they are lifelines. Without those services, many simply would not get there. We are talking about 8,000 trips in one year. Where would those patients, families and communities be without those trips? Imagine being an older person living miles from the nearest bus stop with no family care and facing a hospital appointment in Daisy Hill, Craigavon or Belfast. That is where Armagh Rural Transport steps in, with accessible minibuses and volunteer drivers offering door-to-door support, kindness and dignity. That is community spirit in action. It is people helping people. However, make no mistake: it is also healthcare delivery, because, when transport fails, so too does access to care. Missed appointments become missed diagnoses, health inequalities deepen and the cost, human and financial, rises. That is why we must say clearly that community transport is not optional. It is a cornerstone of an inclusive health system, yet many of those organisations, including Armagh Rural Transport, are operating under growing financial pressures, rising fuel costs, ageing vehicles and insecure funding streams.

Rural transport organisations need to be able to generate funds, and that can be done through group hire. They need sufficient capital funding to provide adequate buses, so, today, I make this call directly to policymakers and to the Executive parties: if we are serious about tackling health inequality, promoting rural inclusion and caring for all our citizens, sustainable funding for our community transport must be part of that commitment. Invest in it, protect it and build it into health planning, funding and rural policy, not as an afterthought but as a foundation. Funding levels must be increased to address unmet need, because every journey that Armagh Rural Transport and every rural transport organisation makes is more than a trip — it is statement that no one in our rural communities should be left behind.

Mr McHugh: Tá haemacrómatóis ghéiniteach orm, arb í an gearán géiniteach is coitianta i dtuaisceart na hEorpa í. Is féidir í a bhainistiú ach í a chóireáil in am. Ach tá mo dhála féin ar chuid mhór othar sa Tuaisceart, braitheann an cúram a fhaighimid ar an chód poist atá againn. Murab ionann agus i Sasana agus sa Bhreatain Bheag, áit a mbíonn coinní rialta ag othair le dochtúirí comhairleacha, níl aon chóras aontaithe sa Tuaisceart lena chinntiú go bhfuil maoirseacht rialta ó speisialtóirí ann. Tá maoirseacht rialta ó speisialtóirí ríthábhachtach le teacht roimh an ghalar, le deacrachtaí a bhainistiú agus le hothair a chur ar a suaimhneas.

Níl sin cóir, ceart ná inghlactha. Chuir an Deisceart samhail náisiúnta chúraim don haemacrómatóis i bhfeidhm, samhail lena gcinntítear go bhfuil rochtain ag othair ar sheirbhísí féithligin faoi stiúir dochtúirí teaghlaigh agus altraí. Is léir ón tsamhail náisiúnta na buntáistí a bhaineann le cur chuige atá in ord agus in eagar, rud atá fíorthábhachtach, ós rud é go meastar gur in iarthuaisceart na hÉireann — Tír Eoghain, Dún na nGall agus Doire — is mó agus is minice atá haemacrómatóis ghéiniteach le fáil.

Caithfidh an Roinn Sláinte samhail chaighdeánaithe don haemacrómatóis a bhunú anseo sa Tuaisceart. Ba chóir athbhreithnithe sainordaithe rialta le dochtúirí comhairleacha, conairí soiléire, agus teacht cothrom ar chóireáil chothabhála bheith sa tsamhail sin. Cuirfidh a leithéid de bhearta an cúram abhus ar aon dul le caighdeáin aitheanta ar fud na n-oileán seo, agus cuirfidh siad feabhas ar thorthaí sláinte fadtéarmacha. Bíonn athbhreithniú sainordaitheach le dochtúirí comhairleacha ann uair amháin i gceann gach aon trí bliana ar a laghad i ndlínsí eile. Creidim, ar mhaithe le sláinte an phobail, gur chóir dó sin bheith ina dhualgas orainn i dTuaisceart na hÉireann.

Mr Brett: The attack on the Irish language street sign at Shandon Park on Saturday was wrong and should be condemned. I say that without fear or favour. Attacks on all signs, and all criminality, should be called out at all times. I am able to say that, but other elements of the House, and, indeed, the media, seem not to want to say the same thing. They pretend that it does not happen and ignore it when it does not fit their narrow agenda.

In a podcast last week, a former Member of Parliament for Fermanagh and South Tyrone claimed with a straight face that she had never seen the blacking out of "London" on a Londonderry sign. I do not know whether she drives around wearing a balaclava, but I do not know how she could not have seen those defaced signs. Where are the police investigations, the media outrage and the political statements? Where are the police investigations, media outrage and political statements condemning bullet holes in the "welcome" signs at our international borders with the Irish Republic? There has been no comment from other political parties in the Chamber. My community sees the double standards in the House and the media, and we will call them out.

Just last week, the war memorial in Glengormley in my constituency was spray-painted and defaced. I am the only MLA who called that out. Where were the comments from the Member of Parliament for that constituency? Where was the media outrage? There was none. We see their double standards.

Last week, a former Member of Parliament and Sinn Féin Member called this country — the country that I love — a "shithole". Had I appeared in a programme and called —.

Mr Speaker: The Member should take his seat for a minute. Another Member referred to that incident previously. That is not the language that we use in the House. If other people use it outside, we do not quote it. I urge both Members to find another means of expressing that.

Mr Brett: Had I used such derogatory language about the Irish Republic, it would be front-page news. The BBC would hound me at my house, and Stephen Nolan would discuss it every single day. However, that passed off without comment from any of the parties opposite. Had I said that about the Republic of Ireland, the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin would call for my resignation. We see your double standards.

Later today, those parties can right their wrongs during the debate on our motion that calls for the removal of a discriminatory Irish language sign policy. The people of Northern Ireland will watch how their MLAs vote on that issue. The time for weasel words is over.

Miss McAllister: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to and congratulate Hazelwood Integrated Primary and Nursery School on its 40th anniversary. Hazelwood and Forge Integrated Primary School were two of the very first integrated primary schools in Northern Ireland.

Last Friday, I joined my colleague Councillor Sam Nelson in attending a fantastic celebration that was organised by the school to mark the occasion. It was also attended by some of the founding teachers and parents of children who attended back in 1985. Those parents and teachers demanded better for their children during what were some of the darkest days in the history of North Belfast and Northern Ireland. Local parents joined them and took inspiration from the bravery of those in South Belfast who had established Lagan College just four years previously. Asking for children from all backgrounds to be educated together was a bold move at the height of the Troubles. The founders chose the symbol of the dove to represent the peace and reconciliation that they hoped to be part of. That symbol is still part of the badge of Hazelwood Integrated Primary and Nursery School, and, on Friday, doves were released to mark the 40th anniversary of the school. Many in the community joined in that joyous occasion.

It was a bold move by the founders and parents back then to introduce integrated education to their local community. It feels as though the integrated sector should be further along than it is, 40 years later. That is the case not because of a lack of vision or lack of bravery from the many who took the step to introduce it in the early 1980s but because of a lack of support and vision from those in leadership. That is evidenced by the decision to turn down proposals for two integrated schools — Rathmore Primary School and Bangor Academy — despite 82% and 76% of parents, respectively, supporting the move. Integrated education plays a unique and significant role —

Mr Speaker: I remind the Member that that matter is in court and is potentially sub judice.

Miss McAllister: Apologies, Mr Speaker.

Integrated education plays a unique and significant role in bringing together children from all backgrounds. Friday was a joyous occasion that was celebrated by all the children and the school itself. I pay tribute to all the teachers, past and present, at Hazelwood Integrated Primary and Nursery School and to the principal for continuing to stand up for our community 40 years on.

Mrs Mason: In our darkest moments, we all search for light, but it is a rare and extraordinary thing when someone takes their own darkness and heartbreak and uses them to help others to find their light. Following the sudden and devastating loss of his wife, Zipporah, Bernard Branagan was left to raise seven young, beautiful boys, with the eldest being just 10 years old and the youngest only five months old. It is impossible to imagine the pain and the weight of that loss, yet, in the midst of his grief, Bernard has found strength not only for himself and his family but for others who are walking the same difficult path. Rather than retreat from the world, Bernard chose to reach out. He decided that no one should ever feel alone in their grief. I have no doubt that Zipporah would be immensely proud of the strength that he has shown, the love that he continues to pour into their children and the compassion that he is now sharing with others in her memory.

Out of love, loss and incredible resilience, Bernard has created an event, Let's Share Grief, which is taking place on Tuesday 28 October in the Burrendale Hotel, Newcastle. The event will bring together people from all walks of life — people who have lost loved ones, people who are still trying to make sense of that loss and people who simply want to listen and support. It will be a safe, gentle space where stories can be shared. I know from my experience that grief changes you forever and never fully leaves, but, in time, you can learn to carry it differently. When you meet others who understand that journey, it lightens the load just a little. That is what makes Bernard so special. He is creating a space where people can find comfort, connection and courage in one another.

I have often heard it said that grief is the price that we pay for love, but, through Bernard's vision, we see that grief can also be a new source of compassion, connection and hope. The slogan for his event — "Let's turn grief into power" — is both powerful and profound. Those words capture the very essence of what Bernard has done. He has turned unimaginable pain into purpose. He has taken personal tragedy and transformed it into a movement of empathy, solidarity and healing. That is what true community looks like. Bernard is a beacon of light for so many, not because he has avoided pain but because he has embraced it with honesty and courage and shown that, even in loss, there can be life. Today, I pay tribute to Zipporah, Bernard and his children and to everyone who will gather at the Let's Share Grief event.

Ms Bunting: This is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and it was a true joy to attend Cancer Focus' Pink Run yesterday. Well done and congratulations to all who were involved in that.

Today, I commemorate those who fought bravely and lost; congratulate those who have come out the other side; pay tribute and give heart to those who are currently in the fight; and send my best wishes to those who are waiting for appointments or results to find out whether they, too, must enter the fray. While every journey is different, and some are more severe than others, each one is a warrior in her own way. Credit, too, to their families and loved ones, who swallow their own thoughts, fears and worries for those they love in order to better support them by keeping a positive outward appearance. They are the people who carry us through. I express gratitude to those in healthcare and the various charities and volunteers who conduct research and provide support and guidance to the many women and, indeed, some men who are afflicted by this horrible disease.

Most importantly though, I want to call on all women and men, regardless of age, to check themselves. Do not wait until you are apparently the right age for a mammogram; build those checks into your routine now without delay. Get in the shower, lather up and start at your collarbone, feeling in small circles with your fingertips, including under your arms. Do not just feel the surface; press in, push and feel. You are checking for something that may feel like an apple or an orange pip. Pay attention to your body, and look to see whether there are changes to your nipples. Look for inversion, difference in shape, discharge, blood or even a persistent itch. If you notice any of those or find a lump, contact your GP immediately. Time is of the essence. There is no shame or embarrassment in being checked. In this case, it is absolutely better to be safe than sorry. Delay could mean the difference between having a lump removed or losing your breast or, indeed, your life. Forget about embarrassment or causing inconvenience to hard-pressed medical professionals. They have seen it all before, and they want people to come quickly. Delay could cost you dearly, so do not delay.

I went to an information evening in the East Belfast Community Development Agency that taught us how to feel for lumps and check ourselves, and, honestly, that may well have saved my life. I never checked myself before that. I was too young for a mammogram, and, like we all do, I did not think that it could happen to me. It was a pure accident that I found my lump, but, by the grace of God, I did, only because of its location. It did not show up on mammograms, and that, alone, demonstrates the need to check.

Members know, I hope, that it is not really my thing to share very personal things. The only reason that I ever have done so is to raise awareness about breast cancer. If, by sharing, I can encourage people to check themselves and it makes a difference to even one person, it is worth letting people know. Please, please check yourselves, and do it regularly. It could make all the difference in the world and save your life.

Mr Robinson: Tonight is not just another game. It is not just 90 minutes of football in Belfast. No, tonight, under the floodlights at Windsor Park, we welcome giants of world football, Germany. They are the 12th highest-ranked team in the world and have been world or European champions on seven occasions. They have done it all. Indeed, I read last night that Germany have lost only four of 107 World Cup qualifiers. However, let me say this: they have never faced the full-throttle passion of the green and white army in such a key game on our home turf. Germany will face our pride, and they will face serious noise — a noise that Windsor has never experienced before. Germany will walk out to a wall of green in Belfast.

While we are not the biggest country in world football and do not have the biggest-name world stars, my goodness, we have the biggest hearts. Full credit to Gary McAllister and the Amalgamation of Official Northern Ireland Supporters' Clubs, who are campaigning to drive home the importance of our doing our bit tonight by wearing green and turning up the noise. I have experienced German fans at home and away games, and, to their credit, they have been nothing but friendly. While we go into battle on the pitch, our fans will again show that there is mutual respect off it.

Our wee country has had highs and lows. We have seen lean years, cold nights and empty seats, but the green and white army never stopped turning up; they never stopped singing. Then, the magic started to come back. Having previously qualified for three World Cup Finals, at Euro 2016 in France, there were those goals against Ukraine — from Gareth McAuley's header and then Niall McGinn — the pride, the tears and the memories that live long. Tonight could be another of those nights — one of those games that you talk about for years. We go into the game with no fear. From Michael O'Neill, who will take charge of the national side for the 100th time, and from the lads who will wear that shirt — a shirt that we are so proud to wear all over the world — all we ask for is fight, belief and the never-say-die spirit that makes this place so special. Germany may bring the superstars, but we will bring something that cannot be trained for. We will bring spirit and the kind of fight that does not let up. As the hours count down to what is a David and Goliath moment, all that I have to say from the House to the changing room at Windsor Park is this: come on, the green and white army.

Mr Speaker: I call Robbie Butler to move the motion on behalf of the Business Committee.

Mr Butler: I beg to move

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

Mr Speaker: I wish to let Members know that I am speaking at a private engagement later this week. I will be travelling to it tomorrow, so I will not be in the Chamber.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister of Education to open the debate.

Mr Givan: I am pleased that we have now reached the Final Stage of the School Uniforms Bill. I thank each Member who contributed to its scrutiny. Even before I introduced the Bill on 18 February, the need to take action to address the affordability of school uniforms had been expressed from all sides of the House. Despite any misplaced narratives about a diluted Bill or missed opportunities to be prescriptive, the Bill that I commend to the House is strong and appropriate. Once again, I record my thanks to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) for its diligence and for the significant work that it put into the Bill. I make no apologies for my confidence that the Bill is a strong Bill that will make a difference for parents.

At Second Stage, I set out the level of support for the proposals that underpin the Bill that was expressed through a policy consultation, which received over 7,500 responses. I repeat my thanks to those who responded to it. I thank the range of stakeholders that contributed at Committee Stage. Their voices are important, and I assure them that all voices have been heard. The principles of the Bill were agreed by the Executive prior to its introduction and then approved by the Assembly at Second Stage. Nothing since then has weakened its provisions.

I know that the Committee for Education wanted to take more time to deliberate over the Bill, but the amendment that my party colleagues tabled on the timing of Committee Stage was important, and the fact that it was agreed to means that, subject to the voting today, the Bill can be in operation in time to make a difference for the 2026-27 school year, which is next year. Without that amendment, the Bill would still be in Committee for up to another two months. There would have been no benefit for parents from the legislation for a further school year. I therefore make no apology for putting the needs of hard-working parents before a leisurely analysis by the Committee, which I do not believe would have resulted in a materially different outcome. I repeat my thanks, however, to the Committee for reporting before the summer recess in the end. I know that Committee members took their scrutiny role seriously.

No further amendments can now be made to the Bill. Either Members vote to support it as it stands and therefore help families that are struggling with the cost of school uniforms or they do not. That is the decision for the House to make today. Last week, the Committee discussed introducing an amending Bill, without its members taking on board any of the legal information that was provided throughout the process, without their understanding what the Bill enables guidelines to address and without their monitoring the impact of the guidelines once they are introduced. I am content that the Executive's Bill can deliver on the ambition that we set at the beginning of the process.

I fully appreciate the Bill's impact on timing, given that school prospectuses will be published in the coming months. I wrote to the Committee to remind it of that. Whether its members are disgruntled about not having seen the draft guidelines, the guidelines will be shared with schools in the coming weeks as a matter of urgency. Guidelines follow the law. Today will determine whether the School Uniforms Bill becomes law.

To be clear, I would not have introduced the Bill if I was not determined that the guidelines would work. I am absolutely satisfied that the Bill gives everything needed for the guidelines to work. Nothing is lacking in the Bill. No one should rush to judge its outcome without having the guidelines in operation first. That serves no one well, including parents.

Let me take Members through what the Bill will do. I will be brief, but it is important for Members, even at this late stage, to understand it. The Bill will make the departmental guidelines statutory. It will place a duty on schools not merely to have regard to the guidelines but to adhere to them. It will give a legally enforceable power of direction to the Department should any school decide not to materially follow the guidelines or decide to discipline or exclude its pupils for non-compliance with the uniform policy when they may not be able to afford it. I assure Members that, despite some suggestions to the contrary having been made at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage, there will be no hesitation: where a direction is needed, it will be given. I trust in the professionalism of our schools. I know that schools want to do the right thing for their pupils. The guidelines that the Bill requires will be strong, and I trust that schools will follow them fully.

The concern about pupils not meeting the full uniform requirements because of cost should not be an ongoing issue. The Bill requires guidelines about school uniform policies to explicitly address a range of matters. That will result in there being more affordable uniforms, designed in consultation with those wearing them and those paying for them. The Bill requires that parents and pupils must be consulted by a school when its uniform policy is being devised, that guidelines must specify how often the policy is to be reviewed and that that, again, requires consultation. All existing human rights and equality legislation applies to how the Department writes the guidelines and how schools implement them. The Bill requires that "unfair costs aspects", which it defines, must be addressed. That is explicitly set in the context of affordability for lower-income households. There should be no doubt that the Bill addresses affordability. That is fundamental to how it has been drafted.

The Bill also requires that the comfort, practicality, nature and adequacy of clothing being required for a range of school-based activities must be addressed. Uniform policies must address value for money, the lending of uniform and the use of clothing banks. Uniforms must be available from more than one supplier unless evidence is provided that a single-supplier agreement secures value for money for parents. A range of information must be published so that transparency is secured. That will include the rationale for uniform design, the cost of uniform items, where the uniform can be purchased from and a range of other matters.

The Bill allows for a cap to be set on the number of branded items and/or the cost of uniform items or the total uniform. I have made it clear that further consultation on those details will take place and that the outcome of that consultation will inform the setting of any cap. That is to ensure that any cap is agile and fit for purpose and will remain so. In addition to a cap, the Bill allows for uniform guidelines to set out what is reasonable or unreasonable for branded items, limited or single suppliers, daywear and PE kit and allows for differentiation to be applied by school type, year group and Key Stage. That is all set out in the Bill's provisions.

To say that the Bill has been "diluted" or is a "missed opportunity", as some Members have done, is to misunderstand the strength of the legislation and what it can deliver. The Bill extends eligibility for the uniform grant to pupils in independent schools who cannot currently receive it. It future-proofs, through draft affirmative regulation-making powers, so that, if needed, guidelines can be applied to preschool providers. Guidelines will be laid before the Assembly, and a report will be completed at least every three years.

Members can be assured that, even without the provisions, I and my Department will monitor the impact of the Bill. I have worked to make a difference by introducing the legislation. Monitoring the impact of the Bill and the associated guidelines is critical to making sure that that happens. I return to my earlier point, which is that I am confident that the impact will be positive for parents. The Bill delivers. My confidence is based on legal expertise: not mine or any other Member's but professional expertise. The School Uniforms Bill is strong and will be effective. If Members vote to support it, it will take effect from the 2026-27 school year. I am also confident that every Member wants to see that for every family in their constituency.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I will contribute to the Final Stage debate first in my capacity as Chairperson of the Education Committee, and then as an Alliance Member.

After the Bill passed its Second Stage in March, with broad welcome from across the House, albeit with caveats around the need to get into the detail of what the Bill would deliver, we moved into Committee Stage, where the detailed scrutiny work began. I take issue, probably on behalf of the whole Committee — it may be that we all agree on this — with the characterisation of there being a desire to have a "leisurely" Committee Stage. That is not an accurate reflection of the situation. I think that the Minister knows that every undertaking that the Committee gave was around wanting to deliver the Committee Stage as quickly as possible, while building in the time required to ensure that proper scrutiny was done. We never set a date for the conclusion of Committee Stage with the intention of it being a target to be reached; we were clear that the Bill needed to be delivered quickly. It is a clear principle — there are precedents for this — that a Committee decides the time frame and parameters for its work and creates its own framework for engagement with the people whose lives will be impacted on the most by the proposed legislative change. That is a Committee's statutory responsibility, and it must be given the time that it needs to report on its findings, fully satisfied that the appropriate level of scrutiny has been applied.

In the case of this Bill, there seemed from the outset to be an interest from the Minister and the Department to attempt to directly influence the timescales for Committee scrutiny. As Chair of the Committee, I find it regrettable that a decision was taken, at the outset of the Committee's work, to so significantly reduce the timescale for Committee scrutiny of the Bill. It was put to the Committee by the Minister that it was vital that the Bill be enacted in time for the deadline for schools to publish school uniform policies in their prospectuses, and the date of November was repeatedly highlighted in that regard. The Minister raised that again today, yet we are in the middle of October, and schools have had no sight of the promised guidelines that the Bill will give rise to. That is, ultimately, the legislative effect of the Bill: to create guidelines to which schools must adhere. All Committee members felt that the timescale for scrutiny was, ultimately, curtailed, whether or not they felt that it was justified — there were different opinions on that. I take the view that a more rigorous Committee Stage could have been delivered, had we had more time. I reiterate, for clarity, that the Committee never sought to delay or obstruct the timescales for moving the Bill through the Assembly. The Committee understood the absolute imperative to deliver quickly for parents. If the cost of moving quickly is a Bill that does not deliver effectively, however, we must ask whether we have carried out our role as effectively as we could have. In any case, with the changed timeline, the Committee maintained its engagement with stakeholders and acted as an honest broker for their concerns. Without sight of the guidelines, the Committee gave a clear steer on what members felt the content of those guidelines should be. The Committee completed its task with full transparency, so the public is aware of the issues that the Committee sought to prioritise in the future guidelines and of what is in the final Bill. The Committee for Education took its task seriously. At times, it felt like many aspects of its work were being frustrated. Regrettably, the Bill that is before Members today does not reflect the majority of the Committee's priorities or the amendments that it worked on, and I suggest that the Bill is the poorer for it.

All Committee members absolutely and unequivocally agreed that uniform should be affordable and that the cost of attending school should not be a barrier for any pupil, regardless of what school they seek to attend, in which sector, or where they are in Northern Ireland. A uniform is to be worn every day, so it should be suitable for all school activities and should resist wear, reducing the need for additional clothing to be purchased. At its best, uniform can give pupils a sense of community and belonging, creating a level playing field for learning on an even footing, regardless of economic background.

On affordability, the Committee was very clear that there was a need for clearer interventions. Challenges were identified with implementing a cost cap, with limited evidence being available on how it would operate in practice. It is regrettable that the Committee's attempt to amend the Bill to mandate the Department to limit branded items, rather than to create an enabling power, was unsuccessful. It is those branded items that are seen by many parents as a real cost driver. It is regrettable that that did not make its way into the Bill. We are left simply with enabling powers, which may —.

Mr Speaker: Order, Mr Mathison. Please take your seat. You are coming very close to challenging the authority of the Speaker. I will say this before the House: I have been here considerably longer than anybody else in this room. I have dealt with more legislation than anybody else in the Building, let alone in the Chamber, having been a Minister in four Departments. If you want to challenge my authority, go ahead, but there will be consequences. That applies to all Members. Continue.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Affordability is at the heart of the very idea of school uniform and of the Bill, but, in the Committee's view, uniform should also be seen to change with the times, so the Committee prioritised listening to the views of the people who wear school uniform: young people. Young people were very clear in their evidence to the Committee on their experiences of how school uniform can impact on different aspects of school life. They were clear about the things that were priorities for them. They were concerned with issues of equality, comfort and practicality, and it is deeply disappointing that the Minister's Bill did not take those issues forward. Youth engagement is not just about listening to young people, ticking a box and then doing what was originally planned regardless. Many young people will be disappointed that their evidence was not taken up by the Minister, as it seems that the Bill reflects very few, if any, of their concerns.

The Committee heard from young people on a range of issues connected to uniform, covering a desire not to limit choice based on gender; sensory issues arising from special educational needs; the higher cost of uniform for girls than for boys; period dignity; uniform that makes PE participation accessible; warmth and comfort; access to outdoor learning and play — the list goes on. Young people consistently raised those things with us as being important to them. I sincerely hope that some of those themes will be addressed in the — I trust — soon-to-be-published guidelines, but that is ultimately entirely in the gift of the Minister.

One of the Committee's concerns throughout the process was that the Bill as drafted, and as it has come before us today, ultimately leaves all that at the will of the Minister in deciding what goes into the guidelines. I will be clear: I want the guidelines to be effective. The Committee was clear that it wanted the guidelines to be effective, but we do not know what they will look like or whether they will address any of the issues that young people raised.

It is over to the Minister now to assure the Committee and the Assembly that the guidelines will make a real difference on not just cost but the wider issues that the Bill strays into. It was never just about affordability. The explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) for the Bill was clear that issues of comfort and practicality were also to be considered. The Bill before us today has not addressed those issues as comprehensively as it could have done.

It is worth noting in particular that the Committee heard evidence from primary-school children who were award-winning activists, describing their campaign for school uniform policies to allow girls to wear trousers. We hoped that the Minister would take up some of that evidence and reflect at Consideration Stage or Further Consideration Stage on whether there was scope to bring forward a proposal on that, but, ultimately, we have not landed in that position. We also heard from Menstruation Matters. Its evidence pointed to some issues of self-consciousness and potential school withdrawal and of attendance at and participation in PE that can arise from school uniform policies not taking proper account of period dignity or other menstruation issues. Again, we do not see the Minister's taking any of those issues forward today. I hope, again, that the Minister can assure us that the guidelines will address some of those concerns.

The Committee was cognisant of gender budgeting issues. While the period poverty legislation made in the previous mandate is one helpful measure to remove some of the systemic barriers from girls' equal access to education, dropping the requirement to wear skirts and allowing girls to wear trousers would certainly have been another. Again, I am keen to hear from the Minister about the guidelines: perhaps he can give us some assurance and confidence that we will see in them a really progressive intervention in that space. I acknowledge Claire Sugden's contribution to the debate on that issue in particular. Witnesses across the spectrum went further, saying that uniform options should be capable of being worn regardless of gender. Again, we do not see that in the Bill.

Not for the first time, the Committee reflected on the potential for policies that address the needs of minority students to improve conditions for all students and considered a whole range of inclusive options with that end in mind.

I feel strongly that, ultimately, we have potentially done our young people a disservice, as the evidence that we heard and discussed does not seem to have been reflected in the legislation that we are debating. I hope that, in the Committee Stage of future Bills, young people will still have the confidence that the evidence that they give and the time that they take to make their views known will actually be taken on board, and that it will not just be the adults in the room nodding politely, patting them on the head and then continuing to do what they had already intended. I think that Committee members across the board would not want to be in that space when we deal with draft legislation in the future. We all know that, on the Education Committee, essentially anything that we do is likely to impact on the lives of young people in school, so it is important that we get that right. I am really keen to hear the Minister provide clarification as to what will be done with the Bill beyond affordability — we all know that that is important — to try to address those concerns for young people.

The Committee saw sustainability as another aspect of the affordability issue. Just as schools should facilitate the provision of second-hand or hand-me-down uniforms, and also that that practice should be encouraged within families, the Committee was clear that, by reducing the gendered aspects of uniforms, you could encourage that practice rather than restrict it. It was also clear that school communities should facilitate the reuse of uniforms by providing uniform banks that parents and pupils could access without feeling any shame or stigma for doing so. It is important to put on record that we know of many excellent examples across the school system where those schemes are run very effectively. The Committee welcomed the explicit reference to that in the Bill but had hoped for a clearer requirement for schools to participate in such a scheme, not just that it would appear in the guidelines in some form, because, again, we are not sure exactly how that will look.

It is a shame that the Bill, in its final iteration, does not reflect the views or needs of the stakeholders who gave evidence at Committee. I am pleased, however, that the principle of one key Committee amendment has made it into the Bill, which was highlighted by the Minister in his opening remarks; namely the principle of reporting on the progress of the legislation to deal with affordability and accountability on the impact on the cost of uniforms, the need to review that regularly, and to review regularly the need to implement a cost cap. That, at least, ensures accountability even if, ultimately, members may be sceptical about the clear effects of the Bill on parents' pockets and on the young people who wear the uniforms.

I have no doubt that my Committee colleagues will have more to say about all those issues, as we covered a huge amount of ground in the evidence sessions on the Bill. I will conclude my remarks as Chair simply by saying that I want the Bill to deliver. I think that everybody in the Assembly wants to the Bill to deliver. We all have parents in our constituencies who need it to deliver. I hope that it does not prove to be a missed opportunity where improvements that were considered did not end up being reflected in the legislation. We need to ensure that the Bill is genuinely impactful. That will be in the detail of the guidelines. We all await those with interest and hope that their publication happens quickly.

I will now make remarks in my capacity as an Alliance member. As you have already highlighted, Mr Speaker, I am a newly elected Member to the Assembly, and this was my first run through legislation at Committee Stage. It was my first opportunity to see a Bill go through each stage of the process. When I came into the Assembly, I had originally intended to table a private Member's Bill on the school uniforms issue. However, the Minister was there with the Bill early on when the institutions were restored, so I did not have the opportunity to bring my proposals forward in more detail.

We all know that the cost of school uniforms has been highlighted repeatedly as causing significant financial strain on families. I do not need to rehearse those arguments or convince anybody of that fact. That was clearly amplified when we began to hear directly in Committee from those who are most impacted on by the cost-of-living crisis. Parents get into debt in order to pay for school uniforms. Parents will talk about skipping meals in order to be able to afford something that is required simply for their child to be able to attend school. That cannot be an acceptable state of affairs. The Bill was our opportunity to ensure that parents did not have to face those kinds of scenarios again — it does not matter which school their children go to, or in which sector: the uniform should be affordable — and to ensure that effective and robust measures were introduced not only to support families but to ensure that schools could be held to account for their approach to their uniform policies if they did not prioritise driving down costs.

We are all aware that the Bill will create guidelines that schools must adhere to and that those will be the instrument by which changes can be introduced. However, without sight of those guidelines and while we wait for the Minister to publish them— I know that this is rehearsing things that have been raised in the Chamber and in Committee on many occasions, but it does bear repeating — we remain largely in the dark. I do not doubt that the Minister wants a Bill that is effective; I do not know any Minister who sets out to deliver legislation that will not deliver. However, at the moment, we just do not know what those provisions are, so we are operating entirely on trust. I wait with anticipation, as I am sure all colleagues do, to see exactly how the guidelines will deliver on the promise to reduce costs. While there is a fair bit in the Bill, ultimately, when you strip it back, what the Bill does is create guidelines that schools have to adhere to. Until we see those guidelines, we will be guessing about what the impact will be. I know that parents will be watching with the same anticipation to see what the guidelines actually say. For the school that their child attends, which sets the cost of the school uniforms that they have to pay, what will the guidelines actually do? It is vital that we do not let them down, because they are watching.

While circumstances have meant that the Bill is not what some Committee members would have wanted, I want to go back to one of the amendments that I referenced in my remarks as Chair: the amendment on accountability. As I have said, parents are watching. They want to know, clearly, what it will mean for them. After the Bill passes Final Stage, lots of statements will no doubt be made that we have now dealt with the cost of school uniforms and we can close that chapter. However, parents want to know what is actually going to change. In that scenario, where there has been some doubt about and a question mark over what the change will look like, it is essential that there is a mechanism to create really clear accountability mechanisms in the Bill. I am pleased that that is in the Bill today, so that we know that the Assembly will have to be updated routinely — at least once a mandate — on whether the Bill has delivered or not; told whether a cost cap will be introduced or not; and, if it is not going to be introduced, told why not. A cost cap is the key mechanism that will deliver meaningful change in this area. It is the Department that has the resources and the ability to deliver that sort of radical legislative intervention. I hope that the Department is taking that work forward meaningfully and seriously.

