Official Report: Monday 10 November 2025

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: As the motion has been agreed, the Assembly can sit beyond 7.00 pm, if required.

Mr Speaker: The next item of business is a motion, signed by at least 30 Members under section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, on the exclusion of the Minister of Education from office.

Mr Carroll: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: Before I call Gerry Carroll to speak, I want to make a few remarks. I am conscious that we had heated exchanges during the question for urgent oral answer on these matters last week.

I understand there are strong feelings throughout the House on these matters. Members know that I will uphold everyone's right to scrutinise Ministers and hold them to account, and I welcome robust debate. I remind Members, however, of our standards of debate of good temper, moderation, courtesy and respect. Robust arguments can be made on the issues in a respectful way without being disorderly. I also remind Members that, if there are lots of points of order during the debate, I will hold them all until the end of the debate, as they will interfere with the running of matters.

Mr Carroll: It is clear that the Minister of Education has lost the confidence of the majority of parties and MLAs in the House. I thank the parties who have supported the motion today — Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance, as well as the independent MLA, Claire Sugden. The Minister has lost the support of tens of thousands of people outside this Building, including the teaching unions and many who work in education. He has brought his Department into disrepute, failed to uphold the Pledge of Office and failed to comply with the ministerial code of conduct.

I wish to set out with the utmost clarity the case for Paul Givan to resign as Minister of Education. Paul Givan stated that he travelled to Israel in his capacity as an individual MLA. That was found to be untrue. He later admitted that it was his idea and decision to make the trip relevant to his role as Education Minister. Minister Givan claimed that the trip came at no cost to the public purse. That was also untrue. The visit to the school was publicised using departmental resources. In the House last week, the Minister stated that he had meetings with his officials in the Department to discuss the trip. That also has a cost attached to it.

The Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 states that a Minister who holds an official meeting must ensure that a civil servant is present. That did not happen, even though Paul Givan said explicitly that the school visit was directly relevant to his ministerial portfolio. Despite the Minister's bluster and mudslinging, there is no doubt that those meetings were official meetings. Paul Givan said that the parts of his visit pertaining to his role as Minister were totally non-political. That, again, is not true. He visited the Israeli Parliament, where he was listed not as an individual MLA but as the Minister of Education. He shared an overtly political social media post about the event, insinuating that Israeli parliamentarians think that the North should remain a part of the UK.

Paul Givan claims that his trip to Israel was an objective, fact-finding mission. Indeed, the principle of integrity in the ministerial code of conduct states that those in public office should not have financial or other obligations to outside organisations that could influence their official duties. That rule was clearly flouted. The visit was a propaganda junket funded by the Israeli state. There can be no other way to describe it, hence the huge outcry from a huge number of the public. In this Chamber, a matter of days before the trip, Paul Givan expressed his thanks to the Israeli Defence Forces, as he calls them. I wonder whether that was before he had his ticket booked to Jerusalem.

In response to incredibly serious questions about his decision-making in office, Minister Givan has refused to acknowledge or apologise for breaking the rules of his office. Instead, he has sought to deflect, obfuscate and sling offensive, inaccurate slurs. Had he not been so offensive and arrogant, this matter might have blown over. The Minister has levelled a charge of antisemitism against me in particular and other Members of this Chamber who asked questions about his recent trip to Israel. I wish to refute that in the strongest possible terms and to condemn the Minister for diminishing the truly horrific and deeply serious reality of antisemitism by flinging it at his critics like a get-out-of-jail-free card. I would also like to remind him of the great replacement-type conspiracy theories that have been repeated by his party colleagues almost every single week, which have their roots in antisemitic hatred. It is his party that peddles far right rhetoric in an attempt to deflect and blame minorities and migrants for society's ills. The Minister should be ashamed and apologetic, but then he is not known for his honesty or his humility.

As I have just set out, the case for the Minister to resign is strong before we even consider that he made an official visit to a state that is carrying out an active genocide against the people of Palestine, while Ministers here have a duty to prevent genocide at all costs. For the record, I believe that the Minister's travelling to Israel during this genocide is reason enough to question his fitness for ministerial office. Israel has openly defied international law time and again, inflicting maximum suffering on civilians. That is not just my view or the view of other parties in the House but the words of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The International Court of Justice has recognised the unlawfulness of Israel's ongoing presence in the occupied Palestinian territories. Paul Givan chose to visit a school in those occupied territories. Bizarrely, he patted himself on the back for visiting a school in illegally occupied territory because it was integrated. The irony of that statement should not be lost, given his party's role in preventing integration at home on every step of the way.

The Minister repeated lies about the education that Palestinians receive. He claimed, last week, that they are told to hate the Jews. That is completely false and inaccurate, is deeply racist towards Arabs and ignores the hatred that is taught in the Israeli education system —.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: In a second, maybe.

In that state, "Death to the Arabs" is regularly chanted in the streets by settlers, with absolutely no repercussions. Days before the Minister smiled for pictures in the Knesset, that same body voted to annex the West Bank — a decision that would further breach international law and that was criticised heavily by US Vice-President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, those well-known members of that left-wing cabal.

Millions of us have been forced to watch the death, torture, bloodshed and suffering of Palestinian people at the hands of the Israeli state. I cannot fathom how anyone could see children with missing limbs and lifeless bodies being pulled out of rubble and then accept an invitation from the people who are directly responsible for that mass slaughter. The Minister and his party made a fundamental mistake in writing off the anger of the Palestine Solidarity Movement and people across communities in the North as antisemitic, sectarian or terrorist sympathising. That is not just a cynical deflection tactic; the DUP accuses its critics of being antisemitic or sectarian because it so desperately wants that to be the truth.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Maybe in a second.

The DUP fears the power of the local and global Palestine Solidarity Movement, which is cross-community, diverse and filled with millions of people of all ages, religions and backgrounds.

In response to the motion, some people talked about the need to focus on issues at home, but I say, "Look at home. Look at the state of our schools". A total of 84 schools across the North are suffering from black mould, and six of those are in the Minister's constituency. That is the context in which he chose to travel to Israel for six days to visit one school and to smile alongside the Israeli Government. The Education Authority (EA) told principals recently:

to fill a £300 million black hole in the budget. That is austerity on steroids.

The Minister ordered the removal from the EA website of guidance and support for trans pupils, trying to further kick, marginalise and attack a community that is already under huge repression and attacks. His Department published plans to criminalise teachers for not taking part in school inspections while taking legal industrial action. Just last week, the EA announced that it was hiking the price of school meals and cutting overtime payments and school music programmes. A few days ago, I was contacted by an education other than at school (EOTAS) teacher who works with marginalised and vulnerable young people. Disgracefully, the EA had told them that referrals to that provision were being suspended. As you can imagine, the staff are demoralised and furious about the lack of communication and transparency. I could go on and on, but it is a long list that I do not have the time to go through.

Paul Givan's tenure as Education Minister was marred with controversy and failings long before this scandal. He has failed education workers, schools and some of the most vulnerable and marginalised in our communities. He has ducked and weaved in and out of the truth in order to justify a trip to Israel as it actively continues to commit genocide against Palestinians. While in Israel, he failed to uphold his Pledge of Office and to comply with the ministerial code of conduct. He has made deeply offensive and unfounded accusations of antisemitism, because he is in a tailspin. I am sure that many of the same slanderous remarks will be recycled in the debate, as the DUP is not renowned for its creativity. Those accusations should be utterly rejected and condemned by all.

It is an embarrassment to the institutions that big parties here claim that they want to protect at all costs Minister Givan continuing in his role as Minister of Education. I appeal to the Minister to do the right thing, make his apologies, accept that he is not fit to hold the post of Minister of Education, and step aside.

Mr Speaker: Declan Kearney.

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

Mr Speaker: You have five minutes, Mr Kearney.

Mr Kearney: The participation of the Education Minister in his Israeli state-sponsored propaganda stunt was an obscene act, one that has caused deep offence. It has also been roundly condemned by teachers, unions, students and all right-thinking people across these islands.

Minister Givan knew exactly what he was doing. His participation was premeditated. He knew that the use of his departmental social media would provoke widespread outrage. That, too, was premeditated. In doing this, he chose to ignore Israel's sadistic depravity and genocide against the Palestinian people. If there was ever the slightest doubt before, there is no doubting now that he is a genocide denier — an amoral, inhuman, incredible and grotesque position for anyone to adopt, but especially someone in public office. The Minister chooses to ignore the slaughter of over 20,000 innocent Palestinian children in Gaza, 1,000 of them under the age of 12 months. One child has been murdered every hour for the past two years, and 21,000 children have been left with permanent life-changing injuries. Limbs have been amputated without anaesthetic; hundreds have been starved to death by Israel's siege of Gaza; and Gaza is a graveyard for children, as described by UNICEF.

The Minister has form in using these institutions to rake up the past of our political conflict and to consciously provoke and demonise. By acting as a prop for that propaganda stunt, you have aligned yourself with a rogue terrorist state — a state whose murderous bloodbath in Gaza has made it a pariah in the global community; whose leader is the subject of an international arrest warrant issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ); whose genocidal war has violated every canon of international law, such as the genocide convention, the Rome statute, the Geneva Convention and the United Nations charter; and whose famine, genocide, torture, siege and carpet bombing of Gaza have been denounced by the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, B'Tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Association of Genocide Scholars. Today, the state of Israel stands charged with and condemned for crimes against humanity.

Your Israeli-sponsored trip and attempt to sanitise your complicity with a social media post on the Department of Education web page is an affront to the Assembly and to our power-sharing institutions. You do not own the Department of Education. It is the property of our peace settlement and the Good Friday Agreement. The arrogance that you have shown in defence of your actions since your return confirms your premeditation. There has been not one ounce of humility, compassion or regret for the people of Gaza or the anger that you have provoked. It is clear that you intended to cause rancour and division. Your actions are inevitably tied up with your personal political ambitions and your party's electoral pressures within political unionism, but, be that as it may, what you did was absolutely wrong. Denying genocide and defying international law are absolutely reprehensible. You have chosen to associate yourself with the perpetrators of a modern holocaust and then to revel in that decision. You should be ashamed. You can no longer command —

Mr Speaker: I remind the Member —

Mr Kearney: — confidence as a Minister of Education —

Mr Speaker: Mr Kearney —

Mr Kearney: — and you should go.

Mr Speaker: Just a moment. I remind you that, when you say "you", you are actually referring to me. If you want to refer to the Minister, you should say "the Minister" or the other person, but, when you say "you", you are referring to the Chair. I remind you and other Members of that.

Are you finished?

Mr Kearney: Yes.

Miss McIlveen: "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance" alongside a raised fist emoji. What a thing to write as Hamas, an internationally proscribed terrorist organisation, not only fired over 4,300 rockets indiscriminately into Israel but murdered more than 1,200 innocent men, women and children, raping and pillaging as they went. What a thing to write from the comfort of your home, thousands of miles away, as young people at a music festival were hunted down and slaughtered, young women were brutalised and hundreds were dragged off to an uncertain future and reduced to commodities. However, the mover of the motion felt that that was the most appropriate thing to post as the murderous brutality of the Hamas attacks unfolded on 7 October 2023. Those were and remain the deeply held sentiments of Gerry Carroll, as he submitted the motion of no confidence in the Education Minister. The motion is nothing more that an extension of his continued support for the brutal actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023. It is not a nuanced position. It is unequivocal support for the terrorist slaughter of men, women and children: an explicit anti-Israel position. That is at the root of the motion.

The motion is not about the competence of the Education Minister or about what the Department did or did not do. It is not about any of those things. It is a convenient vehicle to attack Israel. It is a performative motion and, frankly, it is grotesque. Here we have a Minister who visited a school — not just any school but an integrated one where Arabs, Christians and Jews are educated together. In response, People Before Profit, Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party — a pan-nationalist pile-on — decide that that is enough for them and he needs to go. Is it any wonder that this place is ridiculed?

Unsurprisingly, my party will not support the motion. We know that Gerry Carroll is a Hamas fanboy; that was clear from his tweet. We know that Sinn Féin have been long-time admirers of Hamas, having met them multiple times over the years, with Declan Kearney, Gerry Adams and Pat Sheehan all having courted them and tried to give them credibility. Sinn Féin have done the same with terrorist groups around the world. It is what they do.

The SDLP, of course, is struggling for relevance, and being the official Opposition necessitates supporting pointless motions such as this. However, it would have been nice to think that the SDLP was better than that. It will be interesting to note what approach the SDLP takes in response to the outcome of court proceedings involving the Infrastructure Minister. If she is found to have acted unlawfully, what then? Or is it only going to do this when a unionist Minister visits Israel? Where was its criticism of its former party leader, Colum Eastwood, on his visit to Lebanon, funded by the Council for Arab-British Understanding, or is it only when fact-finding trips are organised by the Israeli embassy?

Then we come to the Alliance Party. If ever there was a party that has drifted from its roots, this is one. It is not the party of Oliver Napier, Bob Cooper, John Ferguson and Basil Glass. It was a party that was once not neutral on the union and explicitly supported it, but now the world and his dog can see what its position is as, once again, it falls in behind nationalism and republicanism. Any party with any wit would have steered well clear of the toxicity of such a motion, tabled by Gerry Carroll and supported by Sinn Féin, but the Alliance Party could not help itself as it seeks to boost its credibility in nationalist areas.

The people of Northern Ireland deserve better. Is this where we are as a society, where politicians are condemned for speaking directly to the innocent victims of the 7 October massacre, public representatives are not permitted to ascertain facts for themselves and we must source our news and current affairs only through avenues permitted by nationalism? No, thank you. Once this pantomime is over, perhaps we can get back to what we are paid to do. I support my colleague.

Mr Tennyson: Recent months have not been good for the institutions or for politics more generally. There has been a race to the bottom marked by toxic culture wars, nasty personal insults and a politics that is rooted in fear, division and distraction, with the Chamber at times descending into farce.

The propaganda mission by the Education Minister is but the latest distraction. The images of the Minister smiling for photographs in illegally occupied east Jerusalem that were posted on the Department's website were no accident. They were designed to provoke and stir controversy in order to deflect from a mismanaged budget, hikes in the cost of school meals and cuts to education support for some of our most vulnerable children. The hurt felt by pupils, parents and teachers as a result of that cynical stunt is real. They are appalled that a Minister who is responsible for the welfare of our children would not only accept hospitality from a Government who have killed a classroom of children every day but use public resources to whitewash that situation.

In a power-sharing Executive, of course we will have different views. We will not always see eye to eye, and there will be times when we do not have confidence in Ministers' political positions or policy priorities. However, the motion is not about a simple policy disagreement or difference in political opinion; it goes to the heart of a flagrant disregard for international law and the ministerial code. Despite the bluff and bluster in many of the statements that we have heard from the DUP over the past two weeks and, indeed, often because of those statements, key questions remain.

On 24 October, the Minister told the BBC that he was, in fact, there not in a ministerial capacity but in a party political one. That story has since changed, and it goes to the nub of the issue: if the Minister was there in a DUP capacity, he has misused departmental resources by promoting a political visit; if he was there as a Minister, he was potentially in breach of the Functioning of Government Act by not having officials present. Much more seriously, by entering illegally occupied territory in that official capacity, he has brought the Executive into disrepute by egregiously breaching UK foreign policy and ignoring international law. There is also a question about why the Minister had not declared that he was about to receive thousands of pounds in hospitality from the Israeli Government before rising in the Chamber to praise the actions of the IDF. A Minister in any other part of these islands who engaged in that conduct would already be gone.

Of course, the Minister will be keen to claim that his permanent secretary has given him a clean bill of health in a report that, coincidentally, has not seen the light of day. However, I am aware that the head of the Civil Service is undertaking further enquiries that have not yet concluded.

Ultimately, confidence is at the heart of the issue, and the manner in which the Minister has responded to the fiasco has not helped in that respect. It is clear that the confidence of teaching unions, the wider public and a majority of parties in the Chamber has been shattered by the Minister's behaviour. He could, at any point, have recognised and apologised for the hurt caused, committed to an independent review of his and his Department's actions or referred himself to the standards process, but, instead, he lashed out and doubled down.

Successive attempts have been made in recent weeks, disgracefully, to overlay this debate with sectarianism and prejudice. They are not orange or green issues. People from across our community are horrified at the disregard for the ministerial code, international law and human rights. It is entirely possible to condemn the terrorism of Hamas on 7 October and the genocide that has followed. The previous Member to speak made reference to Oliver Napier and Bob Cooper: I mean, she is not fit to utter their names [Interruption.]

The DUP, throughout the history [Interruption.]

Throughout the history —.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Tennyson: Throughout the history of the Alliance Party, the DUP has attacked us and impugned our integrity and our motives, so that certainly has not changed. We have been consistent, unlike her party, in standing up to paramilitarism, wherever it comes from, and standing up for the rule of law.

Let it be beyond doubt: the comments of the proposer of the motion, Gerry Carroll, on 7 October were abhorrent and repulsive, and Alliance condemned those comments clearly at the time. Indeed, if Gerry Carroll held ministerial office, we would be in the Chamber supporting a motion of no confidence in him as a result of his conduct.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Butler: We are told that the motion was tabled because the Minister of Education failed

and breached the ministerial code of conduct. In truth, the motion tells us far more about the state of politics in Northern Ireland than it ever will about Paul Givan or the visit to Israel. It is performative and partisan. Worse than that, it misleads the public. Let us call it what it is: political theatre dressed up as moral outrage.

We in the Ulster Unionist Party, like the people of Northern Ireland, are horrified by the horrors, the death and the destruction in Israel and Gaza. We recognise that, across Northern Ireland, people hold a range of views on Israel and Palestine, and we note that some have taken issue with the Education Minister's actions. Those who tabled the motion of no confidence, however, should be honest with the people of Northern Ireland. It is politicking, pure and simple, and it will achieve little but the further entrenchment of views and attitudes across our society.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: a Palestinian child and an Israeli child are of equal value. Their lives, education and future are all of equal worth. That simple truth should shape how we speak and act, especially when the world is torn by war and grief, particularly in the Middle East, but those driving the motion have chosen something different. They have chosen spectacle over substance and condemnation over consistency. I know that some who have signed the motion have done so from a place of genuine conviction. Their moral compass is far clearer than that of others who have attached themselves to it. Perhaps inadvertently, however, they have allowed themselves to be drawn into an alliance with those who would spin sincerity into spectacle and turn even principle into a prop for politics.

The author of the motion, Gerry Carroll of People Before Profit, in an attempt to outdo Sinn Féin, accuses the Minister of failing to uphold the rule of law, yet, on 7 October 2023, as Hamas murdered, raped and butchered hundreds of innocent men, women and children, Mr Carroll posted on X, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". That post is still there today. That is hypocrisy at full throttle. It tells us all that we need to know about the double standards at play.

We then have Sinn Féin, eager to reclaim the territory staked out by Mr Carroll. Some of its members have met Hamas representatives. Those individuals openly boast of their involvement in acts of terror, yet Sinn Féin now presumes to lecture others on moral responsibility and the rule of law. Once again, it is a case of the mote and the beam. Sinn Féin is quick to spot the fault in someone else but blind to the failings in its own ranks. When Sinn Féin Ministers attended the Bobby Storey funeral during a time of strict COVID restrictions, the rules were ignored. Public faith in government was shattered, yet there was no motion of exclusion, no 12-month sanction and no humility. There was only deflection. The people who justified that now claim to be guardians of the ministerial code. This is not about the rule of law but about the rule of convenience. The rules apply to others when it suits but never to Sinn Féin.

The Minister of Education has informed the House that his visit to Israel has already been reviewed by his Department's permanent secretary and found to have followed proper procedure. I am sure that, for full transparency, the Minister will ensure that that review is published. I also understand that the head of the Civil Service is examining the wider handling of the visit. That is the correct and proportionate process for addressing such matters, not the kind of political show trial that we see here today. Until those reviews conclude, the Assembly should resist the temptation to play judge and jury for the sake of a headline.

The motion drags the Assembly into performative outrage while our schools cry out for resources, our children wait months for special needs assessments and our teachers struggle to find basic classroom materials. If those who tabled the motion cared as much about our own children as they claim to care about the conflict in the Middle East, they would channel their energy into education reform and mental health support instead of political grandstanding. Northern Ireland faces deep and seemingly intractable problems, but I can think of few moments that illustrate our dysfunction more clearly than the motion. When hypocrisy outweighs humanity, theatre replaces truth and the beam closes our eyes to our own failings, we all lose sense of what really matters.

The Ulster Unionist Party will not support the motion. We see it as performative, divisive and deeply hypocritical. It does no justice to the innocent victims who have lost their lives in Israel and Gaza. Until we learn to remove the beam from our own eye, we will remain blind to a better future for all our children — Palestinian, Israeli and Northern Irish alike — and —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Butler: — they richly deserve it.

Mr O'Toole: My time is brief, so I will be clear about why we are here today. I will be clear about why the SDLP supports the motion of no confidence and why I am a signatory to it.

We are not here solely because of Paul Givan MLA's views on Israel, which I and others in the Chamber find reprehensible and abhorrent. Nor are we are here solely to debate Israel's genocide in Gaza, which has scarred the moral conscience of the entire planet. We are here because of Paul Givan's misuse of office, his shameless compromise of Civil Service impartiality and his flagrant breach of a law that was passed in the Assembly four years ago. Yes, and all of it in territory that has been deemed by the international community, including successive British Governments of all stripes, to be illegally occupied.

Israel's bombardment of Gaza, following the appalling and evil atrocities of 7 October, unleashed, as I said, a wave of revulsion across the world, and it has tested the ability of language to capture horror and misery. Today's debate is not simply about that. I do not think that there is any debate left to have on the justification of that, but had Mr Givan simply embarked upon a tour as a private MLA and a DUP representative, as he first claimed that he had done, we would probably not be here today. He would have angered and appalled people — perhaps, much to his delight, because that was the entire point — but that would not necessarily have been anything new. However, on 27 October, with the Minister having already been in Israel for several days, the Department of Education, at the Minister's instruction, posted a news story online and on social media about his visit to the Ofek School in occupied East Jerusalem, commending:

That communication is at the core of why we are here today. The Minister also posted a picture on his own account, which included a nameplate that described him as the "Minister of Education".

I want to be precise and clear about why we are here today because Mr Givan has been imprecise and inconsistent and spoken with a forked tongued. He confirmed last week that, in addition to the extraordinary social media posts, officials had been involved in setting up that meeting, so it was an official ministerial meeting. He shakes his head, but his nameplate was in front of him, and he said last week that his officials helped him to set up the meeting. Under section 7 of the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, he and all Ministers are obliged to ensure that official meetings are attended by at least one civil servant. The meeting has all the appearance of an official meeting: it was an official meeting. In my view, and that of the Opposition, he has clearly breached the Functioning of Government Act. Ironically, in the DUP's haste to outdo the TUV in offending people, it has broken a law that was introduced by the TUV.

We then come to the matter of Civil Service impartiality in the NICS code. He said that the permanent secretary has given him a clean bill of health. We have not seen that, but I am afraid it has all the credibility of one of Donald Trump's medical exams. The content may not have mentioned the DUP by name, but it should have been obvious to the Minister, the special adviser, and, indeed, senior civil servants, including the permanent secretary, that a visit to occupied East Jerusalem was highly and profoundly controversial.

Add to all of that the extraordinary situation in which a unionist Minister conducted an official visit to a place that has been deemed by the UK Government to have been illegally occupied for the past six decades. That is the precise diplomatic equivalent of visiting a school in Russian-occupied Ukraine, in Luhansk or Crimea, with one of Vladimir Putin's officials. Minister, you are not a stupid man — you certainly believe yourself to be very smart — but, even if you do not care about Palestinian suffering, that was a moronic, stupid thing to do.

The Minister is not a stupid man, but he cannot resist provoking and outraging people. Even before the trip, he had pushed the envelope when it comes to politicising his Department. In the EA, he forced in a chief executive against the wishes of the EA board and forced in a serving DUP politician as chair of the Education Authority. He also had a permanent secretary leave in murky and unexplained circumstances. Minister, you and your colleagues have already begun deflecting and distracting from your appalling actions. Worse, Minister, you have tossed around the profound libel of antisemitism.

People from all backgrounds have got in touch with me to say that they are angry at your actions. Today, your party will protect you from your deserved fate, even though the majority in the Chamber have lost confidence in you. You will no doubt feel vindicated. You are already crowing with the smile of a panto villain, but you know, deep down, that, as is so often the case in your party, the victory will be pyrrhic, because more and more people will turn off politics in this place and look to an entirely different future. Mr Givan, if you had shame or sense, you would be gone by now.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: Sadly, you have neither. We support the motion.

Mr Sheehan: The Israeli regime is full of unvarnished liars, and they have been caught out on numerous occasions, of which I will mention just two. On 17 October 2023, a rocket landed in the courtyard of Al-Ahli Hospital, and almost 300 Palestinian men, women and children were killed. They were blown to pieces. The Israeli regime said that it was a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket. When ballistic experts and sound pattern and sound wave experts were brought in to look at the evidence, it became clear that it had been the Israelis who bombed the hospital. On 23 March this year, in southern Rafah, the Israel military attacked a convoy of ambulances, a fire truck and a UN vehicle, and 15 paramedics were killed. The Israelis said that the convoy had advanced without any lights. The Israelis also buried the ambulances and the dead. It was only when the bodies were recovered and a mobile phone was recovered from one of them that what the Israelis had said was shown to have been absolutely untrue. The ambulances and the fire truck had approached with all their lights on.

The Minister and the DUP do not want to listen to the likes of the UN, Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch when they say that Israel is committing genocide, but plenty of other reputable organisations have said that Israel is committing genocide: in Israel, B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights organisation, and Physicians for Human Rights; in the States, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Jews Against Genocide, Jewish Voice for Peace and Genocide Watch; Médecins Sans Frontières; and Doctors Against Genocide, which is a global coalition of healthcare professionals, all say the same thing. The Minister would, of course, much prefer to accept the word of those who are wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Not once has anyone from the DUP, let alone the Minister, said that the killing of over 20,000 children, the maiming of tens of thousands of others and the destruction of the entire education system is wrong. Not one of you can say that.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Killing children is wrong, whether it happened here or is happening in Gaza. We have heard weasel words about the killings being appalling, regrettable and so on, but the DUP cannot even bring itself to say that the slaughter of children in Gaza is wrong. Where is the empathy? Where is the compassion?

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Where is the humanity —

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: — from those who constantly bombard us — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. It is quite obvious that the Member does not want to give way. Let him carry on.

Mr Sheehan: Where is the humanity from those who constantly bombard us with their Christian beliefs? That is a different sort of Christianity from the one that most Christians, I think, believe in. I ask the Minister to give a commitment that he will not go back to Israel while he holds the post of Education Minister, and I ask him to give that commitment today.

There are many reasons why the Minister should resign. After the debate, we will see that he does not have the support of the majority of MLAs. Over the past year or so, we have seen that he is financially and economically illiterate. Now we hear about his inability to manage his staff. If he were the manager of a football team, it would be reported that he had lost the changing room. Rather than stand aside, however, he will continue to parrot the propaganda of those responsible for genocide, and he will hurl personal insults at those who support the no-confidence motion. All of that is deflection. The truth is that his actions are indefensible, and his position is untenable. Do the right thing, Minister: go now. You are an embarrassment.

Mr Buckley: Today's pantomime confidence vote is nearing its final act, but, in case anybody has not been listening, let me issue a spoiler alert: the only resignation that there will be today is at the BBC for apparent breaches of impartiality.

I have stated continually in the House that everybody is entitled to a different perspective and position on the Middle East and the conflict there.

For the benefit of Mr Sheehan, every child and baby is innocent, no matter where they are in the world, and their killing is abhorrent and wrong. Is that clear enough, sir?

The motion is nothing short of the imposition of a view that is held by some people.

Mr Middleton: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will.

Mr Middleton: Does the Member agree that a number of current and former Ministers have certainly lost the confidence of the House?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Buckley: Absolutely. When we come to a time when it is deemed that a Minister has breached the ministerial code — say, via a court ruling, rather than by a pan-nationalist kangaroo court — what will be the position of those parties? If we want to talk purely about confidence in Ministers, the Executive and indeed previous Executives, we had better do just that. What about confidence in our supposed "First Minister for all", a lady who said that there was no alternative to IRA violence? We are being subjected to lectures from none other than Declan Kearney and Pat Sheehan about the murder of defenceless, innocent children and babies when their own military wing took the life of many innocent babies and children in this country. Sorry, but there is a brave degree of self-denial from the Members opposite.

What about confidence in another Minister who signed the motion, namely the leader of the Alliance Party, Naomi Long?

Some Members: She did not sign it.

Mr Buckley: Sorry, I will correct that: she is the leader of a party that will support the motion, a lady whose party believes that those who planted bombs and pulled triggers must be elevated to the same status as innocent victims. What utter shame. She is a Minister of Justice who believes that men should be housed in women's prisons. I mean, is that not a point of confidence?

Then, we have the Minister of Agriculture, Andrew Muir. Well, where do I start with this one? My goodness, his approach to agriculture is reminiscent of the man who thought that you could milk a cow by pulling its tail. This man —

Mr Speaker: Will the Member get back to the motion, please?

Mr Buckley: The Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) has demonstrated that it has absolutely no confidence in that man as Minister.

Then, there is the SDLP. Well, this will be brief. It will be brief, because voters issued their vote of no confidence in the SDLP at the last election.

Mr Tennyson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The item in the Order Paper is a motion of no confidence in the Minister of Education. I ask for your ruling on whether anything that we have heard from Mr Buckley deals with that issue.

Mr Speaker: I see where the Member is going, in that he is questioning whether other Ministers should be here. However, I encourage him to get back to the issue of the motion, which is about confidence in the Education Minister.

Mr Buckley: Alliance Members are interested in talking about other Ministers’ records, but, when their own Ministers’ records are put up in lights, they run for the hills. They are records of dismissal and of hiding behind the desk while their Departments are in absolute chaos.

The voters had their vote of no confidence in the SDLP. They are in opposition not out of choice but because the voters put them there. That is the truth.

Then, we have — come on now, Members — Comrade Carroll, the conductor in chief. He has the SDLP, Alliance and Sinn Féin all doing the 'Cha-Cha Slide' to a leftist agenda. I mean, I would expect it from Sinn Féin, but what a slide to the hard left by the Alliance Party. It is a shameful approach.

On 7 October 2023, Mr Carroll tweeted: "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", when babies were being burnt in ovens, children were being killed and women were being raped. I will give him the chance, if he wants it, to withdraw it right now. Will he withdraw it? There is silence. That, my friends, is the man who is being propped up by the parties opposite. They have no shame.

Mr Carroll, because you will not withdraw that comment, I cannot conclude anything other than that you are a rampant antisemite and that you hate Jews.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it right and fitting for the Member to repeat things that are categorically untrue — Mr Buckley has done it once again — such as that I am antisemitic. That is a slur and a lie, and he should withdraw that remark right now.

Mr Buckley: Withdraw your tweet.

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind Members that, if they were to refrain from using words such as "antisemite", "racist" and various other things, that would help us to conduct our business. I talked at the outset about moderating our language, and I encourage Members to do so.

Mr Buckley: The most interesting part of Mr Carroll's point of order is that he did not utter one word of regret about the tweet that he issued and had not one word of sympathy for those who were killed. That is hypocrisy, Members.

The Minister of Education will still be the Minister of Education at the end of today's debate. He will get on with doing his job. He was put into office by members of this party, courtesy of those who voted for us at the election. He will serve all communities without fear or favour and ensure —.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Nicholl: Paul Givan is entitled to his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but, in his role as Education Minister, he represents every child, school and parent, and that has weight. What message does promoting a state that is accused of war crimes and genocide send out to those whom he represents? We are obliged to ask the following questions: to what end? Whose story is he telling? Whose pain is he willing to see? Those are the voices that are missing from the Chamber today, and I will bring them in.

The Palestinian community has asked me to read the following:

It is our job as elected representatives to listen, feel and unite. What do we want for our children? Do we want more entrenchment and indifference, or do we want compassion and understanding? Many people have suffered in the conflict.

I say this sincerely to the Minister: if you truly believe in education, fact-finding and understanding, please listen to the people in the Palestinian community in Northern Ireland. Listen to their plea and meet them. I have been working with the people in that community for 18 months now, and they have been telling me of their families, who are moving to safe places — places where they are told that they will be safe, but they are then bombed. They have been denied food, and babies have been denied breast milk and formula. All that was done by a state that paid for your visit. Please listen to their stories; listen to their pain.

The values of the Assembly were founded on peace, justice and our shared humanity. Those values seem to be more important right now than ever before in the whole world. The Minister has an opportunity to show leadership here and to introduce hope where there has been despair. There is an opportunity for us to move forward. Please, meet the Palestinian community and offer some hope in this very sorry situation. I urge you to take that opportunity.

Mr Brett: We have heard a lot of lofty words in the Chamber this afternoon about integrity, accountability and leadership, but let us be honest: that is not what the motion is about. It is about political opportunism but, more importantly, rank hypocrisy from parties who want to hold everyone else to a standard that they will not follow themselves.

Let us start with the party opposite. The Assembly unanimously passed a motion of censure against Ministers who, during the COVID pandemic, put a Provo show of strength ahead of a public health message. That party's Members then sign a motion of no confidence in our Minister and think that we will take lectures from them. The only Minister in the history of this state to be found guilty of religious discrimination against a Protestant was a former Sinn Féin Minister. Where was your motion of no confidence then? It was nowhere to be seen.

Two Sinn Féin Ministers and an SDLP Minister were in court for breaching the ministerial code when they attempted to remove a bonfire in north Belfast and heighten tensions. Where were your motions of no confidence then? They were nowhere to be seen. The very Minister who was found to have breached the ministerial code has, again, signed a motion of no confidence in our Minister. No lectures will be taken from those Benches.

Then we have the Alliance Party, whose Members today said that they would support the motion. It is always claiming to be the party of the moral centre and preaching and lecturing to others. The Police Federation has a different view of the Alliance Party's ability, as it has publicly condemned an Alliance Minister for its failings. Let us not forget the Ulster Farmers' Union. The very people whom another Alliance Party Minister is meant to represent passed a unanimous vote of no confidence in that Minister.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will happily give way.