During the Committee evidence sessions, as I referenced in my remarks as Chair, certain school uniform policy themes came through repeatedly. I want to go back to the issues that were raised by children and young people. I will not go through the areas that they highlighted, but I want to address some of the things that have been said in other debates on the matter. It has been said that it is a distraction to talk about SEN and the impact of uniform on young people who experience discomfort; about whether or not girls should be assured of their right to wear trousers rather than skirts; or about issues concerning the outdoor curriculum. On whatever issue, arguments were put forward that that is a distraction and not what the Bill is about. However, the Department's own explanatory and financial memorandum for the Bill states:

Therefore, as soon as the issue of comfort was introduced, we were quite right to ask questions about what makes a school uniform comfortable and sustainable — affordable, yes, but also comfortable and sustainable. As legislators, it is our job to listen to the evidence and act on it. Again, I urge the Minister to keep in mind, when the guidelines are being drafted, the evidence that the Committee heard. The Bill remains light on detail of how those aspects, which were raised particularly by young people, will be reflected in the guidelines. It is light on that detail, and I am really keen to hear more from the Minister on that.

The issue of timescales has been raised, and I want to revisit how the Bill progressed through the Assembly. The Committee was, undoubtedly, put under significant pressure from the Minister around our timescales for scrutiny. The Minister made it very clear that he wanted us to work to a timescale in order for the Bill to be completed before November of this year, and that is where we are. It was always highlighted that that was because of the key date of when schools publish their prospectuses. November was highlighted repeatedly as the critical date by which schools needed to have that work done.

Alliance was the only party in the Assembly to question the Minister of Education's assurances on the timescales and their deliverability. Others fell into line and backed the Minister without question, but Alliance was always sceptical that that date would be deliverable, and I am keen to be proved wrong. We are in the middle of October, and the Bill has reached Final Stage. That is welcome. Parents, who are keen to see interventions in the affordability space, will be pleased to see that we are here on this date and not waiting for another year. We are, however, also in a position in which November is just a couple of weeks away, with still no clarity for schools on what will change next year. We were told that November is a critical deadline. Schools will be writing and publishing their policies, so I ask genuinely — I am not attempting to score a political point — whether the Minister can clarify what schools are meant to be doing in this scenario. Can he provide clarity on when they will get the guidelines? I ask that because, once they are published, schools will need to start thinking about consulting parents and pupils and about engaging with their suppliers. Suppliers will have to start looking at their arrangements and at the uniform stocks that they hold. We are being told that the new policies are deliverable in the prospectuses in November. I would love that to be the case, but I want to hear how the policies will be delivered, because —.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I will give way.

Mr Givan: I indicated in my remarks that the guidelines will come within weeks. I also said that my permanent secretary will be issuing communications in anticipation of the Bill's being passed today. What the Chair of the Committee is not highlighting, however, is the fact that the lengthy Committee Stage process was not due to be completed for another number of months. He is holding me to account by saying that I need to get the guidance out right now, yet his Committee's own timescale was to kick the Committee Stage two months down the road. I welcome the challenge that I need to get the guidelines done now, but that was not the degree of urgency that the Committee was looking for when it set out its time frame. I welcomed Sinn Féin's supporting me when the amendment brought forward the period extension.

Mr Speaker: I remind the Chair that we have to start Question Time at 2.00 pm, so I will interrupt you about 30 seconds before then to allow Dr Aiken to take the Chair.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I may be able to get through my contribution before 2.00 pm regardless. I thank the Minister for his intervention. Yes, I was concerned about the timescales but simply because, as I highlight now, if the guidelines arrive in the next two or three weeks — we are being told that November is the key date for their publication — it seems unrealistic to expect schools to implement a significant policy change in that time. My point when we looked at the timescales was always about how on earth we could ask schools to turn it around in that time frame. It therefore does not feel deliverable to me. I sincerely hope that it is, however, because we need to see the costs dealt with.

There was an insistence that that quick turnaround was needed. Undoubtedly, it impacted on the timescale that we had in which to scrutinise the legislation. I therefore hope that the rush to deliver the legislation does result in a positive impact and not in a scramble, in which schools are put under pressure to come up with new policies overnight just to meet the imposed timescale. We all want costs to be dealt with, but they need to be dealt with effectively and in a way that will result in the right impact on parents. Parents desperately need to see costs come down. I hope, come September 2026, that that is what we will see, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Assurances from the Minister that the Bill delivers will be meaningless if parents do not see a change in the money that they need to spend in order to send their child to school.

Briefly, I put on record some concerns that local suppliers have raised with me about the slightly complex position in which they find themselves. They are already facing increasing pressures from their suppliers to commit to orders for next year so that they can secure the best possible prices. Again, the rush that there has been to deliver the guidelines within a timescale of what I can only assume is weeks is potentially putting those businesses under pressure, and their relationships with schools as a result of the need to deliver on policies could be put under threat. Again, I would like clarity from the Minister on that.

I will conclude by saying that Alliance will support the Bill at Final Stage today, as we will not countenance blocking any intervention to bring down costs. It is now over to the Minister, however. The Committee worked harder, as the Minister urged us to do. We listened to the evidence. The processes have brought us to this stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Mathison: I will be very, very brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You will have to be very, very brief, Nick. Go for it.

Mr Mathison: Minister, this is your Bill, and it is you who will be held to account for delivery. I hope that you make the most of this opportunity. The guidelines must be robust and effective, and, for parents, they cannot come soon enough.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We will start with listed questions. I call Claire Sugden. Claire, over to you.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): The provision of emotional support animals within Northern Ireland Prison Service establishments is an operational matter for the Prison Service. It is more than 20 years since the service introduced support dogs into the prison setting, and it is not aware of a single occasion when a dog has been placed at risk. Support dogs are highly valued and well-cared-for team members and have helped countless prisoners who have been in crisis. That is the same for all support animals within prisons.

Every day, prison officers perform their roles with judgement, diligence and care. I have been disappointed and surprised that others think that those same officers are not up to the job of introducing an emotional support dog at Magilligan prison. If a policy is required to satisfy the ongoing interests of all animals within prisons, I am certain that Prison Service and its staff have the measure of that task. However, that work will be appropriately prioritised among the many other challenges that face the service at this time, not least the rising prison population and the increasingly complex needs of that population.

Legislative matters relating to animals are not the responsibility of my Department.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Minister. We made a mistake in respect of the dog that has been in the news recently: that dog should not have been in the prison. Its placement did not fall within the policy and legislation, which, I believe, needs to be reviewed and updated. The Minister received correspondence, as recently as this morning, in which concerns relating to how we dealt with that particular animal continue to be raised. Will the Minister give a commitment that that will not happen again and that she will review what is happening operationally within the Northern Ireland Prison Service? I appreciate that it is not directly her responsibility, but it falls within her remit.

Mrs Long: I disagree entirely with the picture that has been painted by the Member when she says that the way in which the situation was dealt with by the Prison Service, originally, was wrong. What is scandalous is the whipping up of false information, misinformation and disinformation in the public domain — in social media and the wider media. The truth is that, when the dog was inspected in place, it was found to be in excellent condition, happy, well adjusted and enjoying the work that it was doing. Sadly, because of the hysteria that was whipped up outside, a threat was received regarding Bailey, and he was removed from the prison for his own safety, because, let us be clear, the welfare and safety of the animals in our care are our primary concern in all these matters.

Mr Burrows: Does the Minister not have any concern that, after 20 years of putting dogs in prisons, there is no legislation; no definition of what an emotional support dog is; no pre-suitability assessment was done of that particular dog; and there is a made-up policy of putting a pet dog in prison without any safeguards? That was confirmed to me by the director general of prisons in Northern Ireland and the prison governor at Magilligan.

Mrs Long: My greater concern is the amount of time that has been consumed by Prison Service staff in responding to an issue that was based on nothing but lies and smears. In fact, the Member himself had to admit in public that he had not even read the independent welfare report, despite tweeting consistently and persistently about the matter for, I think, over three weeks.

If we want to be serious about our concern for animals, the first thing to do is to look at what the animal welfare experts said about Bailey. They said that he was a dog in excellent condition, well adjusted and well cared for. These are not working dogs in the traditional sense. The training that goes with them is for those prison officers who deploy them in certain circumstances. They are treated, for all intents and purposes, as a family pet would be treated. That is why we are able to do this. To say that there was no pre-assessment of suitability is, again, factually incorrect. There was one issue around whether the dog was well socialised with men, and that was dealt with before the dog was selected and brought to the prison. Those are further facts relating to further misinformation, and they show the further inability of some to accept a detailed and evidence-based response and to take it into account.

Ms Hunter: I am in solidarity with you, Minister, following the mob at your house, last week. We are all thinking of you.

Following up on the previous questions, will the Minister confirm whether emotional support animals, particularly dogs, receive specific training before being placed in a prison? Do prison officers receive any kind of specific training regarding being assigned responsibility for caring for an animal?

Mrs Long: As I have just said, prison officers are trained in the deployment of emotional support dogs, which is pretty much like looking after any other dog in that environment. The dogs are not there for protection, for guarding or to work as sniffer dogs, where there is a particular skill engaged in training the dogs and a particular level of vigilance required of the dogs. The dogs are simply there to show companionship to prisoners. The dogs do not need specific training, but they need to have a particular temperament. They have to be good around people, and they have to be calm and assured. Bailey fitted all those categories. Sadly, now, his life has been disrupted due to a threat received from outside the prison. If anybody actually cared about dogs and their welfare, they would not want to see a happy, well-adjusted and well-cared-for dog taken out of its routine environment.

Mrs Long: Police powers around drinking in public in Northern Ireland derive from a mix of local by-laws and broader public order legislation. Councils can prohibit drinking in designated public areas by way of local by-laws made under the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. Consuming alcohol in those areas is an offence. Police can take an offender's name and address. However, prosecutions are brought by councils. The PSNI can address several alcohol-related public order offences via penalty notices for disorder provided for by the Justice Act 2011. That allows officers to quickly address offences such as being drunk in a public place, disorderly behaviour or conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. In addition, the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 gives police the power to require those under 18 to surrender alcohol in public, with refusal constituting an offence.

I am aware that there is a desire for the legislative framework to be updated, and, as that is likely to be a cross-cutting issue, my Department is working with the PSNI and the Department for Communities to ensure that it is fit for purpose, with a view to bringing forward legislation, if needed, in the next mandate.

Mr Durkan: I also express solidarity with the Minister.

Parts of Derry city centre at times now resemble the Wild West, with groups of vulnerable individuals drinking and engaging in antisocial behaviour. It is not only putting them at risk; it is impacting negatively on locals, tourists and the local economy. Police have lamented the lack of legislation that would permit them to confiscate alcohol from adults and believe that that would be a game changer in tackling the issue. Will the Minister update us on the work that she and her Department are doing with others to close that legislative loophole?

Mrs Long: Conversations with partners are ongoing. The previous joint consultation with DFC on the issue indicated a strong desire for change. We are proposing providing PSNI officers with the additional power to seize and dispose of alcohol in exceptional circumstances, such as certain public order situations. We are also exploring whether any other agencies may wish to use enforcement powers, although it is important to note that any power of seizure would be limited to the PSNI. The overall aim is to deliver a modern, enforceable and proportionate framework that balances effective enforcement with individual rights and signposting to support services. There is no desire to penalise vulnerable individuals. However, as I said, it will be a cross-cutting matter, given that the powers lie between legislation that we can create in the Department of Justice and work that can be done by the Department for Communities.

Mr Dickson: Will the Minister outline the role that policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) have in tackling drinking in public and alcohol misuse?

Mrs Long: Policing and community safety partnerships are jointly funded by my Department and the Policing Board, and they lead on the Department's operational response to specific concerns at a local level. They work with designated partners, local statutory bodies and agencies, and the voluntary and community sector to tackle community safety issues right across the community. They can fund and support initiatives such as awareness campaigns, diversionary programmes for young people and local addiction initiatives. In a number of areas, PCSPs also help to fund community safety wardens to help ensure that our towns and cities are safe. Through those PCSPs, communities have a direct voice in shaping responses to alcohol misuse and ensuring that local concerns are reflected in practical actions.

Mrs Long: My Department funds support services to assist all victims of crime on an equal basis. The entitlements and services that victims of crime in Northern Ireland can expect to receive from criminal justice organisations are set out in the statutory Victim Charter. The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service is responsible for administering the courts. It is impartial in upholding the rights of all to seek justice through the court system.

Mrs Cameron: I put on record my utter condemnation of the incident that took place at the Minister's home last week. There is no justification for that kind of intimidating behaviour. Private homes must be off limits.

I thank the Minister for her answer. The Minister will know that the victims' campaigner Ann Travers has asked for a public apology to innocent victims for the removal of the word "innocent" from the recent motion in the House. Does the Minister understand the hurt and anger felt by the families of innocent victims, and will she take the opportunity to apologise?

Mrs Long: I certainly understand the hurt felt by victims' families and the sensitivity of the issue, which is why it is particularly disappointing that there has been so much politicking, particularly around the interview that I gave after the event. What I said has been thoroughly and deliberately misrepresented. To provide reassurance, I will put on record what I actually said about the difference between victims. I will read the part of it that was curiously edited out of what was shared on social media:

Hopefully, that provides the reassurance that Members and families are looking for. Nothing that we did in that debate, and nothing that we voted for or against, in any way changes our view that those who go out with the intent to cause harm should be held accountable for their actions, and that there is no moral equivalence between those who go out to cause harm and those who are harmed by their actions. I was simply pointing out a matter of fact: at different points in a person's life, they can be both a victim and a perpetrator. It is important that we provide trauma-informed support based on what will lead to reconciliation and recovery and will end the cycle of intergenerational trauma that blights this community.

Ms Egan: Minister, will you outline the support that your Department provides for the victims of sexual offences?

Mrs Long: We provide over £2·4 million of funding for the general work that we do to support victims, and to ensure that victims and witnesses of crime can access the support services that they need. Those services are delivered by Victim Support NI and the NSPCC's young witness service. Through the witness support services, victims and witnesses get emotional support, information and practical assistance, which helps them to give their best evidence. It includes opportunities to visit court before giving evidence; an explanation of the court process; accompanying the victim or witness into the courtroom, live-link room or remote evidence centre; and offering the opportunity to talk to someone when the case has ended. In addition, for those who are victims of specific sexual offences, we have sexual offences legal advisers and child sexual offences legal advisers, who can give pre-court and pre-trial legal advice to victims to help to guide them through the many requests that they will face around issues such as disclosure.

Mr McNulty: Minister, you mentioned ending "the cycle of intergenerational trauma". What about ending the trauma experienced by victims who were maimed and attacked in their own home by the IRA but cannot access the pension scheme because they were maimed and attacked by members of their own community? What is your assessment of that reality? How does that level with ending intergenerational trauma and the trauma experienced by the victims?

Mrs Long: I have raised the treatment of those people, particularly in cases of paramilitary-style attacks, in writing with the UK Government and the president of the Victims' Payments Board. Shootings and beatings by paramilitary organisations, whether they are intra-community or inter-community, need to be addressed in the same way. Unfortunately, that is not how the legislation sits. It would require amendment at Westminster. However, I have raised my concerns about the differentiation between victims who were beaten by people who ostensibly came from the same community versus those who were beaten by people viewed as being from a different community.

Mrs Long: There is no place in society for that type of hate. Every person and every family, regardless of religion or background, is entitled to feel safe and free from threat or intimidation. My Department is engaged in a wide range of work to respond to sectarian hate attacks and to strengthen support for victims of hate crime or for people who feel vulnerable to attack, whether at home, in school, at work or on our streets.

What is always evident is that sectarianism, racism and paramilitarism do not help our communities. Paramilitary organisations are an unwanted relic of a troubled past and hold no legitimacy. As I have said many times before, they should disband and allow our communities to move forward. It can be difficult to draw a direct evidential line between paramilitary groups and hate crimes, but let us be clear: communities know what is going on and who is involved. They feel it and see it, and that speaks to the coercion that paramilitary organisations and those who are linked to them still choose to force on people and communities who want nothing to do with racism and hate.

Legislative provisions in the proposed sentencing Bill and victims and witnesses of crime Bill will modernise our hate crime law in Northern Ireland and will provide a more robust system to sanction offenders. Direct support for victims of sectarian hate crime is provided though the hate crime advocacy service, which supports victims through the criminal justice process and signposts them to relevant support services. Sectarianism and racism are two sides of the same coin. The work of PCSPs includes actions to tackle hate crime at that local community level.

The question of addressing sectarian hate is, however, not solely the role of my Department. That also requires sustained cross-governmental action beyond the criminal justice system if we are to prevent harm from occurring. We all need to redouble our efforts to tackle not just hate crime but the attitudes and language that are the root causes of hate and prejudice and to promote more positive community relations proactively.

Mr Delargy: I begin by offering my solidarity to the Minister and her husband after the incident outside their home, which was completely wrong and should never have happened. Our thoughts are with you today.

I thank the Minister for her answer. We are hearing that when people report those crimes, there is often little or no outcome, which is quite worrying for them. What can be done to make that process more accessible and to ensure that sectarian behaviour, from wherever it emanates, is challenged?

Mrs Long: Like many other crimes that are committed by cowards under cover of darkness to intimidate and threaten, it can be very difficult to identify the individual perpetrators or actors in those situations. I encourage people to continue to report, because patterns of reporting can, in themselves, help the PSNI when it decides where to deploy resources, where needs more attention in order to protect the public and what may be able to be done.

It is important that people report crime, because without those reports we are unable to measure what is happening. I understand the Member's concerns, given the rate of hate crime in his city, and particularly around the increase in sectarian hate crime. It is not acceptable. It is completely unacceptable in today's society that people still find themselves intimidated because of who they are or how they are perceived by others. Unless we are all consistent in that message and unwavering in our condemnation, there is no point in us telling victims to have any kind of confidence in the system that, ultimately, we are the face of.

Mr Carroll: I extend my best wishes to the Minister and her husband, Michael, after what happened last week, which was disgusting.

In a general sense, Minister, what is your assessment of how closely the far right and paramilitary groups are working in unison to harass and intimidate people? You said that sectarianism and racism are two sides of the same coin. That is right, and those who perpetrate one are doing the other.

Mrs Long: The PSNI's assessment is that, whilst there are individuals who are connected to existing paramilitary organisations and are engaged and active in a number of those protests, there is less evidence to substantiate any claim that those organisations are orchestrating or organising those protests. In addition to the more traditional actors in that space, groups of people are being radicalised online by far right organisations and networks. They are often lone actors, who do not have a network of support or a traditional base in Northern Ireland, but they are being activated online and are finding their community there and acting in that sense. There are two separate dynamics happening, particularly with the far right threat. It is far more likely that somebody will be radicalised individually, in the privacy of their own home, than in a more public way. Undoubtedly, however, both will take to the streets, and both will use muscle to intimidate people who are vulnerable in the community or those who dare to have the audacity to speak up on their behalf.

Mr Brooks: It was interesting to hear the Minister speak about the tightness of resources in the context of what we have heard in the past day about the PSNI opening a hate-crime investigation into damage to a sign at Shandon Park. Can we be assured that there will now be investigations into any similar damage to signs across the country, including at the PSNI's initiative?

Mrs Long: Damaging street signs in general is one of the most petty and childish acts that a person can undertake. If you cannot drive past a sign that you do not like without feeling the need to take an angle grinder or a bucket of paint to it, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself. I will not be providing any assurance in the Chamber as to how the PSNI will prioritise investigations. As you will be well aware, it is for the Chief Constable to direct the resources of the PSNI, not me as Minister.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, it goes without saying that I and my party stand in solidarity with you. Democracy means you being robustly held to account in the Chamber, and you are more than able to deal with that. However, what happened was contemptible. A family home is sacrosanct, so we stand in solidarity with you.

In relation to sentencing provisions in the Bill, are you and your officials looking at the intersection between racism and the continuing prevalence of paramilitarism? Will there be an attempt to create compound sentencing provisions and aggravating factors for membership of proscribed organisations? What message is being sent by the continued engagement of your ministerial colleagues with organisations such as the Loyalist Communities Council?

Mrs Long: Intersectionality forms part of the hate-crime legislation that we hope to bring forward, and there will be aggravating factors where a hate-crime motive for the signalling offence can be proven. We will also prosecute those as stand-alone offences so that, if a hate-crime motivation cannot be proven, a person can still be held accountable for their crime.

Membership of a paramilitary organisation is a criminal offence. It can be prosecuted, and jail terms for it are available in legislation. If somebody is arrested for a hate crime, and they are also proven to be a member of a paramilitary organisation, there is nothing to preclude the two offences from being taken through the court together, as is the case in circumstances where somebody is arrested for an offence and there is also a paramilitary link to the crime.

We will also be bringing forward, through the Bill, additional means of sentencing and additional offences around participating in and directing organised crime. That is important because, whilst all paramilitary organisations have a finger in organised crime, not all organised crime organisations are involved in paramilitarism. We need to untangle all that, so it is important that we look at those issues as well.

When it comes to my views on the legitimising of illegal groups by those kinds of engagements, whether of other Ministers or an interlocutor appointed by the two Governments, I have been clear that that is unhelpful. The confidence of a community is shaken when they see people being treated as the spokespeople for a community but that community sees those people very much as having a jackboot on their neck.

Mrs Long: The criminal damage compensation scheme provides important financial support to victims where there has been physical damage to a property or a vehicle in Northern Ireland and where it can be shown that the damage was caused unlawfully, maliciously or wantonly by an unlawful assembly of three or more people or maliciously by a person acting?in connection with?an unlawful association such as an act of terrorism. Compensation may also be payable for agricultural property or property that is free from rates, if the damage was caused maliciously or deliberately.

Most commercial insurance policies should cover businesses for damage to their premises, including interruption to business operations. Some policies will also cover businesses that are not damaged but whose trade is affected in the aftermath. Where insurance is in place, companies will be available to provide immediate support to victims of criminal damage. If unable to secure support from an insurer, the criminal damage compensation scheme provides an important source of assistance for victims. As with all schemes, it is important to keep them under review. Consideration is being given to the need for any changes to the scheme to ensure that it meets the needs of victims. Any proposals for change would be subject to consultation.

Mr Stewart: I echo the comments of others, Minister, by saying that our thoughts are with you. What happened last week was totally disgraceful and unacceptable.

Minister, in the past 18 months, several people whom I represent in my constituency have been victims of a confirmed hate crime. Their property has been damaged, and the incidents have been deeply traumatising for them. When, however, they have sought compensation, which you referred to in your answer, they were unable to claim it, because the police could not confirm that three or more people were involved in that hate crime. That is unacceptable. A hate crime is a hate crime, regardless of how many people are involved. Will you look at changing the policy so that those people can claim compensation?

Mrs Long: I understand the Member's point, because it has been raised with me before. We have to go back to what the purpose of the compensation scheme is, however. It was introduced at a time when businesses and individuals were often unable to get insurance because of the level of property damage that was being inflicted during the terrorist campaign here. Compensation Services was therefore designed to deal with such incidents, as opposed to incidents of simple criminal damage or even simple hate crime offences. For example, for the civil disorder in Ballymena, 27 claims were submitted to Compensation Services. Of those, one claim has been paid out, one has been withdrawn, 15 are awaiting police reports and 10 are awaiting further documentation that is needed to support the claim. Compensation Services does all that it can to progress such claims as expeditiously as possible, but, when it is waiting for police reports, information from the applicant or further evidence such as deeds, insurance information and any business interruption information, that is often outside its control. Some cases will not meet the threshold of three or more people being involved, but the scheme is meant to cover "riotous assembly". If it is not proven that that was the case when the criminal damage happened, it will therefore be down to the individual insurer for that particular business or home to step in.

Mrs Long: The most recent PSNI bulletin, which was published on 28 August, shows that, in the 12 months up until 30 June 2025, 29,740 domestic abuse incidents and 18,246 domestic abuse crimes were recorded. That represents decreases of almost 7% and 5·5% respectively on the previous year. Although those reductions may appear encouraging, they should be treated with caution. Recorded statistics reflect only those cases that were reported to the police, and reporting can be influenced by a range of factors, including whether victims feel able to come forward and have confidence in the system. A fall in recorded incidents and crimes does not necessarily mean that domestic abuse is happening less frequently. What is clear is that domestic abuse continues to take place on a significant scale. Tackling it cannot be achieved by the Department of Justice alone. A cross-Executive and community-wide response will be required if we are to prevent abuse, protect victims and, ultimately, reduce the harm caused across society. The domestic and sexual abuse strategy provides us with a cohesive direction by enabling the necessary change to happen through partnership working.

Ms Forsythe: Like others, I send my best to the Minister and her husband following the absolutely appalling attack outside their home. I offer my continued support to her for her strong work on the abuse of elected representatives, particularly female ones.

Minister, in light of the figures, some support groups recently expressed concern at the all-party group (APG) on domestic and sexual violence — you touched on this — that the PSNI's reporting of a reduced number of offences is painting a picture that the number of incidents and the number of crimes have reduced, yet agencies and groups such as Women's Aid are reporting higher numbers of self-referrals. Minister, is there any forum in which we can bring together the different support groups, alongside the PSNI, to paint a full picture of what is happening here?

Mrs Long: That is difficult, because the bulletin looks only at reported incidents and reported crimes, yet we all know that there will be instances in which those crimes are not reported. Many victims, for good reason, will choose not to present to the PSNI. Although I always encourage people to report crime, I understand the complexities involved in doing so in a domestic violence context, because most people's priority is simply to extract themselves and their loved ones from a dangerous situation. We have the opportunity, through the work that we do with partners in the community and voluntary sector, to get some sense of the direction of travel, but it is hard to quantify that in a way that is robust enough for us to provide formal statistics. We will continue to explore doing that with our partners, because, again, we know that there will be under-reporting for a number of reasons, and even those who make initial contact with charitable organisations may not follow through on it later. Some of those reports may be —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, will you draw your remarks to a close? Thank you.

Mrs Long: Some of those reports may be as a result of other family members who are raising concerns.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That ends the period for listed questions. We move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical question 2 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Long: There are two elements to it. The degree to which sentencing is a true deterrent is questionable, because most people who commit crime never consider being caught. Many of them do things on the spur of the moment without giving any due regard to what the outcome for them might be, and many are completely reckless with respect to their own behaviour. I hear Members chunter from the sidelines that that is nonsense, but, if you talk to those in the legal profession, they will tell you that that is part of the problem. However, with the right sentencing framework in place, we can show, when those cases come to court, that we are serious about tackling it. That is an important message. The law will not change people's minds, but it will change their behaviours over time.

We need to identify much earlier, before harm has been caused, the issues, means and methods that are being used to radicalise individuals. We need to seek to intervene much earlier in the chain, before those individuals themselves become radicalised and end up undertaking actions that will bring them into conflict with the law and place others in the way of harm.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for that. I agree that sentencing is one part of it. Minister, you mentioned the radicalising of individuals. Could you elaborate on how you see your Department working, perhaps with other UK Departments, to stymie the influence particularly of social media on radicalising people who, previously, may well not have been radicalised and got themselves into such a mess?

Mrs Long: The Online Safety Act is but one of the tools available, and, obviously, my Department has made representations to the Home Office, which leads on communications and telecommunications because it is a reserved matter. We continue to feed in our concerns in that space.

Through the tackling paramilitarism programme, we are about to trial some desistance programmes for people who have already been radicalised into either paramilitary or organised crime but, we believe, are still reachable and teachable in that space, to get alongside them in order to start to change their attitudes and to offer them an alternative route forward at the very earliest stage of conflict with the justice system. That is one of the things that we can do.

We also look at what is available in other places. There is a suite of interventions that are available when young people become radicalised. Where it differs from the traditional radicalisation that we have seen in our community over many years is that those individuals tend to be lone actors and radicalised in their own home. Therefore, it is only when their behaviours reach a certain level of danger that we become alert to their involvement or, alternatively, when they have undertaken an offence, which makes it slightly more complicated to address. One of the things that we need is for not just my Department but Education, Health and others to look at it as part of our wider safeguarding approach. The other thing to say is that many of the people who are being radicalised are very young.

Mrs Long: I remain committed to delivering the uplift to remuneration that I set out in the Chamber in December last year. Officials across the Department are continuing to progress the business case with the Department of Finance that covers the wider enabling access to justice programme, not just the increase in legal aid fees. Progression of the business case was delayed to enable further amendments to legal aid fees that have been developed through the criminal legal aid working group that was established in March to be included in this round of change, and it was further impacted on by the fact that officials had to react to the impact of some emerging issues on the wider reform programme. However, I expect the legislation to be brought forward immediately once the business case is completed and to come into effect within six weeks, respecting the legislative process. In anticipation of the introduction of those new rates, the Legal Services Agency (LSA) has updated its case management system to ensure that the increased fees can be claimed as appropriate from the date on which the fees come into operation. It is also looking at how it will then be able to process, without requiring application from the practitioners, the additional back payments that I promised to the date in December last year.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that update. Can she provide a further update on the progress in increasing the fees that are payable under the County Court scale?

Mrs Long: The County Court rules committee has proposed a 23% increase to fees under the County Court scale to address inflation's eroding their value since 2017. The proposed amendments have undergone consultation, economic appraisal and policy screening, with no anticipated impact. The draft rules are subject to negative resolution procedure and are scheduled to be considered by the Justice Committee on 16 October. Pending the outcome of that, we will take them forward, as is appropriate.

Mrs Long: Like the Department of Health and the Department of Education, the Department of Justice has a projected overspend. There is a deficit of around £23 million for the PSNI. Until we have a plan in place to deal with that, a pay rise has been deemed unaffordable, although it has been approved in a value-for-money business case. At the moment, I am working through that with my Executive colleagues so that there is a consistent approach to pay. I set aside 3·5% for pay at the start of the year in order to ensure that that money was available. However, the recommendations that came to me were between 1% and 1·5% higher than that, which means that there is still a shortfall. I know that some other Departments did not ring-fence anything for pay at the start of the year. We did, but affordability will still be a challenge. The contractual element of the pay went ahead, as it should, at the start of October. I am hopeful that we will get to a point where we are able to pay the rest of the pay as soon as possible, as I say, subject to affordability. We will, sadly, be starting next year's pay round pretty soon, so, hopefully, we will be able to move that forward.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for her answer. I note from her answer that, unlike the other Departments, your Department set aside 3.5%. Is that included in the £23 million overspend, or is that money still protected? When are officers likely to know the outcome of the pay rise?

Mrs Long: The money was set aside and ring-fenced at the beginning when I was budgeting, which is why, at the beginning, I had quite limited budgetary concerns. I have had to take some fairly difficult decisions to live within the budget. My overspend at the moment is pretty much entirely with the PSNI. That is where the majority of DOJ's overspend is happening. We are working with the PSNI to try to find ways of managing that overspend. We have already reduced it by about half, but we need to reduce it further still for the Department of Finance to judge it as being affordable. I will continue to work with colleagues to find a way through. Just because police officers and, indeed, prison officers do not go on strike does not mean that they should be any less worthy of receiving their pay when it is due. They do a difficult job and should be remunerated fairly.

Mrs Long: The programme is an example of cross-justice collaboration to try to resolve what is a key issue. The Criminal Justice Board comprises all the senior leaders in the justice system, and they have prioritised that programme of work. It takes a whole-system approach; focuses on reducing avoidable delay, reducing demand, freeing up capacity and facilitating more proportionate and effective responses to offending behaviour; and aims to take advantage of technological developments to improve operational processes and communication between criminal justice organisations.

Funding of £20·5 million from the public-sector transformation board is enabling work to progress on early engagement and out-of-court disposals. There are regular updates to the Criminal Justice Board, as well as interim updates to the programme board, about how we are making progress. Given the existing financial pressures, that funding is a boost and will enable us to do some essential work to progress efforts and reduce avoidable delay. Part of that will be the work that we are doing around collating responses to the out-of-court disposals consultation. We will publish the findings of that and recommendations in due course. There is an early engagement project, which has seen the commencement of a gateway initiative to seek to enhance communication and file-preparation quality between the PSNI and the PPS at the earliest point in a case. There is also work towards a pilot of new case-management processes for courts. In addition, work is continuing on the implementation of a second phase of committal reform — direct committal — which is planned for November 2026.

There is still a lot more to be done, but what we are seeing in departmental statistics is that the average or median time taken for a case to be dealt with from the date on which the offence is reported to the police was 189 days in the most recent bulletin. That was an 8·3% improvement over the past two years, and will be a key measure of how the system is performing overall and a sign that efforts to speed up justice are having an impact.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she provide an assessment of the impact that budgetary pressures are having on justice system transformation?