Mr Buckley: Does the Member agree that the Alliance approach is, "One rule for thee, a different for me"?

Mr Middleton: Yes, yes.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Brett: How can a party that has lost the confidence of our Police Service, our justice system and our farmers come to the Chamber with a straight face and try to lecture us and then get into personal attacks on our deputy leader? Let me be very clear: my deputy leader will be returned without hesitation by the electorate of Northern Ireland at the next election. I am not quite sure that the same will be said for the deputy leader of the Alliance Party.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Brett: The SDLP, in its continued search for relevance, falls into line in behind Mr Carroll. We take our confidence from the people of Northern Ireland, who voted us into office to be joint head of government, unlike the SDLP, which was voted out of office, out of seats and into opposition because the people of Northern Ireland have no confidence in it whatsoever.

I will not waste a huge amount of time on the proposer of the motion today, but it will not be lost on the people whom I represent that, when he had the opportunity to withdraw his antisemitic, disgraceful tweet, he did not take it. Thankfully, I know that, in 18 months' time, the electorate of West Belfast will pass verdict on Mr Carroll, and I look forward to welcoming an additional DUP Member to these Benches who will properly represent the people of West Belfast.

Mr Givan's record speaks for itself. Record pay settlement for teachers. Record pay for new teachers. The first time we have had a proper childcare support scheme. Bursaries for new teachers to ensure that the subjects that we want to see promoted are produced. A record number of SEN places. Also, he has been proven by the High Court to properly interpret legislation, unlike the Alliance Party, because its Bill and Act was found to be a nonsense. This party has confidence in Mr Givan. Our party leader has confidence in Mr Givan. The people of Northern Ireland have confidence in Mr Givan. He is not going anywhere. Get used to it.

Mr Burrows: I rise with a deep sense of regret and dismay: regret that so many Members of this House are being led by a man whose conduct in the hours after that awful attack on the people of Israel was nothing short of outrageous and regret that the passion and intensity that they whip up at times like this are not replicated when we are dealing with domestic public services issues. If they were, perhaps services might not be in the mess that they are.

Let me say at the outset that there has been terrible loss on both sides, but let us look at where this first began. The attack on the people of Israel was an evil one. Twelve hundred people were killed, 250 people were taken hostage, babies were butchered and women and girls were raped. That is the Palestinian resistance that this man fist-pumped, shamefully, on social media. That is the man whom you follow today. There has been devastating loss on both sides, and I have as much empathy for the bereavement of Palestinians as I do for Israelis. They are both made in God's image. Israel has a responsibility to prosecute its war with as much precision and proportionality as possible, but that is made nigh on impossible by the fact that Hamas weaved itself into the community in Palestine. It embeds itself into schools and hospitals. In fact, the fact that it weaves itself into every nook and cranny of Palestinian society is something that the next president of Ireland has hailed as a good thing. Israel can be judged, as every state should be, on its prosecution of war. Not by this Chamber, but by those with the expertise and the evidence to do so.

Let me tell you why I will oppose the motion.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: No, I will not give way. I have heard enough from you, Mr Carroll.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Burrows: I will tell you why I and the Ulster Unionist Party oppose the motion. First, we will not be led by the man who celebrated the attack on the people of Israel. To the people who are being led, it is not too late to think again. The SDLP — the party of Hume, Mallon and McGrady — is following a man who tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". The Alliance Party, which was on the middle ground —.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: No, I will not give way.

The Alliance Party, which is trying to untangle itself from its dalliance with republican language about the past, is doubling down on that. I see the Member pull his face, but yesterday, when Ms Bradshaw was talking about memorials to terrorists, she said that they were for ex-combatants. That is the language of Sinn Féin. The people who blew up Enniskillen in the Poppy Day massacre are not ex-combatants; they were terrorists. That is why I will not support the motion.

Secondly, the motion is destabilising. We did not support Mr Gaston's motion, which, actually, I thought was fairly presented in the sense that Minister Long had lost a lot of confidence. I think that her leadership is disastrous and that her language about victims was atrocious, but, if we all started backing motions that were brought about fellow Ministers in our Executive, there would be no government. Where would it end? It is proper scrutiny, not stunt politics and Punch and Judy politics, that brings real accountability.

Thirdly, we must deliver for our people here in Northern Ireland. There are places in my constituency where planning permission cannot be passed to build homes and schools because the sewerage is at capacity, so people are moving out and the school population declines and the villages are dying. We should be here until midnight discussing those things. Basic infrastructure has failed because many in politics have failed. The challenges to special educational needs are huge. School buildings are crumbling. There are children who travel for three hours to get to school every day, but, no, we want to talk about matters of international affairs. I tuned in, slightly late, to the Education Committee last week. For a moment, I thought that I had tuned into the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs at the Houses of Parliament, but then I saw two Sinn Féin members, and, clearly, they would not go to Parliament.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will not give way.

What are we doing debating these issues with such passion and intensity while we crumble here at home? I did not appeal to Sinn Féin's moral compass, because it has none. It is the party of the PIRA, of Hamas, of FARC, of ETA. You judge people

by the company that they keep. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will be heard.

Mr Burrows: For those reasons, we extend sympathy to and empathy for everyone affected by the crisis in the Middle East and every other humanitarian crisis. The biggest in the world at the minute is in Sudan, which the Member does not mention —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Burrows: — because it does not suit his antisemitic narrative.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Burrows. [Interruption.]

Order. Three Members wish to speak after Mr Frew, whom I will call now, so I will apply the grace period to allow those Members to speak. However, I warn you that, if you give way, you will not get an extra minute.

Mr Frew: Mr Speaker, what a farce; what an absolute farce. When we in the Chamber could be debating housing — we have a Minister here — or education in our own country — the Education Minister is here — what a farce it is that we are debating something that will make no material difference or have no outcome after the debate. It is an absolute farce. Members are bringing the Chamber into disrepute by bringing the motion to the House. It is incredible that we are spending and wasting time on a debate on a motion that will make no material difference. Why do they do it? Mr Speaker, I suggest that the parties have brought the motion as a sham fight — a pantomime. However, it is even more serious than that, because they have all been led by the nose by a Member who, to his shame, tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", followed by clenched fists. On the day that babies were being burnt in ovens, when children were being executed by a bullet in their head and when young girls and women were being raped and gang-raped in their homes, the Member tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", followed by clenched fists.

It is not the first time that Sinn Féin has been spooked by Gerry Carroll and People Before Profit. I remember when it voted, last term, to reduce everybody's rent by 10% and had to claw that back through legislation. It has been in embarrassing situations before. Of course, I have no confidence whatsoever in Sinn Féin, any of its Members or any of its Ministers. However, I expect a different level from the SDLP, which has, in the past, deemed itself to be non-violent, and, of course, the Alliance Party, which models itself as being middle-of-the-road. How middle-of-the-road is this? There is no middle-of-the-road here. Instead of spending time debating the important issues that will affect our people — every one of our voters in Northern Ireland — we have this sham fight that will make no material difference. Shame on you all, because you have brought the debating Chamber into disrepute. It should not be the case, but you have, and it is shameful.

Why should I have confidence in the other Ministers in the Executive? At times, in my time, especially over the past five years, the Executive have been poor. They have brought in measures that have hurt our people dramatically and drastically. Anxiety levels and mental health issues are through the roof. It was the Executive — it was the parties in the House — who did that to our people. The DUP fought against it, resisted it and opened up sooner. Lockdown philosophy is your fault, and you need to be held to account for it. Even during that time, Sinn Féin had a sham funeral oration in a graveyard for somebody who was not even buried there.

It brought thousands out on to the streets at a time of public health dangers and risks. Did Sinn Féin care? No, it did not. Sinn Féin is just as bad as Boris Johnson, yet it will criticise him.

Sinn Féin has the only Minister who has been taken to court and proven guilty on the grounds of religious discrimination against a protestant. Where was Alliance then? Where was the SDLP then? Why was there no motion then? This is drama, and you have all been spooked by the person in the corner: by the Member who tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", followed by clenched fists, when babies were being burned in ovens and young girls gang-raped in their homes. Shame on you all. When we should be debating issues important and significant for the children of Northern Ireland, the mask has slipped, and you have brought the House into disrepute. Shame on you all.

Ms Hunter: Minister, you have been hailed by political commentators as a doer: a man who is getting things done. I begin by complimenting you, because I do think that you are a doer, but the problem is that you are not bringing anyone along with you. In the past number of weeks, you have been extremely and deliberately divisive, and, both last week and this week, when we were discussing humanitarian tragedies, you smiled like a Cheshire cat. It is not me who is saying that, Minister. Rather, it has been pointed out in the many messages that I have received from people from across our communities who feel outraged.

Today's debate goes beyond the trip that the Israeli Government paid for, which was inherently political and divisive. In your role, Minister, you have not allowed girls to wear trousers to school, and you did not include in legislation a number of amendments that we had worked hard on in Committee to assist children with sensory needs and to provide period dignity for our young people. Today, we are asked to scrutinise the conduct and judgement of the Minister, who accepted a state-funded visit to Israel: a state that has engaged in the relentless and wholesale destruction of Gaza and that has killed innocent women and children. Those are the facts.

What Mr Givan wishes to do as a private citizen is a matter for him.

Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the Minister did not make any decisions about amendments to the Bill in question, is it in order for the Member to challenge the Speaker's judgement on that issue?

Mr Speaker: The Member can keep going. I do not want to be drawn into a further issue.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What Mr Givan does in his own time, as a private citizen, is a matter for him. What he wishes to do and where he wishes to visit as a DUP MLA, outside of his ministerial role, is a matter for him, but today's motion is simple. In his role as Minister, can we have confidence in him when he chose to lend the prestige of his office to his trip with the Israeli Government, who are carrying out what is arguably the greatest atrocity of this century?

Minister, you pride yourself on being a believer in Jesus Christ. You pride yourself on being a Christian. You are proud to be someone who uplifts, educates and empowers children. You and your colleagues have rightly spoken out passionately about Christians being persecuted across the globe, yet Israel has bombed Christians in Gaza. Israel has killed Christians and their families in Gaza. You have stood, smiled and waved with the Israeli Government despite the fact that they have murdered innocent Christians, Muslims and others. It is important to mention that, because it has been painfully overlooked throughout the debate. I am not virtue-signalling or acting morally superior. I just genuinely do not understand why that is continually overlooked.

The Minister of Education undertook a paid trip to a place with a Government who have bombed schools, universities and hospitals. That is beyond understanding. The Minister's decision has been criticised by the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council (NITC) as an:

The Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO) stated that accepting the invitation is:

Those are not the words of the SDLP but the words of members of the public.

There is an old proverb that states:

It is generally used to mean that, when an organisation or state fails, the leadership is to blame, because dysfunction starts at the top. The Minister has clearly failed to act correctly. He has failed morally; he has failed professionally; and he has failed the children, parents and teachers of Northern Ireland.

Today's motion is not sectarian; it is certainly not antisemitic; it is not about orange and green; and it is not selective outrage. The violence of 7 October was wrong, and the continued slaughter of innocent Palestinian people to this day is wrong. Today's motion gives voice to so many across Northern Ireland about how they feel. It is led by the people of Northern Ireland: the pupils, parents, unions and teachers who have sent us all, I imagine, countless messages about their outrage. I speak for them when I say this: no more. It is time for the Minister to resign.

Mr Kingston: It is understood that some Members and parties in the Assembly disapprove of other Members taking part in the official visit to Israel last month. They are entitled to that view, and we are entitled to support the Members who took part in the visit, which, clearly, made a strong impression on them. However, the fact that Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party and the SDLP are being led on the matter by Gerry Carroll MLA, who has the most extreme anti-Israeli views, is utterly appalling. As we have repeatedly stated, Gerry Carroll posted on social media on the very day of the diabolical slaughter, rape and kidnapping of Israeli and international citizens by Hamas on 7 October 2023, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", along with the image of a clenched fist. That was and remains a shameful message. Shame on the parties that align themselves with his position on Israel in the motion. Those parties are supporting a stunt motion that will, of course, come to nothing.

The named supporters of the motion are all members of the Finance Committee. At the Committee last week, the SDLP Chair pushed forward a proposal, which split the Committee, resulting in Ayes 5, Noes 4, nationalist and Alliance against unionist, to investigate the actions of the Education Minister, Paul Givan, in taking part in the trip to Israel and, in particular, a post on social media that he visited a school, which is not surprising.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: No, I will not have time.

The DUP and UUP members said that, if the Committee had any sense of consistency, it would also then investigate the Sinn Féin Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, who recently announced that she had issued an instruction to stop her officials taking part in UK trade discussions with Israel and to prevent Invest NI support from going to any companies from the Northern Ireland defence industry — an area of excellence — whose products or components might be supplied to Israel. That is the imposition of her political views on officials, and we in the DUP seek to bring that matter before the full Executive.

Dr Aiken: And the UUP.

Mr Kingston: And the UUP, which supports that.

However, the double standards of the Finance Committee were in full view when the members who voted to investigate the DUP Minister divided the Committee — Ayes 4, Noes 5 — in voting not to investigate Sinn Féin Minister Caoimhe Archibald: nationalist and Alliance against unionist. Everyone can see the clear double standard in play. Likewise, the motion before us is entirely about politics; it is not about principle. We in the DUP stand 100% behind and beside our Minister, and we will have no part in this charade.

Mr Gaston: I want to make it clear from the start of my comments that the motion is not about justice, it is not about principle, and it is certainly not about integrity. The motion is Punch and Judy politics, and, my goodness, it is a poor attempt at that.

What we are witnessing today —

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — is the art of left-wing political theatre —

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — with Gerry Carroll writing the script.

Do not worry, Pat, once I get to you, I will certainly give way. I will give way to you, Pat, and I hope that you will do the same for me the next time. You are nothing but a hypocrite. When I get to you, I will certainly give way.

My goodness, we have Gerry Carroll writing the script and Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance falling into place right on cue.

Getting to serious matters here, if there were any substance to the motion, section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 exists for exceptional circumstances where a Minister has demonstrably breached the law or, indeed, the solemn Pledge of Office. That determination must rest in evidence and depend on due process. The Functioning of Government Act 2021, passed by the Assembly, provides precisely that process. When an allegation arises, it should be referred to the Assembly Commissioner for Standards, the independent office created to investigate and report. That route was designed to remove partisanship from judgement, yet the proposers of the motion bypassed it entirely. There was no investigation, no report and no findings before they came to the Assembly today for this political theatre; just accusation to suit the political narrative. If the rule of law truly mattered to those who tabled the motion, they would have allowed the commissioner to examine the facts before seeking to exclude a Minister from office for their own social media likes.

It is especially rich for those who have never accepted the rule of law to give lectures. We are asked to believe that Sinn Féin now stands as the defender of probity while it continues to glorify terrorists who murdered our police officers, soldiers and civilians. Eighteen years ago last month, Paul Quinn, a 21-year-old, was stripped to his underwear and beaten for half an hour with iron bars and nail-studded cudgels. Every bone in his body was broken by the IRA. At the time, a Sinn Féin Minister, Conor Murphy, blackened that young man's name. Sadly, there was no vote of no confidence to remove him from office. Do not come to the House and tell us that you care and have compassion for young people in Gaza, when the same parties turned a blind eye to a 21-year-old being beaten to death on his own doorstep.

This week, as our nation gathers to remember the fallen men and women who gave their lives to uphold the rule of law, we still have a Sinn Féin First Minister who, only weeks ago, refused to describe the Enniskillen Poppy Day massacre as murder. Sinn Féin spokesman, Mr Pat Sheehan: my goodness, he is well equipped. He is the cash-and-carry bomber from West Belfast, who does not like to take an intervention to give me the opportunity to call out his hypocrisy. His party stood shoulder to shoulder with Hamas, and he does not even have the guts to let Members come in and challenge him on that.

I will go back to the newly crowned leader of the nationalist and republican alliance: Mr Carroll. As Israeli women were raped, children kidnapped and grandmothers murdered, he tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". Mr Buckley gave him the opportunity to retract that, but he did not take it. Shame on him. Members will troop through the Lobbies today behind Mr Carroll —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Gaston: — who now leads your circus.

Mr Speaker: Your time is up, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Members must know what that man stands over to this day.

Mr Speaker: Time is up, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Shame on any of you who follow Mr Carroll into the voting Lobbies.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Education. You have 15 minutes.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Mr Speaker, I will not be taking any interventions.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate and to take the opportunity to expose the toxic mix of antisemitism, anti-unionism and hypocrisy that is at the heart of the motion. The motion was proposed by a man who has never condemned the murder of over 1,200 Israelis and is now backed by a coalition of those who will jump on to every bandwagon going. The debate has exposed the ugly face of pan-nationalism and its fellow travellers.

I am confident that, when the votes are cast, the attempt to drive me from office will have failed, but, in the process, some deeper truths will have been revealed. Those truths will not be lost on the unionist community. We have seen the informal creation of a new coalition of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party under the leadership and direction of Gerry Carroll. We have witnessed a calculated attempt to drive a unionist Minister from office, not for misconduct but simply for daring to dissent from the prevailing anti-Israel orthodoxy of Irish nationalism. That is not principled politics; it is an attempt at ideological purging. We have had a glimpse into a new Ireland. It is not a land flowing with milk and honey but a land where unionists serve only at the pleasure of and on terms dictated by nationalists and republicans, aided and abetted by the Alliance Party. It is a vision not of equality but of subjugation.

The motion has not just targeted me; it has sent a chilling message to the unionist community that our convictions, our values and our right to engage with the wider world are to be policed and punished. It is a warning to every unionist voice that dares to speak outside the lines that have been drawn by nationalism. It tells our community, "You may participate", but only on their terms. You may speak but only if you say what they want to hear. It is because those truths have revealed themselves that I welcome the motion and the opportunity to reply today.

Let me begin with the trumped-up charges drafted by Mr Carroll but signed and endorsed by others. The motion suggests that I do not support the rule of law and have breached the ministerial code in some undefined way. It is signed by those who, for generations, refused to recognise the police, the courts and the rule of law in Northern Ireland and still claim that there was no alternative to murder, including the murder of over 70 children by the Provisional IRA. We truly are in Alice in Wonderland territory.

What is it that the MLAs who speak and seek a political lynching want? Is it to rebuke me for my conduct in visiting a school where Jews, Arabs and Christians are educated together? No. It is to exclude me from office altogether. It is a form of political internment — exclusion without a proper trial — not for the minimum period of three months but for the statutory maximum of 12 months, indicating that there can be no greater punishment for any Minister, no matter their conduct.

What is the case against me? Going to Israel on a fact-finding mission to hear from the victims of terrorism? Going to a country with which the United Kingdom retains full diplomatic relations and an embassy in Tel Aviv? Going to visit a school during that trip? Are Members seeking to tell me what to think or where to go? Is it, as some would suggest, merely asking the Department to publicise my visit to a school — yes, a school — on the departmental website and on social media, a request that was properly approved at the highest level in the Department before it was issued? As I said last week, my permanent secretary assessed the Department's role with regard to the trip and concluded that its involvement was limited and administrative in nature. That was deemed appropriate, given the need to manage the Israel trip within my broader ministerial diary and the need to cancel other engagements.

Where do those alleged offences fit into the annals of the Assembly? Has it been forgotten that, far from simply visiting a school, there are Members in the House, some of whom have served as Ministers, including as Education Minister, who were personally guilty of the most heinous crimes without one word of regret or remorse? The Assembly has considered exclusion motions on a handful of occasions, so let us compare the gravity of those allegations with those that I face today.

Are today's trumped-up charges truly more serious than the refusal of the IRA to decommission its weapons and to continue to murder people when Sinn Féin remained in government in the early years of devolution?

Are they more serious than when the police raided Sinn Féin's offices in this very Building, investigating a suspected spy ring on the back of the IRA's break-in at Castlereagh police station and its training of FARC terrorists in Colombia? Remember this: I went to visit children in a school, whereas Sinn Féin's partners in the IRA went to Colombia to teach terrorists how to use car bombs. That is the contrast; that is the truth.

What of the countless occasions when no exclusion motion was brought? Is it more serious than when an industrial tribunal found Conor Murphy to have discriminated against a Protestant on religious grounds and that his evidence was "implausible and lacking credibility"? There was no exclusion motion then. Is it more serious than when Margaret Ritchie, Mark Durkan and Michelle O'Neill were separately found, by the High Court, to have acted unlawfully and in breach of the ministerial code? There were no exclusion motions then. Is it more serious than when the IRA murdered Kevin McGuigan on the streets of Belfast, and the police and security services confirmed that Sinn Féin continued to operate subject to the direction of the Provisional IRA army council? There were no exclusion motions then. Is it more serious than when the then deputy First Minister brazenly and unapologetically violated the Executive's own COVID regulation at the peak of a global health crisis, undermining public trust and setting a dangerous precedent at a time when leadership was needed most? There were no exclusion motions then. There was no outrage and no accountability.

What of my accusers? Do they come with clean hands? Gerry Carroll, the author of the motion, is the same man who tweeted "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance" as Israelis were being murdered — a tweet that remains on his timeline to this day and for which he has never apologised. That is the man who would stand in judgement of me, but Gerry Carroll does not stand alone. No longer at the margins of political acceptability, others row in behind him to create Gerry Carroll's coalition of hate. What of Sinn Féin's Deputy Chair of the Education Committee, Mr Pat Sheehan? He is a man with a chequered past to say the least. Having once been sentenced to 15 years for bombing a cash and carry, following his release he attempted to bomb a security checkpoint in Belfast. On that occasion, he was convicted and sentenced to serve 24 years and was released only under the terms of the Belfast Agreement. Now, he is not just an MLA but a friend of Hamas. No wonder it took his party leader five days, following the horrendous events of 7 October 2023, to condemn the attacks on Israel. Sinn Féin alleges that the Israelis are guilty of genocide, but allegations of genocide are no impediment to Sinn Féin's approach to China. We can look at the genocide of the Uyghur community that is taking place in China, but Sinn Fein's hypocrisy is such that it is prepared to turn a blind eye whenever it suits. What of the Alliance Party, which is now a bedfellow of Gerry Carroll as well as a regular bedfellow of Sinn Féin? Mr Mathison accused me of being on a propaganda visit. That is grossly offensive. If he had seen and heard what I saw and heard, he would not have said such a thing.

The motion is not about justice but ideology. It is not about conduct; it is about control. I will continue to speak up for those who need to have their voices heard. I was in Yad Vashem, the national Holocaust memorial centre, and will remember the six million Jews — men, women and children — who were murdered in the Holocaust.

While the debate has helped to expose and reveal the true face of Gerry Carroll's coalition and the hypocrisy that is at the heart of the opposition that has been levelled at me, it is a distraction from the work that I have been doing — we have been doing a lot. While the Alliance-led Education Committee has been pondering whether a three-year-old can be trans, I have been focusing on what happens in the classroom. In my first 18 months, I ensured that the starting pay for teachers increased by over £7,500 to £31,650. More generally, teachers' pay has increased by between 16% and 18%. Later this month, the independent review of teacher workload will report, and we will take forward a package of measures to ensure that teachers can focus on the place in which they matter the most: the classroom. On behalf of the Executive, I have delivered the most meaningful package of childcare measures in the history of Northern Ireland. Later this week, I will submit the early learning and childcare strategy to the Executive for consideration.

I am undertaking a far-reaching programme of reform to support special educational needs. I have introduced new guidance to discourage the use of mobile phones in schools. I have introduced legislation to ensure that school uniforms are affordable. I have brought common sense back to our education system by making it clear that biological boys should not be playing in girls' sports, using girls' toilets or changing in girls' changing rooms. In the face of opposition in the House, I have been vindicated by the courts for correctly applying the law that the Assembly passed on integrated education. I have assembled a team of international educational experts to ensure that Northern Ireland will have a world-leading education system.

In TransformED, I have launched the most far-reaching and comprehensive reform of education in generations, focusing on curriculum, assessment, school improvement and qualifications, all of which is underpinned by a focus on and investment in teacher professional learning. When implemented, that will help to close the attainment gap for disadvantaged children and raise standards for every child. I have invested £31 million in teacher professional learning in the largest-ever intervention of that kind. In short, by learning from others and building on our own successes, we are creating an education system that can compete with the very best across the world. That is the ambition that I have for every child.

To conclude, the motion is not a stand for principle; rather, it is a stand for political convenience. It is not about upholding standards; it is about silencing dissent. The message is clear: if you dare to think differently, if you dare to stand with Israel and if you dare to speak up for victims of terrorism, you will be hunted, hounded and hauled before the Assembly. I will not be silenced. I will not be intimidated. I will not be removed by those who preach tolerance but practise exclusion. I will not apologise for standing with victims of terrorism. I will not apologise for visiting a school where Jews, Arabs and Christians learn together. While others indulge in performative outrage, I will continue to deliver for our children, our schools and our future. Whether those people like it or not, so long as my party entrusts me with this office, I will be here.

I will quote Tennyson's 'Ulysses':

Despite the best efforts of Mr Carroll's coalition of hate, we on this side of the House will not yield. The unionist people of Northern Ireland will not yield, and we will not be silenced by those who once brought terror to these shores to drive us from office. The true nature of their new Ireland is exposed. I oppose the motion and all those who have brought it.

Some Members: Hear, hear. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: I call Deirdre Hargey to make a winding-up speech. [Interruption.]

Order. [Interruption.]

The member of the public will be removed. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Order, Members.

Miss Hargey: I thank the proposer of the motion. We in Sinn Féin are glad to support it.

I am concerned by the opening and ending to the Minister's statement, because I thought that he was here as the Education Minister to serve all our community, not speaking as a unionist politician. I ask you to reflect on that. Minister, you are here as the Education Minister, and that is about representing all the communities here, be they unionist, nationalist, republican, loyalist, minority ethnic or those from the Palestinian community who are here. You are to represent all the communities that make up our society.

The Minister's decision to use his visit to Israel and to use departmental resources to promote a visit in the occupied territories is wrong, and, I believe, political. Last week, the Minister stated in the Chamber that he was formally invited by Israel — a trip that was planned and organised by the Israeli embassy. That was a political visit and an Israeli-paid-for propaganda visit that was planned well before the Minister made his disturbing speech from the Back Benches the week before he went to Israel, thanking and praising the IDF. Remember that over 50,000 Palestinian children have been murdered or injured in Gaza, and almost 500 teachers have been killed at the hands of the IDF. An enforced Israeli-made famine has taken place in Gaza, and the army enforces its Government's policy of starving an entire population.

That is the context in which the Minister visited the Ofek School, situated in East Jerusalem, which is in the occupied Palestinian territories. On 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a landmark opinion that the occupation of Palestinian territories is against international law. It is unlawful, but still this Minister chose to visit and to promote his visit on his departmental website. The ICJ further stated that Israel's:

Israel's restrictions on Palestinians:

Where the Minister visited, there is systemic discrimination against the Palestinian people. The court advised states to avoid any action that would maintain the current situation, but you ignored that advice. Indeed, the British Government, along with other Governments, also see this as illegal activity by Israel and have issued advice pertaining to that. Yet this Education Minister thought that he would flout that advice and use the Department of Education's resources in promoting his visit. The Minister stated:

If only that were true. Publicising the message that East Jerusalem is a normal society is political propaganda. It is a message that is consistently given by the Israeli state, a political propaganda message that this Minister chose to parrot and that breaches international law.

I once spoke in the Chamber of one of the political speeches that most inspires me, made by Tony Benn, the late British MP, on the Iraq war. He spoke of his lived experience as a child in Britain during the period of a world war and the impact on his community. He spoke of 24 October 1945, when the United Nations Charter was passed, and how that generation was determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war — an era that enacted human rights law and standards.

Over recent days, we have also heard the well-known phrase, "lest we forget", as part of remembering those wars. We should all understand and never forget those periods of global history and that we need to learn from the past. Oh, how we have forgotten. International law has been torn up by Israel, or set alight, as in the words of Israel's Defence Minister: "Gaza is burning". That Minister, along with the Israeli Prime Minister, has been issued with an international arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for war crimes against the Palestinian people. The Education Minister visited a regime that has war crimes warrants out for their arrest, for war crimes against the Palestinian people.

Where do these actions leave international law? In recent weeks, a UN rapporteur who oversees the inclusion of women and children has said how the actions of the Israeli Government towards the Palestinian people normalise atrocities globally. What a stark and depressing statement. Indeed, during the Minister's visit to Israel and to the school in the occupied territories, there was another IDF attack on Gaza, which killed six children. I wonder whether the Minister praised the IDF on that visit.

In this context, the teaching unions have rightly condemned the Minister's actions. The wider community has condemned them and, as others have reflected, condemnation has come from across the community. At my constituency office, I have been inundated with messages, not just from nationalists and republicans but from right across the community in South Belfast and, indeed, from East Belfast as well. That anger and those sentiments are backed up by international condemnation of Israel's actions, including by international courts, which have made rulings of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

That is the context in which Paul Givan made his visit. More importantly and sickeningly, he boasted about it on the airwaves in the midst of 50,000 children having been murdered and injured; over 500 teachers having been murdered; international law having been broken and ignored; a forced, man-made famine; forced displacement; and, most grotesque of all, a genocide. Anyone who calls this a pantomime needs to take a serious look at themselves. This is not a pantomime; it is about a breach of international law and the genocide being committed by the Israeli state.

Those of us here today who support the motion stand with international law and international human rights organisations that have called out the actions of the Israeli state. We stand with teachers and teaching unions and the young people who go to school here; indeed, we stand with the wider community, which, I believe, is also repulsed by the Minister's actions. We do so lest we forget Israel's war crimes against the Palestinian people and the Education Minister's attempts to sanitise them. The community sees that, and we support its call for you to go, Minister.

Mr Speaker: Before I move to the Question, I remind Members that it requires cross-community support.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, may I ask for your guidance? During the debate, Mr Kingston talked about business in the Finance Committee. To be clear — I am sure that you will agree — the business of Statutory Committees includes what is covered by that Department. In this case, the Civil Service code —

Mr Speaker: I am sorry, Mr O'Toole. I will take the point of order, but I will do so after Question Time, which has to start at 2.00 pm under Standing Orders. I now pass over to the Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 7 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): Victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse (HIA) have endured unimaginable pain and suffering over many years. We recognise the importance of fulfilling the final recommendation of the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry report to honour those who suffered, including those who did not live to see justice or acknowledgement. Following extensive engagement with victims and survivors, we are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached to place a memorial plaque in the Great Hall of Parliament Buildings. We have considered the views expressed by victims and survivors and agreed the final wording for the plaque. The Speaker has confirmed that the Assembly Commission is content with the final wording, and officials are working closely with the Speaker's Office to take the final steps. We thank the Speaker for his continued support in helping us to deliver this important inquiry recommendation. The memorial will ensure that the victims and survivors are permanently and respectfully remembered and acknowledged.

Mr Boylan: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. When will the memorial plaque be unveiled?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am pleased to say that, as it is in its final stages, it is just a matter of ensuring that the final plaque is prepared for installation. The First Minister and I hope to be in a position to formally put up the plaque early in the new year.

Ms Bradshaw: The update on the plaque is good news. What work is going on between victims and survivors' groups and the Arts Council on the wider programme of memorialisation that the inquiry report recommended?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. As she is aware, we have included the Arts Council in taking the matter forward. That was a recommendation, as she knows, from the Hart report. It has been outstanding for such a long period because of the need to find as much consensus as possible on a matter that is both sensitive and incredibly important to victims across the piece. We have always been acutely aware that not all victims and survivors have the same view on every matter. We have therefore worked carefully with them, and I am really pleased that we have found a way through on what was a challenging issue over the past number of years.

I have no doubt that there will be the same challenges with local memorialisation, but we want the process of working with people to be victim-centred. It also has to be trauma-informed. That will take time, working with the Arts Council and potentially with councils. Local groups may want to see something a bit different in their area, and we need to have the flexibility to take them into account. Once the plaque is completed, work will continue at pace to ensure that the commitment to local memorialisation is fulfilled as well.

Mrs Cameron: What more can be done to support those who come under the range of legacy schemes, including the historical institutional abuse (HIA) redress scheme and the victims' pensions process, many of whom face difficulties in having their situation understood and recognised?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. Those schemes are so meaningful to so many people. They are long overdue. It is recognition of a wrong that was done in the past. That wrong was not done by anyone in this place — indeed, it was done by very few people, if any, in those institutions or organisations today — but it was a wrong that was done, and that needs to be acknowledged and addressed.

We do not just have the HIA redress scheme. We are about to commence our mother-and-baby homes redress scheme. We also have our pension scheme for people who were severely injured. I have talked to people who are going through that process. It can be a re-traumatising and frustrating process. Just over the past week, I spoke to people who have applied on the basis of post-traumatic stress disorder, particularly those who served in our armed forces and the then RUC. It was an incredible thing to step forward in those most difficult of circumstances. People saw their friends, colleagues and family members killed in very difficult circumstances. They have suffered psychological injury. Experts connect that directly to what they experienced. Often, however, they are unable, at the moment, to get help from that scheme. That needs to be addressed. Our understanding of the nature of mental health issues and how they come about has evolved significantly. I do not believe that, at the moment, that scheme takes that into account. However, that does not mean that people should not get that help and support. Of course, I would urge the panel to use maximum flexibility in order to reflect the reality of how mental ill health can happen as a result of those traumatic events.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We recognise that sport plays a vital role in bringing people and communities together, and we welcome the report and its call for a series of reforms to ensure fairness and transparency in the sport. It is encouraging that the Equality Commission has recommended the establishment of an oversight panel to support the effective implementation of the recommendations. We also welcome that the commission will continue to engage with stakeholders on that important matter. We look forward to seeing the outworkings of the report.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree that it is long past time that Northern Ireland's sportsmen and sportswomen should be able to compete internationally under their national flag by right?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question because some of the important issues that have been highlighted in that case are common in too many other places as well. Of course, I welcome the fact that the report has now been shared. I welcome the commitment on action. I understand that, tomorrow, there will be a statement in the House from the Minister for Communities on that important issue. However, the Member is absolutely right: the situation in too many sports is that you cannot, and do not have the choice to, compete under your national flag for Northern Ireland. That needs to be addressed. I have worked with many different sports bodies. It is a mixed picture depending on what the sport is. I believe that it should be an enshrined right of this place that you have the ability, should it be in boxing, athletics or fishing, to compete for your country, Northern Ireland, under the flag of your country. I would like to see that addressed not just here and across the UK but, indeed, by international sporting bodies and organisations.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Mr Speaker —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 3 and 7 together.