Mrs Long: There is a long-standing and ongoing funding challenge for Justice, which is well recognised by everyone in the House because I repeat it frequently enough. It will undoubtedly impact on what we can deliver. The DOJ's share of the Northern Ireland block grant has fallen continually over the past 14 years, from just under 11% in 2011-12 to just over 8% in 2025-26. That underfunding hampers our efforts to do transformation as funding is, quite rightly, prioritised to demand-led front-line activities, including policing, prisons and courts. We have less than 0·5% of discretionary spend, which makes it increasingly difficult for us to engage in that kind of system-wide transformation. There is an appetite, however, for change right across the justice system, and so bids to initiatives such as the public-sector transformation board are crucial because they will allow us to fulfil that appetite to fund some of those endeavours and, hopefully, make further savings in the future if we can make those changes. All of us around the Criminal Justice Board table recognise that there needs to be transformation for us to be more effective and efficient. That investment now will help us to save money in the future.

Mrs Long: I have just set out the work that we are doing on speeding up justice. One of the particular reasons that we are looking at, for example, changes in the jurisdiction of the courts, as well as more out-of-court disposals for lower level offences, is to ensure that court time at the High Court is reserved for the most serious of offences, which will allow us, hopefully, to move more swiftly. Committal reform, for example, has already delivered hugely for victims of sexual offences and domestic abuse cases, whereby they do not have to give evidence potentially twice, which is a deterrent to people's coming forward. We have also used the remote evidence centre; there is a judge-led pilot there, which has domestic abuse contest cases heard. In the first tranche of eight cases that went through, all eight victims turned up and gave evidence, and all eight perpetrators were happy to concede guilt at the outset, so, just by the victims being there and having the confidence to come to court, the perpetrators pled guilty. We have seen that repeated. In domestic abuse contest cases where victims are able to give remote evidence, the success rate is well over 90% conviction. There are things that we are doing that will speed up justice and also make the process better. Finally, every domestic homicide is a tragedy.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. Will you draw your remarks to a close?

Mrs Long: I will. We are also looking at domestic homicide reviews. I am happy to provide the Member with further information on that.

Mr Burrows: Can I make a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Not at the moment.

Minister, while we wait for the next Minister to come in, I put on record that my personal thoughts are with you and Michael following the horrible attack your home. That should not be the case for anybody. Indeed, it is important that we recognise that.

On a slightly lighter note, there seems to be an acoustic anomaly in the Chamber today. Yes, you two, esteemed Members from the SDLP: please be aware that your voices carry from that particular corner and that that can interfere with other Members' contributions. You have ample opportunity to contribute at any given time.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We will start with listed questions. Questions 1, 6 and 9 have been withdrawn.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): At the outset, I record my concerns about recent events concerning public representatives and my complete solidarity with Naomi and Michael Long, my ministerial colleague Liz Kimmins and Dáire Hughes MP. It is important that we all stand full square in defence of democracy in this place and that all Ministers record their support for their colleagues who have faced appalling intimidation.

My Department previously supported regeneration activities in rural settlements with a population of 5,000 and below on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive through successive European Union rural development programmes. Following the UK's decision to leave the European Union, I have welcomed the opportunity to collaborate with the Department for Communities, as lead for regeneration policy, and the Department for Infrastructure, as lead for active travel, in the proposed Shaping Sustainable Places programme. Together, we are collectively implementing a long-term, community-led approach to support regeneration initiatives in our village, town and city centres across Northern Ireland. My intention is to propose that my Department invest £50 million into the £150 million fund that will be earmarked for spend to support regeneration activities in rural settlements with populations of 5,000 and below to ensure that no rural community is left behind.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his answer. I notice that the consultation documents mention of the possibility of a "Centre First policy". How does that align with your responsibilities in DAERA for rural affairs?

Mr Muir: We are very conscious of our lead responsibility on rural affairs. I am proud to hold that Ministry and have that lead responsibility. Each Department has a duty to serve rural communities in Northern Ireland. It is a demonstration of how we can collectively come together and ensure that the needs of rural communities are reflected. We have lost out through the loss of the rural development programme, but, hopefully, we will see a new approach to ensuring that people in rural areas are properly served through Shaping Sustainable Places and other initiatives that will flow from the new rural affairs policy, on which we will consult early in the new year.

Mr McNulty: Does the Minister agree that, in addition to rural and urban balance, there needs to be regional balance in the allocation of that £150 million? What will he do to ensure that that happens, given the fact that it is a joint scheme with the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for Communities?

Mr Muir: Councils have a key role in that. They play a central role in identifying and prioritising regeneration initiatives. I fully support the empowering of councils to lead that effort. They have been encouraged to take a strategic, place-based approach and to work closely with local communities in order to shape proposals that reflect local aspirations and challenges.

Mr Muir: I share the Member's concern about water quality in Belfast lough. I am also aware how popular sea swimming has become, which is why I formally identified seven new bathing water sites on 1 June this year. I have recently committed to a new bathing waters policy review for Northern Ireland, which will commence shortly. The review marks a significant milestone in our ongoing commitment to safeguarding public health, enhancing water quality and protecting our natural environment. New bathing water sites will be considered as part of the review. The review will also look at the length of the bathing season, as I recognise that a lot of bathing takes place outside of the current bathing season, which runs from 1 June to 15 September.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister. Sea swimming is incredibly popular in the likes of Fisherman's Quay. We have a triathlon, sea swimmers, sea dippers and everything in between. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council nominated Fisherman's Quay, but the Department turned it down. Areas such as Carrickfergus are being left behind in that regard. What more can the Minister and the Department do to ensure that that area is included and safe for everyone to use?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Cheryl. I understand that there were lots of nominations during the previous review. As an MLA for North Down, I nominated areas, as did many other Members. The new review that is coming up will be an opportunity for us to take forward nominations, but it is crucial that we work in conjunction with councils on that, because they have a responsibility for it. We will work closely with councils. We have ongoing engagement, and it is important that we look not just at which sites are designated but at the season, because we are seeing a lot more people swimming outside the designated bathing season.

Mr Dickson: Minister, what action are you taking to address waste water pollution in Carrickfergus and Belfast lough?

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Stewart. Waste water pollution is of significant concern to me. I have responsibility for regulation for and enforcement on pollution. I am on record and will say again that it is unacceptable that a separate arrangement is in place for Northern Ireland Water whereby, since 2007, it has, in many instances, got a bye ball when it comes to pollution. I will be taking proposals to the Executive on that, because it is important that we regularise enforcement on sewage pollution in Northern Ireland.

The other issue is the investment that is required for waste water infrastructure. I will be really honest with Members: I am fast losing patience over the need to take tough decisions on waste water infrastructure. It impacts not just on our environment but on housebuilding and economic development. As Minister, I am taking the tough decisions and putting my head above the parapet to turn around the situation in Lough Neagh, but others need to do the same, particularly the Department for Infrastructure. Mountains of reports are gathering up about the inadequacy of our waste water infrastructure. We need to turn the sewage pollution tap off, take brave decisions and end sewage pollution not just in Belfast lough but in many other waterways across Northern Ireland.

Mr Stewart: I share my colleague Cheryl Brownlee's concerns about Fisherman's Quay not being selected by the Department.

Minister, you have talked about the impact of the horrendous amount of waste water that is being pumped into Belfast lough and have said that it is the next Lough Neagh waiting to happen. That is deeply worrying. What conversations have you had with Northern Ireland Water to see what more it can do to reduce the waste water that is being pumped into Belfast lough? What further investment and projects need to happen to protect that vital asset?

Mr Muir: My role as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs includes regulation and enforcement. I have made it clear how I want to strengthen the sewage pollution situation. I want to end Northern Ireland Water largely getting a bye ball, if that is due to historic underinvestment. The issue is that we need to face up to tough decisions about our waste water infrastructure. As an MLA for North Down and as Minister, I know the dire state of Belfast lough, and I am taking action, for example, on the designation of sensitive areas (SAs) that require more investment. I have also set out more on the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI), but, fundamentally, the issue sits with the Department for Infrastructure. If Members want to improve water quality, we have to face up to the issues and look at how we fund our waste water infrastructure in the future. The current situation is not sustainable.

Ms Hunter: Minister, sea swimming is popular in my constituency from Portrush to Coleraine, Benone and beyond. We even have groups such as the Menopausal Mermaids and Salty Sea Sisters. What action are you taking to maintain areas that are used for bathing? Have you identified any parts of the North that do not have any and, if so, how we can improve things to have more?

Mr Muir: Councils often manage areas where people bathe. That is why we have a partnership arrangement with them for water quality, testing and all the rest of it. It is therefore important that people engage with their council. Some areas, such as Crawfordsburn Country Park, sit under the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), and we have management responsibilities for such areas. Often, however, they are, as I said, councils' responsibility, which is why we want to work in partnership with them.

Mr Muir: Since becoming Minister, I have been clear that we must do more to reverse the increase in bovine TB in Northern Ireland. In January, in response to a recommendation from the Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO), I established a TB partnership steering group — a new body that is made up of farming, industry, veterinary and environmental stakeholders — to work with my Department to develop the actions that are needed to get rates of the disease to fall. I was therefore very pleased to endorse the group's agreed 'Bovine Tuberculosis in Northern Ireland — Blueprint for Eradication', which was published in April. The blueprint document sets out the necessary priorities under three key themes: people, cattle and wildlife. My Department has a new TB eradication transformation programme in place to deliver the actions in the blueprint. Initial priorities include work on wildlife intervention options. I have therefore asked officials to prepare a new public consultation on options.

Other priority work streams include work to ensure that TB testing is carried out to the required standard, work to progress a potential regionalisation pilot, work to provide on-farm biosecurity advice and work to expand the use of the supplementary interferon-gamma (IFN-g) blood test. I am committed to progressing the new measures in order to tackle the disease as quickly as possible. It is clear that only by working together can we tackle all the factors that contribute to the spread and endurance of that costly disease.

Mrs Mason: I appreciate that answer, Minister. I have written to you on the subject, and I appreciate your response and the fact that you sent out the Chief Veterinary Officer. Farmers tell me that they are heartbroken. While their herds are being wiped out, they feel very left behind, and their families face huge mental and financial strain. I understand that many of the farmers who have been directly impacted on feel that their voice is not being heard on the stakeholder engagement group. Minister, will you commit to holding meaningful engagement with farmers on the ground, as they want to work with you to help out?

Mr Muir: I fully understand the challenges that bTB presents for farm families in Northern Ireland. It creates mental anguish, but there is a cost associated with it as well. Although the Department is upholding the 100% rate of compensation, I understand that that does not reflect the whole associated cost loss. I will continue to engage with relevant representatives. I thank people for taking part in the stakeholder forum, as it is important for finding a way forward. The issue is not confined to Northern Ireland. Rates of infection pose a challenge in England, Wales and the South. Fundamentally, the only way through this is to work together, and that is what I am committed to doing.

Mr McGlone: Minister, you mentioned the transformation programme. Can you give us some detail on its specifics and on what targets it will set to address the awful scourge of bTB that affects livelihoods and infects herds?

Mr Muir: We are under obligation to work towards eradication, and I am keen to do that, but it will take time. Fundamentally, as I said, it is based on the three pillars of people, cattle and wildlife, and that is what we are investing in. It is important that we take forward those actions. My Department bid for some of the transformation funding that is available in Northern Ireland. We were not successful in the first round, but we have submitted a second bid. It is important that we support that work so that we can drive down rates of infection, not just because of the impact that bTB has on farm families but because of the impact that it has on my Department's budget. That is why we want to turn the situation around.

Mr McMurray: The Minister mentioned infection rates in other jurisdictions. We share a border with the Irish Republic. What engagement has he had with the Irish Government on working collectively to eradicate bovine TB on the island?

Mr Muir: I have spoken to Minister Martin Heydon on the issue, as I did to his predecessor, Charlie McConalogue. It is a key topic in the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) work plan, and I look forward to having continued engagement.

I note with interest the publication of the robust new TB action plan from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) and its proposed additional measures. On Friday, I was pleased to announce, alongside Minister Heydon, a new cross-border project as part of the Shared Island initiative to tackle the growing impact of bTB on farms in a pilot area. That new cross-border initiative is aimed at taking a regionalised approach to tackling bovine TB.

Both Departments will engage in developing the overall approach for the cooperation project, which is to focus on implementation of measures on a coordinated regional basis to support reduction of bovine TB incidence and transmission.

I am glad that we got that over the line: we will continue to work on roll-out, and I am confident that it will make a tangible difference in what is a key issue for farming communities, North and South.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, given that scientific evidence from other jurisdictions shows that culling wildlife has a positive impact on the reduction of bovine TB, what consideration have you or the partnership group that has been set up to look at eradicating bovine TB given to that?

Mr Muir: There is no primary or secondary legislation in operation that explicitly provides for the culling of badgers in Northern Ireland. Following the judicial review decision, there is no departmental policy in place on wildlife intervention. I assure you that I will proceed with a consultation on potential wildlife intervention measures as soon as I can. I advise Members that the judicial review was split into two parts, the second of which was on the legislative basis for wildlife intervention. Officials are therefore exploring all potential avenues that may form part of the legislative basis for any wildlife intervention in order to ensure that our position will be robust in any future legal challenge.

Any decision that I make on wildlife intervention will include preferred legislative means and be based on science and evidence. We need wildlife intervention, but it is important that we do it right.

Mr Gaston: Minister, it is past the time for honeyed words and more talking shops about an issue that affects people's livelihoods. If the science points to a badger cull, will you introduce the necessary legislation to put it in place during your time as Minister?

Mr Muir: I have been consistent, unlike many others in the Chamber, in respecting science and evidence. We will follow a process; we will do this right. We will consult on the wildlife interventions, and we will take decisions on the way forward. We have to learn lessons from how we did it previously, and we have to respect the science and evidence, not, as some people have done, cherry-pick.

Mr Butler: Following Friday's announcement on the cross-border initiative, will the Minister be more explicit about the target zone for the pilots? Will there be a regional assessment, or will it be in the border regions?

Mr Muir: We will continue to work through that. The announcement was significant and something that I was keen to achieve. We now have to work together, North and South and with stakeholders, on where that will be. It is likely to be in a border area because it is a Shared Island initiative. It is a good example of where we can work North/South to deal with something that is a challenge in both jurisdictions.

Mr Muir: Whilst the Bill does not specifically contain such guarantees, the provision of robust and effective measures to ensure that the appropriate person or organisation pays for the necessary remedial actions is key to minimising cost to the public purse. Councils will not be expected to take remedial action in every case. The Bill seeks to ensure that those with an interest in a property take on the liabilities associated with it.

Councils will need to use a common-sense approach on a case-by-case basis in deciding whether to begin enforcement proceedings if the likelihood of recovering costs is minimal. It is considered reasonable to assume that a council would adopt an approach that does not put its finances at risk and that ensures that it maximises its success in the interests of its ratepayers. The Bill will also give councils the power to put a charge on the land where costs cannot be recovered immediately, ensuring full cost recovery.

Mr McNulty: Minister, you seemed to outline a take it or leave it approach there. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum says:

Does the fact that no funding is attached to the Bill not mean that councils will be reluctant to spend their scarce resources? Will you consider a small budget to support councils?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Justin, for your question. I take a more positive approach to life when it comes to this. The legislation will give councils the power to act, and it will be up to them to decide. There are many examples of where the power will allow councils to take action and say to the owner of the building, "You fix it, or we will fix it, and we will send you the bill". It is good legislation. It is going through a scrutiny process, which I welcome, because it will allow us to tease out some of the issues that we are getting feedback on and to understand whether we will want to table amendments at Consideration Stage or Further Consideration Stage.

I want to work with people to make sure that this makes a difference. It has been a long time coming, and, hopefully, we will be able to get it scrutinised and on to the statute book.

Mr McAleer: Minister, given the hugely central role of councils in the Bill, can you give a firm guarantee that your Department will consult councils, NILGA and other stakeholders during the legislative process?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Declan. My officials have liaised with councils throughout the policy consultation process. Since the restoration of the Assembly, several councils have contacted my Department asking for updates on the Bill. My officials have also contacted the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) on the Bill's progress. SOLACE has confirmed that local government remains supportive of the Dilapidation Bill's introduction to the Assembly. Draft statutory guidance has now been shared with SOLACE and the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) for comment. The permanent secretary has reached out to SOLACE and offered a meeting to discuss any concerns that it has. We need to work with people on this, and that is what we are committed to doing.

Mr Robinson: In a similar vein, how will the Minister ensure that any legislation that is brought forward is operable and workable with local councils?

Mr Muir: We will take into account the feedback that has been received, particularly by the Committee as a result of its call for evidence. I have been looking at some that has come back. Councils have it coming onto their agendas, so I look at their reports. I have also looked at the RaISe report that the Committee commissioned. We will take all that into account and try to find a way forward that assures councils that the draft legislation is going to enable them, because revitalising our villages, towns and city centres and dealing with dereliction is good not just for the residents and businesses of those areas but for the council's rates base. If an area is dilapidated, the rates base is not what it should be. It is a good opportunity for everyone.

Ms Mulholland: First, thank you, Minister, for joining me to visit the Antrim Arms Hotel in Ballycastle during the summer to see just how much impact dilapidated buildings can actually have, particularly on small rural towns. Secondly, I agree with your positive outlook on life, so do you agree that the Dilapidation Bill will make a significant difference to people who live with the consequences of derelict buildings?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Sian. Yes: there is far too much negativity in the Chamber. We need a bit of positivity.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): What a good answer, Minister.

Mr Muir: Yes. We need to show people in Northern Ireland that this can be a place for good. Far too often, and even from the start of today's business, there has been negativity. We can scrutinise and examine, but we also need to show people a bit of hope. This legislation will allow councils to have the powers to intervene, and often in a situation where that dilapidation is just starting. It will allow fixed penalty notices to be issued that will incentivise the people who own those buildings to address their condition. I visited Ballycastle and could see places where it would help. You want people to be able to invest in areas and have confidence that, where dilapidation is starting to occur, councils have the powers to intervene.

Mr Muir: I recognise the critical importance of safeguarding water quality in Belfast lough and affirm my strong commitment to implementing comprehensive measures to improve water quality in Northern Ireland's water bodies. My Department's corporate plan 2025-27 contains a specific pledge to deliver an improvement in water quality. Significant pressure in Belfast lough's catchment is from waste water. Although waste water infrastructure falls within the Department for Infrastructure, my Department is engaging with it and Northern Ireland Water to enhance the regulation, monitoring and treatment of waste water. I am progressing plans to identify inner Belfast lough as a shellfish water protected area — that is a sensitive area that I referred to earlier — under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007, subject to Executive approval. Additional waste water treatment will be required as a result of the identification. I am aware of the need to progress that important area as a matter of urgency. Above all, addressing the issue depends on proper investment. I will continue to support the need for investment in waste water infrastructure in Northern Ireland and take the tough decisions that we need to take to ensure that we have sustained long-term investment.

Mr Chambers: Last November, I brought to your attention in the Chamber, Minister, a whistle-blower who had reported to me that Belfast lough had the potential to become the new Lough Neagh within the next 10 years. Part of your reply to me that day was this:

Is that assessment still your position, or are things improving?

Mr Muir: As a Minister, and also as a representative for North Down, I am very worried about the state of Belfast lough and where we are heading. That is why I am losing patience over the need to take difficult decisions on investment and waste water infrastructure. We cannot dodge tough decisions in this place. I am prepared to take them, and I am taking them, but they need to be taken across the Executive. The situation that is unfolding in Belfast lough is a real concern. I will take whatever actions I can on regulation and enforcement to make it clear that it is not acceptable, but I find it strange that other people do not show that level of concern. We are pumping sewage into Belfast lough and other waterways, and we are seeing the consequences of that with the pollution that is occurring.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I share your concern about a lack of clarity on investment in NI waste water, which is why I hope that you and your party will support our Opposition motion tomorrow on the need for an investment strategy to deal with these things. Another document that was published very quietly on Friday a week ago was the legislation programme for 2025-26. Your Department has only one Bill proposed in it. That goes right up until the end of 2026, so, presumably, that is the last iteration of current Executive legislation. It says that there will be a fisheries and water environment Bill. It does not specifically say that that will include provision for an independent environmental protection agency (EPA), but, presumably, that will be the last legislative vehicle for such a body to be created. Can you confirm whether the ship has now sailed on an independent EPA's being legislated for in this mandate?

Mr Muir: We have progressed or are progressing three Bills. The Agriculture Bill is now in law as the Agriculture Act, and the Dilapidation Bill is progressing. The fisheries and water environment Bill will strengthen regulation and enforcement around water pollution. It is out for consultation, so, if you have any views, please do feed back. It will allow us to issue fixed penalty notices and to increase the maximum fine from £20,000 to £50,000. It is an important piece of legislation.

I commissioned a panel to look at the issue of an independent environmental protection agency, and it will report back very shortly on that. When the opportunity came up to legislate for that through an amendment that was tabled to the climate change legislation, your party did not even turn up. Decisions are made by people who turn up, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: This mandate. You are the Minister. I am asking you about this mandate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Matthew, behave. I call William Irwin. William, much better behaviour, please.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his responses so far. We are aware of the reports that thousands of tons of raw sewage has been pumped into Belfast lough. Does the Minister agree that that is totally unacceptable and that something needs to be done as soon as possible?

Mr Muir: I entirely agree.

Ms Egan: Minister, I share your concern about the unacceptable levels of pollution in Belfast lough. Will you provide an update on the investigation into the sources of pollution in Ballyholme bay?

Mr Muir: Northern Ireland Water initiated work with the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) in May 2024. Samples were collected from over 20 stations covering the marine environment and the catchment. There were approximately 15 sampling points along the Cotton river. Northern Ireland Water agents also found a number of unidentified pipes discharged into the Cotton river by walking its length. That has revealed a large number of misconnections in drains that should contain only surface waters. That typically happens when householders retrofit a downstairs toilet to an existing property and connect to the surface water drainage system rather than the sewer.

Initial observations are that Northern Ireland Water assets along the Cotton river are operating as intended and are overflowing only in extreme conditions. Event and duration monitors have been installed at those sites. Northern Ireland Water has advised that misconnections have been investigated at 164 properties in total. Seven misconnections have been confirmed, and a further 34 sites have been classified as highly likely. All those have now been referred to the Northern Ireland Water misconnections and blockages team. Misconnections to a DFI-culverted stream were also detected and have been reported to DFI Rivers. Other observations from the data are that ruminant influence is strongest at the top end of the catchments and that the human signal increases as the eastern and western tributaries move through the town, as would be expected.

We need to raise awareness of the implications of misconnections. Two pieces of legislation are being progressed: the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, which will help to deal with misconnections, and the fisheries and water environment Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have 30 seconds.

Mr Muir: The research vessel Jocelyn Bell Burnell will give AFBI a step change in how it observes and protects the marine environment. It will be able to gather high-quality data and samples across the marine environment whilst reducing disturbance to marine life and lowering emissions. It will strengthen AFBI and DAERA's ability to understand marine ecosystems, detect climate signals and help the marine industries to adapt. It will also help us join up land and sea, recognising that what happens on land also affects the ocean, and that a healthy ocean, in turn, supports our coasts, climate and economy. With a 30-year design life, the ship equips the next generation of marine scientists and secures the long-term evidence base needed to make sound decisions.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. That ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical question 1 has been withdrawn.

Mr Muir: I have been consistent in my opposition to the family farm tax because of the disproportionate and detrimental impact that it would have on farmers in Northern Ireland. As a result, I have made representations to the UK Government on multiple occasions. I will, again, make representations to the UK Government this week because it is important that they listen to farmers on the impact that it is going to have. A useful report came from the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), an analysis and tax advisory centre. It has a lot of merit, and I wish that the UK Government would take that up.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for that response. He touched on my next question: does the Minister accept that, without changes to the British Government's inheritance tax proposals, the future sustainability of family farms here could be undermined? Will he give that commitment to continue to press the British Government to rethink those plans?

Mr Muir: The impacts have been numerous, particularly in relation to the mental health of farmers and the concerns and anxieties that they have and on the sustainability of farming in Northern Ireland, with the potential land issues and how it could be broken up. I will continue to make representations to the UK Government because it is the wrong way to go, and it is important that people listen to the implications for Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: We have a role to play, not just as the Department with the lead responsibility for rural affairs but in working with the Department for the Economy. If there are specific issues that the Member wants me to progress, I am happy to do that. Innovation is a key part of our Department, and we have a division dedicated to it. We want to support people in the time ahead, and one of the ways that we will do that, particularly in relation to farming, is the sustainable farming investment scheme, which we will launch in the next financial year.

Miss Dolan: Minister, you have touched on this, but are you in a position to provide additional funding or mentoring for small, rural start-ups?

Mr Muir: We have a number of schemes through the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) framework, which is a rural micro-capital support scheme to support small businesses in rural areas. I can send the Member more details on that. It has been very popular.

Mr Muir: In May, I published my animal welfare pathway. It represents the most ambitious package of reforms for this area in over a decade, the majority of which will be taken forward through secondary legislation, which is a quick and effective way to improve protection for companion animals in Northern Ireland.

The animal welfare pathway includes several key initiatives, which have the potential to transform companion animal welfare. Those include a review of dog breeding and canine fertility services, the regulation of the sale and supply of pups and kittens, and a consideration of issues associated with a ban on aversive training devices.

Over 480 responses to my consultation document were received, containing proposals to regulate the supply and sale of pups and kittens, which also outlined my aspiration to ban third-party sellers. My officials continue to analyse the submissions received, and I hope to be able to publish a formal consultation response soon, which we will use to set out the final way forward. An expert adviser group has also been established to review the operation of current dog-breeding regulations here and examine the provision of canine fertility services. Work is well under way, and we understand that the group has been gathering evidence and has met a wide range of stakeholders.

Finally, my officials have commenced initial policy development work on the remaining reforms in the pathway, which has been examining the case for the mandatory micro-chipping of cats, regulating rescue and rehoming organisations, and exploring potential changes to the operation of the current animal boarding regulations. While that work is in an early phase, I still hope to be in a position to initiate public consultation on all those issues around the end of this year. Those actions demonstrate my ongoing commitment to strengthen the protections for companion animals across Northern Ireland.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. It is clear that animal welfare is an issue that you are passionate about, and on which you are taking action in your Department. Minister, will you provide an update on where you are on banning shock collars?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Nuala. I thank the all-party group on animal welfare, which is ably chaired by John, for its engagement on these issues. We want to do these things together and collaboratively with stakeholders. The Department's code of practice for the welfare of dogs recommends to the public that only positive reward-based training should be used and that potentially painful or frightening training methods, such as electric shock collars, should be avoided.

I recognise that the use of shock or e-collars is not explicitly banned in Northern Ireland, but an animal fitted with a collar remains protected by the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. That means that a person can use an e-collar on an animal if it does not cause the animal any unnecessary suffering. If a person sets the level and intensity of the signal that is given to the pet too high, they could be causing unnecessary suffering to the animal. That is an offence under the 2011 Act. Nevertheless, I am aware of the merits of banning the devices. I want to see them banned — I have set that out in the animal welfare pathway — and I am keen to explore how we can do that. My Department will explore the bans in other jurisdictions, such as Wales, where they have been banned since 2010, and engage with stakeholders on how we can effectively implement a ban.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Brett. I take my responsibilities as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs very seriously. We have an environmental responsibility to move more people out of the private car and on to buses or trains. That is a good way to go. We also have an opportunity to encourage active travel — something that I am keen on. A challenge in Belfast city is that people are struggling to get home later at night, and the associated issues relate not just to the environmental implications and increased car usage but people's safety. I am engaging with the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister for the Economy on an initiative for late-night transport that will provide enhanced Metro and Ulsterbus services on a number of key routes so that people can get home.

Mr Brett: The Minister will be aware of my ongoing desire, and that of his party colleague, to get that service in place and delivered before Christmas. Will the Minister fulfil the Christmas wish of Miss McAllister and I for Santa to put the support in place so that we can have late-night public transport before Christmas?

Mr Muir: I hope to get it over the line this week, but there is one thing, Phillip: Santa only comes to good boys and girls. [Laughter.]

Mr Muir: As an Assembly and Executive, we committed to delivering a climate action plan in the climate change legislation and in the Programme for Government. Developing a climate action plan has been a significant amount of work, and I thank officials for that. The policies and proposals laid out in the draft plan are expected to be sufficient for Northern Ireland to meet its first carbon budget. The consultation closed recently. There has been a significant number of responses and engagement at the events, and I thank people for that. It is important that we take time to consider the responses. We will bring a paper to the Executive for approval as soon as possible. There are many challenges in relation to climate change — we know them, and we see them play out in Northern Ireland by way of more severe storms and the situation with Lough Neagh — but there are also opportunities. I am meeting many businesses that are investing in decarbonisation, and I want to make sure that we can create those good green jobs in Northern Ireland.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Minister, what is your assessment of the importance of ensuring that young people are included in conversations about protecting our environment and tackling climate change?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Eóin. The journey to net zero is the defining challenge of our generation. It is important to listen to the views of young people. The Department has reached out to young people in our local schools to ask them for their views. The feedback from children and young people has been excellent, with participants offering highly insightful and detailed contributions. As a local MLA, I have met a lot of eco-committees in schools, and I find their insights into the issue and their understanding of it to be really impressive. It is important that we listen to young people. That is what we are doing as a Department, and I am proud of that.

Mr Muir: It is important that everyone get a fair crack of the whip and that that be done through having a proper process in place. I am happy to look at that issue, but it is important that, when we are evaluating applications, we do so in a fair manner.

Ms Brownlee: I appreciate that, and I know that you are only a part-funder of the scheme, but what really concerns me is access to funds, particularly in rural areas. Anything that you can do to promote the scheme and to encourage as many people in East Antrim to apply to it will be much appreciated.

Mr Muir: I am happy to have a look at that, and I will respond to the Member in writing.

Mr Muir: I thank officials who organised that engagement and consultation with local people. I also thank the Member and other public representatives — other MLAs, the local MP, the mayor and council's chief executive — for engaging directly with me on the issue. We will consider the feedback that was received. I have given an undertaking to representatives from the area that I will go back up to Derry and speak to them all about the proposed way forward once we have analysed and considered that feedback.

I also need to give the Committee its place, but you are among the people who represent the area that is affected by Mobuoy, so it is important that I engage with you all directly. I also want to engage with you a bit more on the public inquiry and on the way forward. You have my assurance that I will be back up in Derry talking to you all about what we are considering as the way forward. A key issue will be finance, because remediation costs are significant. That is why we have to engage with the Minister of Finance.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Minister, for the update. As you are well aware, local people, organisations and groups are very keen to continue to engage with you and the Department. Do you have any timescales for when there may be further public engagement with local organisations and residents?

Mr Muir: I will need to engage with my officials to determine the outcome of the consultation, which recently closed. I will do that, and I will then write to you setting out some envisaged timescales.

We have to make sure that we are doing remediation correctly, because the site is very complex. We will be guided by experts. I thank Derry City and Strabane District Council for appointing the consultants that it did. They fed back to us, which allowed us to have expert feedback on the way forward. That has been very useful. We will come back to you setting out the way forward, however. I know that the site is a concern.

In conclusion, if the situation at Mobuoy, at Lough Neagh and at other precious landscapes in Northern Ireland is not a clear example of why I need support from my Executive colleagues to set up an independent environmental protection agency, I do not know what is.

Mr Muir: Thank you for your question, Michelle. We have to make tough decisions to ensure that we balance our departmental budgets. As Minister, I think that it is important that we do that. On the opportunities that lie ahead, we will have a three-year resource budget and a four-year capital budget. I have been engaging with the Finance Minister about DAERA's bids.

Out of the resource budget, first and foremost, it is about meeting our statutory obligations, which are TB compensation, pay awards for staff and tackling episodic diseases such as avian influenza and bluetongue. It is important that we meet those obligations. Alongside doing that, we want to continue to invest in farming and agriculture in Northern Ireland. That is why it is important that that funding remain ring-fenced. We also need to invest in environmental improvements, in Lough Neagh, in climate change delivery and in our food strategy framework.

Mrs Guy: How will a just transition fund for agriculture benefit farmers while delivering nature recovery and climate action?

Mr Muir: Money for the just transition fund for agriculture is something that I bid for from the UK Government last year. We were not successful, so I engaged with the Finance Minister, and we got £12 million this year. I want to see funding for a just transition increased, not just to tackle climate change but to tackle wider environmental issues such as our water and air quality.

I am concerned about the budgetary situation in Northern Ireland and the impact that potential overspends in other Departments could have on my Department. It is important to have fiscal discipline in Northern Ireland, and, when you are given a budget, you should stick to it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Time is up.

Mr Burrows: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am concerned that the Justice Minister may have misled the Chamber in her answer to questions about Bailey the dog: specifically, that prison officers are and were trained in the deployment of emotional support dogs, including Bailey; and, secondly, that a suitability assessment was carried out before Bailey was placed in the prison. I engaged with the director general of the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the governor of Magilligan prison, and they said that that was not the case. The Minister needs to clarify and correct the record, if appropriate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much for your remarks, Mr Burrows. The Speaker's Office will review the Hansard report and respond, if appropriate.

I have already said that time is up. Members should take their ease before the next item of business.

Mr Speaker: We return to the Final Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill.

I call Cara Hunter. Cara, I offer you my congratulations on your recent marriage.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: We noticed that you were missing, and, when I enquired about that, I was told that you were getting married. I wish you many years of happy marriage and offer my congratulations.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am not changing my name just yet. I am still a Hunter, which is very good.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the School Uniforms Bill. I have to be honest: I am disappointed that the Bill, in its current form, does not engage with issues specific to women and girls. Today, I am wearing a suit. I am wearing dark trousers, and I feel comfortable and confident: that is not a luxury; it is a right. I am sad that that right has not been extended in this case to women and girls of school age across the North. I am disappointed and disheartened that the Bill did not take the necessary steps that many members across the Committee wanted to see.

That said, the SDLP shares the Committee's sentiment that, ultimately, we want the Bill to lift the burden of the cost of school uniforms in order to help parents and families across the North. However, our support comes with real frustration, because what is before us today is a far slimmer, safer version of what it could have been. The Bill was introduced because we acknowledge that the average cost of preparing a child for school is close to £1,000. Pivotal, the public policy think tank, found that one in 10 schoolchildren in the North has missed school because they do not have the right kit. That is simply unacceptable.

The SDLP will support the legislation today, as the principle is to make school uniforms more affordable and measure fairness into what, frankly, has been an unchecked system for far too long. However, I cannot ignore the fact that the Bill has become watered-down through its passage to the Final Stage. At the earlier stages, Members across the House, including those of us who sit on the Education Committee, listened to hours and hours of debate and put forward constructive amendments that would have made the legislation stronger, more inclusive and more accountable. We engaged on a cross-party basis and had a lot of conversations about what we could do to make the Bill the best that it could be. Sadly, many of our amendments were withdrawn, ruled out or replaced. I particularly note the absence of any commitment to gender-neutral uniform options, which is a real missed opportunity.

It is the Committee's duty to listen to the stakeholders that it engaged with and to put forward the needs and wants of our young people. We did a good job of that, and I feel frustrated, as do many members of the Committee. We wonder about the point of the Committee's level of engagement and of listening directly to young people. As the Committee Chair said earlier, what really resonated with us was that this was about comfort and, more importantly, period dignity. I reiterate that it is grossly unfair that, in the 21st century, young women and girls across the North cannot be afforded the same choice in the right to wear trousers. If I am being honest, I find that frankly absurd. Schools should be places of comfort and inclusion, not conformity for conformity's sake.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I thank the Member for giving way. Does she accept that it is entirely within the gift of a school, even today, to make provision for the very issues that she has just articulated, and that that, indeed, will continue to be the case? Through the guidance, schools can consider all those matters and can engage and consult with parents and pupils. Within this, there are references to issues around comfort, and that has to take all those issues into account. Ultimately, however, it will still be for the school to decide. There are schools that have already decided to allow girls the opportunity to wear trousers, if that is what the school wants. The difference here is that some Members wanted to make that mandatory for every school in the legislation, which is a slightly different proposition. Schools can certainly do what the Member has articulated.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Minister, and I take his point and understand his position. For me, however, this is about equality in all schools. It is about the rights of every young woman or girl at a particularly vulnerable time in their life, when they are starting puberty and managing periods for the first time. It does not go far enough, and I believe that making that mandatory is the way forward. The Committee heard from Menstruation Matters, and I got feedback from parents in my constituency office. Embarrassing moments happen, and periods are a part of life. I have to say, Minister, that this was a missed opportunity, and it was within your gift —.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Ms Hunter: Yes, I will give way to the Member.

Mr Sheehan: The Member may recall the evidence that we heard from a very articulate primary-school child who attends a rural school. Sometimes the class is taken into the field beside the school, and that child said that she has to wear a skirt, whereas the boys can wear trousers, and there are nettles and thistles and so on in the field. It is just not fair and does not provide equality for that girl. Does the Member agree with me on that?

Ms Hunter: I thank the Member for his point and wholeheartedly agree. That speaks to the issue of equality and the things that the Bill could have done. I understand the Minister's position that this is ultimately about affordability, but it could have been so much more. As Pat mentioned, it should be about equality and access to education. Girls are going to have a different educational experience, compared with their male peers. We have been talking so much in the North recently about women's health and women's rights and what equality looks like, and this Bill could have done so much more.

The Committee heard from specialists such as Menstruation Matters about where the Bill could go and what it could do. When the SDLP introduced the Period Products (Free Provision) Bill, we heard feedback there. I was really disappointed that that was not highlighted here. Our young people expected the Bill to modernise our approach and not just tidy up the guidance. Today, I feel as though they have not been listened to. A disservice has been done here. For a Bill that promised to deliver fairness, we feel strongly that it leaves far too much discretion in schools' hands and, with respect, far too little accountability in the Minister's hands.

As the Bill passes today, the SDLP asks the Minister for clear commitments. First, we are asking that the Department collect and publish data on uniform costs every year, not every three years. Secondly, we ask the Minister to review the guidance within the first year of implementation in order to address the issues that we have discussed today, with matters such as inclusivity, gender neutrality and reasonable adjustments for children with special educational and sensory needs. Those are not add-ons but are central to what a fair uniform policy should mean.

At its best, a school uniform should remove barriers and should make every child feel equal, confident and part of their community and their classroom. When the cost of a uniform keeps a child at home, however, it becomes the very opposite of what it was meant to be. Families do not want speeches about affordability: they want to see prices fall, and that will depend entirely on how the Department enforces what is passed here today. Without strong guidance, regular reporting and visible accountability, I fear that the Bill, while well-intentioned, could be somewhat ineffective.

Today, the SDLP will support the Bill, but let us be honest: it could have been braver. It could have delivered real accountability, real transparency and comfort, particularly for pupils who have special educational needs. As the Committee Chair rightly mentioned, until we see the guidelines, it is hard to know what things will look like moving forward. However, we, as a Committee, and we in the SDLP, will hold the Minister to his word when he says that the legislation will make a practical difference for families. We will continue pressing, inside and outside the Chamber, for policies that truly reflect fairness, inclusion and compassion. That is what families deserve, and what the Assembly should deliver.

If I were to grade you, Minister, it should have been an A*, but, today, you get a C-.

Mr Sheehan: From the very beginning, Sinn Féin approached the Bill in good faith, and, on that basis, we accepted a shorter Committee Stage. We engaged constructively, tabled amendments to make the legislation stronger, and took Department of Education officials at their word when they told us that the draft guidelines would be shared with us before the summer recess. We were told that, once we saw the guidelines, we would be assured that there was no need to amend the Bill, only to discover that the Minister never intended to give us sight of anything.

The Minister then mocked that process in the Chamber. He laughed off the commitments that were made to Committee members by his senior officials. He laughed to himself as he confirmed that we were never going to see the guidelines, despite the promises of those senior officials. I do not believe that the officials had an axe to grind or had skin in the game; I believe that they were just following instructions. That is not good faith. This is serious lawmaking. It is disrespectful to the Assembly and the legislative process, but, more importantly, it is disrespectful to the hard-pressed families who were hoping for meaningful legislation that would give them a break from the spiralling cost of school uniforms.

We do not have faith in the Minister's legislation because we do not believe that he is one bit serious about significantly cutting the cost of uniforms. For example, on a radio programme some weeks back, he did not even mildly criticise a school's practice of introducing a separate elite-tier uniform costing £180 to distinguish its high achievers. The Chair said that he does not know of any Minister who would want to bring forward legislation that is not effective. I sort of concur, but I believe that the intention of the Minister is to bring forward light-touch legislation. Families will not notice any significant difference next year or the year after.

Families across the North are struggling. They wanted the Bill to deliver relief and fairness. Instead, it was a missed opportunity. The DUP Minister has produced a weak, light-touch piece of legislation that does little to bring prices down, nothing to protect parents from excessive branded demands, and nothing to promote equality or fairness for children and young people.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Yes.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member accept that the vast majority of schools are already doing the right thing on uniforms and that it is a minority of schools that are abusing the system, and, therefore, for the vast majority of families, the schools that serve them are already trying their best to keep the cost of uniforms down?

Mr Sheehan: I thank the Member for that. I am not sure that I agree that it is just a minority. School uniforms are one of the biggest costs for families throughout the year, especially families who have maybe two or three children going to post-primary school.

We mentioned on a number of occasions the example of Craigavon Integrated College, which, in consultation with parents and students, recently designed a new school uniform. That will come in at £2 under the school uniform grant. That is the type of radical thinking that we need, and which we expected here, but we now know that we are not going to get it. When we are talking about reducing costs, that is what we are talking about. We are not talking about reducing something by a fiver.

We want a significant reduction in costs for hard-pressed families and parents.

Working with others, Sinn Féin tabled sensible, practical proposals that would have done all that — not once, but twice — and they were blocked from even being debated. Let us recap on some of those proposals. One was limiting the number of branded or bespoke items that a school could require. Another was the right for girls to wear trousers if they want to, not at the whim of a principal. I agree with the Minister that there are schools that currently permit girls to wear trousers, but there are also schools that will not permit girls to wear trousers. Every one of us sitting here knows that. There are schools that will refuse girls the right to wear trousers, even during menstruation or when they are uncomfortable because of other issues. That is another opportunity that the Minister missed.

There was also the issue of ensuring comfort and practicality of uniforms for our children and young people with additional needs. Some children become stressed or anxious because of the type of materials that uniforms are made of or because of the style of uniforms — for example, ties and shirts closed up to the neck. There is also the issue of supporting schools to facilitate more uniform banks and swap schemes. It is missed opportunity after missed opportunity.

We will allow the legislation to pass today because families deserve something rather than nothing, but make no mistake: families deserve better than this. That is why, at Sinn Féin's request, the Education Committee has now agreed to begin exploratory work on a Committee Bill that will correct the Minister's homework, close the loopholes that he left wide open and deliver real affordability, fairness and equality for children and young people. We will not rest until that happens. Families have waited far too long for action, and Sinn Féin will make sure that they get it one way or another, regardless of how long it takes.

Mr Brooks: I do not intend to draw my remarks out for too long, because it would be repetition of a lot of what has been said at previous stages. Nevertheless, I am pleased to support and welcome the School Uniforms Bill at Final Stage. This is a positive moment for the Executive, the Minister and the House but, most importantly, for families across Northern Ireland. It goes without saying that I do not share some of the undue pessimism or critique from some of my Committee colleagues. The Bill represents exactly the kind of practical, people-focused legislation that our communities expect from the Assembly, and it addresses real issues faced by ordinary families in a sensible and balanced way.

For many parents across Northern Ireland, the cost of school uniforms has been a growing concern. We have all heard from constituents who have struggled each August to meet those costs, and we have heard some examples at the Committee. The one that sticks out for me is the girl — I met her again, in another context, more recently — who felt that she could not engage in school sports because of the prohibitive cost of the uniform. We all see that kind of thing as unacceptable and want to address that.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mr Brooks: Yes.

Mr Sheehan: The only way to ensure that that situation is rectified is by ensuring that, by right, girls are allowed to wear trousers. They do not have to wear them. They could still choose to wear a skirt. However, if you want to ensure that that young girl whom you are talking about is able to do sport — I mentioned a young girl who has to go into a field with nettles and thistles wearing a skirt — that situation can be changed by bringing equality legislation in here. We all know — I said it earlier — that there are principals who, on their own whim, will not allow girls to wear trousers to school.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for his point. The point about trousers is, no doubt, applicable to his argument, but I am not sure that it is the most applicable argument to the girl about whom I was speaking. That is more about the fact that she had joined the school the year before and felt that the cost would be prohibitive to her parents given that she only had a couple of years left in the school. That was more about the cost of a PE outfit than about trousers. The Member's point about trousers is on the record, and we can debate that. I have confidence about the Minister's intention, which he appears not to have. I know what the Minister wants the Bill to do, and I am sure that the guidelines will see to that.

What the Bill achieves, through greater transparency, affordability and fairness, is a system that works better for everyone. It does not seek to remove local decision-making from our schools, as outlined by the Minister. Instead, it ensures that every school, in setting its uniform policy, must consider the financial realities that families face. The Minister has been clear that schools will face consequences if they do not and that he has every intention of giving those directions where necessary.

Some, I understand, have reservations about what the guidelines will say and bring. However, as I said, I am sure that the Minister will show the same drive and determination to make family-focused improvements as he has done on childcare, curriculum and SEN education, and that he will continue to deliver change across the priorities that this party outlined to the public at election time.

The DUP has always believed in supporting our schools to make the right choice for their pupils, while ensuring that the policy serves the wider community fairly and responsibly. The Bill achieves that balance. A school uniform should be a source of pride, not pressure. It should bring young people together and not highlight difference. By keeping uniforms affordable and accessible, we make sure that every child can stand on the same starting line, ready to learn and achieve.

I pay tribute, therefore, to the Minister for the determined way in which he has steered the legislation through its various stages, and how he has challenged the Committee and Assembly not to dither or delay but to advance as soon as possible, so that families can see the benefits of the legislation, while allowing schools and local businesses adequate time to prepare. Good governance is not about grand gestures or big speeches but about delivering practical results for the people we serve. I trust that that is what we are about to complete our part in doing today and that the outcome will be positive. It shows that the Assembly, in particular with a DUP Minister, can, through common-sense politics, deliver common-sense solutions for local families.

I am pleased to support the Bill and commend the Minister and his departmental team on what, I believe, will be the passing of the School Uniforms Bill today. It will be good and fair legislation, and it is proof that the Assembly works for all the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Burrows: I was not present for the evidence sessions or the scrutiny as the Bill went through Committee Stage, but, I know, from what I have heard since, that all the members of the Committee are sincere and passionate about doing what they believe is right for children and parents. That common purpose is refreshing. Not everybody gets what they want in a Bill: the Ulster Unionist Party voted at times with the Minister and at times against him, because we judge things on their merits.

Our purpose was to ensure that the core aims of the draft legislation were met: that school uniforms are more affordable and that comfort and practicality lie at the heart of school uniform policy, but that that is tempered with flexibility and discretion for schools in doing nothing that undermines the esprit de corps that comes from wearing a uniform. Therefore, we will vote for the legislation. We think that it is a positive step. Maybe some of the issues that have been raised can be revisited at future times and in future debates. However, it is a good day for parents and young people.

Much has been said about the guidelines not being published in advance of the legislation. We take the Minister's word for it: he has obtained legal advice that the best thing is for the guidelines to follow the law. However, that is not to give the Minister a blank cheque. That is not how we interpret it. Clearly, the guidelines have to be of sufficient quality and clarity to achieve the core purpose of the Bill. That is why we have stated many times, conscious of the interpretive rules that courts can use, under the famous case of Pepper v Hart, that we must look at the purpose of the legislation, which is to bring affordability to the very centre of everything that schools do. Its purpose is also to ensure — this is a rigorous red line — that no child is stigmatised, disciplined or excluded because their parents cannot afford kit or uniform. That is why we have put that clearly on the record. Ultimately, that is the litmus test on which the legislation will be judged. We therefore hope, expect and, at this stage, trust, although we are verifying it through the available mechanism, that that is what the guidelines will do. It is a positive day.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes, I will.

Mr Sheehan: I wonder, because I did not hear this articulated in any of the debates, either in Committee or in the Chamber, where the Ulster Unionist Party stands on the issue of girls having the right to wear trousers to school.

Mr Burrows: That is a very good question. There is a need for schools to develop such policies with boards of governors and parents, to consult on them and to come to their conclusion. What we do not want to do is to adopt an ideological position that prescribes what schools do. A sensible balance needs to be struck between having legislation that places a legal duty on schools to ensure that uniforms provide comfort, affordability and practicality — to me, that is the most important "CAP" — and having legislation that gives schools flexibility and discretion and provides for common sense, without that legislation being onerous and overly prescriptive. Let us judge the legislation and the guidelines on their outcomes. The opportunity to do that will be through a review. We are therefore happy to support the Bill. It is a positive day for schools, children and parents.

Mr Baker: Minister, let me be clear from the outset that, because of how everything has played out, this is your Bill. It is not the Executive's Bill, the Committee's Bill or even the Assembly's Bill. Rather, it is yours and yours alone. From the beginning, you and your officials have not acted in good faith. The Education Committee, along with its staff, worked around the clock to scrutinise your Bill in a very short time. We did so in good faith, and I regret that now.

You have mocked —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Baker: Yes.

Mr Brooks: The Member says that he does not believe that officials acted in good faith. His party colleague said that he thinks that they did. Is there therefore a difference of opinion?

Mr Baker: It all boils down to the fact that we were promised the guidelines but never got them. We were told, "You will have them next week or the week after", but we never saw them.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Baker: Yes,

Mr Sheehan: We were misled by officials. I do not believe that they had skin in the game, but I believe that they were acting under instruction from those higher up the food chain. There is therefore no contradiction in what my colleague has just said.

Mr Baker: Thank you. As I say, Committee members worked around the clock, because the Minister took the line that we had to work harder. He has mocked our Committee quite a number of times in the Chamber, particularly about its relationships and sexuality education (RSE) inquiry, on which he did not seem to place any value.

Mr Givan: Have you finished it?

Mr Baker: We have finished our inquiry report.

Mr Givan: When is it being published?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Baker: If you want me to give way, I will give way. You do not have to shout across the Chamber. It is no problem.

Had you followed the inquiry and listened to the evidence that we took, particularly from our young people when they talked about violence against women and girls and misogyny — some Members in the Chamber would do well to learn from that evidence — perhaps you would value it, but, then again, you probably would not, because you do not like the voice of equality, Minister.

Minister, you asked for trust and faith in your Bill. In reality, everyone in the Chamber will be voting blind today, because your Bill is light on detail. Everything will depend on guidelines that no one has seen, even though they were promised.

The Committee will not rest on its laurels. It has agreed to scope out the policy intent of a Committee Bill to amend your School Uniforms Bill. I am disappointed, because the evidence that we heard in Committee did not make it into your Bill. Minister, you will be judged by parents next year. You will have no protections then, and you will not be able to blame anybody but yourself. Our young people have been silenced on equality through the Bill. The Minister and the DUP know that the Committee amendments that were not selected for debate would have been passed by Members and would therefore have been made to the Bill. Everything now depends on the guidelines, but, at this stage, there has been a massive missed opportunity. It is no day for celebration here. We should have been changing mindsets together today, but, unfortunately, we are not.

Mr Middleton: On this, the Final Stage of the School Uniforms Bill, I take the opportunity to reaffirm my support for the legislation and to commend the Minister of Education and his officials for showing leadership and bringing forward tangible action to try to make a difference to people in our communities.

One of the key commitments of my party was to make a difference for working families. The Assembly and Executive will be judged on what they do and what they bring forward to try to make a difference, and I am pleased that the Minister has brought forward something that will benefit not only my constituents but parents and children right across our communities.

The Bill has been the subject of scrutiny at the Committee and in the Chamber. What we have now is a practical piece of legislation that will bring greater fairness, transparency and accountability to school uniform policy across Northern Ireland. The Bill will enable change for the better, whether that is the meaningful consultation with pupils and parents and the requirement that policies are reviewed regularly, or the guidelines that will, hopefully, address key concerns around affordability and practicality, highlighting the importance of access to clothing banks and uniform lending schemes, tackling the issue of exclusive supplier arrangements or, indeed, addressing issues around the eligibility of the uniform grant.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Middleton: No, thank you. The issue has been well debated.

This is legislation that will make a difference. It is right that it now proceeds without delay. I thank the Education Minister for taking action. It is about seeing fair and consistent policy right across Northern Ireland and supporting those families who need it most. It respects school autonomy whilst ensuring that no child is left behind because of what they wear. I am pleased to support the legislation. I believe that it will make a difference, and I urge all Members to unanimously pass the legislation.

Mrs Guy: Legislation to tackle the cost of school uniforms has been long-awaited. When the Minister signalled an intention to do so, we welcomed it. When we saw the Bill, it is fair to say that our response and the response of others was, "Is this it?". The truth is that every Member who stands here to speak about the Bill has no idea of whether it will make a financial difference to families. That is the honest truth, and every Member should be honest about that fact. They may believe that it will, but they absolutely cannot know that it will. That is because, despite assurances that we would, we have yet to see the guidelines that the Bill will give statutory force to. Those guidelines and the Department's work to enforce them will be the ultimate test of success. Through the legislative process, we received clear assurances from the Minister that schools that do not comply will be directed to. There can be no scope to allow any school to disregard the guidelines, and we will be watching that space going forward.

The Education Committee originally agreed to a longer scrutiny period to be completed by December 2025 at the latest. When it came to the debate on that, it is on the record that Members from different parties changed their position, and we worked to a shorter time frame. "Work harder" was the message from the Minister to the Committee. I do not think that we realised at the time that he was being ironic, as it soon became evident that his Department had done little substantive work to deliver the promised draft guidelines. In fact, we were told that the Department was only starting to seek legal advice and feedback from schools at the Committee Stage. Officials could not answer basic questions on how affordability would be defined. Work on a potential cost cap appeared not to have been started. As we debate the Final Stage of the Bill, it appears that a fair bit of work is still to be done.

In that context, I acknowledge the work of my fellow Committee members, the Clerks and the Bill Office team, who pulled out all the stops to do the very best that we could in the time that we had. I want to recognise, in particular, the work of the Committee Chair, my colleague Nick Mathison, who distinguished himself in how he led our work. I cannot help but lament the kind of private Member's Bill that he would have brought had the Minister not taken up the mantle. That is something that we will never know. What we are left with is very much the Minister's Bill, and its impact and effectiveness will ultimately come down to what the Minister chooses to include in the guidance and what definitions he chooses to adopt.

Year after year, MLAs have been outraged at the schools that continue to charge excessive amounts for items of school uniform, essentially placing an additional barrier in the way of children accessing an education and requiring families to go into debt in order that their child can go to the school that they choose. I continue to question the mentality of that approach. Ultimately, when the guidelines are published, I will look to see whether they reflect the evidence that the Committee heard and the views that were provided throughout the Department's consultation.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Guy: Yes.

Mr Sheehan: We have mentioned the guidelines and the lack of integrity that there appeared to have been in the whole process numerous times. Can you think of any reason why draft guidelines could not have been shown to the Committee? The Minister could have said, "This is what I have in mind. Take a look at those and discuss them. If you think that you can do better, come back to me, and we will have a larger discussion about it". That would have been a good way to move forward. We all agree that we need to have greater affordability when it comes to school uniforms and other connected issues. Instead, we have this debate today. Although we are all going to vote in favour of the Bill, we all know that we are divided on its efficacy and on concerns that, when it comes to affordability and equality, it is not going to butter the parsnips. Do you agree with that?

Mrs Guy: I thank the Member for his intervention. I agree with much of what he said. I am not going to speculate on what may or may not have been the reason. I can look at the evidence, however, and, as I outlined, the evidence is that the work was not done. Draft guidelines did not come before us because the preparation and work were not done to deliver something that would have been meaningful. It was not put in front of us. I appreciate that one can speculate that the guidelines will perhaps be a disappointment to us, but we will wait and reserve our judgement until we see them. I entirely agree with the points that the Member made about equality.

We heard directly from young people and those with additional needs who should have accommodations made. We heard from young girls who wanted to have the option to wear trousers. For the last debate on this, I chose to wear trousers. Today, I have chosen to wear a skirt. The point is that I had a choice. The Bill shies away from giving girls and women the same choice when it comes to school uniforms. I hope that the clear evidence that we heard at the Education Committee from young people and others will give the Minister the impetus to ensure that his guidelines provide that schools must consider menstruation needs and the impact on access to education and physical activity, because, in 2025 —.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. Lots of Members have referred to the evidence that the Committee heard from young people. Do you agree that it potentially sets a dangerous precedent if Committees listen to young people and tick the box to say that they have done so, but then produce legislation that seems to pay no heed to a single thing that they told us? It may reduce young people's enthusiasm to engage in the legislative process.

Mrs Guy: I thank my colleague for that intervention. I agree entirely. We encourage young people to come, and we assure them that their voices will be heard in policymaking and legislation. Completely disregarding their time and their evidence is hugely disappointing, and it absolutely is a worry that they will just give up, because they will assume that we are just paying lip service to their contributions. Those contributions should be heard and taken seriously.

I hope that the clear evidence that the Education Committee heard encourages the Minister to take action on that. Of course, we heard about the urgent need to address costs and their drivers, most notably branded items, excessive PE kits and single-supplier agreements. I am glad that there is some provision in the Bill to tackle the latter.

Minister, if the guidelines are good and adequately address the issues that I have raised, I will say that they are good. I want uniforms to be more affordable. I want uniform prices to be fair and to promote equality. What is good about the legislation in some ways is the fact that families will either feel its impact, or they will not. Those who have to pay excessive prices will be able to tell us directly whether prices have come down. Those girls who are being told that they cannot wear trousers will either be able to do so after the legislation is enacted, or they will not. Ultimately, it does not matter what I say here. The judge will be families in Northern Ireland. I genuinely hope that the Bill does not let them down.

Mrs Mason: Like many others across the Chamber, I came to the Bill with the real hope that we might see legislation that would make a tangible difference for families who are struggling with the rising cost of school uniforms. I began working on a similar Bill as a private Member, with a real will to help people. I am genuinely gutted at how the Bill has turned out. From day 1, we tried to engage constructively, taking officials and the Minister at their word. We were told to trust the process and wait for draft guidelines, and that, once we saw them, everything would become clear. Well, we are still waiting; we still have not seen them. What did we get instead? We got a Minister who, rather than working with Members, decided to mock the process that we entered into in good faith. He laughed off promises that were made by his officials, as if it were all some kind of joke. There is absolutely nothing funny about parents lying awake at night, wondering how they will afford another branded jumper or PE kit. There is nothing amusing about families having to choose between heating their home and paying for a school crest, wondering how their child will feel in the morning when they have to put on a woollen blazer that makes them distressed due to their sensory needs, or about the guilt that they will feel because they cannot afford to send their child to the school that they want to go to.

The Bill could have brought about real change and fairness. Instead, we have been handed something weak, vague and half-hearted. It does not limit the number of branded items or protect parents from excessive costs. It does not guarantee basic equality for girls who want to wear trousers, or for children with additional needs who need comfort and flexibility built into their uniforms. I have heard Members from across the Chamber say that some schools allow girls to wear trousers, and others do not, but we have missed the opportunity to ensure that they all must allow that. Let us be honest: that was not an oversight; it was a choice.

The truth is that the Minister has shown no real interest in tackling the root of the problem. As my colleague Pat Sheehan mentioned, only a few weeks ago, when the Minister was asked about a school that introduced a so-called elite uniform to single out top performers, he could not even bring himself to condemn it. If that is the standard of leadership, it is no wonder that we have ended up with a Bill that falls so far short of what families really need. As a mother and someone who hears every week from parents who are exhausted, stretched to their limits and doing their very best, I cannot pretend that the Bill is good enough. It is not.

Having listened week in, week out to witnesses at the Committee, including parents, students, suppliers, school leaders and human rights advocates, Sinn Féin and others in the Chamber tabled practical, fair and deliverable proposals that could have made the Bill work; proposals that were designed to bring down costs, promote equality and support schools to set up more uniform banks and swap schemes. Those ideas did not make it into the Bill. That is not democracy, and it is not partnership. That is a Minister closing the door on the people to whom he should be listening. We will allow the Bill to pass, because families deserve something, but let us not pretend that it delivers what they were promised.

Mr Carroll: Like many others, I feel that the Bill is a waste of an opportunity to take quick and meaningful action to make school uniforms more affordable. The fact that the Education Committee is considering its own Bill to strengthen the legislation is clear evidence of this Bill's weakness. I do not know whether that is unprecedented, but it is certainly unusual.

Some modest proposals in the Bill may — I emphasise the word "may" — have positive impacts. Collecting and analysing data on the cost of school uniforms is worthwhile, but having information on just how extortionate school uniforms are and how quickly prices are rising will mean very little unless something is done to cut costs. The Bill will impose reporting duties, compelling schools to explain why uniforms cost the amount that they do, and it gives the Education Minister the power to cap prices at some future date, if he ever chooses to do so.

In short, the Bill does very little to help the hundreds of thousands of families who are struggling here and now. Each year, families fork out hundreds of pounds before their child even starts the new school term. For families with multiple children, that goes into the thousands. Between blazers, jumpers, ties, PE kits and deals with specific suppliers, the cost of sending a child to school is eye-watering. That is before adding in the cost of school trips, meals, travel, technology and all the rest. Last year, a UK-wide report found that families spend upwards of £400 on secondary-school uniforms and nearly £300 on primary-school uniforms. When you take into account PE kits and the unnecessarily high number of branded items for many grammar schools, you see the true price is much higher. The current school uniform grant, at roughly £42 for a primary-school pupil and £67 for a post-primary-school pupil over the age of 15, covers only a fraction of that cost, leaving families having to fork out hundreds of pounds every year.

Last year's Parentkind survey found that 66% of families were worried about the cost of uniforms. Uniform costs were by far the source of most anxiety for parents, many of whom were forced to make unacceptable sacrifices just to send their kids to school. If you look at poverty levels, you will see that 41% of parents ration heating, 19% skip meals, and more than one in 10 takes out loans and credit cards to pay for school costs. Families are being put through unacceptable levels of stress and anxiety, and the worst part of it is this: it is entirely unnecessary. There is no need for expensive blazers or branded PE kits, which serve nobody and nothing except the bosses of the companies involved and the outdated sense of prestige that comes with a fancy uniform. I pay tribute to everybody in my constituency who challenges that, in fighting poverty and advocating for people ripped off by expensive uniforms and for those in poverty. The Executive should be ashamed that so many are in poverty and that that has become normalised.

There are significant equality issues with uniform policies that the Bill fails to address. Members have mentioned that too many children with special educational needs and female, transgender and non-binary pupils are forced to wear uniforms that are not comfortable or suited to their specific needs, which is cruel. No child or young person should face barriers to education, whether they are related to cost or to accessibility.

The state can and should intervene to curtail uniform costs. Although the Bill lays the groundwork for that intervention, I have no confidence that it will result in any meaningful change for families. I would be happy to be proved wrong.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Givan: I rise to make the final speech in the Final Stage of the School Uniforms Bill. I thank each Member who has spoken today. At the start of this element of the debate, I pay particular thanks to my officials in the Department of Education for their work. The Bill has involved a significant amount of work, which I prioritised when I first came into office. We needed to make available the necessary support in the Department in order to assemble the team to do that work. That team has engaged in good faith and diligently throughout the process. Officials made themselves available to the Committee: at every request that was made of them, they were there, and they answered the questions to the best of their ability. I put on record my thanks and appreciation for the work of my departmental officials in helping me to get the Bill to this stage.

Addressing the cost of school uniforms is something that should garner support across the Chamber. Broadly speaking, I believe that it does, but I find the narrative from some Members and some parties disappointing, though, I have to concede, not surprising.

I began the process with an intention to introduce good legislation that would make a difference to families struggling with cost-of-living crises and the cost of school uniforms. That is what I introduced: good, effective legislation that is informed by experts and does what it needs to do but does not replicate or conflate existing law and does not place in primary legislation requirements that render guidelines unworkable in the real world.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way. I hope that I have been clear that I really want the legislation to be effective. I will be the first to pay tribute to you if it is, but you are making big statements that it will be effective. We will know whether it is effective only when we know what the guidelines do, because that is what the legislation delivers: guidelines that schools must adhere to. How can we be assured that it will be effective when we do not know what the guidelines will ask schools to do?

Mr Givan: The Member does not have long to wait for the guidelines to come into effect, but, as I indicated in opening the Final Stage debate, we have already engaged with school principals. The Bill will not come as a surprise to schools; indeed, it was a year ago, on 24 September 2024, that we corresponded with all schools, setting out the anticipated requirements of the Bill and associated guidelines and advising schools to get ready. Some schools have already made changes in anticipation of the Bill; indeed, it has already had an impact. We have kept schools informed, so the guidelines coming into being will not come as a surprise to schools.

The Member wanted to put specific detail in primary legislation — this is the difference in some of the approaches that Members have articulated. In order to make changes to that, you would need more primary legislation. Guidance, however, can be updated, evolved and changed much more speedily. In the event that guidance is found not to be effective, it can be changed without having to bring forward primary legislation. If other parties get their way and decide, after the next election, to take the Education Department, a new Minister can bring forward guidance and that can follow a process that will not necessitate primary legislation. Our job is to give the legal force behind that guidance, which then has much greater flexibility to incorporate the points that Members have made. The problem with other Members is that they wanted to put things into primary law, which is not as easily changed and amended. Indeed, the Assembly, having put things into primary law, had to change them because they were not effective. That process has been found to be a suboptimal way in which to create effective legislation. That is a broader point about how this place should, in my view, conduct its business. The guidance will be effective and the Member will not have long to wait.