The Office of AI and Digital, under the leadership of Professor Helen McCarthy, is preparing a comprehensive strategy for the ethical adoption of AI in the public sector. That is a collaborative effort, which draws on expertise from across government, industry and academia.

The scoping phase of that work is now complete. It incorporated input from a diverse group of stakeholders, which has been instrumental in shaping the key pillars of the strategy. To support that drafting phase, the office set up two key groups: an external AI advisory panel, made up of industry leaders, including the Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre (AICC) and local universities; and a government AI network, which brings together representatives from all nine Departments. Efforts are under way to consolidate feedback from the advisory panel and the government AI network. The government AI network will reconvene in December to review and discuss an early draft of the strategy. Taking an iterative approach will help to ensure that the strategy is robust, inclusive and future-proofed. At the heart of the strategy is a firm commitment to the ethical and responsible use of AI, which is embedded in the governance pillar. The governance pillar is grounded in the principles of transparency, respect and fairness, ensuring that AI is deployed ethically and responsibly across Departments. By embedding those principles, we reinforce our commitment to inclusive governance and to ensure that AI solutions are developed and used in ways that are morally responsible, socially beneficial and aligned with human values.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 7 was withdrawn, so it cannot be grouped. Only question 3 can be considered.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer and her emphasis on the responsible and ethical use of AI. I agree with that.

Given that Northern Ireland has the potential to be a world leader in this space — all the businesses tell us that — and that we need to act with speed to deliver, is the deputy First Minister able to talk to a more specific timetable for rolling out the AI strategy?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Due to the seamless transition from the previous item of business into Oral Answers to Questions, I do not have the updated file.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is OK; I have been called worse.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Nor did I realise that question 7 had been withdrawn. That is why I requested permission for the questions to be grouped. Apologies.

The Member is absolutely right. We have a timetable for phase 2 and phase 3. Phase 2 is now complete. As I am sure the Member is aware, a task and finish group has been established by Professor Helen McCarthy, who is in our new post of Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser (CSTA). She has been a real breath of fresh air. That shows the benefit, even though hers is only a part-time posting, of someone's coming in from outside the system with knowledge and experience of, and passion for, the area. She is really trying to drive through what we require from the strategy. That work is well under way. As I said, that group has been convened, and she has been engaging with a wide range of people.

We have established six core pillars for the new AI strategy and action plan, and the aim is that it will cover up to 2030. The six pillars are governance, infrastructure, data, skills, public-sector transformation and citizenship. We are looking at having an AI hub for delivery, which would look at the actions. I commend our CSTA, as it is a significant amount of work. I know that she has also relied on a range of third-sector and private-sector partners for expertise and support. Of course, we are very grateful for the help and support that we have received on that from inside and outside the system.

Mr Delargy: Minister, you touched on the fact that this is about being inclusive. We know that, with a lot of the technology strategies, it is very difficult to reach people, so will you give an outline of exactly what is being done to reach people in the most hard-to-reach communities so that they can input into the strategy?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As the Member will be aware, so much of what we do now is about collaborative design and co-production. We hear those buzzwords all the time, but they are important, because this is about including those who will use the strategy during the period and process of putting together the strategies and action plans. That is important, and there are so many different elements. If you speak to anybody about what they think that AI is, you will find that it depends on their personal experience of it. Many people will think that it is about jumping on an app on their phone and asking it to put something together, should that be a picture, a couple of paragraphs or some factual information. Of course, AI has so many other potential uses, not least in our health sector, supporting diagnostics; across our system, populating fields with common information and therefore saving a lot of people a lot of time; and in the drafting of factual background speeches.

There are two key principles: the first is that it has to be ethical; and the second is that it is important that we still have a core human element to check facts and to check for bias and other issues. The end users are really important. We know that a lot of older people use government services. Many of the older people whom I know could buy and sell you in social media and online. We also know that there are challenges with some of those digital skills right across people's ages, so it has to have a role in the entire life cycle. We need to look at all its characteristics and challenges and make sure that it is fit for purpose. You are absolutely right.

Mr Durkan: We have heard a lot about the potential benefits and opportunities that will come with AI. Has there been any Executive analysis of the potential impact of AI on job displacement across not just the Civil Service but the North?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is a big concern for many people when they look at their own job and at future-proofing it. Realistically, in all likelihood, AI will be able to do things in five or 10 years' time, and maybe in one year's time, that we cannot even imagine right now. There is an apprehension about that at times. I always think that we need to be careful that we are not being Luddites about it. We do not want to delay by being apprehensive about something that we do not perhaps always understand but should, in fact, look at it while being conscious of the risks and challenges that it poses and acutely aware of the opportunities that it presents.

I would always say that it is not about simply replacing people. It is very much about looking at how AI and technological development can help support better efficiency and better productivity. It is also about upskilling or reskilling people who currently work in jobs that could perhaps be picked up by AI and used in different ways. As we know, the needs of the Civil Service in the future will be very different from its needs of the past.

The head of the Civil Service has undertaken a people strategy review. A lot of work is being done on looking at the numbers that are needed across our public sector to make it fit for purpose, what skills are required for the future and where AI can support those. The important point is that it is not primarily about people losing their jobs; it is about maybe doing things better and differently in the future and reskilling and upskilling for future jobs those who are in existing jobs.

Mr Brett: Deputy First Minister, AI has been at the fore in the cutting-edge development in our continually growing defence and space industry in Northern Ireland. How can we ensure that the AI strategy aligns with that growth and that we fully benefit from the UK defence growth deal, which will be worth millions of pounds to the people of Northern Ireland?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is undoubtedly the case that we have a really strong, high-quality defence and aerospace industry in Northern Ireland. Last weekend, we had Remembrance Sunday, which is a time for many to pause and reflect on the role that so many in Northern Ireland played in the world wars and in wars and conflicts since. Importantly and in line with that are the roles that our industries and businesses play in supporting the defence industry. Companies and the things that are made right here in Northern Ireland help to keep the world safe. At the moment, it is unfortunate that, because of global conflict, there are fears. I speak with a number of ambassadors, and we have the opportunity to meet ambassadors and delegations who come to Northern Ireland from across the globe. When you speak to people from Poland, Latvia and a number of countries, you can see that real sense of insecurity and the concerns about security. They are investing in defence, because, fundamentally, they see that as the best way to secure peace for their region, and our companies can absolutely play a role in that.

The Member is right. The initiative by the UK Government to support the defence industry is UK-wide. We absolutely must make sure that Northern Ireland can benefit from that. We have a number of really strong areas in not only aerospace and defence but cybersecurity. That is a big strength that we have. Conflicts of the future will be as much about cyberattacks on our networks and on our electricity systems etc as they will be about that traditional street-by-street type of fighting that, unfortunately, formed part of past wars. That is something for us to be aware of in our defence strategy, and I look forward to working with the ADS group, with you, as Chair of the Committee, and with others to make sure that Northern Ireland can benefit fully on that front.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The redevelopment of Casement Park remains an Executive flagship capital project for sport in Northern Ireland.

Mr McNulty: Deputy First Minister, after years of delay, people are fed up with warm words with no commitments on Casement Park. Has a paper finally been brought to the Executive table; will funding be secured; and will you commit to ensuring that delivery is no longer held hostage to party disagreements at your Executive table?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The holding up of Casement Park was never a political issue. The funding for Casement Park was secured as part of a multi-sports package. That funding of circa £62 million remains on the table. The Member will be fully aware of the financial pressures facing the Executive in both revenue and capital. That funding remains on the table, and, as indicated, it remains an Executive flagship programme.

Ms Flynn: Does the deputy First Minister agree that, as she outlined, Casement Park is indeed an Executive commitment and remains a priority commitment?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I can confirm that it remains an Executive flagship capital project. It was part of that investment strategy, and it is referenced in the Programme for Government. The challenge in all of this is because of the cost of that project now, but, as we have said many times before, the commitment to that £60-odd million by the Northern Ireland Executive remains. We know that that is not sufficient against the plans that the GAA has. I understand that the GAA is not willing at this point to put additional money into the project, and that will leave a significant shortfall between the cost of the aspiration and what is on the table. That is a challenge for people to look at, including the GAA, and I look forward to seeing what the GAA's proposals are on that.

Mr Honeyford: Progress on Casement is now critical. Every week of delay risks losing a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We also have the potential to host the Women's World Cup in 2035 and the cricket T20 World Cup in 2030, and the football fund still has a £50 million shortfall. Sport urgently needs strategic direction and investment. Where is the cross-departmental leadership to attract and deliver the long-term funding that we need to finally deliver Casement Park, to fully fund the football fund and to make sure that Northern Ireland does not miss out on international events?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. I know that he has been lobbying and speaking much on the GAA issue, but I reiterate that the project was not delayed by the Northern Ireland Executive. It was not delayed because of political disagreement. It was not delayed because of the DUP. There were lots of local issues in relation to planning, and the costs of the project have increased significantly, leaving what many people would assess to be a shortfall of well in excess of £100 million on that project. I see that the Member is shaking his head. If that is incorrect, that needs to be articulated, but that is my understanding of it.

The Executive do not have £100 million sitting about for this project, as the Member is aware. There are many pressures in the system. We are looking at our investment strategy for Northern Ireland (ISNI), and that is a matter that is coming up later in these questions. To be clear, in all likelihood, the vast majority of any capital funding that will be available in the next 10 to 20 years is already fully committed against a range of projects, and we have been actively looking to see how we can increase the amount of capital available because of, for example, big issues in NI Water that are now holding back housing and economic development. Those are big challenges, and the Executive need to look at those. In the case of this project, there is a significant capital shortfall. That is the reality. It is not political posturing, and it is not about people being difficult about it. It is just a reality, and there is not a solution to that issue at this stage.

Mr Harvey: Given the huge financial pressures faced by the Executive, including on capital, can the DFM outline the challenging environment for any additional expenditure?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: That is a timely question, because we are looking into the Chancellor's Budget event at the end of this month. I have to say that there is little space for optimism that we will get any additional money, either revenue or capital. Of course, if we got that, that would be welcome. There are huge challenges. I do not need to say that to anybody around this place when you know what needs to be done in your constituencies, should that be on potholes in our roads, the need for new roads or the promises that have been made to our schools. You can go into a school and see the maintenance that is required and the backlog for that. I go around Lagan Valley and, day in, day out, see that need for capital investment and infrastructure. There are difficult things that we need to look at.

The First Minister and I have tasked the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) with looking at the options around capital funds and what we can do, particularly with regard to NI Water and the requirement for infrastructure, where that is impacting. As we have said, that is not just about the building of houses or holding back economic development; it is contributing to issues such as the situation with Lough Neagh. We cannot avoid that. NI Water is a significant contributor to that situation, and it needs to be addressed by investment.

Those are all things that we are trying to tackle at the moment. However, let us all be incredibly clear: there is not enough capital in the system to do what we need to do and to support our core public services. The idea of finding hundreds of millions of pounds is not realistic, unfortunately, so it is a challenge to which there is no answer at the moment.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I knew that a question on the investment strategy was coming up shortly; I did not realise that it was the next question.

The investment strategy remains under consideration. We hope to be able to bring it to the Executive in the near future. The Member may recall that junior Minister Bunting provided a detailed update on the investment strategy in the Chamber on 14 October in response to an Opposition motion. Although an immense amount of work has already gone into shaping the strategy, there are still some key considerations to be worked through. However, we are confident that the substantial work that has already been completed, together with progress on the enabling action plan, sets a clear direction. We know what needs to be done, and we are committed to doing it. We are determined to get this right. Once finalised, the timeline for approval and publication will be a matter for the Executive.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, deputy First Minister. Almost exactly one year ago, you said:

That was a year ago. In the meantime, as you have said, road development, including that of the A5, has languished; there has been no investment in NI Water and no plan to invest in it; Casement Park lies unbuilt; and social housing lies unprogressed. Deputy First Minister, are you seriously telling us that, after a year, there has been no progress in delivering the investment strategy? Private meetings do not count. When will it be published?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. He is well aware that none of those things is impacted on by the long-term investment strategy, which sets the overarching framework. The Executive and everyone in this place knows that we need to fix roads and that we need new roads; we know that we need to fix schools and that we need new-build schools; we need more physical SEN provision; and we know what commitments exist with regard to flagship projects and outstanding issues. The A5 will not be impacted on by the ISNI being there or not.

We need to be honest with the public, and we need to be clear with the public. The real challenge that we face is the fact that almost all of the capital that is projected to be available over the next 10 to 15 to 20 years has, as I said, already been committed by previous agreements and commitments on those flagship projects, the roads programme and the schools programme. As the Education Minister has said in this place, if we were to do for schools all the capital work that has been promised, all of the education capital programme for the next 20-plus years would be eaten up. That is the reality of what we face.

We also need to acknowledge that there have been significant changes from this time last year with the A5 judgement and the climate change legislation potentially having a significant impact on big public-sector capital projects. That is something that we need to take into account, and we are actively looking at that. Work is ongoing, but we are considering a number of key issues and trying to bring forward something that will make a meaningful difference, as opposed to having a document simply for a document's sake.

Ms Ennis: It is evident that the Long Kesh site has immense social and economic potential that will benefit communities not just in Lisburn but beyond Lisburn. Does the deputy First Minister agree that now is the time to finally move forward with the regeneration of Long Kesh?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. This has been a source of real frustration for me. I am a representative for Lagan Valley, and, speaking personally and in that capacity, I say that I do not agree with the Sinn Féin position that nothing can happen on that site until it gets its way in relation to the listed buildings. The listed buildings issue is a sensitive issue. There is the potential for a huge amount of hurt, depending on what happens there, particularly for victims and survivors. The then deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, made it clear that no or very little economic development could happen on that site unless there was an agreement on those listed buildings.

I appeal to Sinn Féin, and to my colleague in this office, to lift that restriction in order to allow for the economic potential of a site on the main Belfast to Dublin corridor to be fulfilled while discussions continue on dealing with the difficult legacy issues. All kinds of economic development and businesses would be interested in using the site, given that it is key strategically and given its importance to my Lagan Valley constituency. I therefore reiterate my appeal to lift that condition on economic development and allow for it to go ahead in order to unleash the incredible potential of the Maze/Long Kesh site, not just for Lagan Valley but for all of Northern Ireland.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical questions 5 and 7 have been withdrawn.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The inauguration event commences at 11.00 am on 11 November, and, as he said, he is acutely aware of the date's importance. It is an unfortunate clash, and my statement outlined why I cannot attend. I will be here with him, and I hope not only to attend that service of sombre reflection and remembrance but to take part in another act of remembrance.

Of course, whom a party decides to send is a matter for that party, and I stand here as deputy First Minister. I advise him, however, that no matter whether people are councillors, MPs or MLAs, tomorrow is a very significant date. I know that some commentators have said that it is a very significant date for unionists, but it should be a significant date for everyone across Northern Ireland, given the immense sacrifice that so many from this part of the UK on this island made, as, of course, did many from the Republic of Ireland as well.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, you will never find me or my party trivialising the importance of remembrance and of Remembrance Day for so many people in this society and, indeed, on this island, but it is the case that many people feel that your party, which is the leading unionist party, has embarked, perhaps not by design, on a journey of fear, grievance and anger, particularly for unionist people in Northern Ireland. After the debate earlier today, can you genuinely reflect on that and move back to making some vague progress towards reconciliation?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I can advise him that I strive to represent everyone across Northern Ireland in everything that I do, be that by condemning acts of violence or by building a better and brighter future for everyone here. I genuinely believe in doing that and am firmly committed to it. When people reflect on my time as deputy First Minister, they will see that I strongly indicated from my very first speech that I wanted to be a deputy First Minister who worked with and for everyone. I believe that I have demonstrated that not just through the wide range of events that I have attended but through generosity of spirit, which is something that we all need to have.

The Taoiseach, the Irish Government and others understand completely the importance of 11 November. As I indicated, I recognise that it is a huge day personally for the incoming president. I have sought to have a personal call with her in recognition of her very significant personal achievement and what she is about to embark on. I advise the Member that, looking back, there has been a huge amount of engagement not just with the Taoiseach but with Simon Harris and the Irish Government as part of our North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) and British-Irish Council (BIC) engagement. We have had a number of very constructive discussions, and I believe in building constructive relationships. Much of what we are trying to drive forward in order to improve people's lives is based on having those constructive relationships.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: There is a real appetite among some people to make the matter into a political football and use it to indicate political division or to score political points. That is not what this is about. I got an invitation to the event on Thursday morning. I have commitments on an issue that is very important to me, not least because my grandfather, my great-grandfather and so many people in my family served and were severely injured in the wars. I have committed to attend the service and pay my respects in remembrance here. I also have committed to go to Windsor Castle and pay tribute, in the 80th anniversary year of Victory in Japan, to the veterans of the Asia-Pacific theatre of World War II. That is an opportunity not only to pay our respects to an incredible generation that did incredible things but to recognise the fact that so many people, mainly young men, who came from this small place went right across the globe, risking their lives and giving their lives or getting injured in those frightening and dangerous circumstances, to fight for peace and democracy for all of us. The very least that I can do is go along to pay my respects and tribute to them.

Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for her response. I hope that she will send someone in her place if she cannot make it. Regrettably, a lot of people from across our communities will hear in her answer a refusal to attend that does not fulfil her cross-community duty, in the spirit of respect and reconciliation, to represent everyone across our society. Sadly, that is what many people will hear in your answer, which is in stark contrast with the leadership that our First Minister for all showed at yesterday's event. It is an extremely stark contrast.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: That was quite a lengthy statement. I will not rise to political point-scoring.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Will you take your seat? I am in the Chair here. OK? Do not tell me how to chair. If you do not like a decision, go to the Speaker's Office. Continue.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am sorry. I was interrupted.

As I indicated, that characterisation is unfair. Given that the matter is so serious, I will not get involved in what is an attempt to score political points. I have gone to events throughout Northern Ireland, and I have gone to events on my own, such as when I went to Normandy to pay tribute, despite the fact that 70,000 soldiers from what is now the Republic of Ireland also served there. I paid tribute to those soldiers, too. Likewise, there are events that Michelle, as First Minister, attends on her own, and there are things that we have done together. A generous approach would be to recognise that both of us have been out there talking to people from across Northern Ireland. I will always do my part, but I ask you to respect the fact that 11 November is a hugely important day in my community, which includes so many people who served, and that, in this case, I am unable to attend an event because of an invitation from His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen to pay tribute to veterans. There will be future opportunities to engage with the new president of Ireland and, indeed, to build relationships east-west and North/South.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for that important question. It is really unfortunate that there have been comments in this place in relation to that matter. We need to be very careful about the limitations of the role of the head of the Civil Service. She has confirmed that she is only engaged in fact-finding and does not have a role in such investigations or inquiries. It is always important to recognise that it is the Minister who takes the decisions in their Department.

As you said, the leader of the Opposition has written to the head of the Civil Service seeking certain information on and an assessment of whether the NICS code of ethics has been breached. I am very clear that, while the head of the Civil Service may wish to provide him with factual information, as she would to anyone who corresponds with her, she is not accountable to the leader of the Opposition, and she is not empowered to sit in judgement of a democratically elected Minister of Education.

Mr Brooks: I make a declaration of interest, having been on the trip to Israel. Will the deputy First Minister clarify for the leader of the Opposition that the accountability of Ministers is to the House and not with him trying to politicise civil servants?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As indicated, I feel that it was inappropriate for the head of the Civil Service to have been brought into the matter by others in this place. Indeed, I have no doubt that the head of the Civil Service would not want to put herself in the middle of what is essentially a political argument. She has a formal, professional role as head of the Civil Service, and that role absolutely does not include any investigation into Ministers or Ministers' decisions.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. He has been a champion for our farming industry for so many years in this place. This is an important issue not just for the farming community but for pet owners. Many people are getting notifications indicating that, from January 2026, they will no longer be able to buy their pet medication online from GB suppliers. The UK Government must address the issue urgently.

We have an indication from the UK Government that they are moving in the direction of getting an agreement with the EU, particularly in relation to sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. In my view, that should remove any of the European Union's apprehensions or concerns that prevent a resolution on veterinary medicines from going ahead. As the First Minister will know, I have raised the outstanding issue on veterinary medicines at every single opportunity with the UK Government, whether that is with Nick Thomas–Symonds, the Prime Minister or our Secretary of State. The clock is ticking. The issue needs to be resolved. It will add significantly to the costs that pet owners have to pay for essential medicines for their animals. It will add lots of costs for our farming community and vets. We need to get the issue resolved. I call on the UK Government to act urgently to get the matter resolved immediately and to prevent the grace period from ending and the crisis continuing into 2026.

Mr Irwin: I thank the deputy First Minister for her response and for her efforts on the matter. The deputy First Minister will be aware that a large number of vaccines are used by the intensive farming sectors. Does she agree that it would be a serious issue if those medicines were not available?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is really important because, first, while we oppose the Windsor framework, it indicated agreement that there would be limited or no diversion of trade, but what we are seeing with veterinary medicines is an entire diversion of trade to other markets and away from the GB market. That needs to be addressed. Secondly, others may say that we have reduced the proportion of medicines affected to 5% or 10%, but, if you are a dog owner or you have a companion animal that is reliant on the drugs that are among that 5% to 10%, that is everything to you, and the cost is very significant.

We know that many people across Northern Ireland, particularly older people, rely on their companion animal for tackling loneliness as a best friend that they love and care about deeply.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, deputy First Minister.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: They do not have a lot of money to put towards excessive costs. This need to be addressed.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Time is up, deputy First Minister.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There are no points of order during Question Time. Take your seat.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will respond to questions 1 and 2 together.

I am committed to implementing the Police Remuneration Review Body's recommendations in respect of the 2025 police pay award as soon as possible. As Members are aware, public sector pay awards must meet the affordability test before they can be implemented. I have been consistent in advocating for police officer pay to be placed on an equal footing with other public sector workers. As a result of those representations, I was pleased to secure additional provisional allocations from the Executive specifically for police officer pay in October on the same basis as Health. Even with that additional funding, however, the PSNI remains unable to confirm affordability for the pay award at this time.

I am fully aware of the commitment given by the Health Minister that health workers can expect payment of their award in February 2026. The consequence is that funding will be deducted from the Health budget in the next financial year. That will, no doubt, have an impact in future years. While I am keen to ensure that police officers are treated on a par with other public sector workers, such decisions have wide-ranging implications for justice delivery.

I will continue to work with the Chief Constable to explore options to allow the PSNI to demonstrate affordability for the pay review body's recommendations. I can assure the Chamber that the successful implementation of the police officer pay award remains a priority for me as Justice Minister, and I am confident that the award will be realised by the end of this year.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her answer. I wish her well in ensuring that police officers get their well-deserved pay award in the near future.

The Minister went on record in the media last week as saying that the fact that the PSNI is unable to take industrial action did not mean that the police should be at the end of the queue when it comes to funding. I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. Should the 1,600 police support staff decide to strike, what impact that would have on front-line policing functions?

Mrs Long: I am sorry; I did not catch all of the question, but I think it was referring to the police support staff potentially going on strike. Of course, the rationale for doing so is not to do with pay, because their pay has already been realised in-year. The issue there is to do with the settlement of the data breach claims. As I have done in the past when there have been disputes with staff or with any other sector, I urge people not to withdraw their services and go on strike but to work with me so that we can find the resources to make those payments.

It is important that the police are properly resourced, and that includes their pay. That is why I set money aside at the beginning of the year, when I was making my allocations, to allow for pay. The pay review body, however, came back with a significantly higher allocation than expected, which left us with something of a gap to fill. The Chief Constable and I have been working hard to look at ways that we can do that. The Department and the PSNI are looking at some of the savings that we are trying to make, and I am pretty confident that we will be able to do that in-year. That is a better place to be than entering next year with an overspend and, essentially, having that trickle on into future years.

Mr Clarke: I share the Minister's optimism about the pay settlement for the police, and I hope that we are both right to have that optimism. My question goes much wider, however, because it is about police funding as a whole. We all know about the pressures that policing faces at the moment. Is she as optimistic that something can be done to resolve some of the outstanding issues, in particular the big-ticket items that have featured in the media most recently?

Mrs Long: The Member will be aware that, when it comes to Justice funding in general, I have said on many occasions that we have seen an increase that is well below inflation; in fact, had we matched inflation over the last 10 years, Justice would have around £225 million in addition to what we have at the moment. That would have been a game changer when it comes to things such as injury to feelings, pensions issues, holiday pay and, indeed, the data breach. Those are things that at a better time, perhaps, we could have absorbed, but we are not in a position to do that now.

I continue to engage with the Department of Finance, the Executive more widely, the NIO and Treasury, because, in addition to the issues of which we have been apprised already, there are the issues of legacy, the cost of policing and the pressure on the wider justice system coming down the tracks as a result of new legislation. We need to work out a sustainable model that allows us to have a Police Service that is properly resourced for its primary task but, at the same time, does not eat up the entire Justice budget, which would mean not being able to have courts, prisons and all the other facilities that we need to provide.

If I may, with your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will correct, for the record, something that I said to Mr Clarke last week. He asked about the release of an individual on pre-release testing. I said that that person was time-served on their tariff; in fact, they were not time-served but approaching that point, which is why their pre-release testing had been started. Apologies to the House if anyone was misled by what I said.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Chambers: Given that pay issues may have a negative effect on police morale and, possibly, on police recruitment, what is the Minister's assessment of whether 7,000 police officers by 2027 be achieved?

Mrs Long: Pay will, undoubtedly, have an impact on morale; there is no question about that. As I said, however, there are things other than pay and the speed at which people get their uplift that will impact on morale in the PSNI. The contractual pay arrangements have already been implemented. Since those are unavoidable, I have split them from the PRRB recommendations so that officers now automatically get their contractual uplift each October. That will have been received and will, hopefully, go some way to easing the pressure on officers.

I want to see two things, however. First, I want to see pay realised in-year for officers and in their pockets as quickly as we can make that happen. Secondly, I want to put the wider system, including the PSNI, on a sustainable footing. That means that, as we come up on our three-year Budget, the Executive will need to commit to what has already been indicated to me as a priority: the recovery plan. We need that to be written into the Budget for next year.

Far be it from me to speak on behalf of the Department of Finance and the Finance Minister when it comes to making those allocations, but he has so far indicated to me that that is his intention. Given that it meets the value-for-money criteria, it would make sense for us to do that. When he has made such promises, he has, to date, stood over them, so I can only rely on that.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I am sure that most Members in the House will agree with your broad position, which is shared by other Ministers and, indeed, by the Chief Constable, that the Treasury should meet the reserve claim for the data breach. However, if we are to assume the worst from the Treasury, which is probably a good position to take, what planning is happening between you and the Finance Minister on a plan B?

Mrs Long: We do not know when the matter will crystallise. Our preference is to settle it as soon as possible, but we do not know whether it will crystallise this year or next. It is important that we do not set aside money this year and hold it until the last minute, because we will end up having to return it to the Treasury or to negotiate with the Treasury over a budget exchange scheme, which it is often not willing to do at Executive level.

We are looking at other options. For example, is there an option to convert capital into revenue that would allow us to pay a one-off sum? We are also looking at what options we have to negotiate with the Treasury on how to pay back any call on the reserve. A number of things are there, but, at the end of the day, the Executive will have to look at their overall Budget next year, deduct any projected overspends that are still in place at the end of the year and then look at the other pressures and decide where to allocate money. I will be one of the Ministers at the table and will make the case for this being a priority, but the agreement of all Ministers will be required for that to happen.

Mrs Long: Delivery of the child protection disclosure scheme is an operational matter for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The scheme enables information to be disclosed to members of the public where it is necessary to protect children or a child from serious harm. The information may be requested by any member of the public and will be disclosed by the police, where it is appropriate to do so.

My Department is responsible for the overarching legal framework. I note that the disclosure scheme is in line with the requirements of article 50 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 and with statutory guidance that my Department published in accordance with that legislation.

Such public protection-related matters are kept under review. Notwithstanding that it is for the PSNI to run the disclosure scheme, I want to reiterate the message that I have given before, which is that, if anyone is concerned about potential harm to a child or children, it is incumbent on them that, in the first instance, they contact the police.

Mr Frew: The Minister has failed to answer my question, even though she had time to get the data that I seek. That does nothing to assuage my concerns that the Department of Justice and, indeed, the PSNI are refusing to promote the child protection disclosure scheme, meaning that parents are the last to know if there is a risk to their child. Will the Minister commit to informing the House of her plans to promote the child protection disclosure scheme in the future so that parents will not be the last to know?

Mrs Long: The first thing to say when it comes to points of order on this is that the data is not held by my Department, and there is an extant ruling from the Speaker that, when it comes to operational PSNI matters, I am not required to seek that data or to present it here as though it were my own.
The second thing to say is that, possibly with the sole exception of the Member who asked the question, I have been one of the few MLAs who, when others have asked for disclosure of the names and addresses of all sex offenders, has repeatedly raised in the Chamber the fact that those disclosure schemes are available, the public can use them, the PSNI has a right to tell and the public have a right to ask. I do not have a budget to be able to promote the scheme. If the PSNI believes that the scheme is being underutilised, it can, of course, choose to prioritise some of its resources, but, given what we discussed during the last question, I think that I have made every effort throughout the past 18 months to make people aware of the scheme and to promote it. I encourage other MLAs to do so as well, because the scheme works well for public protection.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, will you outline what further steps you are taking to strengthen the statutory sex offender notification requirements?

Mrs Long: Home Office Ministers provide us with opportunities to further strengthen and streamline the current sex offender notification requirements by extending provisions proposed in the Crime and Policing Bill. As Members will appreciate, providing a consistent UK-wide approach to sex offender risk management is paramount to supporting wider public protection. I have secured the legislative consent of the Assembly for the greater part of the proposed provisions, for which I am grateful, and I intend to bring forward a further legislative consent motion (LCM) early in the new year to enable the introduction of some further provisions in Northern Ireland. Those include, for example, the need to notify a new name no less than seven days in advance of it being used; the requirement to notify at least 12 hours in advance before entering qualifying premises where children are present; and the requirement to seek the approval of the police to apply for certain identity replacement documents, if they are in a new name. Instead of the need to amend this by way of statutory rule, we are now looking at the list of prescribed police stations where an offender must notify and at the ability for notification to be given virtually in certain circumstances but only where particular conditions are met. We are doing all that with a focus on not only trying to streamline how we manage sex offenders but how we ensure that the public are fully protected.

We are also looking at the ability of a police officer to consider whether relevant offenders should remain subject to indefinite notification requirements without the need for an application to be made from the relevant offender and at the ability for an application for a warrant for power of entry and search of an offender's home to be made by a court officer of at least the rank of inspector. Considerable work is ongoing in that space, because we will all agree that we want our children and, indeed, wider society to be properly protected from predators.

Mrs Long: With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 4 and 13 together.

Restorative justice is a well-established practice in Northern Ireland, both in the formal youth justice system and through community-based initiatives. It aims to address the harm and/or trauma caused by crime by involving victim, perpetrator and community and supporting dialogue to repair the harm caused and promote healing. It also emphasises the importance of supported rehabilitation in order to reduce the risk of further offending.

Restorative justice has been at the core of the youth justice system here for over two decades, and a range of independent reports and Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) inspections have recognised those benefits.? Learning from the youth conferencing process is being used to develop and extend the use of restorative approaches in the adult justice system.

The two currently accredited community organisations have played an important role in promoting community safety, repairing relationships and reducing antisocial behaviour. They work in partnership with justice partners to deliver restorative approaches to harm that does not meet the criminal threshold. They have also played a key role in the development of the new accreditation arrangements as part of the restorative justice working group.

My Department has been delivering on the commitments in the adult restorative justice strategy since its launch in 2022, including through the publication of the revised restorative justice protocol in 2023, a key aspect of which is the development of new practice standards and an accreditation framework to govern the delivery of future restorative work. That framework developed by my Department in the interim protocol lead was published on 17 October 2025 and aligned with the launch of the application process for those wishing to become accredited. That application window will be open for six weeks, closing on Friday 28 November. Once the applications close, the protocol lead and an independent suitability panel will assess and make recommendations on the appropriate level of accreditation. A register of accredited organisations and practitioners will be published on the departmental website early in 2026.

Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for that. We are blessed to have Northern Ireland Alternatives headquarters in our constituency of North Belfast. Under the leadership of Debbie Watters OBE, its work right across Northern Ireland has been vital. Will the Minister commit to continuing to work with Northern Ireland Alternatives and Community Restorative Justice (CRJ) to ensure that we can continue to deliver that important role throughout Northern Ireland?

Mrs Long: We intend to create, essentially, a pyramid of access for all restorative justice. At the top of that, the highest-qualified and most experienced providers will deal the most sensitive cases where restorative justice may be appropriate. At the bottom of that, there will be a much wider group, with much higher numbers, that will deal with more community-based restorative interventions rather than justice referrals. In between, there will be stages of accreditation for people to be able to develop themselves personally in their chosen way.

I am committed to continuing to work with all those who go through the accreditation process, who engage with the formal justice system, and who do so with integrity but also with connections in the community and the ability to engage people on the ground in a way in which, perhaps, the formal justice system is not always fully able to do. Crucial for me is the ability to engage with the PSNI, the courts, probation and others to ensure that the decisions that are made around restorative justice bring about changes in behaviour but also leave victims feeling that they have got the outcome that they wish and deserve.

Mr McMurray: Will the Minister explain how the work will be supported by the new restorative hub that her Department is establishing with the Probation Board?