I know that he wants to come back in. I am happy to give way.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way. Throughout the process, you have been very willing to take interventions as we have debated the draft legislation.

Given that it was clear that Members had concerns that they were in the dark about what the guidelines would be, would it not have been helpful to bring us some sort of sense of your intention in order to ease those concerns? There was debate and back and forth in the Committee about how prescriptive primary legislation should be. As those concerns were being highlighted, would that not have helped to ease those concerns and smooth the process to get it over the line?

Mr Givan: The Bill's broad purposes were there. They were in the Bill, which Mr Baker says is not the Executive's Bill or the Assembly's Bill, but my Bill. Well, I do not have the power to create a piece of legislation with only one vote out of 90. Mr Baker can vote against the Bill, and then it will not be his Bill. In fact, if he does not vote against it, it will be his Bill. I will watch for you going through the Noes Lobby.

Mr Baker: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: I will happily give way.

Mr Baker: Minister, this is your wee trick that you do all the time. You will take all the praise for yourself when you think that everything is going to go right, but, when it is going to go wrong, regardless of what it is, you want to place the blame on everybody else. Make no mistake: this is your Bill.

Mr Givan: Mr Baker has just confirmed that he will vote No. Let us wait and see. When the Division is called, I will see whether Mr Baker votes No and offers himself up as a Teller, or whether he just meekly allows the Bill to go through and then comes off with his highfalutin language that it is all about me. I look forward to his voting No. In fact, not only will he vote against the Bill but he will bring forward a vote of no confidence against the First Minister. That has to be what the three Sinn Féin Committee members do now, because the Bill was brought to the Executive and agreed to by the First Minister — it was placed on the agenda and voted for at the Executive by the First Minister. Then, when it came to Second Stage, it was voted for by Sinn Féin. Mr Baker will now vote against the Bill and lead the charge internally to get rid of his First Minister who allowed a "defective, weak piece of legislation" to go through on this, "no day for celebration". I look forward to seeing how brave Mr Baker is. I think that I already know the answer to that.

When it comes to making the legislation, I have made it clear that I am not a legal expert. Others in the Chamber have said that they are not legal experts. On recent evidence, that can hardly be gainsaid. It has been said that mistakes have been made in legislation previously. Again, to be sure, there is evidence of that, but that does not make it acceptable. Such a description does not apply to the School Uniforms Bill. Members have talked throughout the amending stages of the Bill's scrutiny about its being a missed opportunity. Any missed opportunities relate to Members' misunderstanding of the coverage and strength of the draft legislation. It does not simply require a set of guidelines to be sent to schools, which they may, or may not, follow. Prescription of the extent that was sought by Members approaching Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage would not have delivered benefits for parents. Placing existing legislation in the Bill is contrary to good drafting conventions and neither strengthens nor provides clarity about how other legislation works with regard to new primary legislation.

That the Education Committee is talking about scoping amendments through a Committee Bill before the Bill even comes into operation and before the guidelines are produced — I have assured Members that the guidelines will be shared with schools as a matter of urgency in the coming weeks — demonstrates to me that some of its members have not managed to understand fully what the Bill does. Many of the proposed amendments that did not make it on to the Marshalled List at Consideration Stage were, in my view, technically flawed, conceptually misguided, largely unnecessary and, indeed, potentially unworkable. They are therefore simply not suitable as the basis for legislative provisions if they are ever to reappear in their own Bill.

This is about ensuring good law, not wider gestures. It is a matter for the Education Committee to decide how it proceeds with the Bill. Mr Baker was a little bit sensitive to my criticism of the Committee, but I believe that that criticism is well founded. I look forward with interest to the outcome of the Committee's RSE inquiry, which has taken 18 months now. It was meant to be a micro inquiry, yet we are still waiting for its report. We have not yet had a debate on that in the Assembly, and I look forward to responding to it. Its micro inquiry has taken 18 months, yet I am supposed to have confidence in the efficiency and efficacy of the Education Committee to draft its own Bill. Seriously? Perhaps when I am to appear before the Committee next week, it will again be a Star Chamber attacking a Protestant school for two hours. That is all that the members were interested in when I appeared before it the previous time.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Givan: I think that the Education Committee is having me appear before it next week, and we will see what areas it covers then. The last time, it certainly did not cover special educational needs or the budget problems that we face. It did, however, cover one school in particular. That is what it spent all its time on.

Mr Brooks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: Mr Baker should understand my scepticism about this Education Committee. I will give way to Mr Brooks.

Mr Brooks: Will the Minister agree with me that members of the Committee often talk about priorities but that they do not always practise what they preach?

Mr Givan: That is a matter for the Committee. I do not want to interfere in how the Education Committee handles its affairs. We will wait and see how, when I appear before it, it handles them.

I will move on. I have indicated that it is not for me to dictate the direction in which the Committee goes. We should, however, allow the Bill and the guidelines to become operational and then review how the guidance gives effect to the legislation. That would be a much more appropriate action for the Committee to take. It would allow it to carry out its proper scrutiny role, and I would support it in doing so. It should then reach a decision on whether it wants to introduce its own Bill, but that, again, is a matter for the Education Committee.

Let me remind the House that the Bill contains strong duties and powers. It works in conjunction with all existing legislation, including human rights and equality law. It is focused on ensuring that the guidelines cover affordability, comfort and practicality, and it allows for provisions to be put in place to cap costs or the number of branded items, to differentiate between school types, year groups and Key Stages and to support uniform banks or the lending of uniform items to pupils.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Minister, for giving way. I apologise for not having been able to contribute to the debate. I was at another engagement.

On the point about equality and what the guidance might do, the Minister will be aware that I tabled an amendment about girls being allowed to wear trousers. To give him an idea of from where that came, an eight-year-old child was so concerned about upskirting that she asked to be allowed to wear trousers. Despite having taken that suggestion to her school principal, he was not having any of it. Can you therefore give a commitment that, in developing them, your guidelines will address that specific issue on the basis of equality, which you have just outlined.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her intervention. A number of Members have touched on that issue, and I addressed it earlier in the debate. I am getting to the point at which I will speak about equality-related matters. The Bill speaks about comfort and practicality. Those measures are in the Bill and will be reflected in the guidance. The guidelines will not, however, mandatorily require every school to make such provision. That will still be a decision for schools.

There is always a balance to be struck as to where that should lie. Should we force that uniform policy on all schools, or do we allow them to develop it, engage with parents and pupils on it, and come forward with it? I err on the side of allowing our schools to navigate the issue, but it is part of the guidance when it comes to comfort and practicality. They should engage on those issues as part of that process.

Mr Sheehan referred to it, saying, I think, that it should not be subject to the "whim" of a principal. That is not correct. No principal operates on a whim. Every principal has a board of governors. Every principal is accountable to the school's board of governors. They have to have policies in place. It cannot just be the case that somebody decides one day, "This is the policy, and I am going to enforce it in my school setting". That is certainly not the practice that I had from principals when I was on the boards of governors for schools.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister, for giving way. Can you understand that some of us may be a bit perplexed when we talk about equality and the rights of girls to wear trousers and are told that that is already in place and that it is up to schools? That still leaves some schools where girls are allowed to wear trousers and other schools where they are not. How is it true equality, if every girl and every young woman in every school does not have that choice?

Mr Givan: Again, I say this to people: campaign on those issues when you are being consulted in your school setting. Change the policy of your school, if you feel that that is the most appropriate for your school setting. That is a matter that is entirely for schools. There is a degree of autonomy — I call it "appropriate autonomy" — in matters of education, where schools should be able to take those decisions. They now have a clear framework through which those decisions have to be taken. Therefore, engage with your schools. Make sure that your pupil voice is heard, because the law now requires that school to take into account the voices of pupils and parents.

The fundamental purpose of the Bill is notable. Some Members have majored on the gender-related issue — should it be trousers or a skirt? — when, actually, the biggest issue for hard-working families is affordability. It is the cost;

it is the financial burden that is placed upon them. Sinn Féin can shout at me if it wishes. That is fine. Sinn Féin does not believe in school uniform at all. I have heard the Member Mr Sheehan say that he believes that you should not have school uniform. [Interruption.]

Well, I have heard the Member say it.

Mr Sheehan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has just made an allegation that is completely untrue. I have never uttered the words that he said there.

Mr Givan: I stand corrected.

Mr Speaker: Mr Sheehan has provided clarity there. If the Minister has evidence otherwise, he can provide it.

Mr Givan: I may have misheard the Member before. It was my recollection that that comment was made. I am happy to retract it on the basis of the Member's testimony.

Let me make some progress so that we can bring the matter to a conclusion. The Bill contains strong duties and powers. It works in conjunction with all existing legislation, including that on human rights and equality law. As I said, it focuses on ensuring that the guidance has to cover affordability, comfort and practicality, and it allows for provisions to be put in place to cap costs or branded items. It also differentiates between school types, year groups and Key Stages and supports uniform banks or the lending of uniform items to pupils.

If Members are looking to see scope for reasonable adjustments to be made for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, the Bill covers that. If Members are looking for school uniform equity, regardless of gender, the Bill works in tandem with existing human rights and equality legislation. In addition to that, schools will have to consult with their pupils and parents. There are no barriers to uniform equity on any grounds in the Bill. Information will have to be published about the consultation process and the outcome, about costs and about rationale for uniform design, which, again, I remind Members, parents and pupils will be consulted on.

It seems somewhat odd to suggest that the Bill lacks anything that is needed in good legislation to deliver the purpose for which it has been introduced: addressing the affordability of school uniforms. I would not introduce legislation unless I were absolutely confident that it will deliver. Let me say that I am confident that it will deliver. It will make a difference for parents, and I can assure Members that it is effective legislation.

I had to bring a number of tidying-up amendments through at Further Consideration Stage to ensure that it can work. I have consistently worked at pace to bring the legislation to the Assembly — not to rush, but to make a difference for families who need us to do so and need us to do so now, not in two school years' time.

The best interests of the child and the voice of the child are already enshrined in other provisions. They already apply to any departmental guidance that is produced. To suggest that they will be missing from the statutory guidelines on school uniform policies that will follow this Bill is misleading and simply wrong, regardless of whether Members have had sight of draft guidelines. As I have stated, the Bill will operate in the context of existing law, including all existing human rights and equality legislation. The Department of Education is bound by law to act reasonably in exercising its statutory functions, and it should be borne in mind that that necessarily informs attitudes towards fairness, dignity and equality. That is based on legal expertise; it is based on fact, not misunderstanding of legislation.

As we prepare to vote on the Bill, let me say this: there is nothing that should concern Members about the content and coverage of the School Uniforms Bill. I brought the Bill in to address the affordability of school uniforms. It will address the affordability of school uniforms. It has all the necessary powers and duties to ensure that it will do that. In addition, comfort, practicality and the adequacy of uniform requirements to support pupils in their learning and to participate fully in all aspects of school life are provided for in the Bill. The Bill places a duty on school managers to adhere to the guidelines, and it will be reported on at least every three years. It appears to me that Committee members who are most exercised would benefit from going through Hansard and looking at what has been shared about what the Bill will do, remembering that those points are all based on legal advice.

I keep saying how important words are. Every word in the Bill following Further Consideration Stage has purpose and is important. Those words are not there to take up space on a page but to make a real difference. I welcome the fact that Members will be reviewing how the Bill is implemented. I will be reviewing its impact for parents. I would welcome a greater focus from Members on that impact, because that is the area that I believe that we agree on: the need to address the affordability of school uniforms for parents. I assure the House that it will.

I urge Members to vote in support of the Bill. I am confident that scrutiny of its impact will bear out everything that I have said throughout the debates in the Chamber. It is time to put aside party politics. Put parents first. That is what we will achieve in voting for the School Uniforms Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Sheehan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the course of his hectoring of members of the Committee, the Minister made reference to "a Protestant school". I am not aware of a Protestant school sector. I know that we have the controlled sector and the maintained sector. I believe that what the Minister was trying to do was sectarianise a serious issue that was discussed sensitively in the Committee. That is conduct that is unbecoming of any Minister, and the Minister should withdraw the comments that he made.

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. We have controlled schools, maintained schools, integrated schools, Irish-language schools and special schools. I might have missed one out, but I do not think that I have. We have schools that are mainly attended by Protestants, we have schools that are mainly attended by Catholics, and there are others that are entirely mixed. The Member has put his case on the record, and it is for the Minister to deal with it.

Mr Givan: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to correct the record. I am very clear. The Member knows entirely why he went after Lisneal College: because it caters for a mainly Protestant community. I stand over that.

Mr Speaker: OK, Members, we are getting into another debate that has already happened.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the motion.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are pleased to present to the Assembly the Executive Committee's legislation programme for the 2025-26 session. On 3 October, the First Minister and I made a written ministerial statement to advise the Assembly of the legislation that Ministers of the Executive Committee intend to introduce in the 2025-26 session of the Assembly, subject to Executive agreement on the underlying policy and content of each Bill. Ministers believe that the proposals are important and can be introduced as Bills this session. However, while each Minister is fully committed to their delivery, it is important to note that the policy proposals for each Bill will be carefully considered by the Executive ahead of drafting and before introduction to the Assembly, in line with the agreed legislative process.

It is important that the House fully understands the process involved. At this stage, it represents the four parties in the Executive and the individual Ministers putting forward their policy proposals for legislation. As yet, the Executive have not seen the policy content of most of those proposals, so our role as First Minister and deputy First Minister is simply to receive those proposals and put them together into a legislative programme. In addition, it is not the responsibility of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring those forward; that is the responsibility of the individual Ministers. We will, of course, work with Ministers to encourage them to bring those forward in a timely way, to identify whether there are any challenges to bringing those forward, to find out what the barriers are, and to see whether we can meet what has been set out.

As we move towards the end of the mandate, achieving all that we wish to do in legislation will, undoubtedly, be challenging not just for Ministers but for the Assembly and its Committees. That may, in due course, require a further prioritisation of Ministers' proposals to ensure that the legislation that is most needed, with the greatest positive impact on our community, or the most urgent generally, is successfully enacted before the end of the mandate. It will also require all partners in the legislative process — Departments, Ministers and Members — to work together not only to provide effective and workable legislation but to ensure that it is progressed efficiently to meet the needs of those whom it is intended to help.

I will now briefly set out the purpose of each Bill as outlined in our statement. The Minister for Communities intends to bring forward five Bills. The Northern Ireland debt respite scheme Bill will aim to establish and implement a scheme to ensure that legal protections are in place for debtors requiring breathing space from credit enforcement. The housing miscellaneous Bill will aim to implement proposals relating to antisocial behaviour. The pensions parity Bill will ensure that pension savers and providers here will benefit from measures included in Westminster legislation. The public authorities fraud, error and debt Bill will aim to correspond to equivalent Westminster legislation to combat fraudulent activity in the welfare system. In order to implement recommendations from the independent review of charity regulation, the Minister also proposes to introduce a charities amendment Bill.

The Minister for the Economy recently introduced a Bill to make provision in relation to the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme, which is listed in our programme. In addition, a Utility Regulator decarbonisation powers Bill will aim to provide a new advisory function for the Utility Regulator to enable it to support the Department for the Economy in the delivery of the Executive's energy, strategy and targets under the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. The Minister will also bring forward an onshore petroleum licensing Bill to enact new policy, a Bill to establish a legal framework for a renewable electricity support scheme and an employment Bill to help to increase the proportion of working-age people in good jobs.

The Minister of Education will aim to introduce Bills to strengthen provision on inspections, to establish an effective and outwardly-focused professional body for teachers, and to provide for all learners to participate in education, apprenticeships or training until they are 18.

The Minister of Finance will introduce the normal Budget Bills as part of the annual financial cycle and will aim to introduce a marriage and civil partnership Bill that will include belief marriages and civil partnerships.

The Minister of Health proposes to introduce two Bills on staffing and the control of data processing. The safe and effective staffing Bill will ensure and assure the provision of high-quality care, workforce planning and staff governance. The Health and Social Care (HSC) control of data processing Bill will amend and update existing legislation to protect the privacy of confidential patient information.

The Minister for Infrastructure will aim to introduce a ports Bill to provide new and additional powers across several areas of harbours and trust port provision.

The Minister of Justice plans to introduce Bills on sentencing and on victims and witnesses of crime. The sentencing Bill will implement decisions from the review of sentencing policy, the consultation on Charlotte's law and the statutory model for hate crime. The victims and witnesses of crime Bill will introduce measures to enhance the experience, protections and outcomes of victims of crime as they engage with the criminal justice system.

Finally, as First Minister and deputy First Minister, we will seek to introduce a race equality Bill to ensure that racial equality legislation fully reflects and responds to the needs of our minority ethnic communities and offers them the best protections from racism and discrimination in the environments in which they live and work.

On behalf of the Executive Committee, we commend the legislative programme to the Assembly. We hope that Members and Committees will now engage positively with the Ministers responsible for the Bills as we seek to impact positively, in a practical and meaningful way, on the communities that we have been elected to serve.

Mr O'Toole: You could have knocked me over with a feather when I saw, on a Friday, 10 days ago, that the legislative programme had arrived in my inbox. If the Executive are, according to their own Programme for Government, "Doing What Matters Most" and, as the deputy First Minister told me from the lectern just a few, short days ago, delivering for the people of Northern Ireland, and if they want to get out and tell people about all the positive things that they are doing, I would have thought that they would have issued a press release, held a press conference or come to the Chamber before now to explain their ambitious legislative programme. No, they did not even issue a press release for the media. The famously publicity-shy First Minister and deputy First Minister did not even issue a press release on the legislative programme.

Is it any wonder that they did not? The motion that has been brought to the Assembly today does not ask Members to endorse the legislative programme. The motion does not say that the Assembly "supports" the legislation programme; it says that it "notes" the legislation programme. Does that look as though the Executive are confident in their delivery for the people of this region? They have brought forward a legislation programme and cannot even ask an Assembly that they dominate — nearly 80 out of the 90 MLAs in the Chamber represent Executive parties — to support their legislation programme. No wonder the First Minister has not even turned up today for the debate.

Let us go through what is in the motion.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for giving way. It was remiss of me not to refer to the fact that the First Minister has a family emergency and asked me to step in and cover this item of business. We were to share it, with one opening the debate and the other winding it up. That is not the case due to her family circumstances.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. The Member was not in the Chamber when I said that he had five minutes, and that gives him six minutes.

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to receive the clarification from the deputy First Minister. We wish the First Minister well.

However, the point remains that an Executive should be able to come to the Chamber and say, "Here is our legislative plan for the people of Northern Ireland. Yes, we have different views on the constitution. Yes, we face different ways on the left and right, but we have agreed on a set of priorities. We have agreed on what we need to deal with. We agree that we want to rescue Lough Neagh. We agree that we want to improve the health service. We agree that we want a more productive economy and better jobs for our workers, and that is what we will deliver". They cannot even do that. Not only that but the Executive were late. According to Standing Orders, it is supposed to be within, I believe, 14 or 20 days — I forget which — but they missed the deadline for tabling the legislative motion before the Assembly.

Let us look at what is in this "ambitious" legislative programme from the Executive. Most of it is technical or carry-over legislation. Indeed, some of it was carried over from the Executive's legislative programme in 2024. The First Minister and deputy First Minister have a penchant for long delays when it comes to implementing things. They certainly have a penchant for long delays when it comes to responding to Members' questions. However, when I first saw the legislative programme, back in 2024, I did not know that we would be looking at implementing it in 2026. Who knows?

When we move on to some of the things that are supposed to be substantive, ambitious and reforming, there is no clarity about whether the Executive will support the legislative programme. For example, we know that workers' rights in this place have been left to languish for a very long time, while other parts of the island have updated workers' rights and employment legislation. There is no clarity yet from this document as to whether the Executive parties are going to support the long-delayed employment Bill from the Economy Minister. I am happy to give way to the deputy First Minister if she will confirm to me now that her party will support that Bill.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Economy Committee if he wants to tell me.

Mr Brett: It is very hard to give support to a Bill that has not even been drafted yet. It would be remiss of me or my party to give carte blanche approval to a Bill that we have not even seen.

Mr O'Toole: Well, there we are. The appearance of unity from the Executive crumbles as soon as a question is asked. The DUP Chair of the Economy Committee stands up and says, "No, we cannot agree to this landmark employment Bill, because we have not seen it yet". What are the people of Northern Ireland to think? We had politics students in the Gallery earlier today: what example is it for them that they cannot even rely on an Executive being able to agree their own legislation programme?

Earlier, when I asked the Environment Minister, Mr Muir, a direct question about an independent environmental protection agency, which will have to be legislated for — it cannot be done via a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or a written ministerial statement — he said that he wants one. It was in the Alliance Party's manifesto, and there is a review to look at it. I asked him whether it was going to be legislated for — because, if it is, it has to be in this legislation programme unless it is going to be introduced in January 2027 — but he did not tell me, and he responded with a churlish remark about my party.

Legislating is a profound trust that is placed in us by the people when we stand for election. It is at the core of our job title: "Legislative" is the middle bit. It should be at the core of a reforming Executive, but they are not a reforming Executive; they are a listless, limp Executive who are addicted to photo ops and chaos. The people of this region deserve better. The Opposition oppose the legislation programme, because it is absolutely pathetic.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): As Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, I welcome the opportunity to address the Assembly on the legislation programme motion. As this is my first opportunity to speak in this capacity since Ms Bunting's promotion to junior Minister, I congratulate her and thank Pam Cameron for her work in that role.

The Committee welcomes the Executive's legislative intentions for the rest of the current mandate. We acknowledge the ambition that is reflected in the 21 Bills that are being proposed. Those span critical areas, from environmental protection and fisheries reform to debt respite and social inclusion and protections for victims of crime. We commend the Executive for setting out a clear framework, but we must now ensure that ambition is matched by action, and our Committee stands ready to play its part.

We look forward to hearing more details of the upcoming race equality Bill, which, given recent events at home and abroad, will be vital legislation. The Committee will work to ensure that the legislation is not only well-intentioned but workable, inclusive and responsive to the needs of our diverse communities. Racial equality is one of the most important issues in our society today. It is central to building a fair and compassionate society. I urge the Executive Office and the wider Executive to maintain transparency and engagement throughout the legislative process. The public must see not just what is being proposed but how it will be delivered and evaluated. I reaffirm the Committee's commitment to constructive scrutiny and partnership. Let this legislation programme be a turning point, where words become action and action delivers real change.

I will now make some comments in my capacity as an Alliance Party MLA. We welcome the legislation programme. We recognise that it contains 21 Bills across Departments. While it looks impressive on paper, I concur with the leader of the Opposition's concerns that some Bills are a carry-forward from last year's legislation programme. What matters now is that those listed Bills are brought forward.

I want to focus on the long-overdue race equality Bill. It is now almost 30 years since the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 was introduced. Northern Ireland has changed profoundly in that time. We are now a more diverse and multicultural place, as I can see clearly in my constituency of South Belfast. As was reported in the media today, almost 2,300 hate crimes were recorded in Northern Ireland last year. As is often noted in the Chamber, those statistics are but a shadow of the true number of people who suffer from and live with discrimination and marginalisation in their communities. The race equality Bill is essential, because it will update and strengthen race equality legislation.

There are other legislative priorities that deserve attention. The fisheries and water environment Bill will help to modernise the management of our water systems, improve quality and protect Lough Neagh.

That is an example of how lawmaking can match ambition to delivery when Departments work together.

I remain concerned, however, about the pace at which some Bills make progress. For example, a public consultation on belief marriage and on raising the minimum age at which people can legally marry ran from November 2021 until February 2022. That was several years ago, which underlines the gap between consultation and legislative delivery. A consultation on divorce and the dissolution of civil partnerships that was launched in June 2025 shows that some of those elements are still under review. People expect follow-through and delivery after a consultation.

The legislative programme gives the Executive a real opportunity to deliver for people and communities, but only if ambition is backed by delivery. The proposed Bills require every Department to work to the highest standard and to introduce legislation that is well considered, well drafted and fit for purpose. When we get legislation right, it lasts. It builds confidence, not only in government but in politics itself. People want to see that the Assembly can work and that we will listen, act and deliver laws that make their lives better. This year's legislative programme is a chance to prove that we can move beyond division and deliver practical and progressive outcomes. I want to see an Executive who deliver with purpose, a Committee system that holds them to account and an Assembly that can be proud of the work that it produces.

Mr Kearney: To strike a positive note, I welcome the legislative programme that has been outlined and today's debate on it.

As legislators, we must grasp every opportunity to improve the lives of the people whom we represent. In the Executive legislation programme for 2025-26, there is very worthwhile legislation from every Department. The Executive Office's proposed race equality Bill, for example, is much-needed legislation. It must be conscientiously progressed at a time at which we face increased racial and sectarian tensions in some parts of society.

As Sinn Féin's workers' rights spokesperson, I particularly welcome the proposed 'good jobs' employment rights Bill, which the Minister for the Economy will introduce in the Assembly in January. My party has consistently advocated for stronger workers' rights. That Bill will be the most progressive workers' rights legislation ever introduced in this state. Its strong workers' rights provisions will protect the most vulnerable workers, among them young people, women and citizens with disabilities. It is designed to support workers who find themselves bearing the brunt of unfair and unequal employment practices. They are those whom we describe as the "precariat": those who endure precarious working conditions. That progressive legislation promises to transform workplaces positively through proposals that will bring tangible benefits not only for workers and families but for employers and businesses. The legislation will come at a time when cross-border and all-Ireland economic activity increases to record levels. In that context, the need to build a well-paid, secure and highly skilled workforce to support that continued economic growth is key. Stronger trade union organisation is a foundation on which to maximise productivity and shared prosperity.

The 'good jobs' legislation will address fair play in benefits, terms of contracts, leave entitlements, flexible working arrangements and protections from redundancy, thus strengthening union organisation and improving collective bargaining arrangements. The proposed Bill is premised on four key themes: terms of employment; pay and benefits; voice and representation; and work-life balance. It will, for instance, allow workers on zero-hours contracts to move to banded-hours contracts. It will tackle fire-and-rehire practices, ensure that tips are passed on in full to the workers who earned them and give workers a right to disconnect from workplace demands. It will also expand trade union membership rights, strengthen collective bargaining, provide better leave entitlements for carers and implement neonatal pay and leave entitlements for the parents of newborn children. Those elements are among the proposed legislative improvements to modernise our workplace and our economy. The legislation is focused on improving the lives of all our workers and families across our entire community. It is so important that we get it right. I hope that, in the months ahead, the legislation will be scrutinised in a non-partisan way and, moreover, that its focus on strengthening the economy and making life better for workers and families will be supported right across the Assembly.

Mr Brett: First, I thank the deputy First Minister for moving the motion.

When the Executive present their legislative programme, it is the opportunity for the "constructive" Opposition to tear into the Executive, highlight their failings and set out the Opposition's alternative legislative programme. It will not be lost on the people of Northern Ireland that we have one Member from the Opposition present in the Chamber now. We have one Member from the SDLP. Others came, read out their pre-scripted remarks and then left the Chamber. The opposition that sit on the left of me cannot even bother to turn up either. Therefore, when those parties call out and challenge the Executive parties, which turn up and speak up for the people of Northern Ireland, let them look at the empty Benches, and that will give them the answer. [Interruption.]

Do you want me to give way?

That is another helpful intervention from the Member for Newry and Armagh.

I want to put on the record the Opposition's obsession with legislation. Legislation does not always mean good government. We have witnessed legislation passed in the House that has not been good legislation. The Climate Change Act, to which Members of the House tied themselves, is the very reason for the A5 project now being stalled, and our investment strategy needs to be under review because that Act is hampering growth. One of the first acts of this Assembly mandate was to undo a private Member's Bill that introduced free parking at hospitals, and that was necessary because Members lined up behind a populist cause to try to get that legislation passed before the election, even though they knew that it could not be delivered. I have a message for the Opposition: when you win elections, you get to set the legislative agenda. Our Ministers have the right to bring forward whatever legislation they see fit, because that mandate was given to us by the people of Northern Ireland, who placed us in government.

I want to speak about a number of the Bills that are included in the programme, the first of which relates to the Department for the Economy. I welcome the Minister's progress on the RHI closure Bill, the detail of which, as we have seen to date, reflects a good deal for those who entered the scheme in good faith and those in the public who want to see a value-for-money scheme. I also welcome the Utility Regulator decarbonisation Bill, though I will look, in my roles of Chair of the Committee and DUP economy spokesperson, to expand the role of the Utility Regulator, who plays an important role here in Northern Ireland. In my view, the Utility Regulator's advice should not just be confined to the Department for the Economy, because the Utility Regulator has a vital role to play in advising other Departments so that we can meet as many of our legislative targets as possible. The 'good jobs' Bill has been mentioned already, and, as a party, we want to see the rights of workers being strengthened and workers across Northern Ireland being treated fairly. We will ensure that any Bill that comes forward from the House has the support of workers and our business community. I have not seen the detail of that Bill, but, once it is published, we will look at it in great detail and consult stakeholders, those in the workplace and businesses, to ensure that we have legislation that is fit for purpose.

I thank the First Minister, the junior Ministers and the deputy First Minister for setting out the legislative programme. The leader of the Opposition criticised them for not giving a press conference or issuing a press release on this issue, yet he would be the very first person to stand up and criticise the First Minister and deputy First Minister had they not brought the issue to this very place first. You cannot have it both ways, and it is clear that there is no constructive Opposition in the House, just one Member from Newry and Armagh who shouts out random statements.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I will contribute to this debate on the Executive Committee's legislation programme. This is not about debating the merits of any individual Bill: it is about how we legislate, balance ambition with realism and uphold the standards of scrutiny that the public rightly expects.

The Communities Committee faces an intense legislative workload. We have five more Executive Bills, added to a number of legislative consent motions, a constant stream of statutory rules and an unknown number of Members' Bills. I declare an interest in that I am working on a Member's Bill on homelessness. The message from the Committee for Communities to the Departments is simple, and I can distill it into three key asks. First, provide clear information early. Departments must share legislative proposals, intent, consultation responses, draft clauses, delegated powers maps and policy intent before formal introduction. Secondly, they must start pre-legislative scrutiny now. Whether agreement has been reached with the Executive should not be used as a reason to delay engagement with the Committee. Thirdly, they should not rush the legislation. Time needs to be built in for proper calls for evidence, equality screening and testing of delegated powers.

The legislative workload for the Communities Committee is as follows. The Executive statement of 3 October sets out an ambitious 21-Bill programme and acknowledges the significant commitment that this will require from Committees. For Communities, that includes five more departmental Bills, including a debt respite scheme Bill, a miscellaneous housing Bill, a pensions parity Bill and a charities amendment Bill. That is before we count Members' Bills, all of which deserve the same open, evidence-based scrutiny. Meanwhile, the delegated legislation pipeline remains heavy. In the previous session, the Communities Committee handled 38 SL1s and 35 statutory rules (SRs), covering everything from welfare mitigations to regular pension upratings.

Members may recall the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024. Then, I made the point that the absence of an equality impact assessment left the Committee having to approve a rule without the full information that it wanted. That is not a position that we should ever be in again. Adding to that, there is a number of legislative consent motions (LCMs), including the current live one on pensions, and it is clear that the scrutiny system for the Committee for Communities is already running at full stretch. Therefore, it is important that we manage this load responsibly. The Committee's capacity is finite and we will prioritise legislation, but this cannot be done at the expense of rigour. The public interest is not served by cramming complex Bills into shortened or truncated windows. We therefore ask the Minister for Communities and the Executive to match this legislative ambition with practical support and transparency. Specifically, as a Committee, we ask for early sight of draft clauses, explanatory and financial memoranda and any intended amendments; a delegated powers memo or map for each Bill to show what will be done by statutory rule and when; a forward plan of SRs, affirmative and negative; realistic expectation for Committee Stages, allowing adequate time for public consultation, equality screening and clause-by-clause scrutiny and forward or advance consideration to be given to resourcing, both within the Department and across the arm's-length bodies, advice sector and community and voluntary sector organisations, some of which are on a funding precipice and may be needed to deliver future legislative change on the ground.

That is a clear ask from the Committee. The Executive have acknowledged the load on Committees, and we now need that recognition to translate into realistic timetables, early engagement and openness with information from the Department. If Departments share material in a timely way, Committees can work constructively and improve legislation. If they hold back until the last minute, scrutiny can become a box-ticking exercise and the public will lose out. The Communities Committee will be constructive, fair and rigorous. We will listen, test and amend where necessary. Our aim is good law that works for people and communities across the North.

I will make a few remarks, briefly, as Sinn Féin spokesperson. While I appreciate that several important Bills are coming forward from the Department for Communities as well as the Sign Language Bill, which is already with the Committee, it is disappointing that there is no planned legislation in a number of key areas — for example, in the area of gambling reform, where there is an urgent need for legislation. When I pressed officials on that, they said that they were postponing it until the next mandate. That further delay will only serve to ensure that the North falls further behind in mitigating the harm caused by gambling. We also need to see further work done to build on the work that Deirdre Hargey did on private tenancies; a second tenancies Act is needed to complete that work. Finally, the Committee will also play a vital role in scrutinising a number of very important Members' Bills, including, as I mentioned, my Bill and Ciara Ferguson's Bill, which will tackle unfair letting fees.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on the legislative programme. I will take a few short moments to comment on that, as it seems that DAERA has only one further Executive Bill to come forward in this mandate — the fisheries and water environment Bill — which has already been outlined by some Members in the Chamber.

The Committee spent some time scrutinising and helping the Minister to deliver the Agriculture Bill, which has received Royal Assent. We are now looking at the Dilapidation Bill in Committee Stage. The Committee's call for evidence closed on Friday, and we have commenced our oral evidence sessions. We are holding an online event with the Youth Assembly tomorrow night, so I say this to any members of the AERA Committee who are here: I want to see you online tomorrow night with our young people. The AERA Committee recognises that, beyond our usual stakeholder group, it is really important to get the views of young people when creating legislation.

The consultation on the fisheries and aquaculture policies for the development of the fisheries and water environment Bill closed on 11 September. Previous correspondence to the Committee on 3 July 2025 indicated that it was the intention to consult on the water quality element separately and that both consultations would inform the drafting instructions for that Bill. On 18 September, the Committee was briefed on the policy proposals and the underlying intent of the protection of the water environment aspect of the Bill. The public consultation process is live and will close on 6 November 2025. We await the outcome of that consultation. We understand that the aim is to introduce the Bill in mid-2026. The Committee certainly hopes that it will be no later than that, because we want to have time to scrutinise in detail such a wide-ranging and important Bill.

We note that the Department continues to apply the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, which, I am sure, most accept is relatively dated primary legislation. The Committee recognises that the issues relating to fisheries and the water environment have changed significantly since 1966, and that a new Act is required to fully consider the wider ecosystem and sustainable development. The Committee has highlighted the importance of growing the aquaculture industry in Northern Ireland and the impact that water quality has on that sector. We commissioned research from RaISe, and we have taken evidence from the aquaculture sector. We hope that the forthcoming Bill will assist the growth of aquaculture in Northern Ireland and, helpfully, improve water quality.

Speaking of dated legislation, we would like to have seen a new agriculture Bill, but, unfortunately, it does not seem as though that will happen.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Butler: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: I will be brief. He talked about the Bill that he wanted to see. Lots of us wanted to see a Bill to create an independent environmental protection agency. I think that we had it confirmed today that the opportunity for that has timed out and that it cannot happen in this mandate. Is that his understanding as Chair of the relevant Committee?

Mr Butler: I obviously cannot speak for the Minister in my capacity as Chair, but given the truncated timescales that we have left, it is very unlikely that something of that significance will see the light of day. However, I am sure that all those things are up for discussion in the Chamber.

The present Agriculture Act dates from 1949, which trumps 1966. Indeed, a new, comprehensive agriculture Act was one of the options that was considered prior to DAERA's deciding on the small Agriculture Act that was recently passed to amend the two legacy EU common market organisation (CMO) schemes. However, we heard that scoping on the need for a comprehensive Northern Ireland agriculture Bill was at only an early stage and that gaps exist in the primary powers that are needed for the Department's new farm support and development programme. The Department is using those powers actively at the moment in the development of some of its SRs.

To conclude, the Committee has seen DAERA recently run into problems in making regulations for the new farm support and development programme under the powers in the 1949 Act. DAERA was advised by the Examiner of Statutory Rules to bring forward amending regulations to ensure that it remains within the vires by amending the definition of "authorised persons" and removing offences and penalty regulations in the Horticulture Pilot Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, the Beef Carbon Reduction Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2023 and the Suckler Cow Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. That ends my comments as Chair of the AERA Committee.

I will make a few closing remarks, if that is OK, Mr Speaker. I thank the deputy First Minister for moving the motion this afternoon and the junior Ministers. I express my party's concerns to Sinn Féin and the Sinn Féin leader about what may be a family matter.

I will make a few points about the Executive's legislative programme. It should be one of those flags that we put in the ground early in any mandate to indicate to people that we are serious about making changes here and that the legislative programme matches up with the provisions in our Programme for Government. It could be argued by some, and probably will be by the Opposition in the coming weeks and months, that it probably does not.

What we are witnessing is stovepiped scrutiny, stovepiped delivery and, as the Member for North Belfast pointed out, some of the last legislation that we made in the previous mandate should not cover us all in glory because when we have compressed times in which to legislate, it is really difficult, not just for legislators and Committees to scrutinise the legislation but for those who are drafting the Bills and giving the legal oversight. I hope that we are learning lessons. We have come back from two truncated periods when we did not have an Assembly, and that is why we faced those periods in the previous two mandates of having to do rushed legislation, and that should never be the case. I know that the Committee on Procedures did a piece of work with you, Mr Speaker, to make sure that the legislative programme is actually an important step at the start of every mandate. Let us hope that, in 2027, after the next election, that is what we do.

Mr Martin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I will make a few short points as the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. DFI has brought forward one Bill on the legislative programme, which is the ports Bill. It is intended to provide new or additional powers to several harbours and trust ports. There were consultations on that in 2006, 2014 and 2024, which raised the issue of the reclassification of trust ports in Northern Ireland. The Committee has undertaken some pre-legislative scrutiny on the proposed legislation, from departmental briefings in October 2024 and September 2025 and also visited Belfast harbour in May of this year. The Committee looks forward to receiving the Bill and scrutinising it as appropriate.

I will say a few words as the DUP lead on infrastructure. As has already been noted, the Minister intends to bring forward the ports Bill. We will scrutinise that when it comes before the Committee. Note should also be made that we have, at the moment, the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, which we are scrutinising. We certainly hope to have that scrutiny finished by the summer recess.

The Department is facing a range of challenges. We have issues with miscommunication in our sewerage systems, and the current impact of that is a build-up of difficulty with new housebuilding. There is no legislation from DFI on that particular issue. Perhaps, to be fair, legislation may not be the issue, but it certainly lies with Northern Ireland Water and will be problematic if not solved in the future.

It is also worth reflecting on the impact of previous legislation, as was noted by my colleague. For example, the Climate Change Act is proving particularly difficult. We are more than aware of the A5 judgement and the case surrounding that. I certainly remain concerned that, as it stands, that judgement and, in particular, the Climate Change Act, will not just affect the A5. The Committee knows that there are about £1 billion-worth of priority infrastructure projects in the pipeline, and some, if not all, of those could be negatively impacted on or wholly stalled in the future. To be fair, that is not particularly within the Infrastructure Minister's vires. Any alteration to climate targets lies with the AERA Minister to take action and bring that to the Executive. I remain concerned that, without significant change, major infrastructure in Northern Ireland could well be impacted on in the future.

I will now make some brief comments on behalf of Education colleagues on the plan for the Department of Education's legislative programme. There are three pieces of legislation that the Department plans to bring forward, and I will deal with them briefly. First is the schools inspections Bill, which was a direct recommendation from the independent review of education in December 2023. It will bring this place in line with every other area in the United Kingdom and, for that matter, the Republic of Ireland. The impact of the situation as it stands is that 75% of school inspections in the past eight years have been impacted on by action short of strike, which is deeply concerning. In fact, an official said that that means that the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI):

that is provided to pupils, because it is unable to evaluate the outworking of the safeguarding arrangements. The Bill should take care of that. I also note the improvement in relationships between schools, the unions and ETI over the past number of years.

The second piece of legislation is the General Teaching Council Northern Ireland (GTCNI) reform Bill. I have some personal experience of that area from when I was in the Department. It will reconfigure the GTCNI, and it should not be contentious legislation.

Finally, the 16-18s in education and training Bill will provide learning for everyone in Northern Ireland all the way up to age 18. I warmly welcome all three of those Bills. I commend the Minister for bringing them forward. On a passing note, I also congratulate him for the School Uniforms Bill's passing at Final Stage.

Mr Dickson: As a member of the Executive Office Committee, I welcome the publication of the Executive's legislation programme. It is right that the Assembly debates it today and that we do so with honesty, because, despite all the talk of ambition, the programme is remarkably light on legislation. Of course, some legislation is already in play, but it is certainly not an exhaustive list of what the Executive need to do. In fact, in the programme that has been presented, only one Bill remains for the Executive Office Committee, which is the race equality Bill. It falls directly within the Executive Office's remit. At a time when equality gaps persist and measures to deal with key shortfalls in gender, disability and age discrimination legislation remain stalled or buried in consultation papers, that is not the level of drive or ambition that people expect to hear from the Executive.

Northern Ireland's equality law is now badly fragmented and far too complex. There are major gaps and inconsistencies across the system. Different equality laws provide different levels of protection, creating a hierarchy of rights that means that some people are better protected from discrimination than others. Over time, those gaps have only widened, leaving us lagging behind international standards and behind our neighbours in Great Britain and Ireland. After almost two decades of promises, we still await the single equality framework that everyone knows is needed. The Equality Commission has already set out five priorities for change to our race equality laws: the harmonisation and expansion of the scope of racial grounds; the extension of protection against discrimination and harassment by public bodies; the introduction of combined discrimination provisions; the protection of workers against third-party racial harassment; and the widening of the scope of positive action. The road map is clear; what is missing is the political will.

It matters, because we do not debate the programme in a vacuum. Recently, we witnessed what might have been called a "summer of discontent", a period during which racial hatred was dragged into the open for all to see; families were driven from their homes; election posters were burned as usual; and flags and effigies were used to intimidate. The PSNI's latest report makes for grim reading, with 2,049 racist incidents and 1,329 race hate crimes in the past year. Those are the highest figures since records began in 2004. Behind those numbers are, regrettably, our neighbours, our colleagues and children who are forced to live in fear simply because of the colour of their skin or where they were born. Amnesty International described this year as one of "hate and fear" in Northern Ireland and warned:

This is not a sudden spike but the result of years of complacency, inaction and the Assembly's absence. The race riots and violent attacks on migrant families in June were not isolated events; they are a symptom of a society that has failed to confront racism honestly and a warning of what happens when leadership goes missing. Our ethnic minority communities have had an understandable loss of faith in government, and they deserve much better. We need bold programmes, not sticking plasters. We must finally bring our law into line with the rest of these islands and go further. We need to close the gaps in the Race Relations Order 1997 and explicitly honour those requirements and obligations under article 2 of the Windsor framework. We need to build a Northern Ireland that genuinely protects and celebrates diversity. We want to see a Bill that is introduced early, consulted on widely and drafted in such a way that it has the lived experience of minority ethnic communities at its heart.

The Department of Justice is bringing forward further legislation, but I will highlight two areas that connect directly to that work. The forthcoming sentencing Bill will bring in Charlotte's law, implementing a statutory aggravator model. The victims and witnesses of crime Bill will complement those reforms by ensuring that there are automatic special measures for hate crime victims through prohibiting in-person cross-examination and establishing the post of a commissioner for victims and witnesses of crime, who will be able to assist victims and witnesses.

Ultimately, the Executive legislation programme will be judged not by the number of Bills that are introduced but by the substance of what is delivered. A race equality Bill will give the Executive a chance to prove that equality is not an afterthought but a foundation: a chance to rebuild trust, to show courage and to state clearly that every person who calls Northern Ireland home belongs here in full and equal measure.

Ms Murphy: I welcome the motion on the Executive legislation programme, which sets out an ambitious and wide-ranging future legislative agenda.

I will take a moment to highlight some of the priorities that are coming forward. As a member of the AERA Committee, I welcome the inclusion of the fisheries and water environment Bill. It is an important and timely step in modernising how we manage and protect our aquatic environments. As we take it forward, it is essential that DAERA's approach be balanced and proportionate. Protecting our environment must go hand in hand with supporting our rural communities, which already play a central role in maintaining and improving environmental standards.

As a member of the Committee for the Executive Office, I welcome the inclusion of the race equality Bill. That long-awaited legislation carries huge importance for communities across the North. The disgraceful riots that we witnessed in the summer show just how necessary such protections are. With families having been intimidated from their homes in parts of Belfast even in recent weeks, we must send a clear message to our minority ethnic communities that we stand firmly with them and that everyone has the right to live safely, peacefully and with dignity. That Bill will ensure that our racial equality laws fully reflect and respond to the needs of minority ethnic communities. I look forward to supporting that legislation though Committee Stage and seeing the positive impact that it will undoubtedly have on all our communities.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the onshore petroleum licensing Bill that my colleague the Economy Minister, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, will be bringing forward. Although it will not fall within the remit of my Committee work, it is an issue that is close to my heart. One of my first acts when I joined the Assembly back in 2021 was to introduce a private Member's Bill to ban fracking, continuing the work of my predecessor, Seán Lynch. I have seen at first hand in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone the anxiety and disruption that even the threat of fracking has on a community. Sinn Féin has been steadfast in its support of those communities by standing firmly against fracking.

Taken together, the Bills that I have mentioned, alongside the wider Executive legislation programme, reflect a shared determination to deliver meaningful change. I look forward to working with Ministers, Committees and Members from all parties to ensure that the Bills deliver tangible benefits for the people whom we represent.

Mr T Buchanan: I will focus my remarks on the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. It is disappointing that the only legislation in the Executive legislation programme for 2025-26 that the AERA Minister has brought forward is the fisheries and water environment Bill. Although that is important legislation, the Committee is looking at other issues, which the Chair of the Committee outlined.

There are issues of equal and greater importance that still appear to be sitting on the shelf rather than being included in the legislative programme. I refer, first, to the bovine TB crisis. That is still a huge burden on the agriculture industry, yet it is somewhere in the abyss, costing the Department in excess of £60 million a year, which is increasing year-on-year, with Northern Ireland facing one of the highest rates of bovine TB in Europe. A new TB partnership steering group has been established to explore proposals to eradicate bovine TB, but it has no powers. In fact, it is just a further stalling exercise.

What is required is for the Minister to bring forward a delivery plan and legislative proposals that will reduce the high level of bovine TB in Northern Ireland and the associated cost incurred. Not to have such legislation is therefore a failing on the Minister's behalf.

We then have the ammonia issue, which is a serious hindrance to farm businesses expanding or upgrading their buildings, and all because no balanced approach has been taken or common sense applied and unachievable targets have been set by the Department. Rather than farm businesses being able to upgrade their buildings and, by doing so, significantly reduce their ammonia levels, they have to continue with outdated buildings, thus creating much higher ammonia levels. It is time that the AERA Minister took a common-sense approach to the issue and put forward balanced and workable legislative proposals that will see a significant reduction in ammonia levels, rather than working with unachievable targets that are causing untold delays by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), as it grapples with planning applications that seek to provide consultation responses based on such unworkable targets. The Department really needs to begin to focus on what is achievable, workable and important to the agriculture community.

The just transition for agriculture raises huge concerns about value for money. With climate change targets set at a level that not only is unachievable and unworkable but has detrimental consequences for large capital infrastructure projects, such as the A5, which was mentioned, and all future infrastructure projects, it is disappointing but not surprising that the Minister has failed to bring forward legislative proposals to reduce those targets, which were set by all parties in the Chamber apart from ours and the TUV. We need targets that are more realistic and achievable and that do not have detrimental consequences for infrastructure projects that are so important to the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that the AERA Minister is listening and will begin to focus on the issues that matter rather than on the continual rhetoric of climate change that cannot and will not deliver the positive outcomes that we, the people of Northern Ireland, require.

Mr Chambers: With a reduced mandate, the Assembly and the Executive, right from the restoration in February 2024, were on the back foot with the time available to consider and pass legislation. Nevertheless, I welcome today's publication of the legislative programme. The list is likely to be accompanied by a range of Members' Bills. As a Back-Bench MLA, I respectfully suggest that it would be helpful if Members were to receive a written update at some point as to the range of Members' Bills that are being considered and the indicative timescales of some that are coming forward.

I speak primarily to support two critical Bills in the Executive programme: the safe and effective staffing Bill and the HSC control of data processing Bill. Taken together, the two Bills will strengthen the safety of health and social care services and the integrity and trustworthiness of how we use and protect healthcare data.

As Members, many of us are well aware of the background to what was previously referred to as the safe staffing Bill. It was a key element of the framework agreement that led to the suspension of the industrial dispute that was secured by my party colleague Robin Swann in 2020. We cannot expect excellence in patient care if our workforce is under-resourced and unsupported. Passing the Bill will send a clear signal that patient safety and dignity, staff well-being and service integrity are not discretionary but statutory. I am therefore pleased to see Minister Nesbitt deliver on that. However, we also need to be clear that, while legislation will help, what would most help and reassure members of our workforce right now would be to give them the pay award that we all know that they fully deserve. Whilst the Chamber has the ear of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, I will say that it is most regrettable that we are still waiting for the Executive to consider and agree the Health Minister's ministerial direction request to deliver this year's pay award. With every day that passes without a resolution being found, our workforce becomes increasingly demoralised and frustrated. We are staring down the barrel of widespread industrial action that is likely to be much more significant than the 2020 action that spurred the development of the Bill.

The HSC control of data processing Bill is about ensuring trust, accountability and lawful use of deeply personal health information in an era of digital care. It also presents Northern Ireland with a further important opportunity to align with wider legislative frameworks, such as United Kingdom data protection law and, importantly, ethical frameworks for AI and digital.

Both Department of Health Bills are essential if we are to modernise Health and Social Care in a safe, transparent and effective way. I look forward to their coming to the Chamber and the Committee.

Miss Brogan: I am pleased to welcome the legislative programme from the Executive Committee. It is an ambitious body of work for the session and one that I am sure that we are all eager to get our teeth into. As a member of the Communities and Infrastructure Committees, I am glad to see several pieces of legislation come our way that will be warmly welcomed and will require detailed and careful scrutiny in each Committee. In addition to the Bills in the Executive Committee programme, we are already working on several other Bills, such as the Sign Language Bill, which the Communities Committee is scrutinising. That Bill will give long-overdue support and recognition to our deaf community. We also have the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, which the Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins, introduced. That forms part of Minister Kimmins's three-pronged to tackling water infrastructure issues across the North. It will integrate innovative and sustainable drainage solutions into housing developments and provide grants for measures to protect domestic buildings from flooding.

I am particularly pleased to see the ports Bill in the legislative programme. That has been the subject of significant work by Ministers Liz Kimmins and Caoimhe Archibald. They recently met representatives of Belfast harbour on the subject, and the general feeling is that the proposed changes are urgently needed if our ports and harbours are to remain competitive. The work and operation of ports have changed over the years, and they now face additional costs, such as high supply-chain inflation and the requirement to decarbonise. The new and additional powers outlined in the ports Bill will allow Belfast harbour and other harbours to grow while maintaining appropriate safeguards so that the Department can ensure that ports are efficient and competitive while still operating in the public interest.

There is a lot of work ahead of us. With this ambitious programme to work through, it is crucial that we do not become complacent. We must continue to listen to the concerns of our constituents and forge ahead with additional projects and legislation that will support workers, families and communities.

Miss McAllister: I will speak first about a number of pieces of Health legislation that are in the programme and some that are not in the programme but which have previously been outlined to Members, particularly those on the Health Committee, as part of our first-day brief.

I echo the sentiments expressed by Members, particularly my colleagues on the Health Committee, about the safe and effective staffing Bill. It is very important that we have a health workforce that is able to carry out its duty without fear that its members do not have the appropriate help on hand to deliver the job. It is long overdue, having been initially proposed by Minister Swann for nursing staff in 2020 and expanded to all professional groups in 2022. The consultation closed a year ago, so we are eager to see the report and a summary of the responses to it. What will be most important, as with a lot of the Bills, is its implementation: what it actually means on the ground for the people who are affected.

Another Bill that we wanted to see come to the Assembly before the mandate ends is the minimum unit pricing Bill. It is very unfortunate that we will not see it any time soon. It was stated in the first-day brief that it was in the pre-drafting stage for introduction early next year. I am disappointed that it seems as though that will not happen.

It has been stated numerous times at Committee that the duty of candour Bill is being progressed by the Department. However, we have learnt that it has been paused. Although the Hillsborough law is being moved through Westminster, there is still an element of playing catch-up. That comes in the organisational duty of candour meeting the individual duty of candour. It is important that we continue to engage on those issues. There is no point in making promises that cannot be kept, or which you had no intention of keeping from the very beginning.

I am looking forward to seeing elements of a number of other Bills, particularly around Charlotte's law. The disclosure of the location of victims' remains is so important to everyone in society, despite the fact that, thankfully, it affects only a very small number of people. We cannot overestimate the effect that it has. I look forward to seeing Charlotte's law introduced here in Northern Ireland. I am also particularly looking forward to the later stages of the Justice Bill. I will table amendments to the Bill that have already been consulted on at the Policing Board and by the Department.

It is really important that all Members participate eagerly in all pieces of legislation so that we can improve them where necessary and can also bring our ideas to the table. Something that I am proud to be part of in a working democratic Assembly is the passing of legislation.

I will touch for a moment on the independent environmental protection agency. Alliance completely supports an independent environmental protection agency. Minister Muir has taken decisive action to see that delivered. [Interruption.]

The Member can laugh and smirk. It is not churlish to point out the hypocrisy of the SDLP. When it comes to an independent environmental protection agency, Minister Muir has delivered more in a short mandate than the SDLP did in the five years that it held the post.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mr Durkan: Will the Member tell me what Minister Muir has delivered on an independent environmental protection agency that had not previously been done or delivered?

Miss McAllister: I did not say that he had delivered the independent environmental protection agency; I said that he had taken steps to do that. I think that you misheard me. We know that it has not been finalised yet, but we look forward to the finalised report's coming out. I am sure that the Minister can give an update on that. The interim recommendations in the report that was commissioned by Minister Muir highlighted the fact that an independent environmental protection agency should be established. Many parties in the Chamber missed the opportunity to vote that into the Climate Change Bill in the previous mandate.

I welcome the many elements of animal welfare legislation from Minister Muir. It is an issue that all Members across the Chamber are contacted about every single day. We know how passionate people are. We are passionate about protecting animals, which cannot speak up for themselves. I look forward to the many pieces of animal welfare policy that will be implemented through legislation from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Another Member mentioned Members' Bills. Another opportunity that I welcome as an individual MLA is to bring forward legislation in the House, because it is not only about the Executive's programme but about using our powers as individual MLAs to change issues. I hope to pursue a Member's Bill on private cemeteries and burial grounds. I know that I am diverging from the subject of the debate, but it is important that we use all the power that we have as MLAs in the power-sharing Executive, in opposition and as individuals —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Miss McAllister: — to progress legislation.

Mr Durkan: I would say that this legislative programme is as weak as water, but that would probably give it too much credit. What happened to "Doing What Matters Most" and making government work? It is almost symbolic that this publication has landed after the deadline, typical of the delay and dysfunction that has become a hallmark of this Executive. What we have heard so far from contributors from Executive parties is how brilliantly their Ministers are doing and how badly all the other Ministers are doing, but they will all still vote for it. Other Members have lamented the truncated terms that we have had inflicted on us as MLAs and that some parties here have inflicted on the public of the North or Northern Ireland over the past decade.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. As you know, my party is keen to see large-scale institutional reform of the Assembly and the Executive. Are you saying now that you would be fully supportive of us in changing the way that we do government here so that we cannot have that stop-start approach to government here?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Durkan: The Member, in part, pre-empted my point: where is the legislation, albeit it may be required from Westminster, or where is the will to prevent parties from pulling down these institutions on a whim again, trying to punish each other but ending up punishing everyone?

Looking specifically at the Communities brief in my capacity as Opposition spokesperson, it is deeply disappointing that the programme does not even begin to scratch the surface. It is far removed from what was promised under the Programme for Government and by previous Ministers. This is a Department at the heart of social justice, the Department that touches every household: housing, welfare, culture, sport, the community sector, local government and more. It should be the beating heart of social change. Instead, it is flatlining under the weight of broken promises.

Let us take housing. The only proposal here is a proposal to address antisocial behaviour. Seriously? That is, sadly, necessary, but it is really surface-level stuff. The fundamental review of social housing promised major systemic reform — making the system fairer, better use of housing stock, a focus on homeless prevention — none of which we see here and none of which we will see for the rest of the mandate. There is nothing on tackling the hundreds of millions being spent on emergency housing, addressing empty homes or making use of publicly owned land. There is nothing that will actually address the 50,000 people- or household-long waiting list, and it is growing. Where is the reform of the private rented sector or the Housing Executive's ability to borrow and build? Assurances were made in the previous mandate that they would be a day 1 priority for the incoming Executive.

The North remains the only region in the UK — we discussed this last week — without a statutory fuel poverty target: another promise seemingly quietly dropped. Then, there is welfare. The debt respite scheme is welcome, but it is a carbon copy of that which was introduced in England four years ago. It is a catch-up measure, not a policy breakthrough, but it is typical of the copy-and-paste approach of much of this legislative programme.

Meanwhile, there is still no plan to mitigate the two-child limit or to tackle food insecurity, child poverty or the widening gaps in universal credit. On pensions, we get another parity Bill. More reaction, no transformation. What happened to the promises of new gambling legislation, the reform of private rent, the implementation of the welfare mitigations advisory panel recommendations or the full suite of promises made under the perennially delayed fundamental review of social housing allocations?

This is what passes for ambition from a Minister and an Executive that should be leading the fight against poverty, not simply ticking boxes. What we have before us today will not change lives. It will not lift families out of poverty, build homes or restore confidence in public services. This reads a bit like late homework thrown together at the last minute in a half-hearted attempt to submit something.

While I have been lamenting the lack of legislation, I have not even started on the quality of the legislation that we eventually get. Today's very underwhelming School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill is a classic case in point: all mouth and no trousers — quite literally, in some instances. I would expect better from my children. Our expectations of the Executive were certainly not high, but we are still disappointed. Is this the best that you can do? Is this the best that people can expect?

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the publication of the Executive's legislative programme. I thank the deputy First Minister for bringing it to the Chamber today. As the Cathaoirleach

of the Health Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Health Committee on the Executive Committee's legislative programme for 2025-26. The Health Committee welcomes the publication of the programme, and particularly the two Bills outlined under the Department of Health: the safe and effective staffing Bill, which is a Bill that will help ensure the provision of high-quality care, workforce planning and staff governance; and the Health and Social Care control of data processing Bill, which is a Bill to make a statutory provision to protect the privacy of confidential patient information. The Committee particularly welcomes the forthcoming introduction of the safe and effective staffing Bill, which has been a long time in the making. The most important part of our health system is our dedicated and professional workforce, and we need to provide the support and structures to ensure the health, well-being and safety of all health and social care staff and patients. The Committee looks forward to engaging with the Department, stakeholders and staff in relation to that Bill. I encourage the Minister to introduce the Bill at the earliest possible stage in this session.

It would be remiss of me not to mention, as others have done, other Bills that the Committee has been advised will be introduced before the end of the mandate. In addition to the adult protection Bill, the safe and effective staffing Bill and the HSC control of data processing Bill, the Committee has been advised that there are to be three Bills introduced: the duty of candour Bill; the alcohol minimum unit pricing Bill; and the pharmacy technician Bill. Indeed, the duty of candour issue was subject to a written ministerial statement just a couple of weeks ago. The Committee has been advised by officials, in the past couple of weeks, that proposals for a duty of candour Bill will be introduced in the coming months, although it is not on the programme for introduction. Therefore, I have concerns that the Committee will get a number of Bills to scrutinise late in the mandate and that pressure will be put on the Committee to ensure that those Bills pass the necessary stages before the end of the mandate. I assure the Assembly and the Minister that the Committee will take its statutory duty very seriously, and we will apply the level of scrutiny that is necessary to each of those Bills. I, therefore, encourage the Minister to introduce those three Bills at the earliest opportunity, and to engage with the Committee to allow pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bills.

Mr McMurray: I wish the First Minister well in her absence. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this. It is a new experience for me, not least as some of Bills come from the then Infrastructure Minister O'Dowd's departmental legislative programme in March 2024, which preceded my coming here. The then Minister listed a number of pieces of legislation, at the time, of which one of the two main pieces was the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, which was introduced in the summer and passed its Second Stage a few weeks ago. We are beginning to scrutinise that in Committee now. I am looking forward to hearing the evidence from a range of stakeholders. I said in its Second Stage debate that I welcomed that important Bill. It is an important Bill, not least for my constituents who, unfortunately, are no strangers to flooding. I hope that that Bill progresses without undue delay.

The current Minister intends to introduce the ports and harbours Bill in this session. I know that preparations are being made for that. The Infrastructure Committee has already received evidence in relation to that Bill. We are broadly supportive of the Bill, not least because of the financial designation to allow the trust ports to invest more. With that, we hope to see a bit more investment in offshore energy. Hopefully, that will come to my constituency. It could lead the way in offshore renewables and boost the blue-green economy by bringing in good, skilled and well-paid jobs. I have a few concerns about the Bill, however. It seems to take some oversight away from the Department in order to give the trust ports directions. The Department has never used those powers and has declined to interfere in matters, despite there being substantial local discontent. I am keen to better understand what those powers entail and what circumstances would trigger their use. I want to see safeguards in place to ensure that the interests of local communities are not compromised.

Finally, other proposed Bills have not been progressed too far, namely the rail and road transport Bill and the transport decarbonisation Bill. The Committee will be looking to see how those Bills are progressed in due course.

Mr McNulty: I will keep this short, as I know that some Members are trying to get off to the Northern Ireland match. The team had a great win on Friday, and I bet that the Member for North Belfast is now sorry that he tabled his anti-Irish language motion.

I speak today with a deep sense of frustration that is shared by communities across the North. There is frustration at promises made and commitments repeated. Years later, delivery remains absent. We were told that the Programme for Government and the associated legislative programme would represent a new approach. It was to be one based on outcomes, collaboration and tangible progress, yet the gap between the Executive's commitments through their legislation programme and actual delivery could not be more stark. Nowhere is that more evident than in the failure of the legislative programme to advance major infrastructure projects that are not only long overdue but vital to our region's economic, environmental and social well-being.

Let me begin with the A5 western transport corridor. The project was first proposed over 15 years ago. That critical arterial route was meant to better connect the north-west, save lives on a notoriously dangerous road and open up economic opportunities for one of our most neglected regions. The A5 remains in limbo, however. It is mired in consultations, legal challenges and delay after delay. Meanwhile, the communities that it was meant to serve are left waiting and mourning, as fatalities continue to mount. How can we speak of balanced regional development while such a major transport project remains stalled for over a decade?

The Executive's so-called ambitious legislation programme is late and thin on delivery. What about our waste water infrastructure? The North is facing a crisis that threatens housing, investment and the environment. From Newtownards to Newry and on to small rural villages, waste water systems are at or beyond capacity. Developers are being told that they cannot build. Businesses are being denied opportunities. Raw sewage is being discharged into our rivers, lakes and seas. The Executive have known about our waste water infrastructure for years, yet strategic investment continues to be deferred. We remain dangerously behind the rest of the UK and Ireland in modernising that critical infrastructure. Sadly, the legislative programme is a symptom of an Executive who cannot agree, cannot prioritise and cannot deliver.

Now consider the all-island rail review. It is a visionary proposal with the potential to reconnect communities, reduce our dependence on cars and slash emissions. The review report was published and welcomed, but, since then, what have we seen? A lot of goodwill but precious little commitment to action. The hourly Enterprise service is a huge success. It was something that I campaigned for vociferously since I was first elected. It remains one of the Executive's single big achievements.

While the Republic of Ireland moves ahead with its rail ambitions, the North risks being left behind once again, still stuck using diesel trains, with crumbling stations and minimal connectivity west of the Bann. Sadly, much of what is in the legislative programme is a tidying-up exercise rather than a programme for change.

There is then Casement Park. It was once a symbol of regeneration and inclusion, but it is now a monument to delay. It was promised, planned and even politically agreed, yet it has still not been built. With Euro 2028 gone, the Executive have squandered not just a major international sporting opportunity but their credibility. Casement Park should have been a beacon of progress, but it is instead a case study in dysfunction. When will Casement Park be built?