Mrs Long: The new restorative hub will be integral to the delivery of adult restorative justice services. The benefits of the hub are that practitioners can co-facilitate their referrals to gather experience, participate in group training and professional supervision, and contribute to a monthly community of practice. It is about allowing all those who work in the sector to share their experience and skills and, hopefully, to find some economies of scale when it comes to training and development. All that is critical to ensure consistent and high-quality delivery of restorative justice. The hub is going to be managed by the independent referrals body — it will sit within the Probation Board's victim unit, because the hub has to be victim-centred — as a well-established and neutral statutory organisation with expertise that can deliver those services. The Probation Board works in perpetrator-victim conferencing, and it is really important that it brings that to bear and work with others in the community who may be able to become more engaged in the formal justice process as a result.

Mr Beattie: Restorative justice is one of those areas that I am really glad that we are talking about. It is incredibly important. Will the Minister look at adult restorative justice forming part of the sentencing framework in the new sentencing Bill?

Mrs Long: Adult restorative justice is already allowed for in the policy and the statement that we have already made. We have already launched the strategy and an action plan. It is already being dealt with. It is hard to put it on a statutory footing, because restorative practice can take a multiplicity of forms. To try to prescribe that in legislation would be difficult. However, it is part of our overall strategy for the delivery of justice, engaging particularly with the levels of satisfaction of victims within the justice system and also in our overall reoffending and desistance strategy. From my perspective, it is well covered in the strategy that we already have in place and in the considerable work that has been done through the working group to deliver the new structures that will, hopefully, allow it now to take on a new level and have more momentum and dynamism than it had in the past.

Miss Hargey: Minister, you spoke about the new pyramid system of accreditation. The Committee heard the concerns of Community Restorative Justice Ireland and NI Alternatives about level 1, the ethos of adhering to the peace process, working with the PSNI etc and the fact that there may be gaps. Can you assure us that that will not be the case?

Mrs Long: Given the work that has been done, which both Community Restorative Justice Ireland and Alternatives were involved in as part of the working group, we are fairly confident that those areas are covered.

When I talk about the different levels, to be clear, some of the people whom we are talking about at the top of that pyramid where you will have very few practitioners will be in cases, for example, of rape or murder — so very serious offences — and some restorative practice may be necessary there. For example, we have been approached by and have examples of victims who want to sit down with the perpetrator and have a conversation with them, and restorative justice can allow them to do that in a way that is meaningful, respectful and victim centred. That would be at the very apex, if you like, of difficulty. Then there would be stuff that is not justice but is more about restorative practice, such as community dispute resolution and other things, so it would not have reached that. Between that, there will be a whole scale from diversionary conferencing with young people to the work that the Probation Board does with offenders post the point where they have been convicted and so on. There will be opportunities for organisations to upskill and to go through those layers of accreditation. Some of the practitioners that we have in Northern Ireland are amongst the most skilled that you will find anywhere on these islands. I believe that we should use that resource to best effect.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Long: The majority of provisions in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 have now been commenced. However, work to implement a few outstanding measures is still in train, one of which is section 27, which makes provision for my Department to make regulations on protective measures for victims of abuse; in particular, domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs) and domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs).

I have already set out the challenges that my Department has encountered in trying to develop a DAPN and DAPO model for Northern Ireland that will enhance the protections available to victims of domestic abuse whilst being operationally viable and affordable. My officials are continuing to work with partners, including the PSNI, to resolve the challenges, with a view to launching a DAPN/DAPO pilot in the next financial year. The model will take into consideration the specific Northern Ireland context, including operational capacity, cost and, most importantly, the needs of victims. Fact-finding visits to pilot areas in Croydon and greater Manchester have been valuable in informing policy development. The aim is to agree a preferred pilot model with delivery partners by the end of this financial year.

The Member may like to write to me, because there are, I think, about four other sections that still have to be commenced in order for delivery. It would be better to put those in writing rather than prevail on the patience of Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, is there a timeline for or further information on when the prohibition of cross-examination in person in civil and family proceedings will be implemented? What work has been done to date on the Criminal Justice Inspection's (CJI) recommendation to develop the role of specialist domestic abuse prosecutors?

Mrs Long: I am glad that I do not have to write to you, because that was the next part of my answer, and I just thought that it was too long as I was working my way through it.

First, work is continuing on section 32, which places a requirement on the Department to publish a statement setting out information about the level of participation by personnel and staff in domestic abuse training. The Department has already published two training statements in line with that requirement, and work is well advanced to finalise the third report. That is one way in which we can increase expertise. You will appreciate that not everyone in that cohort will be an expert provider, but it is important that all first responders and those who are in contact with people in the system have a basic level of knowledge.

Work is also continuing on sections 36 and 38, which provide for the prohibition of cross-examination in person in family and civil proceedings, and section 39, which requires court rules to make specific provisions for special measures for victims of specified offences in civil proceedings. Our focus with those provisions continues to be on implementation in family proceedings, as that will have the greatest impact for victims. The provision relating to court rules on special measures for victims of domestic abuse in section 37 has already been implemented, and the drafting of the secondary legislation that is required in support of the prohibition on cross-examination in person provision is under way. Subject to emerging priorities and to securing the necessary funding for the court-appointed legal representatives, the aim is to commence that provision during this business year.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that detailed update. Will she provide an update on the latest round of funding under the domestic and sexual abuse strategy small grant scheme?

Mrs Long: Yes. Projects that offer vital support to victims and survivors of domestic and sexual abuse have recently received funding from my Department and the Department of Health. A total of £259,091 has been allocated across 10 organisations by the scheme for 2025-26. That money will enable them to deliver a range of services, including trauma-informed counselling, crisis de-escalation therapy and one-to-one legal advice clinics. Those interventions play an important role in helping individuals recognise harmful behaviours, seek support at an early stage and navigate what can often be a challenging and complex process. The community and voluntary sector continues to demonstrate innovation and dedication in its working with victims and survivors. It is important that we continue to fund the sector and that we try to ensure that it can bring its expertise to bear.

The domestic and sexual abuse strategy small grant scheme is a key initiative under the jointly led domestic and sexual abuse strategy. It supports organisations that are represented on the domestic and sexual abuse expert reference group and on the five domestic and sexual violence and abuse partnerships. We have made the second round of awards, so the total funding that has been allocated under the scheme to date is £568,718.

Mrs Long: I welcome the publication of 'Drug Related Intimidation in Northern Ireland', which was commissioned by the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime (EPPOC) and delivered by the Public Health Agency, and was pleased to be at its launch with Minister Nesbitt. The report shines a light on and recognises the seriousness and impact of drug-related intimidation on individuals, families and communities right across Northern Ireland. It provides a valuable evidence base and highlights the complexity of the challenges involved, including the role of organised crime, paramilitary influence and the vulnerabilities of those affected. It also demonstrates the widespread and pervasive impact of the harm caused by drug-related intimidation. Nearly 40% of the general population are aware of suspected or real drug-related intimidation happening in the community, and one in eight reports direct experience of it in the past three years, involving either themselves, someone known to them or a family member.

The Department is already progressing a number of measures that will help address the report's findings. They include introducing new offences in legislation such as participating in and directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group and developing new legislation to address the vulnerabilities created by cuckooing and child criminal exploitation. Work is also under way to improve child referrals to the national referral mechanism concerning child criminal exploitation. The work of the speeding up justice programme focuses on reducing delay, and we are working on the sentencing review, proposals from which I hope to introduce later this year. There is much more to do, however, and, over the coming months, my officials will engage with the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime team and wider criminal justice partners to consider the recommendations in more detail. I also note that the outworkings of the report go wider than the Department of Justice, and I am committed to working with all sectors, including health, housing, education and community organisations, to build safer, more resilient communities.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her response. Minister, you highlighted the fact that drug-related intimidation is not only an issue for policing and justice. Will you outline how you plan to work with other Ministers in the areas that you mentioned in order to respond to the PHA's findings?

Mrs Long: Even the report itself is a collaboration between two Departments. The Executive programme now has a ministerial advisory panel. All Ministers are invited to participate in the panel, which allows them to get direct briefings and to feed into the issues that are raised. All Ministers were also invited to attend the panel's launch, but I realise that not all of them will be available and that people will prioritise engagements. It is important that, as an Executive, we see that there are societal and criminal elements of drug-related intimidation that need to be dealt with. There are also wider issues around mental health and addiction that need to be dealt with in a therapeutic environment, as opposed to their being viewed simply through a criminal justice lens.

We know that health issues, housing issues and other issues can become incredibly strained when people are extorted because of drugs or when they struggle or fail to maintain making payments to their dealer. Unfortunately, the intimidation and coercive control that people can exert in those circumstances is bleak.

It can be life-changing, and it is certainly life-destroying for many people. It is important that, as an Executive, we work collectively to try and avoid it happening.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to topical questions.

Mrs Long: First, I share the concerns that many in the House will have about the reports that they have read over the weekend. My officials have been engaging intensively on the issue with colleagues in the PSNI, and I have spoken to the Chief Constable to seek clarity on it. I am somewhat constrained in what I can say because we are midway through an active police investigation. I would not want anything that I say in the Chamber to jeopardise any future lines of inquiry that the investigation might have, but it is fair to say that the matter is incredibly serious, and it is being treated as such by the Chief Constable. That is as much as I want to put on the record for now, other than to say that I have conveyed my concerns to him on the potential threat that it represents to public safety.

Mr McGlone: Thank you, Minister. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber shares concern about 40,000 bullets going missing. Does you support an independent inquiry into how it happened?

Mrs Long: I do not want to be specific about the number of rounds of ammunition that are involved. I do not think that we can be specific on that at this time as there have been conflicting reports, so it would not be helpful to try to be. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of a criminal investigation by launching a public inquiry, because that would put the cart before the horse. The first thing that we need to do is allow the PSNI to conclude the criminal investigation that is under way. If, at that stage, there are wider questions that need to be asked, there will be an opportunity for the Policing Board and me to drill down into those and decide the best means of ascertaining the full facts. For now, it is important to let justice take its course.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for her question. My officials were engaging intensively over the weekend to clarify the specific actions that the CBA membership plans to take with immediate effect this week. The Bar Council confirmed the definition and scope of the planned action late yesterday afternoon. Over the weekend, there was a lack of clarity on the matter within the criminal Bar and between the Bar and ourselves, which is incredibly concerning. I understand that a number of CBA members were planning to withdraw from all Crown Court cases from today, which only serves to demonstrate the vulnerability of those people who turn up at court and face the lottery of whether a barrister will take their case. The fact that such a course of action was even being considered is profoundly concerning.

I had a positive meeting with both arms of the profession last week, which makes this all the more depressing. At that meeting, I reaffirmed my commitment to bringing forward enhanced legal aid fees and ongoing engagement. Officials in the Department and Judge Burgess have been working tirelessly to bring the previous partial withdrawal of services by the CBA to an end. Since the CBA clarified why it had engaged in a partial withdrawal of service, its conditions have, essentially, been met.

I understand that, over the weekend, for the second time in three months, the entire executive committee of the CBA resigned. I am not going to get into the internal machinations of, or politics within, the criminal Bar. There are enough politics in this place to keep me fully occupied. I want to ensure that the criminal Bar continues to take instructions in complex cases and moves away from its current partial withdrawal of service. Crucially, I want to ensure that victims, particularly the most vulnerable victims, are able to access justice in a timely fashion. I am committed to doing that. I believe that the people with whom I spoke last week were genuine in their commitment to doing that, and I hope that we can proceed with that by the end of the month, as anticipated.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. Will you please outline the impact that the ongoing withdrawal of service has had on victims, witnesses and the wider justice system?

Mrs Long: Any additional delay obviously impacts on the justice system, not only on victims and witnesses but on defendants, many of whom are being held on remand, which means that there will be a knock-on impact on our prison system. Some 132 cases were listed to be heard across the Crown Court today. In light of the decision emerging late yesterday afternoon, they have not been impacted on by the withdrawal of service.

The specific actions being taken today have varied. At the moment, it seems that only new cases are not being taken in the action, but that will clearly have an impact down the line. The specific actions being taken by CBA members have varied somewhat since the withdrawal of service commenced last December. Since March, members have refused to take new instructions in murder and serious sex offence cases, but, as I said, that has now been extended to all Crown Court cases with effect from today. That puts more stress on the criminal justice system and court business, and it wastes scarce resources. It is time that the Criminal Bar Association made its intentions clear. I have worked with the solicitors' criminal Bar, with the Law Society and, indeed, with the Bar Council more generally to address some of the genuine issues that they have. I am willing to do that with the criminal Bar, but there has to be some sense of putting victims back at the heart of the discussions that we are having and of ensuring that we can do so while still providing the service for which people rightly seek to be paid.

Mrs Long: I am aware of the discussions that have been taking place on that matter, and you are aware of the Department's position, which very much reflects my view. There is a balance to be struck in all these things, and I will be happy to engage with the Committee on the way to handle the situation. It is important that there is clarity on what the orders will look like. That is one of the things that we are trying to do by replacing the multiplicity of orders and conditions with something that will be much more streamlined and easily understood by the young people themselves. Knowing when an order will end is also important so that young people will know that there is a finite timeline of engagement.

I understand the arguments that are being made about the order's minimum length. The crux is to have long enough to engage and build trust with the young person involved and their family to be able to effect a difference. A bit like with sentencing, if the orders are too short, that does not allow us to do the rehabilitation work that we want to do, and we would be better off working through those things in the community.

Mr Baker: Thank you, Minister. What steps will the Department take to monitor and assess whether the new youth custody and supervision orders are being used as a measure of last resort?

Mrs Long: We can do a number of things. For example, we can look at the practice that already happens in the youth justice sector. Very few young people are now held in a custodial environment other than those who choose not to make their bail conditions, which some do because they do not feel safe returning to the community, or those who have committed potentially very serious offences that would require a public protection response. That commitment has been shown by making sure that we do the earliest possible intervention. You will be aware of the work that youth justice does in, for example, providing supplementary work in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) for young people at risk of offending and working with those who are right on the boundary between getting themselves into serious trouble and not doing so. That is a measure of the commitment of the people who work in the Youth Justice Agency to ensure that, insofar as we can, we divert young people from the criminal justice sector and, crucially, from criminality. We are trying to protect those young people from becoming involved in activities that will mark them potentially for the rest of their lives, because we know that people graduate through the system, and that is not good for them or their community. It is in all our interests to support that.

Mrs Long: I am somewhat concerned that I might end up stealing the thunder of the Members immediately to my right if I start announcing my intentions today, because I think that there will be a debate on that next week.

Fireworks legislation in Northern Ireland is some of the most robust in these islands for rather obvious purposes. There are reasons why we have concerns. Some people love fireworks, and some people hate them. As a dog owner, I understand the stress that they can cause to animals in particular. However, we have robust legislation in place. I also have limited resources, and I would have to take those resources away from something else to do that piece of work. I am not entirely sure, therefore, that it would be the appropriate way forward.

Other Members have mentioned the sentencing review during Question Time. We hope to launch that during the autumn. We may be able to do something around penalties and enforcement as part of the sentencing review that would mean that those who breach our, currently quite robust, regulations could then be held to account in a way that, perhaps, would be more of a deterrent.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. Every year, at this time of year, we hear, more and more, about family pets being extremely stressed due to fireworks. Will she consider the introduction of low-noise fireworks?

Mrs Long: The Member is almost channelling what I was thinking in my head but had not managed to say in my original answer. When I write to people on the issue, I always promote the use of low-noise fireworks. There is also the opportunity to have some pretty amazing displays using drones and not using fireworks at all. The number of organised fireworks displays has actually dropped dramatically since the 1970s and 1980s because the cost of fireworks has risen exponentially. Therefore, there is a balance to be struck.

As I said, I understand people’s concerns about pets. Over the Halloween period, the Agriculture Minister and I spent quite a bit of time sharing advice and guidance with animal owners on how to ensure that they could do their best to keep their pets safe. Obviously, my personal preference, as well as my preference for animals, would be to have low-noise fireworks. Fireworks noise is a problem. We cannot be prescriptive, though, because not all low-noise fireworks would be suitable for every occasion. However, a reduction in the number of fireworks licences that are being granted is indicative of the fact that many people are moving to other kinds of celebratory displays to avoid the use of, or over-reliance on, fireworks.

Mrs Long: That is one area of sentencing where more robust sentencing for breaches of the licensing regulations could actually be quite helpful in making it clear that, while it will not justify what is a relatively expensive business, there will be consequences for that. That is one element of it.

The other element is investigation. The most annoying situation is not actually the organised fireworks displays that are well advertised and well notified — often, we can put notification requirements on when people purchase fireworks — but the individual bangers that go off at random times of the day and night. That is traumatic for many people. It is frightening for older people and those who, for example, because of their history, have a fear of bangs, loud noises and so on. Young people with autism and neurodiverse people can find it quite distressing, as can animals. Therefore, there is a wider issue. It is about trying to decide how we can bring balance to it so that those of us who enjoy fireworks — I confess that I enjoy a good fireworks display as much as anyone else — are able to do so safely and in a way that does not overly impinge on the rights of those who just want a quiet night at home without random bangers going off in the neighbourhood.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for her answer. You talked about the fact that the regulations are some of the most robust anywhere. However, they are over 20 years old. Fireworks have moved on in both their strength and noise. Some of them are approaching the likes of explosives. Perhaps, that could be looked at. Is there also an opportunity, perhaps, through a pilot project with a policing and community safety partnership (PCSP) somewhere, to look at how we could tackle that better at a local level?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have exactly 70 seconds in which to respond.

Mrs Long: Certainly: anywhere where there is a particular local issue that needs to be addressed, I would encourage PCSPs to engage and try to find solutions. I am always open to solutions if people come to me with them. Unfortunately, more often than not, they come to me with problems.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I was going to go to Alan Chambers for a question, since the Minister was so quick, if he wants in quickly. No? OK.

Point of order. Thank you, Minister.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. During questions to the Executive Office, the deputy First Minister and her colleague Mr Brooks accused me of politicising the head of the Civil Service and the Civil Service in general by writing to the head of the Civil Service with questions about the Civil Service code that were raised by Mr Givan's trip, when the Chair of the Economy Committee, Phillip Brett, has also written to the head of the Civil Service, exactly as I have, and the Education Minister has, on occasions including today, publicised his permanent secretary's opinion. Is that appropriate commentary from DUP Members?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that is a point of order, but, happily, the Speaker is standing here. While such issues are serious, it is starting to sound like, "Nyah-nyah, nyah-nyah nyah" from the lot of you — seriously. I advise you to write to the Speaker to get your point of order responded to in writing, Matthew.

Miss McAllister: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, during Question Time last week, I missed my allotted slot. I gambled with my time at an event and did not get to the Chamber in time. I apologise.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You should be barred for a week, Nuala. Fair play to you. Anyway, the Speaker is here, thank God.

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

Mr Speaker: Are you serious?

Mr Brooks: Yes.

Mr Speaker: OK.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I ask you to rule on remarks made by the leader of the Opposition in the earlier debate about the Minister's visit to Israel. He was entirely incorrect to say that the chief executive of the Education Authority was foisted on its board against its will: that board voted to support the move. The Member made that factually inaccurate statement in the Chamber knowing full well that, if he were to make it outside the Chamber, it would be actionable.

Mr Speaker: All Members know that we in the Speaker's Office are not fact checkers. Sometimes, people who claim that they are fact checkers are not very good at it. It has been demonstrated that BBC Verify, for example, is not great at fact-checking, even though it has 60 people. We do not have the capacity in the Speaker's Office to fact-check everything that everybody says, but the Member has made his point. We will move on.

Mr Speaker: Nick Mathison has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Education.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): First, I apologise to the House: I walked between the Minister of Justice and Mr Stewart while she was speaking to him. I did not realise until afterwards, but I know that that is not normal protocol. My apologies for that.

Mr Speaker, I ask for an extra minute to answer the question for urgent oral answer, after which I will set out the financial context that my Department faces.

Education has been and remains significantly underfunded. That has been independently evidenced not only by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) in its last two comparisons of spend per pupil across the United Kingdom but, more recently, by the independent review of education's report 'Investing in a Better Future'. While the EA has been able to operate within budget in the past two financial years, it has been able to do so only because of significant additional in-year funding totalling £480 million in 2023-24 and £614 million in 2024-25. The Minister of Finance has strongly indicated that additional funding of that quantum will not be available in this financial year.

It is in that context that the Education Authority recently announced its savings plan in response to the unprecedented financial pressures facing the education sector this year. Currently, the EA faces an overcommitment of £280 million. As a result, the EA board has had to make difficult decisions to protect core statutory services, while implementing a number of measures aimed at reducing the EA's projected overspend. The decisions made by the EA board make will, inevitably, have operational implications for schools. Adjustments to home-to-school transport and the suspension of new education other than at school (EOTAS) referrals may place additional pressures on school leaders and staff, particularly in supporting pupils with complex needs. However, I can provide an assurance that the Education Authority is committed to working closely with schools to manage any changes and ensure that pupil welfare remains a priority. For parents, I recognise that the increase in school meal prices and changes to discretionary charges, such as music tuition, are regrettable and may cause concern. However, I reassure Members that pupils who receive free school meals will not be impacted. Those decisions of the Education Authority board have not been taken lightly and reflect the economic reality of operating within a strictly constrained budget whilst continuing to meet rising service demands associated with delivering statutory and policy obligations.

Since taking up this post in February last year, I have been and remain fully committed to advocating for additional resources for the education sector in Northern Ireland, which is chronically underfunded. I will continue to engage with parents, schools and Members to ensure that the most vulnerable children are supported and that, collectively, we all continue to press for a sustainable funding solution for the education sector.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. Obviously, we are all clear on the scale of the financial pressures both on education more widely and on the EA. Does the Minister accept that last week's announcement in a press release that was light on detail caused a degree of unnecessary alarm among parents, who did not understand the outworkings of the savings plan that was being announced? How will he ensure that the communication that parents now need, particularly on home-to-school transport, is delivered clearly so that they know where they stand?

Mr Givan: The Education Authority indicated that it planned to put out a press release. Obviously, there is an operational responsibility for the EA when it comes to managing its budget. I assure the Committee Chairman that my Department has been engaging extensively with the EA and repeatedly making the case that it needs to deliver on the opening budget that it received. I know that the EA board, on which all the political parties sit, has deliberated on a range of measures that the senior management team brought to it at board level. The outworkings of that were proposals that the EA board then approved and wanted to put into the public domain. However, where there are lessons to be learned about how that is communicated, we should, of course, learn those lessons.

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

Mr Speaker: There are no points of order during questions for urgent oral answer.

Mr Sheehan: I have asked the Minister a number of times for his response to the critical Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reports. We now have cuts relating to school dinners coming from the Education Authority, and the working poor will be hit hardest. For EOTAS placements, the most vulnerable will be hit, and, for music tuition, again the poor families will suffer. Is it not time that the Minister started thinking of the most vulnerable in our schools and realised that it is his financial mismanagement that is causing the problem here?

Mr Givan: The Member is wrong in his final point. In the original response, I highlighted the fact that in-year funding in 2023-24 was £480 million, which was beyond the opening baseline that the Department of Education received. In the last financial year, in-year funding was £614 million. That was additional to the opening budget settlement. In this financial year, I have found that there has been nowhere near that level of in-year funding being made available to the Department of Education.

The evidence of the underfunding is there, and I encourage the Member to listen to his school principals and the teaching trade unions. They make it clear that there is nowhere left from which they can cut. We need additional resources to be put into the Department of Education so that we can then assist the Education Authority. His members have looked at and supported those proposals. The board approved the proposals [Interruption.]

The board approved them. It is an operational responsibility of the Education Authority board. If the Members want to produce a minute showing where the Sinn Féin representatives on the Education Authority board opposed the proposals that were brought by the senior management team, they can do that, and I will stand corrected if Sinn Féin opposed them at an Education Authority board level.

Mr Brooks: Clearly, the Minister is sensitive to the concerns that some of the decisions will cause families across Northern Ireland. Some people would say that they might be looked at as controversial. On that basis, did the Minister consider bringing the decisions to the Executive?

Mr Givan: The Member is right. Reductions in public services, which cause harm, are controversial and significant, so, yes, I brought a paper to the Executive. The Education Authority board having made the proposals, I asked the Executive, if they had objections, to raise those objections. Indeed, one of my proposals in the paper to the Executive was that additional funding would be granted to the Department of Education so that the cuts would not need to take place. I note that Sinn Féin did not support that.

These matters are controversial and significant, and, indeed, if the expectation is that the current projected overcommitment of hundreds of millions of pounds needs to be implemented, that is a quarter of all teaching staff. Is that what Sinn Féin is now seeking when it talks about fiscal responsibility? It wants to see that level of cuts in the Department of Education and in our schools. It needs to be honest with the public, or it could join me in making the case for our schools to get the funding that they need. I will happily join Sinn Féin on that, but the points that it is making are not lost on many in the education sector. Sinn Féin demands cuts, but, as soon as a board takes forward those proposals, it is critical of those cuts.

Mr Stewart: Minister, it will be working parents who pick up the tab for this, and there is a lot of concern among them. Concern has also been raised to me by our fantastic cooks and kitchen staff, who are concerned that some cost-cutting exercises might reduce the quality and nutrient value of the food that is being sent to schools to be prepared. Can we get an assurance that that will not happen under any cost-cutting measures that will take place?

Mr Givan: The point is well made. Again, decisions on how food is sourced and so on are a matter for the EA in its operational responsibilities. There will be appropriate standards on the quality of food that needs to be presented. I absolutely readily admit that, for some families, some of whom have multiple children in a school, the increase in the cost of meals by 50p will create a level of financial hardship, particularly for those who do not qualify for free school meals. It is often those who nearly but not quite qualify — the working poor — who struggle most. I absolutely understand the challenges that that creates, but, again, I appreciate that the Education Authority and its board are grappling with significant financial pressures, and these are proposals that it has made.

Ms Hunter: Minister, understandably, parents are distressed about the 20% increase, particularly in the lead-up to Christmas, where every penny counts. Will you consider revisiting the threshold for free school meals, recognising that, as you said, Minister, working parents who have multiple children are under significant financial pressure?

Mr Givan: The Member makes the point for me. The financial pressure on the EA is an overcommitment of £280 million. In the Assembly, a Member gets up and says that we need to provide greater levels of subsidy: where from? Where, financially, do you want to take money off other Departments and help to address the financial pressures in the EA board? That is a question to countless Members around the Assembly.

Mr Baker wants to bring in a private Member's Bill on holiday hunger. That will cost £20 million. Where is he funding it from? I have every sympathy for him, but where is he funding it from? Has he spoken to John O'Dowd, the Finance Minister, to get the money? If Sinn Féin believes what it says, rather than tricking the people out there whom it claims to represent, it should be there fighting for their financial needs and pressures. You control the Minister of Finance: tell him to open up the wallet and provide the financial support to the people whom you claim to speak for. Is it just, again, a continued pantomime that Sinn Féin operates in? It tells one thing to the public, but, privately, my Department is being starved of the funding that it needs, and it is Sinn Féin that controls the Minister of Finance.

Mr Baker: Minister, I have a private Member's Bill, which you replied to me about at the beginning to tell me that you would not be supporting it, so I know where you stand.

The proposals made by the EA were brought to the board for noting; there was no decision. Why are you standing here trying to mislead the Assembly, once again?

Mr Givan: When it was brought forward to the board, did Sinn Féin representatives on the board vote against it?

Mr Baker: It was for noting.

Mr Givan: Did they vote against it?

Mr Baker: It was for noting.

Mr Givan: Again, this is the hypocrisy when it comes to Sinn Féin. It has members on a board, as do the Alliance Party, the DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party, and it is saying that a paper was brought forward for simply "noting". Pontius Pilate-like, it washes its hands of responsibility and says, "It's not us. It's the senior management who brought this forward to the board". What is the point in your board members being on the board, if they are just there to rubber-stamp? I do not rubber-stamp any decisions in my Department. I go through it, line by line, to see where the expenditure is, how it can be justified and where we need to find savings. That is why we find them. I would appreciate it if Sinn Féin could get its board members to apply a little bit more scrutiny when it comes to these proposals and to make sure that the measures are not falling on those who can least afford them.

Mr Middleton: The savings proposals from the EA, alongside the stark financial position that faces the Minister's Department, will rightly draw concern. It is not enough for Members to simply stand and point out the problems without ever coming forward with a single solution. What support has the Minister received from his ministerial colleagues to try to avoid the budgetary cuts that will face his Department if he does not receive the finance that he needs?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. The pressures that education has been under for a significant number of years are clear. That is something that I have raised repeatedly in my role as Minister of Education. I will continue to champion the needs of our schools and to fight the corner of our children in the face of difficult circumstances. That is why I tabled the draft Executive paper, on 14 October, that set out the critical position of my Department's finances and the actions that my Department would need to take in the absence of additional funding in order to significantly reduce the projected overcommitment in 2025-26. In that draft paper, I set out the savings that the EA was proposing and stressed that many would have an adverse impact on our most disadvantaged children and young people and on school communities more widely. Therefore, I struggle to express my disappointment at the failure of my Executive colleagues to recognise the crisis that is facing education. The Minister of Finance even questioned why I had brought the paper to the Executive, asserting that the Executive do not run my Department. I can reassure you, Mr Speaker, that I fully acknowledge my responsibility in running my Department, but I also recognise the collective responsibility that Ministers share to operate within the agreed Budget envelope. Given the prospect of an overspend at the Northern Ireland block grant level, it is vital that we work collectively to seek to minimise our collective overcommitment to the fullest extent possible. Therefore, I trust that all Ministers in the Executive will take that collective responsibility seriously and help to support me and, more importantly, our schools and children who need to have the support of the Executive and not just me as Education Minister.

Mr McMurray: Would a planned and communicated approach earlier in the financial year have been a more effective way of saving money and offsetting the resulting outworkings that the Minister has described?

Mr Givan: There was a series of reductions before devolution was restored. There were a number of savings, of which holiday hunger was one. Those reductions were made, before I was here, in order to help reduce the expenditure in the Department. I would love to be able to put more money into education to meet the needs of those people who deserve it, but the Executive are facing serious financial pressures collectively. One pressure is from the Department of Health and one will likely crystallise in the Department of Justice, next year, due to the data breach. That pressure will be to the tune of well over £100 million. If that is not met by the Treasury, it has to be met by the Executive collectively. As a result of some of those actions, pressure is placed on other Departments.

I want to see effective management within the EA when it comes to trying to address the financial pressures. That is why I brought a paper to the Executive, and that is why I seek the support of my Executive colleagues. I wish that they would all get behind doing what we can achieve collectively rather than engaging in some of the positioning that is happening in Sinn Féin's ranks. Its voters deserve better than that. The children whom it represents deserve better than that kind of political posturing, and its Ministers need to roll up their sleeves with me so that we can do all that we can to mitigate the pressures that we face as an Executive. Longer-term strategic decisions will need to be taken on workforce planning and transport policy, and there will not be a lot of appetite for that in the wider public domain, but legislative change is required. My Department continues to scope out measures for the medium- to long-term plans, but the short-term pressures are chronic and will have severe implications for our education system.

Mrs Mason: Minister, you have just said that we should listen to school leaders. Day in, day out, we are contacted by school leaders, who tell us just how stretched they are. A number of weeks ago, the EA sent them a letter to tell them to tighten the purse strings. We have heard about teachers spending their own money on resources, and now we hear the statement about cuts. Meanwhile, we have heard about all the wastage in the EA, such as money being spent on taxi journeys. How can you stand here and justify that? Will you listen to school leaders?

Mr Givan: I will not justify any wastage. My correspondence with the EA challenges it on the measures that it is taking and on its responsibility to ensure that it lives within its budget. That is documented. I regularly meet the EA, and I take my role very seriously. The overcommitment does not sit within my Department's core functions, nor does not sit within any arm's-length body other than the Education Authority, on the board of which we all have political representatives. It is a shared responsibility, and if Members listen to principals, as I do, they will hear them say that they need our support in order to be able to do more, and that is what we need to provide.

Join me in making every effort possible to stave off the hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts that will be made to our education system. What will the education system look like if those cuts take place? Cuts would have severe implications for the number of teachers in our workforce. Sinn Féin would rightly be the first to say, "We do not accept that", and I would agree with them. Cuts would have implications for expenditure on things such as school transport, and Sinn Féin's MLAs would be the first to demand that constituents need to get to school and may need a taxi to do so. I am asking whether there is a more efficient way in which to provide transport. I could give you hundreds of examples of correspondence from Members of the Assembly in which they have asked for more money to be spent on the education system, not less. The challenge for the Finance Minister is to determine how he will support me as I seek to support the school principals and our education system. I hope that he will rise to the challenge and support me.

Mr Harvey: Minister, if you were to balance the budget this year, what would that mean for the education sector?

Mr Givan: I have outlined some of what we need to do, but, because of the EA overcommitment, the Department will not be able to balance its books without additional investment. To deliver a balanced budget, any shortfall in the reduction secured through the cuts identified by the EA would have to come from other areas. The implications and practicalities of that are far-reaching. Balancing the budget could be delivered only through an extensive programme of voluntary and, inevitably, compulsory redundancies, which would ultimately need to be implemented with close to immediate effect. That would likely require a quarter of the teaching workforce to be made redundant, and such decisions would clearly have devastating consequences for our education system. That is why those matters are controversial and ought to be referred to the Executive. There are other Ministers in the Executive who should have referred matters because they were significant and controversial. I will comply with the ministerial code and ensure that the Executive deal with education matters that are controversial.

Mrs Guy: Minister, I am aware of an EOTAS centre servicing children in Lagan Valley that found out about the suspension of referrals only when the EA issued its press release. There had been no direct communication with it. Nine children from our constituency are now facing uncertainty. Minister, can you tell us what the changes to EOTAS referrals mean for those children with social, behavioural and emotional well-being issues who require that type of provision?

Mr Givan: The changes mean that less support is available. That is deeply regrettable and, indeed, unacceptable. Schools will have to do more to try to provide the young people with support. The Member's question crystallises the serious pressures in the Education budget. That is why, when the Assembly collectively discusses expenditure levels, I say that education should be one of the top priorities. We need to put our education system first; we need to put our children first. The consequences of not doing that are now being felt by the very children whom we are here to support. That is deeply regrettable. Greater collective responsibility is required in the Executive and then in the Assembly when it comes to the prioritisation and allocation of funding.