The A5 project, waste water reform, rail connectivity, Casement Park, crumbling roads and bus safety are not isolated failures but symptoms of a legislative programme that is too often paralysed by division, walkouts, short-termism and administrative inertia. They represent commitments that were made to the people and not kept. We cannot afford to keep —.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr McNulty: No.

We cannot afford to keep kicking the cans down the road. Infrastructure is not a luxury; it is the foundation of a functioning, fair and forward-looking society. Delays cost money, yes, but, more than that, they cost lives, opportunity and public trust. I say this directly to the NI Executive: your legislative programme is only as credible as your ability to deliver it. The legislative programme exposes a lack of joined-up government, with key Departments —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McNulty: — moving in isolation and —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McNulty: — Ministers likely to be divided on —

Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston.

Mr McNulty: — key areas of policy.

Mr Buckley: Sit down.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McNulty: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Mr Gaston: Even the cheerleaders who cried the loudest to bring back Stormont, with the promise that all our woes would be forgiven and a distant memory, must be very underwhelmed by the legislative programme that we have in front of us today. It is a lacklustre programme, which will just about keep the lights on, along with the non-binding motions that we debate in the Chamber. For the sake of time, I will confine my remarks to three of the Bills that are included.

First up is a fisheries and water environment Bill. We are told that it will be about:

I have no doubt that the farmer will, once again, be in the sights of the Minister. If the Minister is serious about tackling those issues, I trust that he will tackle the scandal that surrounds the Loughs Agency, a body that seems to be exempt from the norms of fiscal responsibility, transparency and the proper stewardship of public funds. From the Minister's answers to questions for written answer, I know that the approved staff complement for the Loughs Agency stands at 53 full-time equivalents, a figure sanctioned by the North/South Ministerial Council and designed to ensure efficient, accountable operations. However, what do we have in reality? The agency currently employs 68 individuals: 44 are permanent, 21 are temporary and three are externally funded project staff. That is a 28% overrun with no apparent approval for the expansion. The Minister assures us that a review of the staff complement is under way, subject to approval from both sponsoring Departments. One must wonder whether that review would have happened were it not for the questions for written answer from this Back-Bencher? Despite the swollen ranks and staff, successful prosecutions for illegal net use have plummeted from 15 in 2015 to zero in 2022 and zero in 2024. In truth, the Minister does not need a Bill to deal with those issues; all that he requires is the interest to do what he should be doing. He needs to carry out an audit and put a pause on recruitment.

Next, I look at the Department of Finance. The Executive have agreed to introduce a Bill:

I ask the Members to my left whether they are happy with that language. I remind them that marriage has been redefined in Northern Ireland. Whatever the Bill will do, it will operate within those parameters. While I appreciate that there are moves to increase the age for marriage across the UK in order to prevent child marriages, I observe that some in the House have pushed, through the so-called gaps in equality legislation, to hold an inquiry into lowering the age of consent. Calling for that, while pushing for the age for marriage to be raised, would be hypocritical, and I trust that no one in the Assembly will find themselves in that position.

Finally, I will comment on the race equality Bill. As it will come through the Executive Office, I will have the opportunity to pay particular attention to it. From the outset, however, despite all the cheerleading from the Front Bench this afternoon, I am concerned about the concept of the Bill. Members may cite the recent unrest in our Province, but the reality is that there was not a single case where the alleged lack of legislation would have made any difference. The law provides protection for people in any walk of life from discrimination or racism. When it comes to attacks on individuals or homes, a racial motivation is, rightly, already considered as an aggravating factor. Article 2 of the Criminal Justice (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 makes that abundantly clear.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. I do not intend to speak for very long, but I will touch on some common points that were made across a number of contributions. I welcome the fact that we heard from so many Members. I know that the nature of our legislative process in Northern Ireland is challenging. We are a coalition Government of four parties that have been forced together into that arrangement. Therefore, we adopt a particular approach to the legislation programme, which is to respect each Minister as they put forward their proposals for inclusion at an early stage. We do not police that from the centre, nor do we ask Ministers to put forward detailed policy proposals for those pieces of legislation, because we know that they must come to the Executive for discussion and decision. Therefore, it is on that basis that the debate is happening today. If, indeed, we were a Government like most other Governments, I would be standing here proposing how my Government would put in place the manifesto that we stood on in an election, as would any other Minister in this place. We cannot do that, however, because that is not the system that we have. It is incredibly important to be very clear about that. We have not rejected a proposal from any Minister. Indeed, I believe that there is ambition within these proposals as well.

A number of common themes emerged across the Chamber. Members wanted to see ambition in a legislation programme and wanted the Committees to be engaged. I welcome the fact that so many Committee Chairs spoke about the particular issues that will be coming up in their Committees over the next 12 months — those core concepts of early engagement, transparency and scrutiny. If we are being honest, as a number of Members mentioned, we have to admit that we have some quite frankly appalling pieces of legislation or legislation that contains some quite frankly appalling clauses.

I am a small government person. I do not believe that there should be unlimited amounts of legislation, nor that legislation is always necessary in order to effect change or to realise what we want to achieve. It is important to say that. As my colleague from North Belfast Phillip Brett pointed out, ultimately, the quantity of legislation does not in any way demonstrate its quality or benefits, or the productivity of this place. Passing legislation is, of course, an important function of the Assembly, and it is really important that there is proper scrutiny. Good legislation takes time; that is the reality. In my view, everyone in this place should look very carefully at the A5 judgement and at what happens when legislation is rushed or when substantial amendments are accepted from the Floor of the House without proper consultation and consideration.

Mr Sheehan: Will the deputy First Minister give way?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will.

Mr Sheehan: You should maybe tell that to the Education Minister who, today, was talking about rushing his own legislation through. He wanted the Committee Stage to be compressed so that he could get his legislation done as quickly as possible. Maybe you should have a word with him.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his contribution. He should also recognise the importance of having that legislation in place in advance of the next term. We need to ensure that affordability for parents is at the heart of that Bill. It is important to get those things done before the beginning of the next school term in order to allow parents, hopefully, to make those savings. That is an issue that has put a lot of pressure on many hard-working and hard-pressed families. Of course, there will be examples of where we need to push things through as quickly as possible, but good legislation takes time, scrutiny and all of us working together to make sure that it is the very best that it can be. It also takes us all to recognise that, if things are not working as originally envisaged, they should be changed. We should be looking at some of our legislation and addressing some of the issues outlined in the courts, not least the recent decision on the A5.

I am not going to go into all the many contributions in detail, but I will touch on a number of them. We are getting close to the spooky season. In 'Harry Potter', there is Moaning Myrtle, but we have our very own moaning Matthew every single day. [Laughter.]

He stands in the Chamber and he moans and moans and moans. Does the Member know how many pieces of legislation the first Executive, who were led by the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP, brought forward in year 1?

Mr O'Toole: I am sure that she is going to tell me.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will give way —.

Mr O'Toole: No, I do not know, so —.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: They brought forward nine pieces of legislation, of which seven received Royal Assent. In the second year, it was 18. In the third year, just shortly before the collapse, of course, it was in single digits again. He and other SDLP Members decry this legislative programme, but I say to him gently that it has more ambition than previous programmes did. It has more pieces of legislation in it. There is a range of legislation, some of which, understandably and logically, will bring us into line with the UK, just as was the case with the legislative programme that was brought forward by his party when it jointly led the Executive.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for giving way. I appreciate the fact that she is at least engaging in debate, unlike some of her counterparts. I do not have a copy of the Hansard report, but I am fairly certain that, when the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists brought forward their legislative programme way back 20-odd years ago, Seamus Mallon was able to say, "Yes, I will indeed vote for this legislation". I am afraid that you cannot do that today, deputy First Minister.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his contribution. I have outlined the process. It would not be practical or realistic to ask Ministers to bring forward detailed policy proposals for a yea or a nay from the First Minister and me before they would make their way into the programme. That is a well-established practice. I will not be signing up to legislation until I see its content. That is a core principle of mine, and one that we should all adhere to. The task that we have is to work with our Executive colleagues and look at the proposals that are brought forward. We will work with them to see whether we can reach consensus. That is the duty that we have. If we cannot get consensus on big, important issues, such as employment legislation, they will not proceed. That is realistic. That is the system that we have. We must work together to get those things into a state that people can support. I am clear about that.

I thank all the Members for their contributions. I listened to them all, and have taken on board many of the key issues that were raised. A number of pieces of legislation were referred to. I have had the benefit of seeing the policy content of some, but not of others. I look forward to engaging with Committees throughout the year. My commitment to the Chamber is that we in the Executive Office will be working with ministerial colleagues on a regular basis to assess the progress of the Bills that we have set out. If there are challenges or problems in bringing them forward, we will work with Ministers to see whether we can unblock them and get them moving. We want to fulfil what we have set out today. We want to reach consensus on a range of Bills. If we can reach that consensus, they will certainly get Executive agreement, and we will bring them forward for Committee scrutiny, which we in the Executive Committee so very much welcome.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease while we change the personnel at the Table.

Mr Martin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure to open the debate on the motion.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Apparently, there is a very important football game this evening, so I will try to keep my remarks to an hour.

As Members will be aware, the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill was formally referred to the Committee for Infrastructure for its scrutiny on 17 September. As I outlined at the Second Stage debate, the Committee undertook some pre-legislative scrutiny in April 2024 to examine the key areas that were being proposed by the Department prior to the Bill's formal introduction just before summer this year. At its meeting on 17 September, the Committee received oral evidence from departmental officials on key aspects of the Bill and noted that it seeks to amend and enhance existing legislation in the following areas: to decrease pollution in watercourses; to enhance our ability to withstand extreme weather events, particularly flooding and drought, through strengthened flood resilience; to encourage the use of sustainable draining systems, commonly known as SuDS, as a preferred method for managing surface water; and to improve water resource management through the introduction of more environmentally friendly solutions for managing water resources.

In essence, it is quite a small Bill, with 16 clauses, but its reach is quite wide, with measures that aim to support our resistance to the above events. It forms part of the Infrastructure Minister's three-pronged approach to improve waste water infrastructure in Northern Ireland, and, therefore, it has a broader strategic reach into our communities. At recent meetings, the Committee has received procedural advice from the Bill Office and has considered its approach and with whom it might wish to engage during that key phase of scrutinising the legislative proposals. The Committee notes that many of the provisions give the Department with regulation-making powers. I am sure that the Committee will want to examine the scope and intended use of those powers when considering each element of the Bill. We want to ensure that the Assembly has sufficient understanding of the issues to support the appropriate scrutiny of the resulting delegated legislation. The Committee will be keen to ensure that the right balance is struck between supporting efficient delivery by the Department and ensuring credible oversight.

At its subsequent meetings on 24 September and 1 October, the Committee gave further consideration to the list of stakeholders who could provide valuable insight into the issues that the Bill seeks to address and how it will work in reality. In addition, the Committee considered an outline timetable for its scrutiny, having noted during oral evidence on 17 September that the Department was in the process of finalising a consultation on the use of SuDS in new housing developments, which will fall under powers proposed in the Bill if it is successfully enacted. That consultation is due to conclude on 19 December. Given the consultation's relevance to the Bill, the Committee considers it essential that sufficient time is factored into its scrutiny to allow for the consultation to conclude and for the Committee to consider any policy proposals made by the Department. That approach will provide the Committee with sufficient opportunity to examine such details and any proposed policy direction for the regulation-making powers arising from the consultation. Examining those aspects in tandem will help the Committee to consider the Department's response and assist with suggestions that will strengthen or enhance the Bill and, where necessary, to seek assurances from the sponsoring Department.

At its meeting on 1 October, the Committee agreed its timetable, which proposes that the Committee Stage be extended to 3 July 2026. I wish to provide some reassurance about that date. The Committee fully intends to report comfortably in advance of that, if everything goes to plan. We are working to a timetable on that assumption, and we intend to give the Bill priority and to be efficient and effective in our approach. We hope also to have a ports Bill, as indicated in the Executive's legislative programme that I spoke about a couple of hours ago, as well as other business to conclude in the remainder of the mandate. It is often said that the end date is a limit, not a target — in fact, the Chair of my former Committee made that very comment in relation to another Bill. The Committee will work closely with the Department and with stakeholders to conclude the process robustly and efficiently. While there is a clear expectation that the Committee Stage will conclude much earlier, the date of 3 July 2026 gives the Committee a sufficient safety net to allow for thorough scrutiny of all dimensions of the Bill, should deeper examination of some aspects be necessary. The Committee's call for evidence was also agreed.

I encourage everyone to reflect on their views on the Bill to enable the Committee to use the time available and to help to shape the Bill accordingly.

Mr Kingston: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Brian, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Our motion asks Members to recognise that Belfast City Council's current policy on dual language street signs is flawed, disrespects the views of residents, damages community relations and needs to be urgently reviewed and changed.

When I commenced on Belfast City Council in 2010, there was a dual language street sign policy and a steady flow of applications under it, most adding the name in Irish but some adding the name in Ulster Scots. The thresholds then were that a petition from one third of residents in a street triggered a formal survey and that the agreement of two thirds of residents was required for a dual language sign to be approved. In 2020, Sinn Féin sought to change those thresholds, and, with the support of the SDLP, People Before Profit, Alliance and the Green Party, they were drastically reduced. That has resulted in a policy that disrespects residents' views and, as I said, in our view, has damaged community relations, particularly in streets that are quietly mixed and where residents from different community backgrounds otherwise live side by side peacefully and with a large degree of tolerance.

I was present at the council's strategic policy and resources committee meeting in October 2020 when the new draft policy was tabled. It was astonishing to hear the Sinn Féin group leader proposing an ever-reducing percentage of residents that would be required for approval of a dual language sign, which the Alliance Party group leader kept agreeing to as though it were a reverse auction. They were asked, "Would you accept one third?", then, "Would you accept 25%?", and then, "Would you accept 20%?". Finally, they consented to just 15% of residents. The new policy was forced through the council by Sinn Féin, the SDLP, People Before Profit, Alliance and the Green Party despite opposition from all unionist councillors from the DUP, UUP and PUP. The new policy is that a survey can be triggered by a request from just one resident in a street or by a councillor for that district electoral area (DEA) who does not even have to live in the street. As a result of that drastic change, the system has been overwhelmed with requests for surveys, at a rising cost to ratepayers.

Let me be clear: where residents consent to an Irish language sign with no or little opposition, the DUP does not oppose the request. However, we oppose, and will continue to oppose, applications for which a majority of residents who have responded to the survey say that they do not want a dual language sign in their street. It should be noted that, in most cases, the majority of residents do not even respond to the survey. Residents are given only 14 days in which to respond. The DUP tried to increase the deadline to 28 days, but nationalist parties would not support that.

In the early days of the new policy, councillors adopted a convention of not approving an Irish language street sign where more residents voted against than for. However, since March this year, nationalist councillors, supported by Green Party councillors, have been forcing applications through, ignoring the majority wishes of residents and the objection of unionist and even Alliance councillors. In my constituency of North Belfast, for Sunningdale Park North, 22 residents voted for an Irish language sign, but 33 voted against it. Some 60% of respondents were against, yet the sign was forced through by nationalist and Green Party councillors.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way and for highlighting how a system can be abused and create tension in otherwise settled communities. Does he agree that the imposition of Irish language signage, without cross-community consent, is an exact example of the kind of significant and controversial issue that should always be referred to the Executive in this place and to ensure community consent in council settings?

Mr Kingston: Indeed. We remember the calls of those who said that we could not have majority rule when unionists had a majority in councils and in the Assembly, but how things change when other parties have the majority.

I was also going to give the example of —

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: — Ben Madigan Park South. I will give way briefly. Yes, Danny.

Mr Baker: Does the Member know that this is about dual language signage, in English and Irish, and that nothing is being forced through, because, democratically, that is the policy of Belfast City Council?

Mr Kingston: The point is this: residents' wishes should be listened to. People have a right not to have an Irish language sign if they do not want one. If they do not want that cultural branding, they have the right not to have it. I will come on to that point.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: No. I need to make progress.

Ben Madigan Park South is another example in North Belfast: 23% were in favour, but 26% were against, and, again, the sign was forced through, disrespecting the majority wishes of respondents.

I have been visited at my office by residents who are outraged by such outcomes, which have confirmed our fears about an unfit process causing resentment and damaging community relations on streets that are quietly mixed. Some have said that it has caused them to seriously consider moving. Many have said that it will reduce the value of their property by reducing potential interest from the unionist community — [Interruption.]

Some might laugh at that, but it is a reality. It is widely viewed as cultural branding of their street, the equivalent of painting kerbstones red, white and blue or, in this case, green, white and gold.

The 'Belfast Telegraph' reported two weeks ago that, since the rules came into force in 2022, fewer than one in eight Irish language street signs approved in Belfast — just 12% — were supported by 50% or more residents of the street. The same article revealed that, out of 228 streets approved for Irish language street signs, the level of support among respondents in 42 of the streets was 25% or less. A recent LucidTalk poll for the 'Belfast Telegraph' found that less than a third of voters agree with the current council policy.

As we know, in Northern Ireland, there is a strong overlap between community identity, culture and politics; I am not saying that they are one and the same, but there is a strong correlation. Irish language street signs are viewed as indicating a nationalist-majority area. Whether we like them or not, we have a number of arrangements in Northern Ireland regarding where cultural expressions can or cannot take place; where parades can and cannot take place; and where flags can be flown and where they would be considered contentious. Location is paramount in these cultural matters.

Residents who are surveyed expect their views to be respected. When they are ignored, residents feel aggrieved, outraged and imposed upon.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will, for the last time, briefly.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. I am pondering your words about areas where flags go up. As you know, I am bringing forward a Member's Bill. Are you saying that, where the majority of people in an area do not approve of flags going up, they should not go up?

Mr Kingston: What I am saying is this: if you attend meetings with the police, they will tell you that location is important. Union flags and bunting are, thankfully, welcome on the Shankill Road, but I accept that there are areas where they would not be welcome. Location is important. It is important to listen to the views of the local community and not to impose things from afar.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: No. I am going to run out of time.

In reality, most unionists do not wish to have a dual language street sign on their street, and they have the right to not want it. Those who say that no one should oppose an Irish language sign expose only their own arrogance and their dismissal of the wishes of residents. To be clear, everyone who speaks Irish can speak English perfectly well, so the requests for those signs are not based on necessity, nor are they based on historic roots, because the majority of Belfast street names do not come from Irish; some do, but the majority do not.

In closing, I expect that the Alliance Party will point out that its councillors have voted against adding an Irish language street sign where a majority of residents are against it. The problem is that such signs are being pushed through by nationalist and Green Party councillors. The Alliance Party voted in a policy that it cannot control. The policy needs to be reviewed and changed. I strongly believe that the policy is damaging community relations in Belfast, particularly in mixed areas. I therefore urge Members to support the motion's appeal to Belfast City Council to carry out a review and change its unfit policy.

Mr Sheehan: Is iarracht eile é an rún seo ón DUP lenár dtarraingt ar gcúl. Níl suim dá laghad ag bunús mór na ndaoine in iarrachtaí den chineál seo. Tá formhór mhuintir Bhéal Feirste, agus, leoga, formhór mhuintir an Tuaiscirt, ag iarraidh sin a fhágáil ina ndiaidh. An frith-Ghaelachas atá taobh thiar den rún seo. Tá sé seanaimseartha, agus tagann sé salach ar an Bhéal Feirste atá againn inniu. Insíonn na fíricí a scéal féin.

Ó tugadh an beartas isteach, agus ó ceadaíodh na chéad sráideanna i mí Eanáir na bliana 2023, chuaigh suirbhé ar bhreis is 530 sráid ar fud Bhéal Feirste. Níor chuir ach fíor-bheagán i gcoinne an bheartais. Níor easaontaigh ach 2·9% de na cónaitheoirí uile a ndeachaigh suirbhé orthu.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Yes.

Mr Kingston: I heard the statistic of 2·9%. Does the Member accept that there are a number of streets where a majority of residents have opposed the signs? We have said that we will not oppose Irish street signs where there is no opposition to them. However, there are streets where a majority of residents are against them. Should the wishes of those residents not be respected?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have an extra minute, Pat.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Member for that. He will know that international best practice with regard to visibility for minority languages is the basis for that policy in Belfast City Council. I know that the DUP is totally opposed to Irish in any form whatsoever, but you need to get used to it. It is a minority language here and needs to be helped and supported. That is exactly what is happening.

Ó tugadh an beartas isteach, agus ó ceadaíodh na chéad sráideanna i mí Eanáir na bliana 2023, chuaigh suirbhé ar bhreis is 530 sráid ar fud Bhéal Feirste. Níor chuir ach fíor-bheagán i gcoinne an bheartais. Níor easaontaigh ach 2.9% de na cónaitheoirí uile a ndeachaigh suirbhé orthu. Ar an meán, sin 1.7% in aghaidh na sráide. I níos mó ná trí cheathrú de na sráideanna a ndearnadh suirbhé orthu, níor easaontaigh oiread is aon chónaitheoir amháin. Fiú má fhágtar an Cheathrú Gaeltachta ar lár, tá an patrún mar a gcéanna. Ar fud 244 shráid, níor vótáil ach 3.9% de na cónaitheoirí i gcoinne na comharthaíochta dátheangaí, agus vótáil naonúr as gach 10 ar a son.

Ar níos mó ná leath de na sráideanna uile - 54% - ní raibh aon easaontú ann, agus, i 96% de chásanna, bhí níos mó cónaitheoirí i bhfabhar na comharthaíochta dátheangaí ná a bhí ina coinne. Ar fud na 536 shráid a ndeachaigh suirbhé orthu, ní raibh oiread is aon sráid amháin ann nach rabhathas sásta leis an chomharthaíocht dhátheangach. Insíonn sin rud tábhachtach dúinn: ní beartas conspóideach é seo; tá sé cuimsitheach. Léiríonn sé gur cathair nua-aimseartha fhéin-mhuiníneach é Béal Feirste.

Ní bagairt í an Ghaeilge d’aon duine. Is í teanga dhúchais an oileáin seo í, agus is cuid den oidhreacht chomhchoitianta í ag gach duine sa chathair seo, beag beann ar chúlra nó ar chreideamh. Tá na mílte ag foghlaim na Gaeilge gach seachtain. Is linn go léir í.

Tá beagnach 40 bliain ó shin, cuireadh Máirtín Ó Muilleoir amach as cruinniú comhairle cionn is gur labhair sé Gaeilge; caitheadh amach é cionn is gur úsáid sé a theanga féin. Tá an éadulaingt chéanna le feiceáil inniu nuair a loitear comharthaí sráide Gaeilge. Tá an éadulgaint sin le feiceáil i rúin den chineál atá idir camánaibh againn inniu.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Yes.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member condemn the defacing of Londonderry signs? Will he support people being arrested by the PSNI for that offence? Yes or no?

Mr Sheehan: You, as a former police officer, should be able to tell us whether the police carried out any investigations.

Mr Burrows: I am just asking whether you will condemn it.

Mr Sheehan: I am here to talk about Irish language street signage and dual language street signage, so — [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Pat, take your seat.

I have asked you before, and you as well, Timothy, as well as others, not to shout at people from a sedentary position. Everybody has a right to be heard, even if you do not like what is being said. It is just common courtesy. Thank you. Pat, go ahead.

Mr Sheehan: Agus nuair a bhaintear feidhm as na cúirteanna le bac a chur ar an dul chun cinn; tá an éadulgaint sin le feiceáil in athbhreithniú breithiúnach cráiteach i ndiaidh athbhreithnú breithniúnach cráiteach eile arb aidhm dóibh toil mhuintir Bhéal Feirste, agus na gcomhairleoirí a thogh siad, a chur ó mhaith.

Is minic an DUP ag caint ar airgead poiblí á chur amú ar an Ghaeilge. Cá mhéad airgid phoiblí a chuir siad féin amú agus iad ag tacú le hágóidí dlí gan dealramh? Airgead a d’fhéadfaí a chaitheamh le feabhas a chur ar sheirbhísí nó le tacú le comhphobail.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: A Phat, tá do sheal cainte istigh. Pat, time is up.

Miss McAllister: I will outline Alliance's position on the DUP motion and also set the record straight on what has become a widely distorted and, at times, misinformed discussion about dual language signage, particularly in Belfast.

First, however, I remind people that use of the Irish language is not an attack on anyone's identity and that this policy in particular is about protecting and promoting an important part of our cultural heritage: a heritage that belongs to everyone, not just those in Belfast but those across the whole island. We should all be aware by now of the role that the Presbyterians played in keeping the language alive in the 18th and 19th centuries. I also highlight the role of the Grand Master of Belfast from 1885 until 1898, the Rev Dr Richard Rutledge Kane, who was a patron of the Belfast Gaelic League, which was founded in 1895, and who signed the lodge meeting minutes in Irish.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mr McMurray: The Member mentioned the role that Presbyterians played. Will she agree with me that the Rev William Neilson's publication 'Introduction to the Irish language' highlights how much of a shared cultural background we have on the matter?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I absolutely agree. It emphasises how the Irish language is a shared part of our heritage. Just today, I was also informed that there is, I believe, a Presbyterian church in west Belfast that still hosts the odd meeting in Irish.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: No, not at this time. I am going to make some progress.

It is incumbent on all of us as elected representatives to lead by example and show respect for all cultures in Northern Ireland. Irish is an indigenous, native and minority language, and, whether we like it or not, there is a need to protect and, indeed, promote such languages. When we talk about the Irish language, we are not talking about an abstract idea. We are not talking about a departmental-specific policy that requires years to research and develop. The Irish language has existed for more than 2,500 years. The oldest written examples date back to the 5th and 6th centuries. Even the Normans began to speak Irish. The Lord Mayor's chain, which many of us in this Chamber have worn, has "Erinn go bra", which means "Ireland forever", written on it in Irish. I say that because it is important. The Irish language is part of our history. It belongs to all of us, not to one party and not to one side of the community.

Alliance policy on the Irish language has been consistent since the time that unionist parties on Belfast City Council would not get on board with our initial proposal. I say to the proposer of the motion, because both of us were on the council at the time, that we did put forward an initial proposal for 50% support, but we then supported the current policy, and we have stuck to that ever since. We outlined how we would not and should not support any street signage to which the majority of respondents do not agree. That that is wrong is something that we agree with in the motion. That deal, however, was reneged on by Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Green Party.

If we are to bring people along with us when it comes to preserving identity for all of us, how can we then stamp on the expressions of difference of others?

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mr Kingston: I said that I recognise that Alliance is not supporting applications where a majority of residents have indicated that they do not want it. The point, therefore, is this: should that not be included in the policy, rather than its being left to the whim of how parties choose to vote and how they would change how they vote? It needs to be included in a review of the policy.

Miss McAllister: The 15% is based on international best practice; it is based around practice on these islands, in the UK and further afield. We brought proposals to you — the DUP — and you would not accept them. It is important that we all work together.

It is shameful that, up until a year ago, Sinn Féin, in Belfast, set aside its respect for the democratic process when it came to individuals and residents living on a street. I agree that those who do not respond should not automatically be included as a negative, but ignoring the wishes of people who do respond, and igniting flames and tension in communities, is not about being a First Minister for all, and it is not about protecting and promoting the Irish language. It is about getting your own way.

Over the past few weeks, we have seen a ramping up of the irresponsible rhetoric around the Irish language. It is important that we take a step back. It is a language and a culture that belongs to all of us. I condemn all the defacing of signage. I condemn the defacing of any sign, whether it is on my street or yours. We need to work together and ensure that, when we bring responsible decisions to any Chamber, be it here or Belfast City Council, we do not ignore the wishes of the residents with whom we all live. Hopefully, we can move forward together when it comes to promoting the Irish language, because it is important for all in Northern Ireland that we see that it is our shared heritage and shared culture.

Mr Allen: No doubt, as we have heard already, those of us who speak in support of the motion will be labelled as intolerant, regressive or anti-Irish. Those are labels that I do not agree with, but, perhaps, in supporting the motion, I will be adding my name, and those of my colleagues, to the list labelled as such. However, we do not agree with those labels.

Public policy should seek to unite communities, not divide them. At its core, the motion highlights that, since 2022, only around 12% of Irish language street sign applications received by Belfast City Council had majority residential support. In preparing for the debate, I spent time going through the various people and communities committee documents that contain the streets on which the signage was proposed and analysing that information. Yes, there were streets that had over 50% support, but the majority were within the range of 20% to 40%. There were also many that did not have the majority support. We have heard about those streets from other Members. We can look at Shandon Park, in my constituency, where 49% — 121 people — of the people surveyed did not support the imposition of a dual language sign on their street, and many fewer did support it. However, that was railroaded through.

The crux of the issue before us is not the Irish language. I go back to my comments. I will perhaps be labelled as anti-Irish, but that is not the case. When the Shandon Park street sign was vandalised, just recently, I highlighted in my comments of condemnation that it was wrong — unequivocally wrong. I served in an Irish regiment, and I am proud of the regiment that I served in. Its regimental motto, "faugh a ballagh", has its origins in the Irish language.

We cannot deny the fact that the Irish language has been weaponised by some. There may be people who will laugh at that or try to dismiss it, but that is the reality. I speak to many who identify as unionist, as nationalist, as other or none of the above, and they do not support the approach around the dual language signage. That is a fundamental issue when signage is being railroaded through and people do not support it. It further entrenches communities, it sows division, and it does a disservice to the language. What good is that? It is no good. Fundamentally, we have to look at the policy. The policy is, in part, to blame. To reduce it to the 15% and then to go beyond that, as we have heard from other Members who have said, "You know what? Actually, we are not even happy with the 15%. We will just disregard that because, in reality, the 15% threshold has been met, but the majority in the street do not support that approach, but we will push it through", is wrong. We would be much better served by investing in promoting the language, not railroading it on to communities and not through the current policies of Belfast City Council.

I am not anti-Irish. I support those who wish to speak the language. I personally do not wish to speak it, and I know many who share the same views. Equally, I know people who do wish to speak it. I have met Linda Ervine, who is a massive promoter of the language, and I have engaged with her. I have heard about how the Irish language is intertwined throughout the fabric of our city. I have no difficulty with that. However, you have to recognise that there are many in our communities who do. Their voices are as important as those who wish to have Irish, and to dismiss them is doing them a disservice.

I will finish on this: those who have used the language as a political tool, or, as I refer to it, as weaponisation, should reflect on the disservice that they have done and why we are where we are now. I support the motion and call on Belfast City Council not only to review the policy but to redouble its efforts as to how it can build community cohesion.

Mr McGlone: Níl a fhios agam cé acu ar chóir an díospóireacht seo bheith ar cois i gComhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste nó anseo. Tá me cinéal idir eatarthu. Cibé, tá súil agam, an méid atá le rá agam go mbeidh sé oideachasúil.

Tá an Ghaeilge ar cheann de na teangacha scríofa is sine san Eoraip, le fréamhacha ag síneadh siar níos mó ná 2,000. Tháinig sí chun cinn as an tSean-Ghaeilge a labhraítí in Éirinn, Albain agus Oileán Mhanann, a d’fhorbair ón Cheiltis a tháinig go hÉirinn timpeall 500 R.Ch. Le himeacht ama, d’fhorbair an Ghaeilge a cuid scríbhneoireachta féin, go háirithe leis an Ogham ón chúigiú haois ar aghaidh — an chéad chóras scríbhneoireachta dúchasach in iarthar na hEorpa.

Le linn na Meánaoise, bhí an Ghaeilge ina teanga riaracháin, dlí agus léinn in Éirinn, agus d’imir sí tionchar suntasach ar theangacha eile, go háirithe ar Ghaeilge na hAlban agus ar an Mhanainnis. Tháinig meath uirthi tar éis an Choncais Angla-Normannaigh agus go háirithe le linn na 17ú agus 18ú haoiseanna, nuair a tháinig an Béarla i réim mar theanga an chumhachta, na trádála agus an oideachais, ar an drochuair.

Mar sin féin, mhair an Ghaeilge mar theanga phobail i gceantair thuaithe agus i measc na ndaoine coitianta, ag coinneáil beo gné thábhachtach, gné iontach tábhachtach de chultúr, d’fhilíocht, d’amhránaíocht agus de shainfhéiniúlacht na hÉireann.

I gcomhthéacs Thuaisceart Éireann, tá an Ghaeilge ina comhartha tábhachtach d’oidhreacht chomhroinnte agus d’aitheantas cultúrtha. Mo chultúr féin, rud atá comhroinnte le daoine eile agus le daoine ó chúlraí éagsúla. Cé gur cuireadh faoi chois í ar feadh tréimhsí fada, tá sí anois á hathbheochan tríd an oideachas, na meáin chumarsáide, ealaíon agus saol poiblí. Cuireann pobail Ghaeilge in áiteanna mar Bhéal Feirste agus Doire go mór leis an athfhás seo.