Mr Durkan: It is baffling but convenient that such a swathe of far-reaching cuts could be made at the EA without board approval. What analysis has been done of the impact of the cuts, particularly on the most disadvantaged children? Has any equality impact assessment or rural needs assessment been done of the home-to-school transport cuts and how they will eradicate many children's opportunities to engage in the after-school activities that are so important for our children's development?

Mr Givan: The EA went through various proposals, some of which the board did not want to implement because of their implications for the education system, and, from the category of proposals approved by the board, provided a series of them to the Department to be taken forward. There were other, much more severe proposals. With the projected overcommitment of £280 million, the current proposals are estimated to achieve savings in the region of £20 million to £30 million, which is barely 10% of the overcommitment that sits with the Education Authority. Members rightly find the proposals unpalatable. How much more serious will the situation be if the EA ends up having to go through with other, much more severe proposals? That is why the proposals are controversial and why a collective response is required in the Executive to help meet the issues.

Operationally, the EA is responsible for determining the proposals, and its board has approved them. I agree with the Member's sentiment that they are not satisfactory, but that is a reflection of the financial position in which the Department and the EA find themselves.

Ms Brownlee: Minister, will you provide further detail on the overall budgetary position that you face?

Mr Givan: The overall pressures are equivalent to 8·7% of the opening budget that was granted to the Department of Education in this financial year, which is in the region of £280 million. Given the extent of the current forecast overspend in the overall education sector, there is a real risk of breaching that budget allocation. That in turn has a consequence for the Northern Ireland block grant. I referred earlier to the Department of Health's position. Without question, had the data breach issue crystallised in this financial year, the Department of Justice would also have breached its budget settlement, given that the Treasury indicated that it would not be able to access the reserves. That pressure will face the Executive in the next financial year.

Initial planning for next year indicates that, according to the Education forecast, inescapable pressures — they are not nice-to-do things or luxuries; they are inescapable — come to £890 million. In that context, we simply cannot afford to have a 2025-26 overspend increase into the 2026-27 budget shortfall.

Mr Carroll: Like the Member for Lagan Valley and other Members, I was contacted over the weekend by EOTAS workers who are concerned about the EA's announcement of the suspension of referrals to their provision. Workers are furious about that decision. Minister, have you carried out any assessment of how it will affect vulnerable people, given the work that EOTAS workers do?

Mr Givan: I know what effect it will have: it will have a negative effect. The consequences of what is happening are negative. I have repeated in response to other Members that it is not an acceptable position. That is why I am seeking the help and support of Executive colleagues. We all have collective responsibility. I take my ministerial responsibility seriously and can evidence and document where we have been able to make savings. However, the Education Authority is sitting with a very significant overcommitment, and the reductions in services will have a negative impact on those who depend on them.

Mr Kingston: It is a difficult situation, with difficult options being considered by the EA, the Minister and the Executive as a whole. What indication has the Minister received from the Finance Minister regarding finance that might be available in the December monitoring round?

Mr Givan: There is an ongoing process on what we want to achieve. We are waiting on the position at Westminster. They are facing incredibly difficult financial challenges, and the Finance Minister has indicated that he does not anticipate funding being made available through that process.

The monitoring round will come in late November or, more likely, early December. There is opportunity there for Departments that need support to receive it, but, with the Executive looking at hundreds of millions of pounds of pressures on the block grant, I do not believe for one moment that we will receive that level of funding from the Treasury. Last year, an exceptional amount of funding became available. That funding masked the underlying situation faced in Education and other Departments. The pressures are now crystallising. That requires me to take action, which I will, in the medium to long term. I will outline some of the issues that need to be addressed, and it will be challenging. I suspect that very few Members in the Assembly will be supportive of those actions, but, given the financial reality that faces the Executive, difficult decisions need to be taken. My experience has been that many Ministers do not want to take those difficult decisions and immediately rule out revenue-raising in certain areas. They do not want to do those kinds of things, but we have public services that need to be funded. Those are the pressures that we, as an Executive, face.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Education.

Mr Speaker: Matthew O'Toole has tabled a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Finance.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Last Thursday, the Executive collectively agreed to the Health Minister's direction to deliver pay parity for health service staff. Without that decision being taken, there was severe risk of industrial action. I am sure that no Member of the House would have wanted to see health workers on strike, and I know that health workers did not want to go on strike, particularly as we approach the winter period when services are already under pressure. That would have caused disruption to service delivery, exacerbated waiting lists and, therefore, undermined the Executive's Programme for Government commitment to reducing waiting lists.

The December monitoring round, which will take place after the Chancellor's autumn Budget, will provide final allocations to Departments for 2025-26. It is important to set out that the Health Minister has agreed to any funding shortfall in his Department at the end of 2025-26 being deducted from the Health opening budget for 2026-27. There has been close cooperation and partnership at ministerial and official level between my Department and Health on action being taken to deliver savings. The Health Minister has a plan in place to reset the Health and Social Care (HSC) system budget and has indicated that he will continue to do everything that he can to further reduce his Department's funding gap.

I have consistently made it clear that all Departments must live within their budget allocations. I have repeatedly highlighted to Executive and Assembly colleagues that it was unlikely that there would be any additional funding in-year and the detrimental implications of not living within budget. Departments should have already taken actions, earlier this year, to ensure that they live within their budgets, which were agreed by the Assembly and the Executive, and those efforts must now be redoubled. I have reiterated to my Assembly colleagues the severity of the constrained financial situation and the need to work in partnership in order to manage the extremely challenging financial position. All Ministers must play their part.

Mr O'Toole: Let me say first, Minister, that I welcome the fact that healthcare workers will get the pay settlement that they were promised, but, of course, they were promised that for years. Every year, they have had to threaten strike action, and every year, the money has to be found down the side of the Stormont sofa. They have to, effectively, beg and threaten industrial action, and, every year, your Department tells other Departments to live within their means. Minister, that is Polyfilla politics. We are now nearly two years into this mandate with no sign of a plan for funding pay settlements in the long term. Later this year, when we have a multi-year Budget, will there be a proper plan to fund pay parity over the long term, rather than treating healthcare workers in this way year after year? It is chaotic.

Mr O'Dowd: Early last month, I said that I was confident that the issue would be resolved. The Executive collectively, working in partnership, have resolved it. I urge all Ministers, when they are looking at their budget allocations at the start of the year, to have pay at the top of the list rather than at the bottom. That is the way to deal with those matters. I understand that the Health Minister has made a commitment that, in future years, he will set aside funding for pay at the start of the year. When pay awards come through in Britain and there have to be increases, he will undertake to make those awards. That is how it should be dealt with.

No worker should have to threaten strike action in order to achieve the pay award that they are entitled to. I welcome the fact that we have resolved that matter. As I said, I believe that it should have been resolved at the start of the year, but we are where we are. The three-year Budget will give colleagues an opportunity to plan over a three-year period rather than year by year.

Miss Dolan: Minister, you touched on it briefly, but what action have you taken to encourage Ministers to live within their budget?

Mr O'Dowd: It is worth noting — it is, perhaps, understandable — that when finance issues or Budget allocations come up, people will sometimes, quite rightly, look towards or point fingers at the Finance Minister. Let us, however, look at the history of how a Budget is set. I bring a draft Budget to the Executive. The Executive discuss it, and they either vote in favour of it or vote against it. In this instance, the Executive voted in favour of the Budget, and it was passed by the Assembly. It is now the Budget Act; it is a piece of legislation. All Ministers, and those who supported the Budget in the Assembly, have their fingerprints all over it.

When it comes to living within budgets, it is vital that the Executive act collectively and in partnership with each other. If one Minister does not take the decisions necessary to live within their budget, that has direct implications for the ability of all the other Ministers to deliver public services across the board. We have an agreed Budget Act, and it is important that that Act is adhered to.

Mr Kingston: As was the case with the Minister of Education, we all recognise that difficult decisions are having to be made. To allow the Health Minister to overspend by £100 million this year is one thing, but that cannot become a recurring loss, year-on-year. What information or undertakings have you received from the Health Minister that he will prevent that being a recurring loss?

Mr O'Dowd: The Executive have agreed to the ministerial direction for the Department of Health, but part of that agreement was that the overcommitment would come off the Health Minister's budget for the 2026-27 year. As I said in my initial remarks, my Department and the Department of Health have done considerable work at ministerial and official level in order to fully understand the challenges and opportunities for the Department of Health around its savings plans. The Department of Health has done a considerable amount of work recently. That shows what can be done when a Minister is prepared to make decisions and give directions to officials on how a savings plan can be achieved. None of those decisions is easy. In the case of the big-spending Departments of Health and Education, the quantum of money is huge. However, similar percentage savings plans have had to be achieved in all Departments, and behind each of those is a very difficult decision for the Minister, the officials and everyone else who is involved. If we are to work to a plan, however, and that plan is the Budget Act, we must make those decisions and deliver in conjunction with that and with our Programme for Government.

Mr Tennyson: I am not sure, Minister, whether you heard the Education Minister's response to the earlier question. He blamed a lack of in-year Barnett consequentials for the challenges in his Department. He was also critical of you and other Executive colleagues for refusing to make savings and efficiencies on his behalf. How predictable was that lack of Barnett consequentials this year? What is your response to the Education Minister's criticism?

Mr O'Dowd: As you know, I was Minister of Education during difficult financial times, and my budget balanced each year. It is difficult and, at times, unpleasant for all Ministers, but that is why they are paid the big bucks. There is responsibility in that, and Ministers are paid the big bucks to make the decisions. As for how things move forward, people should have been discussing budgets and what we should do on 10 January, 10 February,10 March and 10 April, instead of on 10 November. Decisions should have been made in and around then, and statements issued from boards at that stage.

I have been clear with ministerial colleagues from the outset that I did not expect there to be any significant Barnett consequentials this year. That is not because I am some financial wizard. Anybody watching or listening to events in London — to the Chancellor or to those who debate and discuss the Chancellor's views — would have known clearly that there were not going to be major Barnett consequentials this year.

Dr Aiken: Minister, thank you very much indeed for agreeing with the Health Minister to look at this and to move those funds across. As you are aware, however, that is about 1·2% of the Health budget. Looking ahead at the next three years, is there an intent to profile and prioritise public-sector pay to begin with, as you mentioned, and to measure the quantum of that public-sector pay over the next three years?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. Collectively and individually, Ministers are going to have to do that. As I said in response to one of our colleagues, it is better if Ministers identify pay awards early in the financial year, rather than later in the year. If there then needs to be a top-up as part of a broader award, that has to be done. There is now an opportunity for Ministers to look at a three-year pay award programme. That will give them and workers certainty in planning.

Ms Forsythe: Like others, I am glad to see the health service pay award. Minister, when there is good news at Finance, such as delivery on childcare and health pay, Sinn Féin is quick to take the credit for it, even though those are delivered through other Departments. Yet when there are pressures across the board, Sinn Féin is quick to say that the pressure lies with other Ministers and not with yourself, as Finance Minister. That fact is not lost on us. In Health, a £100 million overspend this year carried into next year will be recurring. You said that the Health Minister has accepted that and is taking it on board. Are you saying that he should be planning to make cuts of £200 million in Health from April 2026?

Mr O'Dowd: In relation to broader Executive decisions, it was the Executive who decided to put an extra £55 million into childcare, and yes, I will take credit for that. If the Executive have to make difficult decisions, I will take responsibility for those. That is the nature of the game. You cannot shirk all responsibility, and the danger is that some will shirk all responsibility. When they do that, they do not deliver what the public expect of a leader in any organisation, which is to take a leadership role and take the hits with the highs. That is just the way it goes.

As for what the Health Minister has to do next year, we will not know exactly how much of an overspend there will be in the Department of Health until the end of this financial year. That was emphasised again to the Health Minister, and he accepts it, but there still needs to be a savings programme in the Department of Health. Last Thursday was not a full stop on a savings programme in the Department of Health. That work has to continue, and we will continue to engage at ministerial and official level on the Health budget to ensure that we make it as balanced as possible.

Mr Carroll: Minister, it is better to break the stringent, out-of-date fiscal rules than to break working-class communities. I asked this question before in the Finance Committee and got a mixed answer, so I would appreciate it if you could bring some clarity for me: can you outline how much of an overspend Departments can enter into?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member refers to "stringent" fiscal rules. I want independence here, but, in the meantime, I want full fiscal devolution to ensure that the Assembly and Executive make the decisions on all the fiscal rules that govern them, because, in my opinion, some of the fiscal rules from Treasury hamper us. For instance, we cannot hold a reserve here, but I think that a reserve would be very useful to the Assembly and Executive. A departmental budget cannot be overspent — a departmental budget should not be overspent. An overspend may arise, but that has consequences for future years' Budgets, because the Treasury will immediately remove that overspend from the next year's Budget. That has consequences for the entire Executive, and the Executive have to make decisions on how they deal with the implications of Treasury actions. In this instance, the Executive have said to the Health Minister, "If you overspend, it will come off your next year's budget", but, in this case, we have approved what is known as a ministerial direction.

Mr Durkan: We welcome the fact that health workers will get pay parity, which is the very least that they deserve, but one of the consequences of delay is that, for our lowest-paid health workers, who are every bit as valuable as any others, any lump sum back payment is rendered virtually worthless to those workers who are on universal credit. Will the Minister encourage or ensure cooperation between different Ministers and Departments to ensure that that cohort of low-paid workers is not effectively penalised for being poor? It is possible. It was done with COVID payments, so I am sure that a way exists, but will the Minister ensure that the will exists as well?

Mr O'Dowd: That is another reason why it is important that Ministers have these settlements earlier rather than later in the financial year. I suspect that that question is more for the Department for Communities, but I assure the Member that I am more than happy to cooperate. If there is a way around the rules on benefits that the Executive can deal with that without further financial consequences, I am happy to cooperate with the Communities Minister on that.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister.

Mr Kelly: On Monday 27 October, a mob of up to 30 people, including some masked individuals, gathered outside Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council. When the Sinn Féin councillors left, they were met with abusive swearing and intimidation. One female councillor, who was isolated and surrounded, was effectively prevented from moving forward and had to call for assistance. Sectarian insults were shouted, and the councillors were verbally abused for not wearing poppies and were called "rats" again and again while those people walked behind them.

That was not a peaceful protest. It was a loyalist-coordinated attempt to intimidate those who were elected to represent their constituents. Many Sinn Féin elected representatives have faced threats before, as have elected representatives from other parties. Those loyalists and right-wing elements bring nothing but hate and disruption, but they will not stop us working on behalf of the people who elect us.

What made the situation more concerning was the lack of response from the PSNI, which was actually present at the time. No meaningful action was taken to stop the escalation of abuse or to protect those who were being targeted. Two meetings took place with the local PSNI district commander after the event in which the lack of preparation and necessary action was strongly challenged. Public representatives and members of the community must be able to rely on the police to act to prevent threats and intimidation.

The reason that I raise this now is that a known loyalist is posting on social media that there will be a similar gathering at the council meeting later this month. No public representative from any party or background should be subject to that kind of abuse, which could turn physically abusive at any moment.

Political disagreement and free speech are part of democracy, but what we witness increasingly is not peaceful protest or free speech but targeted harassment led, to a great degree, by loyalists. Sinn Féin will not be intimidated by loyalists or right-wing gangs. We will continue to stand up for our communities and those who elect us.

Mr Frew: Information is the currency of democracy. I am the first politician to stand up for freedom of the press and investigative journalism. However, the priority now for the BBC must be to restore its relationship with the truth and with the people who are forced to pay for that shabby and unethical service.

The Trump speech is not the first time that the BBC has mischaracterised a politician's words, and it is not the first time that the BBC has reported false or fake news that represented a lack of editorial impartiality. On 23 July 2021, 'Good Morning Ulster' reported that the Mater Hospital was filled with young people on ventilators. That was false. It was untrue. 'The Nolan Show' repeated the story and ran with it. It was lazy journalism, because the BBC had not practised due diligence in checking the story and getting further sources to back up it up, and it was designed to feed into a narrative with which the BBC was obliging the Government and the Executive of the day in deploying fear, which caused great anxiety throughout our people and particularly our young people. The Executive's motives were to coerce young people to take a medicine that could cause them adverse side effects. A complaint went in, and it was upheld in April 2022, but the damage was done.

Then we had the 'Talkback' programme that sensationalised me in my assisting people who had been harmed by medicine. It then took a public conversation that I had on Twitter with another account about vaccine injuries and reported fatalities and injuries on the yellow card scheme. On 16 January 2023, the 'Talkback' programme ran a story entitled 'Public health experts combat new wave of misinformation'. The BBC took a small section of that conversation out of context, changing its meaning, even though, earlier in the conversation, I had clarified the very point that it was reporting. It chose to ignore that in order to take a small section of the conversation and run a narrative that has both mischaracterised my words and misrepresented my opinion on the topic. That then was reported repeatedly by other media outlets. The false pretext was represented as fact. That mischaracterisation or misrepresentation was echoed only last week.

I am calling for an investigation — a thorough review of BBC practices, not only in BBC News but in BBC News Northern Ireland, and into the current affairs programmes on Radio Ulster, so that we can get to the truth of these matters and ensure that the BBC once more becomes impartial, fair and accurate.

Mr Blair: As chair of the all-party group on climate action, I take this opportunity to mark the start of the 30th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties, otherwise known as COP30, hosted this year in Brazil.

Each year at COP, leaders from across the globe are reminded of the scale of the challenge that we all face together. The theme this year is especially poignant, calling us not just to recognise the seriousness of climate change but to act collectively in the face of it. While Northern Ireland has experienced its own share of climate change — my constituency, South Antrim, for example, has increased and recurrent flooding — we must remember that other countries have been hit much harder, often with far fewer resources at their disposal to deal with it. Therefore, COP is an annual call to solidarity and shared purpose.

We must not let political boundaries stifle our progress. It is far too easy to see climate action as someone else's responsibility or to delay necessary decisions out of short-term convenience. However, as elected representatives, we are entrusted with protecting the future for our constituents, our society and the natural world. That means embedding this year's COP vision into everything that we do in the Assembly. Collaboration is key, especially across parties, Departments and all levels of government. We must make and follow through on the difficult decisions that are necessary.

I acknowledge the work that is taking place already: for example, the steps that have been taken by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to deliver the long-standing Alliance Party policy to establish an independent environmental protection agency for Northern Ireland. Delivering such an agency will involve genuine collaboration and support from every Department and every party. The transparency and accountability that it will bring are crucial for safeguarding our natural world, as well as its being the ultimate invest-to-save measure.

As COP30 begins, I remain hopeful that decisive action will finally match our words and that agreements forged this week will lead to progress that benefits not only our natural world but our people and our economy. This is not the time for delay or denial on climate action, as advocated by some; it is time now for that decisive action.

Mr Beattie: Last week, my fellow Upper Bann MLA Jonathan Buckley raised a question for urgent oral answer with the Justice Minister about the murder of Marjorie and Michael Cawdery by Thomas McEntee while he was on day release. Many who know case will know that the family, in particular Charles Little, worked extremely hard to help inform how the health trusts and the PSNI deal with individuals who have mental health issues, as McEntee did.

After the question for urgent oral answer, the family contacted me about some of the answers that the Justice Minister gave. They were concerned, because the Minister said that the Prison Service notified the Victims' Commissioner and the Parole Commissioners, but the family are absolutely adamant that it was they who notified the commissioner and that it was they who requested that the Prison Service contact the Parole Commissioners, not the Prison Service. It is a real concern and a failing that a family had to do that.

The other issue that the family raised was in challenging the Minister when she said:

Yet, at the sentencing of McEntee, Dr Kennedy and Justice Colton, who were looking after the case, agreed:

They said:

Was that ignored? If it was, it is damning that it was ignored and that McEntee was let out and sometimes let out while he was on his own.

It is also worth nothing that the Minister said that McEntee's tariff had expired. That was not the case; his tariff was not due to expire until June 2027. So, the Minister, possibly inadvertently, misled the House. I know that she clarified that very point today. However, she did say that his tariff was close to expiring, but that is not true either, because he still had 30 months to go on his tariff.

There were some serious structural failings in the pre-release testing that allowed McEntee to be out on day release after murdering Marjorie and Michael Cawdery. The family, rightly, want answers; the family, rightly, deserve answers; and the Minister needs to give answers.

Miss Dolan: I want to take a moment today to highlight some really positive news for Fermanagh and our neighbouring counties: the launch of the water enhancements through sustainable treatment project, better known as the WEST project. It is a €32 million cross-border initiative between NI Water and Uisce Éireann that is funded through the PEACE PLUS programme, which is managed by the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB). It is due to be launched tomorrow at Finn Lough resort on the shores of our own Lough Erne, a fitting setting for a project that is all about protecting and improving our local waterways.

The WEST project will focus on tackling water pollution in Lough Erne, Lough Melvin and Donegal Bay. Through innovative modelling and sustainable treatment, it will help identify where investment is needed most, no matter from which side of the border the issue comes. In Fermanagh, we will see benefits on the ground, with low-carbon waste water treatment upgrades planned for Belleek and Garrison. The upgrades will improve services for more than 5,000 people, with extra capacity for another 1,000. That is an example of real investment in rural communities that have often been overlooked when it comes to infrastructure.

Clean water is vital not only for the environment but for farming, tourism and the health of our people. Such projects show the real value of cross-border co-operation, of EU funding and of communities working together to protect what we share. I commend NI Water, Uisce Éireann, the SEUPB and the Department for Infrastructure for their hard work and vision. The WEST project is a fantastic example of partnership in action, and it will make a lasting difference to Fermanagh and for future generations.

Ms Brownlee: I speak in light of recent media reports and social media comments relating to a new US Rangers mural in Carrickfergus, which was delivered through the Communities in Transition (CIT) programme. I make this absolutely clear: the mural in Carrickfergus is not a mistake, anything to be ashamed of or something to be whispered about. It is something to stand beside with pride, and the many people of Carrickfergus and beyond are doing just that.

The image on the wall does not glorify violence; it honours valour. It tells the story of the men who trained in our town in 1942: the United States Rangers' 1st Battalion, which was forged in Sunnylands Camp under Major William Darby. Those men were the tip of the spear in the fight against fascism. They were trained here, they bled for freedom and they set the standard for courage under fire. Carrickfergus played a part in that global story. While others turned their back or declared themselves to be neutral, our town stood up, opened its doors and helped build an elite force that led the way across Europe. That is our history and our connection to one of the most respected military units in the world.

Some people have criticised the mural, saying that it looks too militaristic and aggressive. They have made the bizarre statement that it resembles a paramilitary image. Frankly, that is a lazy and offensive comparison that shows a misunderstanding of history and art. The mural is a symbol of sacrifice, discipline and strength. If people cannot tell the difference between those who fought for freedom and those who fought against it, maybe that is exactly why the mural is needed.

The artist, Dan Kitchener, captured something powerful: the harsh reality of war, the machinery and the rubble. He also captured the light breaking through the clouds, which represents hope. It is honest and raw, because history was not polite, and neither were the men who fought to defend us. The mural stands in an area that, for years, has been scarred by graffiti and intimidation. Now, instead of darkness and division, we have a wall that tells a story of courage and of the victory of good over evil. Carrickfergus has always been a proud town: proud of our castle and of our involvement in the wars of the previous century. We have never shied away from defending what is right, and the mural continues that tradition. It is a declaration and a reminder of who we are, where we came from and the values for which we stand. Yes, it is bold, defiant and unapologetic. That is exactly what it should be, because the men who trained there did not apologise for standing up to tyranny, and we should not apologise for remembering them.

Mr Baker: For a long time, we have had no confidence in the Minister of Education. Arrogance, incompetence and financial mismanagement have been the hallmark of Paul Givan's time in office. He blames everyone but himself. Just last week, the Education Authority (EA) informed parents and education other than at school (EOTAS) staff via social media that the price of school dinners was to increase by 20%, referrals to EOTAS were to stop and children were to be locked out of music programmes.

Owing to the Minister's mismanagement and ideology, the Lagan Valley Education Project in my constituency will be forced to close its doors. For decades, that organisation has helped young people on their last chance by educating them outside of school. That, coupled with the uncertainty that families face with school transport and the hike in the price of music programmes, shows that we need a Minister for all children. Instead, we have a Minister who wants to build a regressive education system that will harm our young people by removing coursework and AS levels and setting up a one-off high-stakes exam. We have a Minister who took a trip to Florida to promote his agenda while children with special educational needs had no school places and who ignored the Education Committee's proposals, which would have cut uniform costs and ensured that girls could wear trousers if they wanted.

The Minister has spent money on vanity projects. He spent a quarter of a million pounds on a pilot scheme for mobile phone pouches: how many school meals would that have covered? There is a litany of failures by the Minister. However, the past two weeks have been the straw that broke the camel's back. He championed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and went to Israel and visited a school in an illegally occupied territory, using departmental resources to promote the whitewashing of genocide. At the same time, schools here are being told that they cannot spend their budgets.

The Minister has lost the confidence of teachers, unions, pupils and parents. He attempts to overwhelm our school leaders with consultations and surveys. If he continues down the path of destruction, it will take years to rectify the damage. He is a lame-duck Minister, and he needs to go.

Mrs Dodds: I welcome the announcement that healthcare workers are due to get the pay rise that they deserve. Our healthcare workers are the glue that has bonded a broken system, and it is they who go above and beyond in times of crisis. We cannot be seen to have been clapping for the NHS during COVID but failing to get to grips with fair pay for healthcare staff. All other healthcare workers in the rest of the United Kingdom have been paid that rise, and Northern Ireland should be no different. However, I hope that the pay rise will be supported by a clear plan for workforce sustainability, better working conditions, safe staffing reforms and improved patient outcomes.

Of course, there are questions to be asked about the handling of the pay award. The Health Minister has a budget of £8·6 billion, yet he indicates that it is difficult to meet pay awards. I sit, week in and week out, monitoring those issues at the Health Committee, and I understand the pressures on the budget. However, with 52% or 53% of the block grant, those issues could be resolved.

I note that the Minister, in his statement on the issue, has promised to prioritise pay in next year's budget. However, that begs the question of why he did not prioritise pay in this year's budget. Public sector pay rises are a bit like winter pressures in the health service: they are well known, and they come round every year.

We are also left with the questions about the impact on next year's budget if there is an overspend this year. While it is right that healthcare workers are paid appropriately, it is also right that the Minister explains how he will handle this really important issue. Cuts to manage an overspend next year would not be acceptable.

Our National Health Service is nothing without the people who get up every morning, go to work — at times, in a chaotic system — and care for us at the most vulnerable times in our lives. They deserve fair pay. The pay award should have been made after it was indicated. While there are issues with timing and budgeting, it is right that our healthcare workers are paid properly and valued for the huge contribution that they make.

Dr Aiken: First, I declare an interest as a parent governor at Ballyclare High School.

We are, unfortunately, all used to our public utility companies making changes that often defy logic and exacerbate rather than solve problems. Anyone who lives in Ballyclare or has children at any of the excellent schools in our town will know the times to avoid due to school traffic. There have been ongoing issues with bus timetabling, access along the narrow streets and tight car parking around the Square. The buses pick up close to the school, with the embarking and driving off happening within minutes of the end of school. That has been largely an encumbrance, but it has not led to real concerns about child safety until now.

Due to a series of managerial and staff issues, Translink has decided to change the bus pickup areas. The changes have particularly affected pupils at Ballyclare High School and residents along and in Hillmount Avenue, Rathmena estate, Rashee Road and Readers Park. Last Friday evening, I witnessed 300 children walking or, to put it more accurately, stumbling towards the new bus stops at Readers Park, a distance of approximately one mile, along wet, ill-lit roads and narrow pavements. They were rushing to get buses within 15 minutes. Several pupils have been left behind by Translink's buses leaving in a rush. That is happening even before midwinter sets in and along pavements and side roads that are notorious for being seldom, if ever, gritted.

Translink's response to the entreaties of the school's senior leadership has been indifference. I have called for Translink to contact me and public representatives to discuss the matter, but it has not deigned to do so. Regrettably, it is only a matter of time before an incident occurs. It seems inexplicable that a public service provider such as Translink ignores the concerns of those on the ground. The question has to be why. I and the staff, parents, pupils and residents in the affected areas in Ballyclare would be delighted if a senior member of Translink's management would explain the rationale for that ridiculous decision or, better still, listen to common sense and revert to an arrangement that works and is safe.

Mr Durkan: Today, we mark the conclusion of an extraordinary chapter in the life of our nation as Michael D Higgins completes his second term as uachtarán na hÉireann

Few individuals have embodied the heart and spirit of Ireland quite like Michael D. Through his words, his wisdom and his warmth, he has reminded us of the power of compassion, culture and community. His presidency has been one of deep connection to the people of Ireland, our shared history and the generations yet to come. President Higgins has spoken for those whose voices often go unheard: the artists, the workers, the dreamers and the dispossessed. In every corner of the island, his message has been consistent that equality and dignity must not be ideals that we aspire to but realities that we live by. He leaves behind not only a record of service but a legacy of hope and a belief that politics, when infused with humanity, can still be a noble calling. Though his tenure as president comes to an end, his influence on Irish life and thought will endure for many years to come.

On behalf of all who cherish the values of inclusion, justice and kindness, I thank him. Go raibh míle maith agat, a Uachtaráin

, for your leadership, your poetry and your profound love of Ireland. Go n-éirí an bóthar leat

, and may your next chapter be as inspiring as the one that you have just written.

Mr Gaston: Yesterday's resignations at the very top of the BBC are the public implosion of a myth. The BBC claims to be the gold standard of journalism, yet the public have known for years that that is nonsense. Now, the BBC's leaked internal report shows that even it agrees. Why did the director general and the head of news resign? It was because the corporation that they led had been caught red-handed editing a documentary about Donald Trump in a way that manipulated the truth. That was not an isolated mistake. It was symptomatic of a culture that has abandoned journalistic integrity for ideology and of a culture of "serious and systemic" bias. Those are not my words but the words of those who worked in it.

There was systematic bias in the coverage of Donald Trump. There was systematic bias in the coverage of the Middle East. There was systematic bias on transgender ideology, where standing up for biological truth was silenced, misrepresented or mocked.

Had that report examined Northern Ireland, it would have found specific issues, such as pan-nationalist bias, endless propaganda aimed at eroding the Union, and the demonisation of unionists. We see trigger warnings before 12 July coverage but wall-to-wall uncritical coverage of the GAA, an organisation that glorifies those who pulled actual triggers. In July, we saw blanket, dishonest coverage of the comments of the Goldsprings of Comber Orange Lodge when it dared to challenge the GAA. Months later, it still has not received a proper apology. On that issue, I say this to BBC Northern Ireland: stop stalling, do the decent thing and apologise to that lodge.

When the national broadcaster becomes a platform for one side of the debate, it ceases to be a public service. It becomes a propaganda machine, paid for by the public. We had the Savile cover-ups and the Bashir deception. We have seen a live broadcast from Glastonbury of death threats from a so-called artist whose comments were entirely predictable. We have seen decades of bias punctuated by the odd apology. It is time that time was called on the licence fee. It is time to defund the BBC and scrap the licence fee.

Mr Speaker: I call Gary Middleton. You have a couple of minutes, Mr Middleton.

Mr Middleton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak about the recent court decision on the Foyle MP. In 2024, Colum Eastwood took part in an un-notified pro-Palestine, anti-Israel procession. That was a clear breach of the law, and he was subsequently charged. We now see that the charge against him has been dropped after he accepted a formal reprimand. The charge against him was dropped quicker than the unionists who signed up to the SDLP's New Ireland Commission. That is saying something.

When the rule book seems to change depending on who is involved, people are right to ask questions. That decision tells us that the standards are incredibly low for some people but high for the rest of us. Several years ago, in the Chamber, I highlighted what I saw as an imbalanced approach towards people in the Waterside who were charged with taking part in illegal processions. They were protesting against the increase in antisocial behaviour, sexual attacks and sectarianism in St Columb's Park. They walked on the footpath, but were charged and fined.

The latest decision is another example of the alleged two-tier justice system that many in the unionist community have been warning about for years. It makes people lose faith in the system, especially when so-called leaders like Colum Eastwood can act so blatantly as though the law does not apply to them.

Where is the strong leadership from Colum Eastwood when problems exist in our communities? He has time to travel to Beirut at the taxpayer's expense and time to take part in an illegal procession but no time to show leadership when we desperately need it in our constituency. Think about the outrage when a banner showing a PSNI officer was brazenly burned in public; an appalling attack on the men and women who keep us safe. There was silence from Colum Eastwood. Where was his voice when the flag of St Columb's Cathedral was burned on a bonfire? Again, there was silence from Colum Eastwood. Today, when a banner commemorating people who lost their lives during the war was stolen from the Fountain estate —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up.

Mr Middleton: — there was no comment from Colum Eastwood MP. Shame on him.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): 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 to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Mr O'Toole, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, we saw histrionic and fairly depressing scenes as the DUP Minister of Education, Mr Givan, sought to respond to legitimate and serious attempts to hold him to account for clear breaches of not just the ministerial code but the Civil Service code of ethics, the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 and accepted 60-year-old UK foreign policy. He responded with deflection, arrogance and contempt to detailed points that were put to him by us and others in the Chamber. Perhaps we should have expected that; it was fairly well telegraphed that that would be his response and that of his party. However, it is clear — it was highlighted very starkly to the people who were watching — that there is a crisis of accountability in this society and in these political institutions. There is a crisis in trust in our politics that is systemic and threatens the long-term and even medium-term future of these institutions. Nobody should be in any doubt about that.

Since we entered Opposition nearly two years ago, we have been clear about the need to reform these institutions. We have made that one of the core themes of our opposition. The very first thing that I did as leader of the Opposition was to ask the First Minister and deputy First Minister to pledge not to resign their office for the duration of this term. Our first Opposition day was devoted to the theme of reform and the need to progress meaningful change to the way in which these institutions work to, first, make them less likely to collapse; secondly, improve trust among the public in their being accountable and having good governance; and, thirdly, improve policy delivery overall, so that we can be more proud of these political institutions and the public can not just have more trust but have trust in the first place, because, as we know, trust is painfully low. One of the issues that causes people not to trust our political institutions is the feeling that, even when there is a clear and, frankly, overwhelming argument for censuring or holding to account an individual Minister, they are, effectively, immune from that because of the provisions that exist to protect them. I accept that there has been no finding against Mr Givan as yet of a breach of the ministerial code, but, even when there have been findings of breaches of the ministerial code, such as there were with other DUP Ministers last year, the cross-community voting provisions have prevented any meaningful censure.

To be clear, I am not talking about removing any or all forms of cross-community voting provision. I do not think that we are ready for that yet, although that does need to be reformed. What we are proposing today is that we need to remove the permanent barrier to any Minister's being held to account. Earlier, DUP Members, in responding, I think, very performatively, although perhaps they were being sincere in some of their responses, listed all the occasions on which Ministers from other parties — particularly from Sinn Féin, although they also mentioned members of my party and Ministers from the Alliance Party — had not been held to account. I assume from those remarks and contributions that those Members will support the Opposition motion, because the upshot of it is that it would make it easier to hold Ministers to account when they are found to have breached the ministerial code or, indeed, the law.

We are open-minded about precisely what reform looks like. There are a whole range of measures that we and other parties have proposed for reform to reduce the likelihood of institutional collapse. When it comes to improving ministerial accountability, we have also set down particular things that we think should happen. There should be a legal duty on Ministers and their Departments to work collaboratively and across departmental silos. We should also look to removing some of the permanent barriers that exist to Ministers being held to account, because let me say again that a lot of people watching today's proceedings — those who have been outraged by the conduct of Minister Givan — are not simply people from what are called "nationalist backgrounds", or indeed people who are necessarily critical of the state of Israel in every particular circumstance. They are people who clearly see that he misused his office, and today we proved, again, that we do not have enough power to hold Ministers such as Mr Givan, and others who break the rules, to account.

So what should we do? Our motion calls for a fundamental step change in reform. We want the support from the Assembly today to do that, and I state upfront that we will not support any amendments to the motion today. We do not believe that any of the amendments are proposed in good faith, and I will go on to explain why. If we do not get on and reform these institutions before the end of this mandate and prove to the public that we can meaningfully change the way that we do business, we will completely and permanently jeopardise trust in our ability to govern here. I say that because, frankly, the public really has had its patience tested beyond its natural limit by the antics of parties in this institution. The public is deeply distrustful of our politics and of the parties in it.

It is incumbent on all of us to get serious about reform. Since February last year, we have not yet got serious about reform. On the very first Opposition day that we had, way back in March last year, an amendment was successfully made to one of our motions, prioritising reform and calling for it to be pushed to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is examining these issues and related issues, specifically in relation to institutional stability, right now. The only reason that that is happening is that my party and I put down a proposal, supported by colleagues from the Alliance Party, which has also put down and moved its own proposals in that Committee. The proposals were not supported at first by either Sinn Féin or the DUP. Indeed, it was only when Sinn Féin changed its position that we were able to begin an inquiry into that in earnest. When we did a call for evidence on reform, Sinn Féin did not even respond. Nor, of course, did the DUP. So there is no evidence whatsoever that Sinn Féin is serious about institutional reform, none whatsoever thus far. Other than its slightly moving its position rhetorically, we have yet to see any meaningful, practical commitment to it. In the past, the DUP was —.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will happily give way.

Mr Sheehan: As the Member knows, because he is on the AERC, there is a process taking place whereby the Committee is taking evidence on potential reform of the Assembly. Would it not be better to wait until we gather all the evidence and then go out to public consultation, rather than nailing our colours to the mast beforehand? We are all for a discussion on reform of the Assembly. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Mr O'Toole: No, I do not agree with what the Member has just said. There is nothing to prevent us from having a discussion or taking evidence on the basis of positions that we already have. Those positions can be challenged — we can learn more; we can evolve our proposals — but we are not an academic study group. We are politicians. We are allowed to have positions.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way, but I do not have very much time left.

Mr Sheehan: The difficulty is that, with the Good Friday Agreement — we were warned by those who designed it — there is always the potential that, if you pull at a thread somewhere, it will unravel other parts of the agreement that we do not want to unravel. Therefore, we need to be absolutely clear, when we do nail our colours to the mast, that the Good Friday Agreement — certainly, the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement — will not, in any way, be affected by it.

Mr O'Toole: The Good Friday Agreement was designed to be reformed and updated as we went along. Of course, it was changed fairly negatively in 2006. It was never supposed to be preserved in aspic. The key values need to stay there. The key value is that it exists and that we have inclusive institutions that deliver good government. They are not doing that now. That is the key point, and today's theatre has proven that again. We have had panto villain exploits from Minister Givan, who, I am sure, was delighted with some of what happened today, and his party colleagues defended him. That is fine. They have, I think, undermined trust yet again in these institutions, but they are not the only ones to have undermined trust in these institutions. Other parties, including the First Minister's party, have done that.

As I have said in the Chamber repeatedly, there is nothing that prevents us from being clear about our intention to change the rules and to improve how this place works while retaining the core spirit of 1998. Let us improve that; let us improve ministerial accountability; and let us prevent these institutions from collapsing at the drop of a hat, because that looks closer to happening today than it did a month or a year ago. Let us get serious about reform.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Mr O'Toole: I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Ms Ennis: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. You have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1.

Ms Ennis: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Today's unedifying display by the Education Minister has given proof, if proof were required, of the need for reform. Earlier today, a majority in the Assembly voted that it had no confidence in the Education Minister. As it stands, the Education Minister has not just lost the confidence of the Assembly; he has lost the confidence of the public. Now we are left with a petulant, morally bankrupt Education Minister, a spent force who has lost all credibility; yet he remains in office. That is not accountability, and it shows exactly why our institutions need to be strengthened.

The Education Minister's trip raises serious questions about his moral and professional judgement. It was tone deaf, politically reckless and showed a complete disregard for the feelings of many people across our community, not least of all those who work in the Minister's Department, our teaching staff and their unions. That kind of behaviour undermines confidence not only in one Minister but in these institutions themselves.

Twenty-seven years on from the Good Friday Agreement, we have come a long way, but the world of 2025 is not the world of 1998. Times have changed, and our institutions must adapt with them. Sinn Féin is ready for that conversation. We want reform, but it must be serious reform that delivers accountability and strengthens power-sharing. However, if I am to be honest, too many others are treating the issue of Assembly reform as an opportunity for a headline; for the chance to outdo a political rival or to claim some quick political kudos. Rushing into reforming these institutions without the proper consideration, scrutiny and thought would be reckless. Reform must be done right, and we do it right by gathering and examining the evidence. We do it through engagement, and we do it with respect for the principles of the Good Friday Agreement, because those principles are not obstacles but the foundations for everything that we do and everything that we have achieved.

That is why our amendment refers this issue to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. The Member who moved the motion knows all too well, because he sits on that Committee alongside me, that that is the proper forum in which to take this forward. Mr O'Toole knows that the Committee is already examining important questions around how cross-community voting operates, how the Executive are formed and how accountability can be strengthened across the board. I take exception to Mr O'Toole's misrepresentation of Sinn Féin's position on AERC, because it was our party that added to that list and asked for things to be looked at, including how the Speaker is elected and the power of the Speaker. We believe that changes in that respect would fundamentally give the Assembly more credibility and more stability.

The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is where the serious work is being done; it is not in the headlines of newspapers or in social media but in the detail of the work that the AERC is already undertaking. I acknowledge that my Committee colleague Michelle Guy has proposed that we enhance civic engagement in the process, and I do think that civic engagement is good. It helped to shape the Good Friday Agreement, and it must play a part in shaping the next part of its evolution. It should also be said that reform here cannot happen in isolation. Any legislative change will, ultimately, require Westminster's involvement, and that must be approached in the spirit of cooperation.

Let me say clearly again that Sinn Féin is up for reform, but we are up for doing it properly. We are engaging with the evidence and with the experts and the people whom we represent. Others, including the DUP and its Ministers, need to reflect on their position on that and on their responsibility. Equally, others in the House need to approach the issue of reform with maturity and with the seriousness that it deserves, because playing party politics with reform or with the public's trust is not leadership. The people of the North deserve better than distraction and cheap political point-scoring on the issue. They deserve seriousness, accountability and a politics that delivers. That is a standard that we in Sinn Féin are intent on upholding.

Mr Gaston: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so if amendment No 1 is made, the Question on amendment No 2 will not be put. Mr Gaston, you have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak in the debate will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 2, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Through necessity, there will be a degree of overlap in some of my comments on the earlier motion and this one, given that the earlier motion dealt with the exclusion of a specific Minister, while this one deals with how Ministers can be removed from office and held accountable through the ministerial code.

The purpose of my amendment is to highlight the fact that we already have a process in place. We have an independent mechanism through which alleged breaches of the ministerial code can be examined. The problem with the motion, and, indeed, with the House in a recent example, is that both have chosen to ignore that existing mechanism. Let us be honest: the so-called constructive Opposition were quite happy to go along with that for the sake of protecting the process. My amendment changes the motion's final line. Instead of vaguely calling for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to dream up some more nice reform proposals, it requires them:

because we already have a structure in place for accountability. It is simply not being used. In fact, the Assembly allowed it to be bypassed. The 2021 Act, from my party leader, Jim Allister, was borne out of the findings of the renewable heat incentive (RHI) inquiry and the public demand for integrity in government. It recognised, as Mr Allister said during the Second Stage debate on the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill:

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate Mr Gaston's giving way. I spent a lot of time in Committee scrutinising the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which his predecessor introduced, and I tabled amendments to it and worked with his predecessor on them. If Mr Givan is found to have broken that law — I cannot see how he could not be — will the Member support his leaving office?

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention. To be clear, he is putting the cart before the horse. I want to see the report. It is important that evidence be gathered and that we then make our determination on the report, instead of the pantomime that we saw this morning, where Members were willing to hang the Minister out to dry without due process being followed. I am very clear: let us see the content of the report, and we will take it from there.

Clause 5 of the Bill was designed to close that gap. Its purpose was simple. Mr Allister said:

He asked:

He then asked why we should not widen that commissioner's remit to include the ministerial code. The intention was to ensure independent oversight, to remove discretion from the Executive and to give binding effect to standards, which, until then, existed only in a code. At Second Stage, Mr Allister quoted Lord Bingham's observations on a code, which he made in another case. Lord Bingham said that a code:

That was the point. Codes are fine, but they are simply not enough. When the McMonagle scandal broke — when the First Minister and other Sinn Féin Members were accused of a serious misuse of public money — the statutory route was ignored. Instead of referring the matter to the commissioner, as the law permits, the investigation was handed to an insider: the Assembly's head of Legal Services. It was, by its own admission, a purely paper exercise, with no witnesses, no testing of the evidence, and, I would argue, no independence. When the Assembly debated the matter in January, the House agreed with me that the process was unacceptable. Yet, 10 months on, the same paper review remains the only investigation to have been carried out.

I attempted to refer the scandal to the commissioner. She declined to accept the referral, citing the fact that the head of Legal Services had already reviewed the issue. That meant that significant evidence was never tested by an independent investigator, including Sam McBride's report that, contrary to Sinn Féin's claims, McMonagle had worked as a press officer in a party political capacity. There was no new inquiry, and the report that the Assembly regretted is still treated as definitive. Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party and the SDLP tolerated that, but were quite prepared to hang, draw and quarter the Education Minister earlier without any report.

The SDLP speak this afternoon about accountability, transparency and integrity, yet when the opportunity arose to use the proper processes to investigate the First Minister, it played along for the sake of the process. The motion calls for respect for the law, yet the law, specifically the requirements of the 2021 Act, was ignored in our handling of the McMonagle affair.

The DUP should also reflect. When I tabled a motion of no confidence in Michelle O'Neill because of that scandal, the DUP was nowhere to be seen. Tellingly, as the DUP found out today, the favour was not returned by its coalition partners. There is one rule for Sinn Féin and another rule for unionist Ministers. So-called accountability is not a principle but a political weapon, and that is why my amendment is necessary.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. You will be surprised to hear that I will, in my speech, praise your predecessor for bringing forward the Functioning of Government Act. I am a bit concerned that your amendment does not highlight the fact that there is no automatic sanction and that, under it, whether something happens when a Minister breaks the ministerial code will still be a political issue. Will you speak to that, please?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to speak to that. Indeed, it allows due process and an investigation to take place, and then it is up to the standards commissioner to take that forward. The gap was narrowed to make sure that everybody in this Building was treated in the same way. Indeed, my amendment does not propose new structures or commissions; it simply insists that the Assembly uses the independent mechanism that it already has — the Commissioner for Standards — and that Ministers be investigated in line with statute, not by their colleagues or party allies. As Mr Allister said, when introducing his then Bill, giving the commissioner that role:

That is what equality before the law looks like. If Members genuinely want to build trust, they should start by following the law.

The 2021 Act was designed to end the era of insiders marking their own homework, but the McMonagle affair showed that, when tested, the House still prefers cover-up to candour. Members have a choice this afternoon. They can support the SDLP's motion as it is written and sign up to another talking shop on reform, while the statutory safeguard that we already possess lies unused. Or, they can support my amendment and commit the Assembly to respecting the law, using the commissioner, who was appointed just last week, and investigating Ministers based on the evidence.

If we truly believe in equality before the law, there can be no more insider reviews, no more paper exercises and no more selective outrage. One standard must apply to us all, whether we are an MLA or a Minister. The Functioning of Government Act 2021 gave us the mechanism for achieving integrity, consistency and respect for the rule of law — a rule that Sinn Féin has never honoured. I commend my amendment to the House.

Mr Brett: Sometimes, when I come to this place, I think that I am living in a parallel universe. Having exactly the same debate this evening as we had this morning only confirms my suspicions.

I read with interest the motion from the leader of the Opposition in the Order Paper this morning. Following my promotion to the Executive Office Committee, I get to respond to such motions. The motion states:

It was not those on these Benches who came up with the rules of the game. We on these Benches are often lectured as though the Belfast Agreement was written on tablets of stone passed down by Moses himself and cannot be touched or changed, but, when that does not suit the narrative of the Opposition, suddenly, it can be changed.

The motion goes on to criticise the existing structures in the Assembly. Mr O'Toole's party brought forward the very structures that he criticises. Now, he is like the child who brings his football to the game in the street and, when he does not get his own way, takes the football and goes home. He and his party have been voted out of office, and, because the electorate does not want them in the Government, they want to change the rules. The people of Northern Ireland see through those flimsy arguments.

In his speech at the start of the debate, the leader of the Opposition said that there had been clear breaches of the law and the code by the Minister of Education. That indicates clearly why no party should support the motion from the leader of the Opposition: he has no evidence to back that up as fact. No independent report has been made. Alongside his comrade in People Before Profit, he tables a motion of exclusion of the Minister before the Minister has been found guilty of a single thing. That is what the motion is about.

I struggled to take lectures on the ministerial code from the leader of the Opposition when sitting behind him as he made his speech was Mr Durkan. Mr Durkan, of course, was found by the High Court to have breached the ministerial code when he acted illegally to approve the Belfast metropolitan area plan (BMAP). Once again, it is one rule for the SDLP, and it thinks that others should be held to account for those —.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: Happily.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. That points cuts to the heart of the matter in that we are reliant in many ways on the courts to rule on whether there has been a breach of the ministerial code, when we should have in our gift the mechanisms and the sanctions to act on such breaches.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Brett: The Assembly has such ability, Ms Bradshaw; that is why cross-community support is required. I believe that, if a Minister were found to be in breach of the law, parties across the House would come together to take clear actions.

I am happy to give way to Ms Armstrong, but maybe she is just shaking her head.

Ms K Armstrong: I am shaking my head because the Member perhaps does not understand what cross-community voting is. It means a majority of unionist and nationalists; it does not mean all of the House. The Good Friday Agreement includes the option of weighted majority voting, which the House has never considered. Come back to me when your vote counts for less than everyone else's, Mr Brett.

Mr Brett: Of course, you could follow in your predecessors' steps and redesignate to other parties when it suits your political agenda, Ms Armstrong, but I do not need to take any lectures from you about — [Interruption.]

Sorry, you have had your say. Stop chuntering from a sedentary position. You will get your chance to speak. We have had it laid out clearly today from— [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members.

Mr Brett: Thank you. I appreciate that.

There are mechanisms for the House to hold Ministers to — [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, when Alliance Party Members speak and anyone dares to reply or make a facial expression, they call it sexism; they call it misogyny; and they call it abuse. Yet they sit in the corner making faces and snide comments when unionists speak, and, when you react to them, they call it a personal attack. This is a debating chamber —

Ms K Armstrong: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you know, I am Chair of the Committee on Procedures, and I am well across Standing Orders. I ask you to rule on whether it is appropriate for a Member to dictate how another Member should act in the House when that is clearly laid out in Standing Orders.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Ms Armstrong. Your query has been noted and will be looked at by the Speaker's Office.

Mr Brett: Clearly, there is no breach of Standing Orders, so the Chair of the Procedures Committee may wish to do some homework before trying to lecture me in the Chamber.

The motion is a pointless exercise. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is already taking forward important work in this regard. I expected the leader of the Opposition to put forward some proposals or solutions in today's motion as to what he wanted to see in the reform package, but, once again, he has tried to outsource the hard work to someone else, calling on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring them forward. If the SDLP were serious about this —.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I have only 30 seconds left, Matthew. If the SDLP were serious about reform proposals, it could have tabled them for the Assembly to discuss in detail and debate, but, instead, it wants to outsource that work to this party and to the party opposite.

As a party, we will continue to engage with the work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee because no serious proposals have been put on the table by the Opposition here today. The parties in the Chamber should treat the motion with the contempt that it deserves.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before we proceed, all of you know that there will be a level of commentary during debates. I think that all of you also know what is an acceptable level of commentary in order to show courtesy and good manners when a Member is on their feet, a Minister is on their feet or an official is on their feet, as happened at the start of the debate. Therefore, I urge Members to reflect on that and show courtesy as we continue.

Ms Bradshaw: The motion before us today addresses what the Alliance Party views as one of the greatest threats to the stability of devolution, and that is the structural failure of accountability. Across the institutions, there is fundamental and dangerous imbalance. Ministers are given immense power, but the mechanisms to hold them to account are weak, inconsistent and often paralysed by political deadlock. That is not a theoretical concern: we have seen repeatedly how that systemic weakness erodes public trust and damages the integrity of government here.

We have seen crises around the renewable heat incentive (RHI) and Red Sky that have shown spectacular mismanagement and colossal failure of duty, yet there was no political or institutional means to ensure that the Minister involved was promptly removed or sanctioned. We have witnessed Ministers acting unilaterally and taking critical policy decisions without collective Executive agreement. In those cases, it has fallen to the courts, as I just mentioned to Mr Brett, not the Assembly, to rule that Ministers have acted unlawfully or outside their legal duty.

That failure means that the ministerial code is treated more like a set of optional guidelines than mandatory standards. Crucially, that is why the Functioning of Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, which was introduced by Mr Gaston's predecessor, is so important. Its core purpose was sound. It aimed to strengthen the legal duties around collective responsibility and prevent Ministers from acting as solitary agents. The Act was intended to codify the expectation that Ministers work together, ensuring that decisions are not taken unilaterally but are legally and explicitly bound by the collective will of the Executive.

I will pick up on Mr Brett's point towards the end of his speech. He criticised the call in the motion. I understand why he put that at the feet of the First Minister and deputy First Minister because they are the co-chairs of the Executive Government here.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Chair of the Executive Office Committee giving way. I know that she and her party have been engaged in this for a long time. Is she as disappointed as I am that neither the First Minister nor the deputy First Minister or even the junior Ministers could be bothered to come along today to engage in the debate?

Ms Bradshaw: Yes, I agree. They need to take full ownership of addressing the deficit here.

We must be clear that legislation that dictates how the Executive should function is only half the battle. The Assembly has failed to create and implement the internal institutional enforcement mechanisms that are required to make the Act meaningful. For the Alliance Party, achieving real accountability requires two key changes to the institutions.

We need a clear, independent and transparent process for dealing with breaches of the ministerial code that removes the power of sanction from the partisan politics of the Executive. That process must apply to everyone, regardless of party or position. Furthermore, when a Minister acts outside their authority or contrary to the law, breaching the collective principles that the 2021 Act reinforced, it must ultimately be the authority of the Assembly, representing the people, that delivers the consequence.

We should also note the ongoing importance of ensuring that Ministers neither act in a way that glorifies terrorism or paramilitarism nor show favour to those who participated in such things. Their task is to heal wounds, not repeat them. Accountability cannot depend on political convenience or legal rulings after the damage is done; it must be built into the system. Our goal in the Assembly is to forge institutions that are stable because they are fair, transparent and bound by consequence, not because they are frozen by inertia.

We will not support the Sinn Féin amendment. I will allow my colleague Michelle Guy, who sits on the AER Committee, to speak to that. I have spoken to Mr Gaston about the ability of the Commissioner for Standards to put forward sanctions. The TUV amendment removes the provision for reform, which is a key part of the Alliance Party's aspirations for this place. Reforming our internal systems is the only way to honour the promise of partnership agreement. Let us move forward from a system that shields Ministers to one that earns unequivocal public trust.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was not expecting to be called, so I will speak to the motion briefly.

As others have said, the motion is limited in substance, but I do not say that in order to take away from its intent. I am sure that it is well meaning, but there is not a great deal in it. I have said at the Assembly and Executive Review Committee — it is good to see so many members of that Committee here — that it is in that Committee that that work should be carried out.

There has been a distinct lack of stability in this place for many years since the Assembly was founded. There is a distinct lack of scrutiny and, sadly, of public confidence,, and we see that time and time again. That is not necessarily the fault of the institutions; more often, it is the fault of the parties involved in bringing them down. I take the Member for North Belfast's point about those who lauded the Good Friday Agreement as if it were written on tablets of stone. We in the Ulster Unionist Party take great pride in our role in creating that document and in the peace and stability that came about on the back of it. Having spoken to most of its authors, I know that there was an expectation among them that those rules would evolve over time: even its authors would have accepted that, 25 years on, we would see change.

For me, change has to come through the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. There is a great deal of work going on, and the proposer of the motion sits on that Committee with us. As has been said, we are looking at a great deal of work around Executive formation, cross-community voting and the nomination of the Speaker. That Committee has been tasked with that work. I would be concerned were it simply to be kicked to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, who are not here today, as they represent only two parties. Any successful reform of the institutions —

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. Having sat on the AERC in a previous mandate, I agree that that is certainly the place to review this. If we look at the name of the ministerial code of conduct, however, we can see that it is the 'Northern Ireland Executive Ministerial Code'. That is why, as set out the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the First Minister and deputy First Minister are responsible for it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Stewart: That is a fair point. The motion, though, goes further than that and talks about Assembly and Executive reform generally. That is why that Committee is well placed to do that.

My second point — I made it in the Committee, and I think that others would agree — is that any changes to the institutions need to have cross-party input and agreement. We have seen what has happened in the past. On the three occasions when fundamental changes were made to the Good Friday Agreement, whether at St Andrews, at Stormont House or in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), not everyone was involved. Those changes were often made at times of crisis, and, at times of crisis, changes are made to pacify and suit those who have created the crisis, not to create the best forms of institutions.

Mrs Guy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Stewart: Absolutely, yes.

Mrs Guy: In light of what you have said, would you signal your support for a citizens' assembly-style of civic engagement that would allow people to come together in a representative way to bottom out some of those issues?

Mr Stewart: I take the Member's point. We discussed that, and I have no problem with the public feeding into any process. That was an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement. However, I see us as the citizens' assembly. We are all nominated and elected by the people, and we all have a mandate to be here and contribute, and we are contributing those points to the Committee.

To come back to my point, previous changes that we have seen were, sadly, at times of crisis. What we saw on the back of that were bad decisions taken to pacify and placate those who created crisis. That is not a good way to do it, so I take some comfort from the fact that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is working collegially. We are taking a good range of evidence. There is a collegial spirit in that Committee, and I genuinely believe that proposals for reforms —.

Mr O'Toole: I thank Mr Stewart for giving way. I am on that Committee with him: it is working broadly collegially, and I want to see it continue with that work. To be absolutely clear, I proposed the work stream in the first place. Some in the debate would suggest that the AERC is the Second Vatican Council. I am genuinely surprised at Members. I look forward to all the progress that will be made in that Committee. It is a Committee of the Assembly. It does not stop us giving a view about anything, in the same way as we are not prevented from giving a view on education, health or any other subject.

Mr Stewart: You have made a good job of giving your view, Mr O'Toole, on many subjects, and we appreciate that. However, the reality is that this is a non-binding motion on the First Minister and deputy First Minister, who are not here. Whatever amendment passes today, like most of the non-binding motions that we debate in the Chamber, nothing will come of it. Work is being carried out by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. That is where the work needs to continue to take place, and I am pretty confident that we will see at least some of the changes that we want to see.

Ms Ní Chuilín: The clue is in the title: Assembly and Executive Reform Committee. That is about reform across the board. Irrespective of that, I still do not understand why the amendment cannot be supported. I genuinely cannot, because it includes what people in the SDLP and the Alliance Party have said at the Committee. Yet, when they step in here, it is something completely different. I am sceptical about why they cannot support the amendment.

There is absolutely no doubt that confidence among any members of the public watching or listening to this place, particularly after today, will be at an all-time low. In fact, I was speaking to a group of people from across the community at a good relations event last week about acts of remembrance, talking about the need to move on and talking about citizens' assemblies. They are good, because people use them as an opportunity to tell you what they think. They do not miss you and hit the wall, and they are honest and productive. However, the toxicity in this place is not down to Ministers; it is down to people who speak from these Benches, as well as some of the Ministers. What we saw two weeks ago was Members going on a genocide junket. That is the best way that I can describe it. One of them was a Minister, and that has caused people from across the board to ask, "Where is the bar? Is the bar now so low?". It has caused public damage.

The Assembly and Executive Review Committee can be as good or as bad as we want it to be, but there needs to be an outcome. I have been here since 2007, and I have seen Ministers agree to do things in Programmes for Government and then walk away. One of the best things was the Líofa programme. It was accepted by the Executive, and then Paul Givan decided to pull the bursary for working-class kids who could not afford to go to the Gaeltacht. People across the board commented on that. We had legislation as a result of RHI. I am long enough here to say that we should have had it as a result of Red Sky, and we go on and we go on. I do not want to be associated with any allegations like that, and I think that most people here are the same.

I look forward to the day when it does not matter who brings proposals forward: it is what we do with them and how we make a difference. Does this place need reform? Yes, it does. It is also about attitudinal reform and about people who, frankly, use debates such as this to be hurtful, offensive, misogynistic, sectarian, racist, homophobic and Islamophobic and to be lacking in equality and respect. The reasons why the institutions came down and were under threat were basically about a lack of respect, a denial of equality and allegations at the heart of government, so let us be honest about that.

I still do not understand — I am willing to take an intervention — why anyone cannot accept the amendment.

Mrs Guy: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes, absolutely.

Mrs Guy: To be honest, I am only asking you to give way because I am going to speak to this, so, if you do not mind waiting until my contribution, I will explain in full detail why we will not support the amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you.

I gave you an opportunity to do that, Michelle, on the basis that I heard what you had to say eloquently at the AERC. That is why I do not understand. I am not agreeing with Phillip Brett — I understand why Matthew tabled the motion — but I do not understand why the amendment will not be accepted.

There is part of this that makes me think that this is just stroke politics for the sake of it. This was an opportunity to point out what we all need to do collectively and to put it up to us all, but, no, that has not happened. What has been put up to one another, frankly, is insult and offence. Does it need reformed? Do we need to be reformed? Absolutely. Does the way people speak to each other in this place need to be reformed? Absolutely. However, you cannot point the finger at anyone else, particularly in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, when you have an opportunity in this place to bring forward something, non-binding as it is, and do not do it. So pardon me for being a bit cynical about the lack of consistency when it comes to reform across this place.

Mrs Cameron: The Democratic Unionist Party recognises the need for strong and effective measures that enhance transparency and accountability in the devolved institutions. Accountability and trust matter, and Ministers should always conduct themselves to the highest standard of propriety and integrity. The public are entitled to nothing less. However, we also recognise something else that is fundamental: before any reform of our institutions, we need a period of sustained political stability. Stability is not a luxury; it is the foundation that allows accountability to operate properly and fairly.

The SDLP motion claims that, under the current structures, it is impossible to hold Ministers to account even when there has been a breach of the ministerial code or the law, but that is simply not accurate. Accountability mechanisms already exist. Since the passage of the Functioning of Government Act in 2021, the Assembly has given the Assembly Commissioner for Standards clear statutory power to investigate alleged breaches of the ministerial code. In addition, the Standards and Privileges Committee already possesses authority to set the procedures for those investigations and can require the commissioner to revisit a decision if a complaint is ruled inadmissible. Therefore, when the SDLP claims that no process exists, it is ignoring the powers that the Assembly put into law.

Our party has consistently supported fair and robust measures that ensure that Ministers are accountable for their actions. In our engagement with the Standards and Privileges Committee earlier this year, we acknowledged that the careful use of powers, particularly the ability to explore or recommend sanctions, could improve accountability, but any such reforms must be subject to essential safeguards. That is where the motion and Sinn Féin's amendment are deeply flawed. First, any reforms or changes to Standing Orders must command broad political support. Accountability should never be driven by temporary voting strength on one side of the Chamber. Reforms must be considered within the wider framework that already exists to examine such matters, namely the AERC. That is the proper structure to review institutional reform, not motions dropped on to the Floor of the Assembly without detailed scrutiny. Critically, the power to appoint or dismiss Ministers must continue to rest solely with the party leaders and their nominating officers. The SDLP motion implies that a grouping of parties should be able to dictate the appointment or dismissal of Ministers from parties that they oppose. That directly contradicts the motion's language about stability.

The integrity and independence of the Assembly standards commissioner must not be impeded. The commissioner was given powers to investigate Ministers precisely so that accountability could be independent. If the intention is to allow what would essentially be a pan-nationalist coalition to ignore the commissioner's findings and impose its own sanctions for political purposes, that is unacceptable. Any recommendations for sanctions of any kind must require cross-community support in Committee and in the Assembly. In a power-sharing system, cross-community support is not optional but fundamental. No sanction should ever be recommended or approved on the basis of a simple majority vote. Sinn Féin's amendment speaks grandly about protecting the Good Friday Agreement, yet Sinn Féin has happily abandoned the agreement's cross-community principle when it suited, most notably on the protocol. It will be interesting to see whether Sinn Féin's professed concern for the agreement extends to its upholding of core protections today. Any arrangements must guard against vexatious or frivolous allegations: without that, accountability becomes a political weapon rather than a safeguard.

Finally, we must be clear on one point that seems to have been overlooked. If a sanction prevents a Minister from taking part in the Assembly, such as their being suspended from the Chamber, that reduces accountability, as it prevents MLAs from questioning that Minister about their departmental work. That frustrates rather than improves scrutiny.

Without those safeguards, the SDLP motion and the Sinn Féin amendment would do real damage. They would undermine the independence of investigations, erode cross-community protections and destabilise the institutions. The DUP supports accountability, transparency and consequences where wrongdoing is proven, but it will not support a model that allows political parties to remove Ministers from office simply because they do not like the party to which they belong. Accountability must protect democracy, but it should not be used to manipulate it. Accountability? Yes. Cross-community safeguards? Yes. Political power plays? Absolutely not.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Member who tabled the motion, which we support. As the motion of no confidence debate evidenced today, the accountability mechanisms in this place are ineffective and allow Ministers to avoid democratic accountability. The current political balance of the Assembly means that mechanisms intended to act as minority safeguards now create an inequality that disenfranchises those of us who do not designate as "Unionist" or "Nationalist". I sit on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, so I will speak to the Sinn Féin amendment.

AERC has heard some brilliant evidence on the need for reform of Assembly and Executive structures and on how those reforms could be brought about, but there is not enough conversation about what happens if we continue to choose not to reform this place. Make no mistake: it has been a conscious choice so far not to reform the institutions.

I am encouraged to hear the Sinn Féin statements today that it is up for reform. The DUP has also stated a commitment to engage seriously in the work of the AERC, but it is worth noting that it has voted against every proposal on reform so far on that Committee. It is obvious that refusal to act undermines further the trust in this place and in its ability to operate. Evidence on public opinion shows us that there is appetite for reform. That is not surprising, yet we are not meeting that desire for change.

I do not pretend that reform will be easy. It will take courage. Continuing to do nothing cannot be the answer, however. Some have suggested that focusing on Assembly and Executive reform is a distraction from the day-to-day work of this place, but that, of course, is not true. My vision for reform is one of ensuring that the day-to-day work of this place is more effective than it is today.

The key reason that we do not support the Sinn Féin amendment is that it removes a crucial line from the motion that states:

I am not sure, on the basis of what Sinn Féin Members have said, that that was intended, but it is pretty critical to the conversation that we are having. It raises a concern for us, and I cannot stand by an amendment that removes the crucial words that we will support: "institutional reform".

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Guy: Yes, 100%.

Mr Sheehan: I take your point about the line having been omitted, but you should take our amendment and the motion in the round. There is an implicit recognition of the need for reform. Like my colleague, I am surprised that the Alliance Party does not support our amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is implicit and explicit, and that is an explicit line showing support for overcoming the challenges through institutional reform. I am sure that the Member will understand that, as a party that has really pushed the idea of reform, its omission is something that we cannot support. It is fair that our party has taken that stance in the context of our driving passion for reform.

As I said, I sit on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, so I know the work that is being done there. We will continue to do what we can through that Committee, and I hope that we can get to a point at which there is a shared vision on the Committee of what can be achieved.

I hope that we commit to a citizens' assembly. I am really glad that Sinéad signalled an openness to engage on that so that we can drive forward work through the Committee. However, that work in no way stops the call for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring forward proposals for Executive and Assembly reform. We all know that reform will only take place if Sinn Féin and the DUP agree to it, so it makes perfect sense for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to put forward proposals that they support, and that could be considered as part of the work of the AERC review. In fact, it would add to the work of the Committee and give it real momentum. It also offers us a real opportunity to show people that we can come together to deliver in their interests.