Tá aitheantas oifigiúil don Ghaeilge i dTuaisceart Éireann anois mar chuid de na gealltanais faoi Chomhaontú Chill Rìmhinn (2006

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Yes.

Mr Brooks: I am listening to the Member, and I do not disagree with much of what he is saying. He clearly has a love for the language. However, does he believe that the optimal way to promote the language is to impose it on streets where 16% say that they are in favour whilst 50% say that they are against it?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have an extra minute, Patsy.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat.

Thank you for that point. I would delight in hearing what percentage the DUP has proposed at Belfast City Council. I have searched for it, and I cannot find a percentage — 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0. All I have heard is mention of majority rule. Mar is eol dúinn uilig, ní oibríonn sin.

Mar a bhí mé a ra, tá aiteantas oifigiúil don Ghaeilge i dTuaisceart Éireann anois mar chuid de na gealltanais faoi Chomhaontú Chill Rìmhinn (2006) agus na socruithe deireanacha faoin Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022. Tugann an reachtaíocht sin creat don chomhionannas teanga, don rochtain ar sheirbhísí trí Ghaeilge, agus do chead don phobal a bhféiniúlacht Ghaelach a chur in iúl go poiblí.

Tá níos mó i gceist leis an Ghaeilge ná teanga amháin, nó is siombail bheo í de leanúnachas stairiúil, cultúrtha agus spioradálta an oileáin. Trína cur chun cinn agus trí áiseanna córa a chur ar fáil di i dTuaisceart Éireann, aithnítear ní hé amháin teanga ársa, teanga an-ársa mar atá léirithe agam, ach cuid dhílis de chomhthéacs comhaimseartha agus todhchaí chomhchoiteanta na ndaoine uile ar an oileán.

Ar ndóigh níl mé ag tacú leis an mholadh ach arís eile, iarraim ar dhaoine a ghabháil agus bheith ag foghlaim na teanga agus foghlaim cúlra na teanga, agus feicfear go bhfuil cuid spéise inti do gach aon duine. An t-iolrachas cultúir agus an cóimheas, sin iad na dóigheanna ar féidir linn cónaí le chéile agus meas a bheith againn ar a chéile.

Mr Kearney: Caithfear bheith soiléir: ní bhaineann an rún seo ón DUP le comharthaíocht. Ní bhaineann sé le beartas. Níl ann ach iarracht eile lenár bpobail a tharraingt ar gcúl. Bhog daoine ar aghaidh; bhog an tsochaí ar aghaidh.

Tá muintir Bhéal Feirste, ó gach pobal, ag iarraidh dul chun cinn a fheiceáil. Tá urraim agus comhionannas uathu.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Kearney: Gabh ar aghaidh.

Mr Kingston: I appreciate that it was not the Member's speech, but the last speech did not address the topic, which is about street signs. What is the Member's message to residents of a street where the majority have voted against having the street sign added in Irish? What is his message to those residents? Should they just suck it up, or will their wishes be respected?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Declan, you have an extra minute.

Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat. Tuigim go bhfuil mo chara anseo ag iarraidh cor a chur ar an díospóireacht. Le scéal fada a dhéanamh gairid, glacaimid go bhfuil ceart ag gach saoránach. Ceist agam ortsa: an dtuigeann tusa anois go bhfuil aitheantas bainte amach ag an Ghaeilge mar theanga oifigiúil sa stát seo? Maith thú.

Tá daoine dubh dóite de pholaitíocht seo na deighilte atá cuid páirtithe a chur chun cinn. Is é fírinne an scéil nach bhfuil suim ag formhór mór na ndaoine sna cogaí cultúrtha bréagacha seo. Tá siad ag iarraidh feabhas a chur ar sheirbhísí poiblí. Tá siad ag fanacht le páirtithe cur lena bhfocal agus an comhionannas a chur i bhfeidhm.

Tá an beartas atá idir camánaibh againn inniu bunaithe ar chomhionannas, ar an smaoineamh go bhfuil sé de cheart ag gach duine a bhféiniúlacht agus a gcultúr a fheiceáil sa tsaol phoiblí.

Ní bhaineann an rún seo ón DUP le pobail a chosaint. Sin cur i gcéill. Baineanna sé le heagla agus teannas a chothú inár bpobail. Céim ar gcúl atá ann, tá sé frith-Ghaelach, agus tagann sé iomlán salach ar an chomhionannas féin.
Léiríonn an chomharthaíocht dhátheangach urraim, agus tugann sí le fios do mhórán daoine ar fud na cathrach go bhfuil urraim agus fáilte roimh a bhféiniúlacht anseo.

Ní beartas ar chomharthaí amháin atá sa bheartas seo; léiríonn sé an cineál cathrach atáimid ag iarraidh a dhéanamh — cathair do chách, atá dearfach, measúil, atá forásach. Níor chóir do dhuine ar bith eagla a bheith air roimh an Ghaeilge; ní bagairt í an Ghaeilge. Is linn go léir í, beag beann ar chúlra nó ar chreideamh. Is teanga bheo í. Beatha teanga í a labhairt.

Ní aniar aduaidh a tháinig an beartas seo. Is toradh é ar na blianta de rannpháirtíocht pobail, eagrú agus comhairliúchán ar leibhéal an phobail, agus níl an tacaíocht dó teoranta do aon chuid amháin dár gcathair.

Ar an drochuair tá an chomharthaíocht dhátheangach á loit go fóill, agus caithfear deireadh a chur leis sin. Caithfear deireadh a chur leis na hathbhreithnithe breithiúnacha costasacha atá cuid daoine a úsáid le bac a chur ar an dul chun cinn.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kearney: Níl an t-am agam, gabh mo leithscéal.

Bíonn an DUP ag caint arís agus arís eile ar airgead poiblí bheith á chur amú. Ba chóir fiafraí díobh, áfach, cá mhéad airgid a chuir siad féin amú agus iad ag troid i gcoinne an bheartais seo sna cúirteanna — ba chóir an t-airgead sin a chaitheamh ar sheirbhísí a fheabhsú.

Ná bíodh aon amhras ann: is í an urraim an t-aon rud amháin atá á héileamh: urraim ar an Ghaeilge; urraim ar na daoine a labhraíonn í agus ar mian leo í a fhoghlaim.

Deirim seo leis an DUP tráthnóna: tá aimsir an leithcheala thart. Tá aimsir na scoilte thart. Tá an t-am acu bheith ag obair leis an chuid eile againn ar mhaithe lenár bpobail uilig in ionad bheith ag iarraidh scoilt a chur eatarthu. Tapaígí an deis.

Mr Brooks: I suggest that the only people who are driving a wedge between our communities are those on the opposite Benches. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue concerning Irish language signage being imposed in parts of Belfast, particularly in areas where there is little demand or support for such measures.

Let me say at the outset, as clearly as I can, that this is not about hostility to the Irish language. No one in this party objects to anyone learning, speaking or celebrating Irish as part of their cultural heritage. What we do object to is the use of language as a political weapon and as a means of advancing a nationalist agenda in communities that do not identify with it and did not consent to it. That is what we have seen at Belfast City Hall. Again, the parties that most strongly champion the Good Friday Agreement so easily set aside the fundamental principle of consent when it concerns unionists. That is not cultural respect: it is cultural imposition.

Let us be honest: were the situation to be reversed and another community was being subjected to cultural symbols that they did not identify with, there would be outrage, protests and endless calls for respect. Indeed, a five- or 10-minute parade past a nationalist community once or twice a year is often deemed too much for nationalist parties in this place to stomach, much less the permanent imposition of divisive symbols in their communities.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. There has been commentary — in fairness, not by the Member, yet — by unionist politicians, including party colleagues of his that demonstrates that it is not just Irish language signage that the DUP is opposed to. A few years ago, I put a proposal to the then Infrastructure Minister about changing the name on road signage from Londonderry to Londonderry/Derry in a bid to incorporate both names. It was received with opposition from his party.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mark, you need to take your seat. It is not a speech. Honestly, come on ahead, seriously.

Mr Kingston: An extra minute.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have an extra 15 minutes. [Laughter.]

Mr Brooks: Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am only joking. You have an extra minute.

Mr Brooks: The official name of the place is Londonderry, although I understand that some do not wish to use it. I hope that a similar attitude will be taken to the continuing damage to signage that has the name Londonderry on it, which has been happening for years across the Province, in light of what happened, for instance, in Shandon Park.

I want to address a particular element of the debate that, I think, grassroots unionism is sick and tired of: the disproportionate weight given to outlying examples from a unionist or Protestant background as if they are examples of what unionism really desires or are paragons of what unionism ought to be; the suggestion that unionists resist only because they do not know. I have heard the usual things invoked today, including the history of the Presbyterians in the Irish language, which I respect. We have heard talk of Linda Ervine, who is no doubt passionate about the Irish language. As a unionist, however, I know that many people whom I represent are sick of having those examples thrown at us as if they mean that we must adopt it as our culture. Do not tell me what my culture is. Do not tell me what my language is. I respect your right to speak Irish if you so wish, but I will not be told that it must be my language. That is what is happening to communities in Belfast: they are being told that they must have the Irish language whether they like it or not; that is the reality.

If people in the 18th or 19th century, such as Douglas Hyde, had an interest in the language, that is interesting. It is often quoted that King William had backing from the Pope. Those are interesting quirks of history, and some are vital to the history of the language, but they are not reasons why unionist communities today must identify with it. I tell you: 30 years of being bombed, murdered and maimed by people who stand and sit in front of tricolours and tell us that every word spoken in Irish is a bullet for Irish freedom will affect people's attitude. Therefore, when you find that unionist and Protestant communities in Belfast are resistant to the language, perhaps some people — particularly those on the Benches opposite — will look closer to home for the reasons. The Members of this place and of councils — the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin — and the Irish language lobby can engage in their culture as they wish, but they should rid themselves of the sanctimonious idea that they get to say what others identify with and how others celebrate their culture.

I respect the right of all to engage in and express their identity, but we should not have the voices of 16% of people in a street being granted more weight than the majority, as we saw in Shandon Park. Since 2022, 228 streets in Belfast have been approved for Irish language signage, yet only a small fraction of those had the backing of a majority of residents. We are told that bilingual signage promotes inclusion and diversity, but inclusion cannot be achieved by coercion. Belfast is a shared city with shared spaces and is welcoming to all. It should not be dominated by one cultural narrative or another. Imposing Irish language signs in strongly unionist areas does not promote harmony; it drives division. It tells one community that its sense of British identity is secondary and that its voice can be overridden by political symbolism. The DUP will always support genuine cultural expression, but it must be done with consent and context.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, David, with your extra minute.

Mr Brooks: Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Ms Mulholland: I rise as someone with giota beag Gaeilge — a little bit of Irish. I am an aspiring learner; it is something that I have tried to do. I think of Béal Feirste — Belfast; the heart of my constituency, Ballymena — an Baile Meánach — the Middle Townland; and Loughguile — Loch gCaol — River of the Narrow Water. For me, all those things are part of the story. My favourite is somewhere that I pass every day as I come to Stormont: Knocknagoney — Cnoc na gCoiníní — Hill of the Rabbits, so called because, once upon a time, before Tesco was there, it was hiving with rabbits apparently.

Bilingual street nameplates do not replace anyone's identity. We are not asking people to take on the culture as if it is their own. We are asking for respect. There is a myth about Alliance that we want everyone to be put into a big pot of homogenous beige; we do not want that. We want people to be able to celebrate and respect the culture of others.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Yes, go on ahead.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member articulating her remarks, but we are now into the second Alliance speech, and we still have not heard how you are going to vote on the motion. Will the Member articulate to the House and the watching public how the Alliance Party will vote on the motion?

Ms Mulholland: I will continue with my speech and get to that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sian, you have an extra minute.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

What first struck me about the motion, aside from the fact that we are spending time discussing the outworkings of a council policy, not just the policy detail or lack thereof, was the tone. Using terms such as "oppressive", "marking of territory" and "imposed upon" is not the way in which to lower the temperature and open a door to our shared history, which is a history that also includes "others" and Presbyterians at its croí

, no matter how unfortunate that may be for people to hear.

The motion states that only 12% of applications for Irish language signs — in fact, they are dual language signs — are approved by the majority of residents who live there. That is a distortion of the facts. The policy focuses on respondents, not on the total number of residents. That is a key distinction to make. On the motion's assertion that, in nine out of 10 cases, the wishes of the minority are trumping those of the majority, I would like to know from where those figures come, because I am not clear on that.

Our peace settlement and international standards state that minority cultural rights matter. For years before 2022, a supermajority was required for the introduction of Irish signage. In practice, that meant that that visibility was kept, and refined, in areas that had already fully embraced the language. The more recent policy —.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: I want to continue, because I do not have an awful lot of time.

The more recent policy aimed to remove an unreasonable barrier while maintaining discretion, precisely so that we could weigh up local feeling and good relations, but community bridges will hold only if they are built with consent. Trust is built by talking to residents, answering questions and demystifying what a bilingual sign is, and that sometimes does mean saying, "Not here, not now, not yet". The point is to bring people along.

As has been mentioned, councillors can still exercise discretion, including through a good relations test. My party, unlike the SDLP, Sinn Féin and Green Party groupings on Belfast City Council, has stuck to its position that a sign should not be put in place if a majority of residents respond against it. Indeed, in the words of a DUP councillor in Belfast City Hall:

We want to clarify our position. We believe that the policy is not the problem. Rather, the problem is the way in which a number of cases have been approached. If we are to listen to the calls of the Irish language community, which wants to depoliticise the language, we have to do that on every level and from every side.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Just a second.

To be clear, my children singing 'Baa, Baa, Caora Dubh'

is not a bullet for any cause, and nor should it be a reason for intimidation of others.

Where therefore should we land? First, there is the potential for Irish and other minority languages to promote our common culture, and street signage can help to do that in a modest, everyday way. Secondly, it should not go where local people do not yet particularly want it. Consent and context matter. If a clear majority of residents on a given street are not interested, for whatever reason, it simply may not be the right place or the right time to introduce it. Thirdly, the way in which support is built is through respectful engagement, conversations, outreach and practical reassurance, not through street-by-street trench warfare, as the motion may have us believe. Fourthly, we should be proud of Belfast's progress. More people from different backgrounds are dipping a toe in the Irish language, even if it is just a wee one. That is a positive story that we should nurture, not politicise.

That brings me back to tone. Calling neighbours' cultural expression "oppressive" or considering it territorial does nothing but harden hearts. It is not a zero-sum exercise. If we talk about the issue in that way, we will guarantee division and not achieve anything. This is not about forcing anyone to adopt the language as their own but about respect. There is also a practical path that we can take. The council committed to a two-year review of the policy, so let us wait for that in good faith. Let us look at the response rates and the engagement quality. Let us improve the information. Let us use our discretion, which we already have, to say when good relations would plainly be hindered.

The choice today is not between Irish and English or between culture and consent. Rather, the debate is about seeing a Béal Feirste

and a Tuisceart Aontroma

that are quietly, confidently proud —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Sian.

Ms Mulholland: — of all their voices.

Mr O'Toole: I also have very few focail

. I am a very poor Irish speaker. I am not ashamed of that, but it is something that I would love to rectify, and I intend to do so. I want to learn Irish. I am trying to learn it with my kids. Like Sian Mulholland, I have very young children who are looking at the Irish language, exploring it, learning it and thinking about the place names — the places and the people — of the city that they live in and of other places that they visit on this island. In a strange way, thinking about it from first principles is important. It allows us a way into the debate.

It would be easy for me to castigate the DUP for the terms of the motion, because it is irresponsible and not really about getting to a place of greater understanding or discussion. It is about forcing a confrontation. However, before I come to that, I will acknowledge something that has been said, so that I am not accused of distorting views. It is obviously true that there are many unionist communities, especially working-class unionist communities, that are not greatly enthused about the Irish language. That is an obvious statement of fact. It is also true that, in communities that I represent in South Belfast, lots of people are not all that enthusiastic about the fact that flags fly, all the time, all year round, on the streets where they live. They go to their elected representatives, but they have no means of ensuring that the flags come down or even of ensuring that there can be an agreed way of regulating them. Constituents often come up to me, as I am sure that they do with all Members, in the shop or even the pub, to talk about issues. Flags is one of the things that people regularly come up to me to talk about, sometimes in quite colourful language. They use words that are not necessarily as Gaeilge

— sometimes they use words that have an Anglo-Saxon origin — and they ask, "What about those flags in the street? I do not mind if they go up in July and there is an agreed process for getting them down". Those people are asking for a process and system of regulating a cultural expression that is not theirs.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will, Mr Brooks, in a second.

What Belfast City Council agreed was a policy to accommodate cultural expression. By the way, it is not exactly the same thing: they are not parallels at all. Many people who enjoy, celebrate and want to learn the Irish language are from unionist backgrounds. They are there, by the way, Mr Brooks. They are British and have that identity. However, there is no means of me regulating, for my constituents, the flags on the street corners, whether they are national flags or paramilitary flags. I put that point to some of the Members opposite. I presume that they will now enthusiastically support a system that allows for majority referenda for flags in streets.

I will give way to Mr Brooks.

Mr Brooks: When I was a councillor in Lisnasharragh, and even in my role today, communities like that came to me — I have spoken to members of Mr O'Toole's party on those issues as well — and we tried our best to have flags removed from areas where there is not consent and to engage with communities. However, we did not vote for a policy that allows 15% of an area to impose its will on the rest of it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, you have an extra minute.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr Brooks, you have just established one of the problems with that situation, which is that it relies on an informal system, effectively a client system, whereby people go and there is a boy whom they know who can have it —. [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Toole: You may not, but that is what you imply.

We cannot get an agreed system for dealing with flags. Flags are not the issue that we are talking about: we should be talking about the Irish language.

Some Members: You are talking about flags.

Mr O'Toole: The DUP tabled a motion about an aspect of cultural expression. [Interruption.]

It talked about regulation and deeply objected to it.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in a second —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, take your seat for a minute, please. David, you were the one who introduced flags. You introduced parades, Brian. All I say is that —.

Mr Kingston: No. That is not [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. I was about to advise that Members should stick to the wording of the motion as best they can.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: And do not "Hear, hear" me, please. [Laughter.]

Thank you.

A Member: Would you rather have it in Irish?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is just that it is not courteous.

Go ahead, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge that many people do not feel attached to the Irish language. I say two things to that. The first is that our job as political representatives is not simply to reflect the worst fears of the people who elect us; sometimes, it is to reassure and even to challenge people. I can tell you — I mention the flag parallel briefly — that, when people talk to me about that, I say to them, "Bear in mind that this means something deep to your neighbours". Therefore, let us have a bit of empathy and grace and think better of one another.

The Irish language is a part of us all, whether we like it or not. The Member mentioned the name of his DEA, Lisnasharragh: where does that come from? If the place name "Shandon Park" was translated into the English language, it would be "Old Fort Park." At a certain point, we have to be honest with ourselves and honest with the people who represent us. I am not suggesting that absolutely everybody in unionist communities is thrilled about the Irish language, but, first of all, they are dual language signs and, secondly, there are many people in those communities who are open-minded about the language and want to learn more about it. Just for a change, rather than reinforcing people's worst fears, why not say to them —

Mr Brooks: Will the Member take a point?

Mr O'Toole: No, I do not have time.

Why not say to them, "You do not have to be afraid. We can build something together in this place. It does not always have to be zero-sum."? That is what I say to my constituents when I talk about a new Ireland. I say, "Flags and British cultural expression are at the heart of my vision for a new Ireland." Would that all of you were a little bit more optimistic and hopeful for the people whom you claim to represent.

Mr Gaston: I start tonight by looking at the facts. Since 2022, only 12% of applications for Irish language street signs in Belfast have secured majority support from residents. That means that, in nearly nine out of 10 cases, minority wishes have trumped the view of the majority. That is not cultural expression; it is, indeed, imposition. It is undemocratic, oppressive and designed to subjugate one community in our capital city. In Belfast, the tyranny of the minority has been permitted. Take Shandon Park: under 17% of respondents supported Irish language signage, yet the signs went up anyway. Given the outrage over alleged damage to Irish language signs, I look forward to the wall-to-wall coverage when the next "Welcome to Northern Ireland" or "Londonderry" signs are defaced.

Let me be clear: this is not about language per se. It is about imposing minority rule, territory marking and shifting community composition. That is not rhetoric; it is fact. The survey commissioned by Analogical Research via LucidTalk in March showed a clear chill factor amongst unionist and Protestant residents, with 71% of unionists saying that Irish language signage in their street would make them more likely to move away, 88% of unionists saying that they would avoid a street with Irish language signage and 75% of unionists saying that they would be less likely to use leisure centres featuring Irish language signage. If many in a community are being chilled out of civic spaces, what kind of shared society is that? The effect is, indeed, obvious. Unionist households leave or avoid certain areas, and sympathisers then gravitate there. Over time, the balance shifts, not necessarily by force, but by exclusion. That is a form of non-violent ethnic engineering.

The council's new citywide Irish language policy makes it even worse. Alliance, a party that calls itself a united community, has championed that divisive policy at every stage. However, let me make this clear: while some here rightly condemn Belfast City Council, the DUP sit in an Executive who are recruiting a language commissioner. A fanatic is the man touted to be the new Irish Language Commissioner. By all accounts, he thinks that the law does not go far enough and intends to impose an Irish cultural identity across Northern Ireland. If, indeed, you oppose what is happening in Belfast City Council, use your powers in the Executive to stop the next phase of this republican project.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, please take your seat for a moment. It is my understanding that the name of the Irish Language Commissioner has not been announced, even though there is a lot of speculation. I think that you need to be very careful, even though that speculation is out in the media. You are now disparaging someone's character. I think that you need to think carefully, and if you continue, I will ask you to take your seat. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: I will take your guidance on that, Principal Deputy Speaker, and finish the point that I was making: presiding over not only the protocol but an Irish language enforcer is not any record —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy —.

Mr Gaston: — that a unionist should want to defend. I did not mention any names, Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, but the protocol has absolutely nothing to do with the motion. I respectfully ask you —.

Mr Gaston: I am coming back to the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes, and if you do not come back to the motion, I will move on.

Mr Gaston: Do I get an extra minute for that intervention? [Laughter.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, you are all right.

Mr Gaston: Although the headline in 'The Irish News' screamed:

that is a statistical sleight of hand. In the early phase, applications came from overwhelmingly nationalist areas, where unionists raised no objection. Now, applications are targeting mixed or majority unionist streets, and residents there are rejecting Irish language signage, sometimes at a rate of 3:1, yet the signs go up anyway.

There is a remedy. I am glad that the Communities Minister has come into the Chamber. Under section 111 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, the Minister for Communities has the power to issue guidance to councils. Surely the time has come, Minister, —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, your time is up.

Mr Gaston: — to exercise that power and bring Belfast City Council —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Timothy.

Mr Gaston: — back to operating under the law.

Mr Carroll: It is pathetic but not surprising that we are dealing with a DUP attack on the Irish language once again. When unionism is in crisis, it seeks to sectarianise things. It is like clockwork, or, as we say in Irish, iontas na n-iontas.

Is cuid lárnach dár gcathair iad pobal na Gaeilge. Tá na mílte daoine óga ag freastal ar scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge. Tá tuismitheoirí ar fud na cathrach cosúil liomsa, ag tógáil a gcuid páistí trí mheán na Gaeilge. Is ceart agus is cóir go raibh an Ghaeilge le feiceáil i mBéal Feirste. Is ceart agus is cóir go raibh sí in úsáid ag an chomhairle, ag an stát.

Agus tá focal coitianta ann a dhéanann cur síos ar ionsaí an DUP: seicteachas. Mar a dúirt mé, nuair a bhíonn an DUP faoi bhrú, déanann siad an druma seicteach a bhualadh.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Bomaite beag.

Agus cén t-iontas ann sin nuair a bhíonn bagairt lofa ar chéad leathanach na nuachtán? Dílseoirí le gunnaí, ag rá go ndéanfaidh siad ionsaí ar an chomhairle, ar oibrithe, mar gheall ar an Ghaeilge.

Go ahead.

Mr Kingston: Does the Member consider every resident who objects to having an Irish language street sign added to be sectarian?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, you have an extra minute.

Mr Carroll: Go raibh maith agat.

No, but I believe that your party's motives are sectarian. I remind Members that, across 536 streets in Belfast where there is approved street signage, only 3% of residents opposed the use of Irish. I think that you are trying to make an exception for a small minority that you, as a party, have tried to elevate.

When unionism has spent months and years whipping up hysteria about the language, which it has done quite well, it is no surprise to see armed threats on the front pages. The deputy First Minister tried to downplay those threats and say that they do not exist, but the evidence is there for every single one of us to see. A sectarian agenda gives confidence to and legitimises loyalist paramilitaries

— you can tut all you want — as does working and sitting down with the Loyalist Communities Council.

We have heard much in the debate about cost. I remind Members that the DUP should not be trusted on accounting matters. The spirit of the RHI scheme is still alive and well in that party.

Sa dara háit, mar a deir an seanfhocal atá scríofa ar an bhealach isteach go Coláiste Feirste: Is fiú ór í an fhoghlaim. Is fiú ór í an méid atá le foghlaim faoin Ghaeilge sa chathair seo. Is fiú ór í Béal Feirste ina bhfuil an Ghaeilge lárnach inti. Is fiú ór í an infheistíocht a dhéantar sa teanga.

Let us be clear: the DUP is trying to sectarianise the Irish language by talking about costs, trying to whip up racism and talking about transphobia, because working-class communities are suffering, and they are angry. The Executive share a lot of the blame for that stuff.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, can you get back to the substance of the debate, which is the Irish language street sign policy?

Mr Carroll: Sure.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Más maith leat, go raibh maith agat.

Mr Carroll: Tá fáilte romhat.

Those ridiculous and embarrassing attacks on the Irish language are designed to distract from that reality and keep working-class people angry at the wrong things. Sectarianism lets the whole establishment off the hook. Nationalist parties here are right to defend the language — we all agree on the need for that, obviously — but, in the same breath, all Executive parties implement a neoliberal agenda that punishes working class Gaeilgeoirí and working class people in general. They are complicit in the crises in our public services and housing. Mar a deir muid i nGaeilge, tá siad ag baint ó Pheadar le tabhairt do Phól.

We have to reject the DUP's sectarianism. The rights of Irish speakers should be respected and resourced. Narrow nationalism will not serve the needs of working-class Gaeilgeoirí in Belfast or anywhere else. We need to take a socialist approach to the questions of the Irish language.

There has been a lot of talk about the Irish language being weaponised by some people. I will make a point of who is doing the weaponising tonight: it is the DUP. DUP Members are clearly vexed at the sight of bilingualism and of Irish anywhere. They are the biggest culprits when it comes to weaponisation and negative politicisation.

I will address some points that were made in the debate. Unionists may be in the minority in the House, but they are not an oppressed minority. Despite what spin Members try to put on it, unionists are not an oppressed minority. Of all the issues that the DUP could have brought to the Chamber tonight on poverty or inequality, they, instead, try to stir the pot of sectarianism. Shame on them for that.

Mar fhocal scoir, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na hateangairí don díospóireacht seo.

Mr McNulty: There is a wonderful saying in Ireland that I love: ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine. It means, "in the shelter of each other, people live" or, "in each other's shadow, we survive". That Irish wisdom highlights the importance of community and mutual reliance, emphasising the fact that we all need shelter and give shelter to one another. It is sad that that that generous and protective philosophy is not embraced here. The Irish language threatens no one. It is the indigenous mother tongue of this land. It belongs to us all and can be cherished by us all.

Just last week, a friend of mine bought me a beautiful book by Manchán Magan, called 'Ninety-Nine Words for Rain (and One for Sun)'. I will borrow two words from that book and say: enough of the néaladóirí

; let us all be réadóirí

.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Phillip Brett. You have 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The debate brought little that was surprising. Sinn Féin Members articulated their long-held position. Let us make it clear: Sinn Féin's position, which it is entitled to hold, is that there should be dual language street signage across Northern Ireland and in every corner of it. That is what it wanted from its stand-alone Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022, but that is what it did not get.

Despite that, the TUV has to take this opportunity, at a time when unionists should be standing together on the issue, to attack a fellow unionist. There was no mention of the fact that it was a unionist politician who tabled the motion. Mr Gaston has to read from his scripted remarks, which were given to him before he came into the Chamber, and there were no compliments, no thanks and no talk of unionists working together. We hear of unionists standing together. I am very happy to stand with him, but I will not sit here and take attacks from one party that then expects us to roll in behind it on another. Our agenda on the issue is clear. The debate was an opportunity for unionists to stand together. Instead, Mr Gaston wasted half his time attacking the DUP. The DUP did not deliver the stand-alone Irish language Act that the party opposite wanted. The very people who may be appointed to those roles attack the party for not being able to achieve it, yet you, Mr Gaston, come to the Chamber and attack me.

In the 14 minutes during which SDLP Members spoke in the debate, they did not make one remark about the motion. They could not articulate one sentence in support of the 15% policy that has been put in place by their party. Mr McGlone made excellent remarks. I have a lot of time for Mr McGlone, and he gave a great history of the Irish language, but it is of absolutely no relevance to the issue before us. The leader of the Opposition decided to speak about flags and the chats that he has in cafes on the roads of South Belfast, but he could not articulate why his party voted for Belfast City Council's policy. Justin McNulty — well — [Laughter.]

Mr Lyons: Move on.

Mr Brett: I will move on. We will aim for the stars on that one.

In the 10 minutes in which Alliance Members spoke, they did not articulate how they will vote on the motion. I am happy to give way to them now, if they wish to clarify to the public who are listening how they will vote and the reason for that.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. We outlined — my colleague did so particularly well during her speech — that there are problems with the motion. There is a distortion in the facts and figures that you have in front of you. We agree with one line in your motion — just one line — but we will not support the motion, and that was made clear during my comments and my colleague's comments.

Mr Brett: It is now clear that the Alliance Party could not make it clear that it will not call for a review of the position in Belfast. Listen: that is its prerogative. It needs to own that.

We have been accused of whipping up tension, but this is the very place where such discussions and robust debates should happen. We are the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, and this is where their discussions should happen.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will happily give way.

Mr Gaston: Maybe Mr Brett has rid his guts at everybody who has spoken on the motion. What I want to put to you, Mr Brett, is this: the DUP has the power to do something about the issue, so please share with us what you intend to do. I was not taking aim at the DUP; I was simply pointing that out. Let us judge you by your actions. What will the DUP do to stop the republican agenda and the republican project? I am all ears, Mr Brett.

Mr Brett: You must not have read your speech very well, Mr Gaston, before you read it out, because half your speech was dedicated to attacking the DUP. We have made it very clear what we have done. First, we tabled the motion on which you have just spent six minutes speaking. Secondly, although you lambasted the issue of the Irish Language Commissioner, we did not consent to having a stand-alone Irish language Act or an all-encompassing Irish Language Commissioner that would have delivered what Sinn Féin wanted, which was a requirement for a percentage of Irish language speakers in the Civil Service and for dual language street signs and road signs all over Northern Ireland. In your determination to discredit and attack the DUP, Mr Gaston — in your dedication to that — you missed those facts. You are perfectly able to do that, yet you set out to attack us. I just ask how your remarks have served the cause of unionism standing together, and I ask you to reflect on that.

Mr Gaston went on to discuss the power of the Communities Minister to issue guidance. Guidance is guidance and has no legal impact, and the Member knows that very well. When parties on this side of the House should be standing together, Mr Gaston's speech was an attempt to throw mud in the air and confuse.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will happily give way.

Mr McMurray: The Member talked about guidance from the Minister not being possible. That is fair enough, but a lot of the context for dual language signage refers to Westminster legislation. Is the Member content with the fact that there is an obvious name for denying something that has been legislated for?

Mr Brett: There is no legislation from Westminster on dual language street signs. My view on the matter is clear. I was on Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council when it introduced its policy, which was that, if a majority of residents want to have a dual language street sign in whatever minority language that is, fair play to them: go ahead and do that. We voted that through.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will not give way any further. We have had an argument. It is clear how the votes will be cast. The Alliance Party has admitted that, in the deal that it did with its friends in Sinn Féin and the SDLP, it was done over. However, rather than vote with this party to get the review, it will just vote with them again. The people of Northern Ireland will see from the vote tonight that the Alliance Party had the opportunity to ensure that the voice of the people of Belfast was heard by saying that we need a review of the policy, but, rather than vote for that, its Members will vote with their friends in Sinn Féin and the SDLP.