Continued institutional instability stifles this place. It holds us back and causes people to lose faith in our institutions and in us as elected representatives. From listening to everybody today, I look forward to seeing the momentum that will come forward from the AER Committee. We are going to deliver some serious stuff, by the sounds of it, and I tell you what, I am definitely up for it.

Mr Carroll: As others have said, today really shows the absurdity and the lack of accountability that we have in the House when it comes to holding Ministers to account. We had a democratic vote encompassing several parties, with a majority of MLAs — 47 — voting for a motion of no confidence in a Minister, while 33 voted against, and still, for this week at least, the Education Minister remains in place. That shows you how accountability mechanisms do not really exist in this Building and how Ministers can effectively do what they want.

I am therefore bamboozled at the amendment in the name of Mr Gaston. Effectively, he wants to limit the already limited or, I would argue, non-existent accountability mechanisms that are in place to hold Ministers to account.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much for giving way. The mechanisms are in place. The problem is that the Assembly chooses not to use them. That is the crux of my amendment. The 2021 Act brought in provisions to ensure that the Assembly and the commissioner can use powers to hold people to account. However, in the past, the Assembly has decided, in its wisdom, not to use them.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Carroll: Thank you.

My next line was going to be that the Commissioner for Standards has an important role. I remind the Member — I know that he was not here at the time; I was not either — that, in 2011, his party leader called for a motion of no confidence in Conor Murphy. I do not know which one it is. Following the logic of your argument, that will embolden Ministers and prevent MLAs from bringing forward motions of no confidence, which is understandable if your party is in the Executive, but I do not understand it from a party and a Member who is not in the Executive.

I have issues with the mention of political stability in the amendment from Sinn Féin and with the motion generally. Obviously, it will mean different things to different people. I am concerned that it could mean "protect Stormont at all costs", and I do not support that position. It was the correct thing for Sinn Féin to pull down Stormont in early 2017 over RHI — our party called for it in 2016 — when hundreds of millions of pounds of public money was splurged by the DUP. The only way for Arlene Foster to face some limited accountability at the time was to pull down Stormont. So, I do not support keeping it up at all costs.

During the period of welfare reform, there should have been a political crisis caused by pulling down the institutions, rather than hammering working-class and poor people. Given the context that we may be approaching, with more austerity Budgets, as we have heard today, and damaging Budgets, protecting Stormont at all costs is not a position that we should advocate.

The motion talks about "institutional reform", which is needed. I obviously agree with that. It should also include people who are othered in the House, including me, when their votes do not count, as Alliance Party Members have said. We should look at the recommendations of the NI Affairs Committee. It stated that the Assembly Speaker should be elected — no disrespect — by a two-thirds majority of MLAs in the House. We should take such a position, rather than having backroom stitch-ups and deals. It also proposed changing the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister to joint First Minister and having joint First Minister elections that would to be open to people from any party, including those who are others.

I have issues with the Sinn Féin amendment. Parts of it are OK, but it removes the part that:

I am sceptical about whether those proposals will ever be —.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will in a second.

I am sceptical about whether those proposals will ever come forward, but, at the very least, that line should remain in the motion.

I give way to the Member.

Mr Sheehan: I heard Michelle make the same point about the First Minister and deputy First Minister bringing forward proposals for reform. It is like the academics who come to Committee and use broad brushstrokes, saying, "We cannot get this, that or the other". One party is to blame. We do not have tax-varying powers here because the DUP is opposed to it. We do not have proper female representation in this place because other parties do not follow Sinn Féin's example. Instead of blaming everybody, let us put the blame where it lies. If there is no agreement between the First Minister and deputy First Minister on reform, it will not be the First Minister's fault.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for that. I did not accuse his party of anything. His intervention was slightly defensive, but that is his right. The Member should be clear: if proposals are made about reform in this place, shout about them; say them. He made some points with which I generally agree, but, again, he should vote for the motion as it is. The motion is not ideal, but voting for it is better than amending it to remove the responsibility of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring forward proposals to reform this place. It should be on them to ensure that that is done quickly and that the can is not kicked down the road to the Committee. It is an important Committee, but I argue that people are trying to put work on it to absolve the First Minister and deputy First Minister of the responsibility to act. I am sceptical as to whether it will happen at all, but we should, at least, not vote for the amendment for that reason.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the list of contributors. I call Timothy Gaston to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. You have up to five minutes.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I will be as prompt and as quick as I can.

In Mr O'Toole's opening remarks, he talked about reform. I will go back to the points that I made in proposing the amendment. There is an obsession with reinventing the wheel, but you cannot and should not have to do that, because the structures already exist. The problem is that you decide not to use them. The Functioning of Government Act 2021 already gives us that power, but the parties opposite refuse to use it. You cannot call for strengthened accountability while ignoring the mechanism that is in place, which is the Commissioner for Standards.

The next contributor was Sinéad Ennis, who talked about how the Education Minister has lost the confidence of the community. We hear that Sinn Féin is up for reform. Sinéad seems to speak of that as though coming from the all-knowing oracle, but I am quite sure that Sinn Féin does not speak on behalf of unionism. Therefore, I would not get too carried away about Sinéad's comments about the community losing confidence in Mr Givan. His only alleged crime was going to Israel and visiting a school, but the problem for Sinn Féin, Alliance, the SDLP and Gerry Carroll is that he went to Israel at all. Even if the Minister had not visited a school, we still would have had the pantomime that we have had today. They have been shown to be anti-Israeli.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I said both things in my comments. I said that he should not have gone to Israel and that doing so should be enough for him to go from office, but I also stated that he broke the ministerial code and blurred the lines when it came to actions that he should not have taken as a Minister who represents everybody. I mentioned both things today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Before he uses that extra minute, I appeal to him and all others not to rehearse arguments that we had earlier in a separate debate but to stick to the principles and references of the motion. I will insist that they do so.

Mr Gaston: It is shameful that Gerry has battened down and doubled down on his statement that Paul Givan should not have gone to Israel. I believe that he should have. I got an invite. If I had been able to go, I would have happily gone to Israel. It is only because of unionist Members —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Can we go back to the motion, Mr Gaston, please?

Mr Gaston: Yes, absolutely. It is only because unionist Members of the House went out to Israel to bring back some of the stories that —. My goodness, the BBC, as we have seen —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, I am not looking for a factual report on an overseas trip. I have made clear my request that you stick to the terms of the motion.

Mr Gaston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will go back to the motion.

Sinn Féin is once again lecturing us on what it does and holding itself to moral standards. On 28 January, I proposed a motion to the House, which was unanimously agreed. In that motion, there was an onus on the First Minister to come and correct the record about comments that she had made on 7 October 2024, which were directly related to the McMonagle scandal. The First Minister has not done that, so I believe that gives zero credibility for Sinn Féin to come to the Chamber and lecture anybody on reform, after the way it handled the McMonagle paedophile scandal and the fallout from that.

Mr Brett was the next Member to speak, and he talked about Mr O'Toole criticising the very structures that his party created. Indeed, he referred to them as being carved into "tablets of stone".

Paula Bradshaw was next to speak, and she talked about the greatest threat to these structures and said that the powers are weak. I agree with some of the Alliance Party's points about reform. Indeed, I will pick up on the point that she raised specifically about the fact that Ministers should not glorify terrorism. If that were the case, we would not have too many Ministers on the Sinn Féin Benches, and that is something that I would very much welcome. They would be bound by consequences, but the problem is that, at the minute —

Mr Sheehan: Those days are over, Timmy. They are over.

Mr Gaston: Now, Pat, you would not come in on an intervention. You did not have the guts in the debate earlier to come in and challenge me. You did not have the guts to bring me in —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Comments through the Chair.

Mr Sheehan: Do you want to give way now?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way. Come on, Mr Sheehan, let's hear you.

Mr Sheehan: I just wonder whether the Member would be prepared to comment on the eulogy that his leader gave to the paedophile and wife beater, Mr Tweed. Will he comment on that?

Mr Gaston: I was not here at the time, but taking lectures from a cash-and-carry bomber is something that I will not be doing when I am standing in this Chamber. You have a brass neck on you. You are brazen. The hypocrisy just bleeds out of you, Mr Sheehan.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, back to the motion.

Mr Gaston: The next Member to speak was John Stewart. He talked about the minimal substance in the Bill.

The one that I want to finish on is that from Carál Ní Chuilín, the Principal Deputy Speaker of this House, who referred to the "genocide junket". That is certainly not what the trip was about. It was a fact-finding mission to expose the hypocrisy of the Sinn Féin/Hamas cosy relationship. My goodness, you do not want the propaganda, but you love to wheel it out, courtesy of the BBC, but —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The motion is about holding Ministers to account, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — you do not like being called out about it. My goodness, Sinn Féin Members should hang their heads in shame. The bed partners that you keep and the terrorist partners that you have.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up. Thank you, Mr Gaston. It is just a pity that we could not return to the motion, but time is up.

I call on Pat Sheehan to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. You also have five minutes.

Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

First of all, there may be people watching this — sad, as they may be — who do not really understand the remit of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. With regard to the proposed reforms of the institutions, the Committee will take evidence from experts, academics, constitutional experts and so on, who will lay out what they think is a possibility with regard to reform. We will question them, ask them how it affects the Good Friday Agreement and so on, because we do not want to bring in any aspect of reform that might damage either the spirit or the letter of the Good Friday Agreement. When the Committee has completed its hearing of evidence, it will then lay out the options and have a much bigger public consultation.

The need for reform in these institutions is clear, especially with what has happened over the past couple of weeks and the outworkings of that here today. A majority voted in favour of no confidence in the Education Minister, yet he remains in post. That outcome underlines the need for serious work to be done on how we ensure accountability in these institutions.

Twenty-seven years on from the Good Friday Agreement, we must acknowledge just how far we have come and how much things have changed, as I pointed out to Mr Gaston. The context in which we now operate is fundamentally different from that of 1998, and, with that in mind, we must look seriously and maturely at the question of reform.

Sinn Féin is up for that discussion. We are open to exploring how our institutions can be strengthened and accountability improved, but we are equally clear that any reform must defend, not dilute, the principles and protections of the Good Friday Agreement. That is why our amendment refers the matter to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is the proper forum in which to examine the issues in detail, hear the expert evidence and bring forward meaningful proposals.

As part of the Committee's current work, we are already engaging with academics, constitutional experts and others on questions such as the role and election of the Speaker; cross-community voting and designations; the process for Executive formation; and all the other important issues. They are complex issues that require thoughtful consideration. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is the place to have that conversation, test ideas, build consensus and ensure that any changes strengthen rather than undermine the institutions. I was pleased to support a proposal from my Committee colleague Alliance Member Michelle Guy to explore enhanced civic engagement on institutional reform. Civic participation was key to building the Good Friday Agreement, and it should remain central to how we continue to shape the political institutions.

Let us be honest, however: reform here cannot happen in isolation. Legislative change would ultimately be required at Westminster, and that, too, must be approached in a spirit of cooperation. I take issue with the leader of the Opposition here. Throughout his speech, he almost suggested that reform here can happen quickly, that it can be done almost immediately. I am not suggesting that he did that deliberately to make a misrepresentation, but that is what he suggested. I also take issue with the line in the motion that states that the First Minister and deputy First Minister must, together, bring forward proposals for reform. He knows that that will not happen. He knows that the DUP is opposed to reform and that the First Minister, in that role, cannot bring forward proposals for reform on her own. Forgive me for thinking that that line in the motion is just cynical.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: If the position is that the First Minister and deputy First Minister cannot or will not agree, although they have never said that that is the case and that has never been articulated officially, does the Member agree that the First Minister should articulate clearly her party's position, ideally in the AERC, in order to explain where she wants reform to go? After all, she is the First Minister: the head of the Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Sheehan: As our leader in the Assembly, Michelle O'Neill appointed Carál, Sinéad and me to the AER Committee. We constantly report to her as our party leader here, and she, at times, delegates it to us to bring forward proposals at the Committee and supports those proposals as leader of Sinn Féin. She will not do that as First Minister, because she cannot. You know that. That is why I said that you were being cynical: you know that you are asking for something that cannot be given. You are like everybody else who uses broad brushstrokes rather than laying the blame where it belongs. If Members are serious about reform of the institutions, they need to move away from mealy-mouthed words and start being honest and having a bit of integrity.

Our message is clear: Sinn Féin is up for a discussion; we are engaging with the detail; and we will continue to do so through the proper forum, which is the AER Committee. Others, particularly the DUP, need to explain where they stand, because setting their face against reform —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up.

Mr Sheehan: — is not a plan for the future and is not good enough —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Thank you.

Mr Sheehan: — for the people we represent here.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Sheehan.

I call Sinéad McLaughlin to conclude the debate and wind up on the motion. You have 10 minutes, Sinéad.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will close the debate by stating something really plainly: the refusal to reform the institutions is the clearest possible admission that this place will never work. Every Member here knows that. For years, we have tiptoed around the truth, pretending that our problems are cultural, political or temporary. They are not: they are structural and systemic. Our problem is that the current make-up of our institutions, which were forged by the two greatest parties — the two largest parties; that was a Freudian slip — in the St Andrews Agreement, has been bent and twisted beyond recognition. Going by your comments, Phil Brett, that might be news to you. The changes that happened under the St Andrews Agreement were an affront to the Good Friday Agreement. Yes, the Good Friday Agreement is a precious achievement, but it is also a living document. It is not a museum piece. Those who claim to be its defenders, some of whom come from strange places, while refusing even the most basic reforms are, in reality, its biggest threat.

As a member of the Committee for the Executive Office, I see first-hand the dysfunctionality of its structures. Frequently, the Executive Office cannot even agree on papers to be issued to the Committee for scrutiny. Officials have to cancel evidence sessions on fundamental issues, such as an update on the delivery of the Programme for Government. It is an absolute mess. The public have lost confidence not just in the parties but in the competence of this place. People watching at home genuinely doubt whether Stormont can ever function like a normal Government. Can you blame them? Earlier, we saw how Ministers cannot be held accountable for their actions. How can we have a situation where a motion of no confidence is brought before the House, passed by the majority of Members and yet amounts to nothing? That is not symbolic of a healthy democracy, nor is it purely the pursuit of those outside the Executive. The First Minister signed the motion of no confidence seeking the removal of the Education Minister: what message does that send to the public about how partners in government act? How can people have faith in delivery when that is what they see from those who are entrusted to lead? We have allowed a political culture to develop where division is rewarded; personal attacks replace policy; every debate becomes a performance; and the question at election time is not about the values, principles or — heaven forbid — a manifesto but simply about who sits in the high chair. While parties posture over meaningless titles, the public get nothing. Failure to reform is a failure to deliver.

At times, the debate was thoughtful and, at times, it was depressingly predictable. It has proven a simple truth: we can pass all the motions that we like on health, housing, childcare and infrastructure, but none of it matters while the fundamental flaw in the institutions remains untouched. I remind the Chamber of what the First Minister said during the last collapse of the Assembly. When the DUP refused to enter the Executive, Michelle O'Neill warned that its boycott:

She was absolutely right. Every word was right. I therefore ask the First Minister, with respect, whether she still believes that. If she does, does she accept that the same warning must apply equally to her refusal to rule out collapsing the institutions in the future? If the collapse of Stormont threatened democracy then, it threatens democracy now. I welcome Sinn Féin's endorsement this evening of reform and the strengthening of the institutions. Time will tell how serious that party is. When my colleague proposed to look at it at the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, Sinn Féin members initially voted against it until they realised that it was a bad idea politically to do so. With the greatest respect, Carál, your party did not even submit a response to a call for evidence.

Whether you support the Union or a united Ireland and whether you are a nationalist, unionist or neither, the truth remains the same: you cannot sell anything if the house from which you are selling it is falling apart. Unionists want to sell the Union, and we want to sell a new Ireland, but nobody will buy a basket case. Right now, that is what this place is. The dysfunction of the institutions overshadows everything and every aspiration, be it constitutional, social or economic. Nobody wants to buy ideas from a system that they do not believe works.

It does not have to be that way. We have an opportunity in this mandate to fix it and to change how this place works and to do so ourselves, rather than being forced into it by Westminster after another collapse. That is why the SDLP tabled the motion. We believe that, without reform, anything else is pointless. Let me be clear: equalising the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister is only the beginning. If we are serious about building institutions that work, they need practical, not performative, reform. We need a Speaker who is elected by a broad Assembly majority, not on the whim of whichever party wants to hold the Chamber to ransom. We need the nomination of First Minister to be tied to the d'Hondt system so that no party can threaten collapse simply by refusing to nominate. If a party does not take the post, it should move on. We need genuine power-sharing, which means ensuring that parties beyond the two big ones have a meaningful route into the Executive.

Our society has changed significantly since 1998. For example, the average house price in 1998 was £50,000: it sits today at £185,000. We now live in diverse, multicultural communities. Our electorate is no longer limited to the political definitions of unionism and nationalism. I am much more comfortable calling myself a social democrat than saying I am a nationalist. The Alliance Party is right to question the outdated political structure that does not give weight or value to a significant proportion of our people.

Good government should not be confined to a nationalist or unionist headcount. It is unacceptable and undemocratic, and, worse, when abused, it is absolutely sectarian. We need Ministers who meet their responsibilities, including their North/South and British-Irish duties. It is time to put ransom politics to bed. If a Minister refuses to do the job, they should not keep the job. It is that simple. Those are not radical ideas; they are basic steps that are needed to stop collapse and to stop parties gaming a system that was meant to serve the public, not their electoral tactics.

I know that some people hate to hear this, but we reached the point long ago at which every strategy and campaign is overshadowed by the dysfunction of this place. Whatever side of the constitutional debate you are on, it is impossible to argue that the institutions work. The SDLP has been consistent. We brought forward reform proposals in February. We have pressed for accountability. Just last month, my colleague Matthew O'Toole secured agreement at the AERC to examine serious options to prevent future collapse.

I will briefly address the Sinn Féin amendment. It would rid the First Minister and deputy First Minister of their responsibility to help to reform the institutions. It argues that the AERC is the place for reform to be formulated. However, that completely ignores the fundamental issue: if the Assembly were to collapse, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee would no longer exist. The continued refusal of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to rule out collapsing the institutions fundamentally undermines the ability of the AERC to deliver any meaningful reform.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: I have no time. Sorry.

The First Ministers now have a choice: engage constructively or keep defending a system that repeatedly falls apart and fails the public. Northern Ireland deserves a Government that works, not one that merely survives, staggering from crisis to crisis, and can be pulled down by parties when it suits them. Reform is not optional —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Ms McLaughlin: — it is essential, and —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Ms McLaughlin: — the SDLP will —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you.

Ms McLaughlin: — continue —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up.

Ms McLaughlin: — to push for it. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order.

Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr McCrossan: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): 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 to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes.

Daniel, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr McCrossan: The motion before the Assembly is both clear and necessary. After more than 10 years of warnings, reviews, reports and unfulfilled commitments, we ask the House to agree that Northern Ireland must now legislate to establish a properly resourced and operationally independent environmental protection agency (EPA) before the end of the mandate. The proposal is not new, and it is clearly not controversial. It is the natural next step in a discussion that has been ongoing for many years but has rarely been matched by decisive action. For too long, our political system has acknowledged the problem and even identified the solutions yet has struggled to follow through.

Northern Ireland is currently operating with an environmental governance system that is no longer fit for purpose. It does not adequately protect water quality; it struggles to ensure compliance with environmental standards; and it lacks the level of oversight and enforcement that the public expect from a modern regulatory framework. Ultimately, it fails to give people confidence that serious environmental issues are being handled with the urgency and authority required. The independent review of environmental governance that the Minister commissioned earlier this year set out the scale of the challenges with absolute clarity. It identified persistent weaknesses in how environmental responsibilities are structured, managed, overseen and, indeed, enforced. It also made an unavoidable connection between those weaknesses and the environmental pressures now confronting us, including the crisis at Lough Neagh.

The review confirmed that earlier evaluations had also found that the present arrangements are not designed to meet either current environmental needs or the more demanding challenges that lie ahead. That is not an isolated observation. It sits alongside a long sequence of similar findings that stretches back to the original review that was held in 2011. Assembly Committees have raised the issue repeatedly, and the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) agreement explicitly committed all parties to the creation of an independent environmental protection agency. Scientists, councils, community groups and environmental organisations have warned for years that, without structural reform, the system will continue to fall short, yet progress has moved at a pace that does not reflect the seriousness of the situation.

The consequences of that inaction can now be seen across Northern Ireland. The images of Lough Neagh last summer and, indeed, in the years before that under dense, toxic algae blooms were not only alarming but deeply symbolic of a system that has been allowed to drift for too long. Only a modest proportion of our rivers achieve good ecological status, and untreated or partially treated waste water continues to enter waterways at levels that are simply not acceptable. That, combined with the chronic under-resourcing of enforcement and the complex, fragmented governance structure, is clearly how we have arrived at this point.

The issues are not abstract or distant. Poor environmental management has direct consequences for public health, particularly in drinking water safety and for those who live, work and spend time near the affected areas. It has a direct effect on the rural economy, including tourism, angling, agriculture, small businesses and hospitality. It carries real reputational risks for our agri-food industry, which relies on high environmental standards for market access and, indeed, consumer trust. It threatens the future of our natural heritage: the rivers, lakes and landscapes that form a central part of our identity.

Perhaps the most corrosive consequence has been the damage to public trust. When communities see Lough Neagh in crisis, they ask who was responsible for preventing it. When rivers decline, they ask, "Who enforces the rules?", and, when pollution incidents occur, they ask, "Who will be held to account?". Too often, there is no clear answer, and, in the gap, confidence is eroded further. Farmers feel targeted and misunderstood,; communities feel that their concerns go unanswered; and environmental groups feel that their warnings are left without meaningful responses. Many feel powerless as they watch long-term decline take place in real time.

The question before us, therefore, is not whether a problem exists but what the Executive intend to do to resolve it. That is why establishing an independent environmental agency is vital. The view across independent reviews is consistent: Northern Ireland requires a regulator that is structurally independent of political Departments, that can take decisions based on scientific evidence, that can enforce compliance robustly and fairly and that has the resources and statutory powers to carry out its functions effectively. All parties in the Executive have accepted that principle. In 'New Decade, New Approach', every party committed to the creation of an independent environmental protection agency. That was not externally imposed but collectively agreed — there were no opt-outs or qualifications — yet, five years later, the commitment remains unfulfilled. We do not have the legislation or the agency, and the problems that an agency was meant to address have continued to worsen.

The Minister has stated that he intends to introduce a Bill. That is welcome, but we must be realistic about the time that remains in the mandate, which is less than 18 months. The work must begin immediately, or it will not be completed. Further delay would result in yet another missed opportunity, and the consequences for the environment would be significant.

We have frequently heard in the Chamber references to the debates on the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill in 2022, so I will briefly address that. During that process, the Alliance Party tabled an amendment to create an independent office of climate change and environmental protection. Although that amendment was well intentioned, it was not fit for purpose, as it did not define powers; it did not set out functions or governance and enforcement measures; and it did not explain how that office would interact with existing institutions. It was, in essence, an undefined concept grafted on to legislation that was never designed for that purpose.

The SDLP has always backed the principle of an independent environmental protection agency as set out in 'New Decade, New Approach', but what was presented there was not delivered. Here we are, in late 2025, with no progress. The Minister who criticised that decision is the same Minister who still has not delivered an environmental protection agency, despite the fact that the amendment that he cited said that one should already be in operation.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member criticised the amendment to the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill because it did not define functions. Does that not underline the need for the review that the Minister commissioned upon taking office, the recent report on which sets out what the agency's functions ought to be in order to inform the next steps towards setting it up?

Mr McCrossan: I thank Mr Tennyson for that intervention. Our point is that, in effect, the proposal had no teeth. That was our main point of concern. Equally, we see countless reviews proposed in this place, with little delivery as a result.

Minister, give Northern Ireland the independent environmental protection agency that it was promised and that is so urgently needed. Since I expect the debates on the Climate Change Bill to be referred to in the debate, as they have been on so many recent occasions in the Chamber, including by Mr Tennyson today, I will say that it is vital that we do all that is in our power to bring about that important agency. The suggestions by the Alliance Party attempted to place an undefined concept in legislation that was not designed for that purpose. As I said, we are now in 2025, and the Minister has not delivered what he promised. Public trust must be rebuilt. Communities must feel that their concerns are being taken seriously. Farmers really need assurance that enforcement is proportionate and based on evidence. Environmental organisations must know that expert warnings will not be dismissed. The Assembly must have confidence that environmental decisions will be made impartially and transparently.

Creating an independent environmental protection agency will not provide immediate answers to every challenge, but it will put in place the essential foundation for serious environmental governance. It will create institutional clarity. It will strengthen enforcement, ensure that decisions are not influenced by undue political pressure and provide the accountability and structure necessary for effective, long-term improvement. It will allow the Department to focus on policy and strategy while the regulator concentrates on compliance and enforcement. It will provide the Assembly with the confidence that environmental matters are being handled with independence and competence. It will place Northern Ireland on a modern footing comparable with the arrangements that have existed in other parts of Britain and Ireland.

There is now no credible reason to resist the change. Independent review supports it; experts recommend it; all Executive parties have previously endorsed it; and the public expect it. The alternative is further deterioration, growing public frustration and a continuation of the uncertainty that has characterised environmental oversight —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Can the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr McCrossan: — for far too long. I commend the motion to the House.

Ms Finnegan: Sinn Féin supports the motion and the amendment. We have consistently and publicly called for the creation of an independent environmental protection agency. It is a commitment that has been at the heart of our approach for many years. The simple truth is this: without strong, independent environmental governance, there can be no real accountability, and, without accountability, there can be no public confidence.

The crisis in Lough Neagh has laid bare the consequences of years of weak enforcement, fragmented responsibility and political delay. This is not just about one lough or one river; it is about how we protect all of our shared environment: the air that we breathe, the land that we depend on and the biodiversity that sustains us. Pollution does not recognise borders; it spreads, accumulates and damages livelihoods and communities alike. That is why Sinn Féin believes that the North urgently needs an environmental protection model that is truly independent, properly resourced and empowered not only to respond when harm is done but to prevent it in the first place. We need a body that can hold polluters to account, whether that is large commercial operations or smaller ones, in a way that is fair, proportionate and consistent.

Our party has been engaging with local communities, farmers and businesses across the North. They are the people who care deeply about the environment and want to do the right thing. They are not looking for punishment; they are looking for clarity, support and fairness. They deserve a system that sets clear standards and ensures a level playing field for everyone. For too long, responsibility for environmental oversight has been passed from pillar to post between Departments, councils and agencies. That lack of joined-up action has left enforcement gaps wide enough for serious damages to occur. An independent EPA can bring the coherence and coordination that has been missing for too long.

It is also vital that the work be anchored in all-island cooperation. Environmental challenges do not stop at the border, and nor should our solutions. Shared catchments, shared coastlines and shared air quality demand shared strategies. We have an opportunity to build an agency that strengthens environmental protection in the North while aligning with best practice and partnerships across the island. At its core, this is about protecting the natural heritage that belongs to us all but doing so in a way that is practical, fair and sustainable. Regulation must be strong enough to protect our environment but flexible enough to support the livelihoods that depend on it.

The motion calls for the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency. That should not be seen as a political trophy or a talking point. It is about responsibility, transparency and trust in ensuring that we leave behind an environment that is cleaner, safer and more resilient for the generations who will come after us.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Just for clarity, there is no amendment proposed to the motion.

Ms Finnegan: Apologies.

Miss McIlveen: I have no doubt that the SDLP motion is well intentioned, but it ignores a fundamental reality. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs finds itself incapable of properly funding the environmental structures that it already has. We are being asked, however, to fund yet another expensive quango. We already have the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), which exist to safeguard our natural environment, enforce regulations and hold Departments to account. Their collective failure to do so rests at the Minister's feet and that is his responsibility.

We are not short on oversight, but we are short of results. There is a tendency in the Chamber to tag Lough Neagh into every motion on the environment, and we need some honesty on that issue. Creating another agency will not clean up Lough Neagh; it will not improve water quality. It will create another costly layer of bureaucracy — another structure with its own staff, offices, reports and headlines, but very little delivery on the ground. We do not need more committees, commissions or quangos; we need results. We need a system that actually works.

Rather than token gestures or bureaucratic reshuffles, if the Minister truly wants to lead on the environment, he should start by fixing the system that he already controls. That means ensuring that the NIEA is properly resourced and empowered to act. It means cutting through departmental silos so that agriculture, infrastructure and environment policies work with rather than against each other. Importantly, it means holding senior officials and Ministers to account for delivery and for their failures.

The SDLP motion speaks about governance and accountability, yet it proposes that we remove accountability from the Chamber, Ministers and elected representatives and hand it to an unelected quango.

Mr Blair: Will the Member give way?

Miss McIlveen: No, I will not.

That is not environmental leadership; rather, it is environmental abdication. The creation of another quango is a means by which the Minister avoids responsibility and accountability. It all becomes someone else's fault, and, as we have seen repeatedly, that becomes a safe space for an Alliance Minister. We have already heard the Minister complain that he is vilified for taking difficult decisions, and now he wants to create an agency to take those decisions for him. It is a convenient shield and a way to say, "It is not my fault; the agency decided". If we allow the Minister to hide behind a quango, what message does that send? It is that, when the going gets tough, we delegate. It is that Ministers can wash their hands of environmental enforcement and blame the quango instead. Accountability should remain with elected representatives and not be handed to an unaccountable board of appointees. We are meant to be living in a democracy.

The independent review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland mentions accountability 34 times, but its recommendations only dilute that. I cannot think of a single occasion when adding another layer of bureaucracy solved a problem. We must also be wary of what happens when so-called independent bodies are created. They grow legs and arms. The Equality Commission's handling of the Ashers case should be a salutary warning. It was an independent body that was established to promote fairness and was never set up to police conscience or dictate belief, but its overreach cost the public dearly.

Mr Tennyson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The matter in the Order Paper relates to the independent environmental protection agency. I am not sure what relevance the Ashers case and the Equality Commission have to the debate, other than the Member's wish to engage in a homophobic dog whistle. I do not believe that she would have raised that case were it not for the sexuality of the Minister who is sitting beside me. I ask for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, as to whether that is relevant to the debate, and I ask the Member to withdraw her comment and to apologise, because it is disgraceful.

Mr Blair: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Mr Tennyson. Your point has been noted and will be passed to the Speaker's Office for further investigation. Please keep to the debate, Miss McIlveen.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an example of the overreach of unelected quangos.

Recommendation 22 of the review states that the agency:

In other words, it can decide what is a priority and what is not. Who, then, will direct environmental policy in Northern Ireland? Will it be the Minister or the quango? What we need is better delivery from the structures that we already have. If the Department and the NIEA were made to do their jobs properly, with clear lines of authority and proper resourcing, water quality in Lough Neagh could be improved, biodiversity protected and pollution tackled without creating another costly bureaucracy. That rests at the feet of the Minister.

The motion is a recipe for more bureaucracy, less accountability and higher costs. It will do nothing to clean up Lough Neagh or improve air quality. It will, however, create jobs for bureaucrats and headaches for everyone else. An independent environment agency is not the panacea for the ills of Lough Neagh. We need accountability and coordination, not duplication and confusion. The buck stops with the Minister, and that is where it needs to stay.

Mr Blair: I thank the Member who tabled this timely and vital motion. It is especially fitting that we debate it today, on the opening day of COP30, when political leaders from around the world are gathering to demonstrate their commitment to tackling the climate crisis. It is only right that the Assembly send the strongest possible signal that we too are prepared to meet our environmental responsibilities.

For the Alliance Party, creating an independent environmental protection agency is more than just a policy. Rather, it is a fundamental principle and a long-standing goal. We have consistently advocated for one. Its establishment is vital for a sustainable future for Northern Ireland. Our Alliance Party Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is actively working to deliver on that commitment. Just last week, he gave a detailed update in the Chamber in which he reaffirmed his strong commitment to establishing an independent, effective and well-funded environmental protection agency.

The need for such an agency is pressing, and the evidence is now irrefutable. The recent independent review of environmental governance provided a thorough and scientific assessment of that evidence, highlighting not only the depths of the environmental pressures facing Northern Ireland but the critical gaps in governance, accountability and enforcement that have undermined real progress. The report's conclusion is clear: an independent environmental protection agency is needed in order to strengthen environmental governance in Northern Ireland.

The distressing situation at Lough Neagh — I make no apology, despite the DUP's protestations, for mentioning Lough Neagh — the tragic loss of biodiversity, the state of our rivers, illegal dumping at sites such as Mobuoy and the ever-worsening impacts of climate change are a testament to the environmental, social and financial costs of inaction. We cannot continue to accept fragmented environmental governance, divided among multiple agencies with blurred lines of responsibility and accountability. That fragmentation breeds inconsistency and inefficiency and, most harmful of all, allows vital deadlines and targets to slip past unfulfilled.

The Alliance Party recognises that creating a genuinely independent environmental protection agency will be challenging and that it is not a quick solution to our problems. Difficult choices will be necessary, and funding will need to be secured. That should be viewed not as a drawback but as an investment in our future. The Assembly cannot keep repeating its despair about Lough Neagh or our declining environment while, time and time again, failing to deliver the interventions that are desperately required. To achieve lasting and effective solutions, we must embrace cross-departmental collaboration. Environmental challenges do not respect departmental boundaries or sectoral silos. They demand an all-of-government approach that is underpinned by strong political will and a shared responsibility. The environmental protection agency must be operationally independent and must be supported by, and work with, every part of government. Only through taking that approach can we bring about the transformation that is needed.

It is not only about obligations but about opportunities for positive, lasting change. An independent agency would act not only as a vital watchdog and deterrent to polluters but as a catalyst for restoration, investment and fostering public trust in our institutions. It could drive improvements in cross-border cooperation, helping protect what is a single biogeographical unit spanning the island of Ireland. Relationships with the Irish Environmental Protection Agency, the Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner, when appointed, and the Office for Environmental Protection will be essential to our shared success.

We must also learn from the shortcomings of the past. The absence of functioning government for nearly two years has meant missed deadlines for urgently needed environmental strategies, such as the previously delayed environmental improvement plan. That cannot happen again. We must now commit to resourcing the new agency, not just through funding but with legal powers that equip it to act decisively, independently and effectively. Despite what the DUP said earlier, all the reshuffling and restructuring of the current structures will not make any of them independent of government. The DUP knows that.

We need to deliver an IEPA that protects the environment, ensures accountability and regains public trust. In simple terms, the public expect more from us in this Chamber, and, quite frankly, our natural environment deserves better. Alliance is happy to support the motion, and we hope that the Minister will receive the political support to deliver an IEPA that the public will expect him to receive.

Mr Butler: The Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion, because the findings of the independent review of environmental governance were a long time coming, and, if you have read them, you will have seen that they make for some difficult reading. The environmental decline of Lough Neagh is not an isolated failure, but it is the clearest example of the blurred responsibilities, weak enforcement and lack of accountability that exist. Whilst we welcome the motion's objectives, it is fair to say that it was drafted before the Minister's recent announcement. The timing does matter, however. Some of the actions that are called for in the motion are now acknowledged by DAERA and the Minister, and I believe that work has begun. That makes the debate no less important, because the Assembly must now ensure that what was previously promised is actually delivered and delivered well.

The Department has accepted the review's 32 recommendations, but there remains uncertainty, certainly from my perspective, about the pace, the sequencing and the direction. Stakeholders across environmental organisations, farming, business and local government are all waiting for clarity. They want to know not just what will change but how it will affect them, because we need to step in time. Reform imposed without proper engagement will not deliver long-term improvement.

The proposal to publish a road map of environmental governance is a positive but overdue step. For too long, the system has been opaque: everyone responsible yet no one accountable. However, a map alone will not solve that problem, so once the picture is clear, the focus must be on removing duplication, not adding to it. Creating a new environmental protection agency must not mean replicating existing functions or adding another layer of management, because independence cannot come at the cost of efficiency. The Ulster Unionist Party supports genuine independence for the environmental regulator, but independence must be built on a well-defined mandate, proper resourcing and financial transparency. Anything less risks its becoming a cosmetic exercise — changing logos rather than culture. Independence achieved through structure alone will fail unless it is matched by operational clarity and accountability.

Oversight by the Assembly is essential. The proposal for an environmental audit committee deserves serious consideration. Independence must not mean isolation, because a new regulator that is free from interference must still be answerable to the elected representatives of the people that it serves. That is how public confidence will be rebuilt: through transparency, not through detachment.

We also acknowledge the Department's stated intention to strengthen compliance and broaden the use of civil sanctions. Whilst complex, that should be welcomed. Too often, environmental offences are met with token penalties and do little to deter repetition. Enforcement must be visible, fair and proportionate. Only then will it command respect across industry and communities alike.

Another area that requires clarity is the Department's relationship with NI Water. The review's recommendation to exit the current SORPI arrangements is fundamental, because a regulator cannot sit within the same system as the body that it regulates. That separation must be real and decisive if we are serious about restoring integrity to environmental oversight, particularly in waste water management and pollution control.

None of this will work without genuine stakeholder buy-in, which has to be front and centre. Farmers, environmental groups, councils and businesses must all be part of designing the systems that will regulate them.

An advisory committee representing civic society is a sound proposal, but it must have influence, not just symbolism. Education, support and partnership will achieve much more than enforcement alone.

The Ulster Unionist Party, while supporting the motion because it reflects the direction of travel that we have long argued for, also makes the point that clear governance, real accountability and independent oversight will be critical. We add this note of caution: reform must simplify, not complicate; it must clarify, not confuse; and it must deliver outcomes, not bureaucracy. Northern Ireland cannot afford another round of restructuring that multiplies agencies, blurs lines and drains resources. We need a regulator that is lean, trusted and effective and works with others rather than sitting above them.

We will support the motion as a statement of intent but also as a reminder that the true measure of progress will not be the number of organisations created but the quality of the environment that they protect.

Mr Kearney: We are living through one of the worst ecological and diversity declines in Europe, so our party supports the urgent establishment of an independent environmental protection agency. That is an unfulfilled commitment from 'New Decade, New Approach' in 2020. The delay is not good enough. We need to be seized with an urgency to deal with our environmental and biodiversity crisis. Therefore, we welcome the motion from the SDLP. I also welcome the Minister's engagement on the issues thus far.

The most shocking example of the dilemma — the existential crisis — that we face is the ecological catastrophe in Lough Neagh. I regret the dismissive approach that the SDLP Member who spoke took in relation to the centrality of the lough. That flies in the face —.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kearney: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: You said that someone from the SDLP dismissed the centrality of the lough: was that a misspeak? Were you talking about another party?

Mr Kearney: If I said "SDLP", that was a misspeak [Laughter.]

My remarks were directed towards the intervention from the Member of the DUP who spoke.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Declan, you get an extra minute.

Mr Kearney: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and thank you, Matthew.

Those dismissive remarks detract from the centrality of the lough to this important conversation. They fly in the face of the views of local stakeholders — those who live and work around the lough shore — who want to see the establishment of an independent environmental agency. Just transition principles, Lough Neagh and the need to lift the issue above politics must be our shared and collective focus. The environment and how we challenge that issue in the Assembly should be above party politics. It is a national emergency that requires a North/South intergovernmental response. It demands concerted and joint political action from the Assembly, the Executive and the Irish Government.

The pollution in Lough Neagh has deep and complex repercussions for the lough shore community. It jeopardises the commercial fishing industry and the entire biodiversity of the lough itself. It endangers our sustainable access to safe drinking water. It damages tourism and other economic opportunities and the rich historical heritage that is associated with Lough Neagh. The total collapse of eel fishing in the 2025 season illustrates how the environmental crisis is devastating livelihoods and economic activity along the lough shore. Research from the Office for Environmental Protection reports that the North has lost approximately 50% of its diversity during the past 50 years. Many of our fresh waterways, rivers and lakes are failing to meet healthy ecological standards.

A recent report from Friends of the Earth reveals that, between 2020 and 2024, 4,202 water pollution incidents were reported by NIEA. Incredibly, from that total, only 63 fines were imposed on the polluters. Such an inadequate and ineffective response will never deter the polluters. Pollution will continue unchecked in the absence of an appropriate agency that is equipped with the capacity and remit to properly sanction those responsible for polluting our land, waterways and air.

The commitment made five years ago to establish an independent and properly resourced environmental protection agency must be delivered without further delay. Inaction will lead to the greater devastation of our environment and natural habitat. Time is running out. We need to act now.

Mr T Buchanan: I am not as enthusiastic as others around the Chamber about how a new body will deliver what we are looking for. I note that those who tabled the motion claim to be the Opposition who hold Ministers, Departments and the Executive to account on delivering more effective, efficient and accountable governance. However, what they have brought to the House as a solution to our current environmental challenges are proposals for increased bureaucracy in the form of an environmental protection agency with powers to set its own enforcement policy. For me, that creates concern, as it should for everyone around the House. What role will the Minister with responsibility for the environment have in directing that policy? How much scrutiny will the AERA Committee have over such policy? The answer is none. The Committee will have no scrutiny powers over the policy that is set by that agency. Do people in the Chamber believe that that is good, effective and accountable governance? I do not believe that it is.

How many environment agencies do we need to protect our environment? Let us examine what we already have. We have the Northern Ireland Environment Agency; the Shared Environmental Service; the Office for Environmental Protection; Waterways Ireland; and the Public Health Agency. All those agencies are already in place. Look at that list of environmental agencies: what is the justification for another agency that will be accountable only to itself? What will be its role and function beyond those of the agencies that are already in place? How much will it cost, and where will that funding be found at a time when all Departments are under such financial pressure? If the Department cannot adequately fund what is already in place, how is it to fund a new body such as this? Perhaps the Minister will provide clarity on those issues when he responds to the debate.

Do those who tabled the motion and the other parties really expect the House to accept the addition of another independent agency and another layer of bureaucracy to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs without any scrutiny or indication of how it will be funded or how it will interact with the existing environmental bodies?

Mr Blair: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that the Office for Environmental Protection, which was on his list of environmental agencies, is simply a replacement for the European structures that Brexit removed and is not a directly responsible independent environmental protection agency for Northern Ireland? Nor is Waterways Ireland such an agency, as it is responsible for the development of waterways in Ireland. Does he accept that those agencies are not directly responsible for environmental protection and it is not correct to present them as though they were?

Mr T Buchanan: What causes me a problem is a new agency having the power to set its own enforcement policy without scrutiny or direction from the Minister or the Department. That is where the problem really lies. Would it not be much better practice for the Minister to review the effectiveness of all the current environmental structures to ensure that they deliver than to establish another agency that is neither necessary nor appropriate?

The new agency could be detrimental to our environment rather than improving it. I will clarify that point. Placing more bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy always leaves a thing less effective. A few years ago, what were we doing in the House? We were fighting to cut red tape in the Department of the Environment.

Now what are we doing? We are adding more red tape to red tape and more bureaucracy to bureaucracy, which leaves the processes much less effective. We all want to see improvements to our environment and pollution issues dealt with, including those relating to Northern Ireland Water, but we need to see them dealt with in an effective way by bodies that are held accountable. That will not happen with the new body or quango that is going to be set up.

At present, our farm businesses are hindered by an over-bureaucratic process that prohibits them from enhancing their farm buildings. Doing so would reduce ammonia levels and therefore pollution, but the stringent targets set by the NIEA, and the months of delay to the NIEA and the SES reaching a decision between them, mean that a farm business that could reduce its ammonia levels by perhaps 90% or more through new, upmarket buildings is instead compelled to work with its old system that results in high ammonia levels.

Would it not be sensible for the Minister and the Department to look at those structures, free them up and get things more effective so that the farming community is able not only to make progress but to help to clean up the environment? We must allow our farm businesses to grow, where possible, while protecting the environment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Tom, can you bring your remarks to a close, please?

Mr K Buchanan: It is time for the Minister to work alongside farm businesses to provide that way forward.

Miss McAllister: I support the motion and welcome the SDLP's tabling it. I will speak about the preservation of our future for our future. We have sewage spillages; pollution in our rivers and lakes and on our beautiful beaches; and illegal dumping in our rivers, country parks and countryside. We all feel the consequences of that, regardless of whether we are in a rural constituency or an urban constituency. It is not just about abstract ideas, theories or fearmongering; it is about real-life events that affect our lives and our biodiversity, that are affecting the extinction of species — our natural fauna and plants — and that increase or worsen flooding. Pollution affects our air quality, and we all know that the people who live in the communities that are already affected by poverty are the worst affected by air pollution.

The Lough Neagh crisis did not develop overnight. We all recognise and accept that. It took a generation for it to reach the current worsening and deepening crisis, and it will take a generation to fix the problem, but we can do it if we all — Government, Opposition, local councils and communities — work together.

Alliance has long supported the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency and has always supported the establishment of a body that will have that protection and independence from not just one Department but all Departments, into the future. How many of us who are in the Chamber today have contacted our local councils or the NIEA about illegal dumping, whether that is tyres, rubbish or thousands upon thousands of other instances of illegal dumping within our urban or rural environment? How many of us have been told by them that they have bigger fish to fry and cannot deal with those smaller issues? How frustrating is it for all of us, as elected reps, to be told that? We simply do not have enough when it comes to protecting our environment. That is not because of Alliance's wishes. Indeed, it is not because of one single party in the Chamber. It is because of a collective failure, over the years, to recognise that our environmental protections need to be strengthened.

We attempted to do that through the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill. I recognise and welcome the comments from the proposer of the motion, which clarified the SDLP's position on that. It is important that we put that behind us, move forward and work together to get the independent agency up and running.

We know that that may not happen, because of the position in which we find ourselves when it comes to power-sharing. That is why I turn and call on the DUP to support the motion. I hear what it says about governance issues and bureaucracy, but we do not buy that. We do not believe that.

You say that having an independent agency will not fix Lough Neagh, so let us look at other ideas that will potentially fix it. The nutrient action plan — you voted against it. An increase to cross-compliance penalties for repeat polluters — you voted against it. Climate targets — you voted against them. Your record stands for itself. There is no need to hide behind absolute nonsense when it comes to protecting our environment in the future and for the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Opposition motion on the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency for Northern Ireland, and I thank the leader of the Opposition for tabling it. From the outset, I make it clear that I have long held the view that Northern Ireland needs an independent EPA. That belief is rooted in the clear and growing evidence that our current environmental governance arrangements are not fit for purpose and are failing everyone. For too long, our environment and nature have suffered from a lack of robust protections. The consequences are visible to us all and are increasingly severe, from the crisis in Lough Neagh to waste crime, as exemplified by one of Europe's largest illegal dumps at Mobuoy.

The independent review of environmental governance, led by Dr Viviane Gravey and supported by Diane Ruddock and John McCallister, has provided a comprehensive and evidence-based road map for reform. I thank the independent panel and the related stakeholder reference group for their rigorous work, which included the consideration of 590 responses to a public call for evidence, three public events and extensive stakeholder engagement across Northern Ireland, Great Britain and Ireland. The panel's final report, which was published on 21 October, sets out 32 recommendations under four key themes: clarity and coherence; meaningful independence; better compliance; and transparency and accountability. Those recommendations aim to deliver a governance system that is robust, trustworthy and capable of meeting our environmental obligations whilst restoring public confidence. At the heart of the report is a recommendation to establish an independent environmental protection agency as a non-departmental public body sponsored by DAERA. The proposed EPA would be responsible for:

The model would ensure a clear separation between policymaking and regulation, aligning with best practice across these islands. It would also provide the necessary independence to build public trust whilst maintaining accountability to the Assembly.

Northern Ireland is currently the only region — the only region — in the UK and Ireland without an independent EPA. I fail to see how any Member here today would want to continue to support that position. The absence of an independent EPA undermines public trust and confidence, weakens compliance and hampers our ability to deliver meaningful environmental outcomes.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: Yes.

Mr Tennyson: On the basis of what he said, does the Minister agree that we have the DUP campaigning for a border in the Irish Sea when it comes to environmental governance?

Mr Muir: I find it strange that Members of a party that purports to have a concern about other issues believe that we should have a different set-up in Northern Ireland when it comes to the environment or on rights and equality for people in Northern Ireland.

The costs of inaction and of not having an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland are stark. The Mobuoy illegal waste site will cost between £100 million and £700 million to remediate. This year alone, my Department is spending over £17 million to address the crisis in Lough Neagh. Those figures illustrate the economic consequences of failed governance and non-compliance. Inaction also leads to degraded ecosystems, public health risks and lost opportunities for sustainable growth. We must act decisively to reverse that trend. I am therefore seeking Executive agreement to establish an independent environmental protection agency as a non-departmental public body of DAERA. A public consultation will follow securing agreement, after which firm policy proposals will be brought back to the Executive to enable legislation to be drafted and implemented. I am fully committed to progressing that work at pace, but in order to do so, I need urgent support from my Executive and Assembly colleagues. The window of opportunity is tight, but, with swift decisions, full and unconditional backing and a willingness to work at pace from both the Executive and the Assembly, we can legislate for an independent EPA in this mandate. We need to see some of the current momentum and desire for change. How people vote on the motion is important.

Aside from the recommendations on an independent environmental protection agency, the report makes a number of recommendations that fall within my Department. In parallel with our work to prepare an independent EPA, I will work with my officials to take forward those recommendations. Some aspects already align with ongoing work or our own plans for improvement.

At this stage, I will address some concerns that were raised after my oral statement last week. I understand that Members will have concerns around the delay in establishing a new independent EPA. I assure you, however, that the review was critical to understanding the complex environmental governance landscape post EU exit and to charting a practical way forward. A key part of the new governance system will be to look at the functions of NIEA and other bodies and to remove any duplication. The overall intention is to streamline the new independent EPA and ensure that it is effective and efficient in order to, for example, allow a speedy response to planning applications.

I am acutely aware of the shared environmental challenges across these islands. Pollution and environmental crimes do not respect borders. Through a new independent environmental protection agency, I want to foster a culture of improved collaboration in which we all work towards better environmental outcomes by sharing information and best practice. There are existing structures in place for that. I will seek to build on those through formal memorandums of understanding.

On the funding issue, my officials will consider detailed costs to establish a new independent environmental protection agency and will bring formal proposals back on that in due course, if I get the green light to proceed with an independent environmental protection agency in principle. However, that should not be seen as a barrier at this early stage. What we need to agree is that the status quo is no longer sustainable. Funding issues can be worked through. The enabling legislation will include safeguards to protect against underfunding, similar to those that are in place for the Office for Environmental Protection, which replaced the role that was previously undertaken by the European Commission.

We should have nothing to fear from an independent environmental protection agency. A regulator that operates independently should give greater confidence that issues are being tackled proportionately and regulation applied fairly. That is about more accountable regulation and, through that, creating a fair and more level playing field for all. The independent EPA will operate under a clear legislative framework, with oversight by an independent board and scrutiny mechanisms that are established by the Assembly. It will have a clear mission, with measurable environmental outcomes.

I have been clear in the past that enforcement should be the last stage in the process to ensure compliance when all other options have failed. Education will play a crucial role in how we shape our governance structures going forward. Prevention is key to all that. If we can advise and guide as much as possible, and that brings about the change that is needed, we will not need to enforce. However, when pollution happens despite our best efforts to educate and inform, and regardless where the pollution comes from, we need to move swiftly to enforcement and to ensure that sufficient deterrents and resourcing are in place for that.

I recognise that some Members have expressed scepticism about the creation of another public body. Let me be clear: this is not about bureaucracy; it is about delivering effective, accountable and independent environmental protection. There are many non-departmental public bodies throughout Northern Ireland that perform a vital role. This one should be no different.

As I stated last week in my oral statement, this is a pivotal moment for Northern Ireland. I urge Members to put their support on the record, not just in principle but in practice in the voting Lobbies, so that we can move forward together in setting up an independent environmental protection agency. The people of Northern Ireland expect and deserve better environmental protection, greater accountability and a system that they can trust. I am committed to delivering that. I hope that the Assembly will join me in supporting the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency.

As the Bucks Fizz song 'Making Your Mind Up' goes:

Tonight is the time for making your mind up.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, indeed. After that musical interlude, I call Mark Durkan. Mark, you have up to 10 minutes to make the winding-up speech.

Mr Durkan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just hope that my colleague does not whip my skirt off. [Laughter.]

I am covered at least.

In closing today's debate, I will reflect on our storied landscape. Miss McIlveen expressed unhappiness about the continual reference to Lough Neagh. Although every hill and lough here holds a tale, when we speak about Lough Neagh, we are speaking not just about a body of water but about a place that is woven into our mythology and the very sense of our identity. Fishermen swore by its waters. Storytellers spoke of wood turned to stone. Communities drew life and livelihood from it shores. Although we now understand those myths in a different light, their meaning holds true. Generations that came before recognised something that many of us seem to have forgotten, which is that our well-being and the land's well-being are interlinked. What was once a symbol of vitality has become a mirror of our failures. The suffocating green expanse that chokes the life from its waters is a physical manifestation of years of neglect, delay and dysfunction. Perhaps that is why the DUP does not like its being mentioned.

From what we have heard today and seen over the past few years in particular, it is clear that environmental governance in Northern Ireland is not working. The independent review of environmental governance laid it bare: from the devastation of Lough Neagh to the illegal dump at Mobuoy, we are facing a failure of accountability, enforcement and leadership at the core. Review after review has stated the same thing, which is that we need an independent environmental protection agency that is properly resourced, fully empowered and free from political interference. Every Executive party, including the DUP, signed up to that commitment in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Five years on, however, we are still waiting. That is another NDNA commitment that has been neither delivered on nor achieved.

We are not blaming the Minister. We are willing him to maximise the majority support that now exists in the Assembly — I expect it to manifest itself again today — and in the Executive, which did not exist when I was Minister. The Minister has been clear that he wants to deliver an independent EPA. Although we of course welcome and support that, there are just 18 months left in the mandate. If we fail to legislate now, this term will end with nothing to show for it but more environmental decline and public frustration. People have lost trust. Their warnings have been ignored while sewage spills and pollution are met with shrugs of indifference. That begs the question: who is protecting our environment? The answer, sadly, is that no one is protecting it very effectively. In recognition of that frustration, I have a private Member's Bill that seeks to introduce legally binding and measurable targets for air, water and soil quality and biodiversity. That is yet another recommendation of the independent review that has not been implemented.

Successive Executives and AERA Ministers have been unable — I am not going to say "unwilling" or that anyone has failed — to treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves. We were the last part of these islands to put in place climate legislation. That delay has seen biodiversity destroyed, with many indigenous animals and plants at risk of extinction, as Miss McAllister said. That is not hyperbole but reality. Northern Ireland currently ranks as the twelfth-worst country globally for biodiversity loss. We cannot protect what we do not measure, and we cannot recover what we refuse to count. Meanwhile, as the only region across these islands without an independent EPA, we remain an outlier. The other EPAs have been in place for decades. I therefore do not know how the DUP can justify its concerns when the other regions of the UK, all of which have an independent EPA, have better environmental outcomes. Tom Buchanan fears that the proposed new agency will increase bureaucracy but then lamented bureaucracy and failures in the existing arrangements.

We have seen the toxic consequences of what our existing environmental protection looks like. Lough Neagh is the most visible example, but it is not the only one. I mentioned the damage that has been inflicted at Mobuoy, which risks costing hundreds of millions of pounds to clean up, yet those responsible will walk away with barely a slap on the wrist. Miss McAllister gave much smaller, everyday examples of the inherent weaknesses in the current system. There are always bigger fish — or fish kills — to fry.

We need radical reform of environmental oversight, clear accountability, proper penalties and an independent regulator with the resources and teeth to act. That is in no way a criticism — I certainly hope that it is not construed as one — of the individuals who are working in the NIEA. Their expertise and enthusiasm are shackled by the system in which they have to operate.

The Minister has said that establishing an EPA will require resources. I know that we are still at an early stage in the process, but I would like to know how much that might cost. If the costings were done 10 years ago, we can only expect them to have gone up, but the cost of inaction will undoubtedly still be much greater.

Miss McIlveen cited resources as a reason for not establishing an independent environmental protection agency. We do not envisage it as being an addition to the environmental protection function of NIEA but a replacement of it. Until we change the system, incidents such as Mobuoy will keep repeating. That is why we in the SDLP are calling for the delivery of an independent environmental protection agency before the end of the mandate. Any delay is another missed opportunity and another looming crisis.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: Certainly. Quickly.

Mr Muir: Will the Member acknowledge that the ability to block things at the Executive and our resulting inability to progress something on which the will of the Assembly has been stated is damaging our environment, which is why we want to reform the institutions?

Mr Durkan: I agree with the Minister. We are nearly on the same page on the subject. That was demonstrated by the fact that, on that very subject, we tabled a motion today, and you made a statement in the House last week. Coincidence, I am sure.

A strong and independent EPA can rebuild public confidence and restore our natural assets. It can help us meet our climate commitments and coordinate with our counterparts in the Irish Government. It is ludicrous that the protections that exist in the South simply stop at a line on a map — a point that Ms Finnegan made. The agency should, and will, eventually, operate on an all-island basis, but I do not want to give the DUP another reason to oppose its establishment. Pollution of the air, water and land does not recognise borders. Collaboration is key if we are to deal with the environmental crisis effectively.

We need a model that puts environmental protection at the heart of decision-making. It should not be an afterthought. Let us not be remembered as the Assembly that fiddled while Lough Neagh died. Let us be the one that chose to act and confront one of the greatest challenges of our time.

Mr Blair mentioned COP30, which kicked off today. The mood music emanating from COP30 is very different from the optimism of 10 years ago in Paris at COP21, at which I had privilege of representing Northern Ireland, the Assembly and the Executive. It is not a case of good COP, bad COP, but future generations will look back on this time through the lens of history. Let them see courage, not complacency. Their prosperity and health depend on the choices that we make today. Let us get on with it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, can you move out of the Chamber quietly, please? Thank you. Have a bit of decorum, thank you.

Mr McGrath: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that eight minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Colin, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The motion comes from a simple but urgent concern that our health and social care system is, once again, entering the winter without the confidence, clarity or coordination that it deserves. Each year, we see the same story repeated: staff stretched beyond endurance, patients waiting too long for care and plans that arrive too late to offer real assurance. Each year, we hear the voices of health professionals saying that we need to do more to prepare for next year, and, each year, the Department of Health somehow misses the mark.

The Opposition motion is not about scoring points; it is about recognising that our system and the dedicated staff who keep it standing cannot keep absorbing crisis after crisis without change. At the heart of the debate are the people who hold the system together: nurses, GPs, allied health professionals (AHPs), care workers and all those who show up every day with professionalism and compassion. I will highlight some of their voices today.

The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and the Community Rehabilitation Alliance have been crystal clear: they tell us that community rehabilitation, which is one of the most effective tools we have to improve patient flow and reduce hospital demand, remains largely invisible in this year's plan. The Department has had a draft community rehabilitation framework ready for some time, yet it still has not been published, and no explanation has been given for the delay. That is a real missed opportunity, because rehabilitation is a necessity. Physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and rehabilitation assistants enable people to recover safely at home, prevent avoidable admissions and support timely discharge. While the plan includes some pieces of the puzzle, it does not have a strategic framework. We need a clear home-first, rehab-first approach embedded across all future winter plans.

Allied health professionals more broadly, the second-largest workforce in our health system, have also been overlooked. Aside from paramedics, they do not appear in the plan at all, and that omission matters. AHPs are essential to keeping people independent, mobile and out of hospital. Excluding them from planning discussions means that we are underusing one of our greatest assets in tackling winter pressures.

The Alzheimer's Society has similarly voiced deep concerns that dementia is not mentioned in the plan. That is startling, when dementia now accounts for over 16% of winter mortality and, we are told, is the leading cause of death in Northern Ireland. One in six patients in hospital at any given time has dementia, and there are about 15,000 A&E visits each year by people with undiagnosed dementia. The plan talks about older people living with frailty but fails to recognise that many of those people are living with dementia. Including dementia expertise in the Department's "Big Discussion" could have helped to ensure that training, discharge planning and community support were properly aligned with the reality on the ground. We must do better.

The Royal College of GPs (RCGP) has warned that GPs are again being asked to deliver more with little extra support. The additional winter funding this year equates to about 2·5 days' worth of appointments spread across four months, a figure that simply does not reflect the scale of the challenge. GPs are the foundation of community care. If we continue to under-resource them, the pressure will spill back into emergency departments and the cycle will repeat itself. This is what our motion is about: coordination, communication and accountability. We have the people, the skills and the ideas to make winter preparedness meaningful, but it requires joined-up planning that values every part of the workforce, listens to all the professional voices and acts on evidence.

The amendment rightly acknowledges additional funding for staff pay. I welcome that recognition, because fair pay is not an optional extra. However, it leads me to one reflection: is it not amazing how other Executive parties — this is not exclusive to the party proposing the amendment — will readily throw the Minister under the bus when he needs the funding but, when the money suddenly appears, they all jump at the chance to declare that they were the ones who found it? The motion does not seek to attack the Minister or throw him under the bus; rather, it simply says that, if we listen to the voice of our healthcare staff and make fairness and coordination the hallmarks of the system, next winter perhaps, for once, we will not be talking about coping with a crisis but instead delivering care with confidence.

Ms Flynn: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You will have five minutes to propose and three minutes to wind. All other Members who speak will have three minutes.

Ms Flynn: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to tonight's debate on the winter preparedness plan and pay, albeit that it is slightly outdated, thankfully, with the progress that we have seen in the past couple of days. Everyone in the Chamber will be thankful that, together, the Minister and the Executive were able to deliver a pay settlement for our Health and Social Care (HSC) staff. That is the most important thing to come out —.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you for taking an intervention. I have a process point that is quite important. The additional £100 million for the pay settlement was announced by the Executive on 16 October, yet I understand that the amendment was lodged with the Business Office on 5 October. Can you explain how you knew about the £100 million and how it was communicated?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute.

Ms Flynn: Thank you, Diane. I am not sure. My understanding was that the amendment was possibly submitted after the original £100 million was set aside by the Executive, as opposed to the additional £100 million. I am not sure whether that answers your question, but I can get that clarified for you. It is my understanding that the original £100 million was the basis of the amendment, but I am happy to have a chat with you following today's debate.

I welcome the Minister's confirmation. At Question Time, the Minister of Finance spoke about the Health Minister's confirmation that future pay awards will be prioritised at the start of each financial year. The Finance Minister encouraged all Departments to prioritise their pay awards, especially for our Health and Social Care workers, at the start of the financial year, if that is doable and achievable, as opposed to trying to scramble and being genuinely stuck to meet the need at the end of the financial year. I am really pleased that the Minister promised in his statement that that situation will not happen again. I welcome his commitment to taking responsibility for those allocations going forward. I sincerely believe that that is what true accountability looks like across all our Departments, and it is what staff and the public expect.

We all recognise the immense pressure that staff across the system are under. That is all staff: nurses, doctors, porters, care workers, the whole team who basically keep the system running. They are the backbone of the service. They deserve respect, recognition and fair pay. Thankfully, that is exactly what we have been able to achieve. While no one is pretending that all the challenges in health are fixed, the Executive have stepped forward to prioritise health and deliver on pay when it mattered most and to support our Health Minister. The Department of Health now has a record budget of over £8·4 billion and additional allocations through each of the monitoring rounds, but with all that support comes responsibility.

It is not enough to simply ask for more money each time that you find yourself stuck financially. That goes for every Department that finds itself under pressure. That pressure comes from years of underfunding imposed by the British Government. Our health service, schools and communities are all living with the consequences of decisions made in London and not made directly in this Chamber. However, the question for us now is this: how are we spending what we have? Are we doing things differently? Are we learning from last year and the year before that? None of us wants to see a repeat of last winter. I think back to the long lines of ambulances outside emergency departments, with patients waiting for hours to be admitted or discharged and staff being exhausted and working flat out. That cannot happen again. Sadly, it dragged on beyond the winter, and staff say that it is all year round.

I would like to hear from the Minister how his Department will address some of those issues, what interventions can be put in place to keep people out of hospital and away from emergency departments, first and foremost, and whether there will be any additional investment in GP practices on top of what was already announced at the Health Committee. I would like to hear about the specific steps that are being taken to prevent avoidable admissions to hospital. Hopefully, that will take the pressure off emergency departments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I call Diane Dodds, I remind Members that they have three minutes to speak. Diane, over to you.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although part of the motion is somewhat irrelevant now, like the previous Member who spoke, I welcome the fact that healthcare workers will receive the appropriate remuneration. It is important for all of us to have a workforce that is valued and motivated and that we support.

I will say a few words about the winter plan. It contains some positive but relatively small-scale initiatives that, I worry, will not make a difference for patients who are lined up in hospital corridors or waiting for an ambulance. When we talked about that, Minister, you said, for example, that the Northern Trust, which does not have an acute care at home service, was to start one this November — perhaps you can tell us whether the Northern Trust has done that — but it would initially cater for only 10 people. That is good for the 10 people who get it, but it is limited in scope. It is the same with many of the initiatives in the winter preparedness plan.

We know about much of the plan's content. We know about the issues that are involved. The big issue that is not addressed, however, is social care. We will not be able to resolve winter pressures if we cannot get people to leave hospital who are fit and ready to do so in order to get other people into the beds. In September, Craigavon Area Hospital had 700 care packages outstanding. That is a huge number. I understand the pressures on the budget, but hospital flow is where the problem lies. Again, Minister, perhaps you will advise the House about that matter, because it is important that we understand, as of this moment, how many people are in hospital beds who otherwise may be able to go home.

I turn to the amendment. As I said, I welcome the fact that healthcare workers are to receive their pay uplift. I also welcome the fact that you said in your statement, Minister, that you were going to prioritise pay awards in next year's budget. Maybe you will advise the House how, if doing so leads to an overspend, that will be managed in next year's budget. Will that mean cuts to services? The House needs a little more information about how you hope to manage that part of the budgetary process.

Winter pressures are not new, Minister. When I read the document, starting from the blank page that you talked about in January, it is hard to believe that this is how little progress we have made on planning —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Diane, please draw your remarks to a close.

Mrs Dodds: — and preparation.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Opposition for tabling the motion, which we will support. Like other contributors to the debate, I am happy that healthcare workers will get their pay uplift, albeit at the end of February 2026, and that pay uplifts will be prioritised next year.

I feel a bit like a broken record when talking about winter preparedness. We first heard about this year's plan in early January, when the Minister was called to an urgent meeting of the Health Committee to answer questions about the extreme pressures that we faced last winter. There was talk of a blank page, a big conversation to be had and the promise of an August plan. September came and went, and the plan was not published until mid-October. I might have been able to accept that delay had there been any meaningful change.

The Minister told the Assembly that that delay would not have an impact on staff morale and that the plan was well ahead of last year's, yet, when the Health Committee received a 10-page, mainly pictorial report, it listed moral injury on staff as one of its major red lines, all of which were breached in the summer. The plan was published three weeks earlier than in the previous year, with few noticeable differences, not to mention that there was no consultation with key stakeholders such as the Royal College of Nursing or the British Medical Association on the final plan prior to its publication.

This is about real people and loss of life that could be prevented. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) called last year's plan "too little, too late", and it has said that it remains unconvinced that this year's plan will translate into meaningful action to reduce waiting times that it has called "dangerous". The RCEM used the standard mortality ratio as a method of working out the number of excess deaths associated with long waits in emergency departments. It calculated the figure in Scotland last year to be 800 excess deaths. In 2022, the figure in Northern Ireland was over 1,400. Our population is a third of that of Scotland, and pressures here have increased since 2022. I can only guess that that figure has increased. I urge the Minister to commit the Department to recording and publishing the data so that we can assess the situation and understand the impact in real terms.

In response to another question, the Minister shared that, on 13 October 2025, there were almost 400 medically fit patients either awaiting care packages or care placements across the trusts. That is 400 beds that could not be accessed by patients stuck in our overcrowded A&Es, and that was before the pressures began. Maybe the Minister can tell us what the figures are now.

If we want a sustainable system, the shift must happen upstream. Investment in community care must become the foundation of winter planning rather than being an afterthought. There is nothing in the winter plan that will significantly increase capacity in the community, which is where it needs to be.

We support the motion sincerely. I urge the Minister to radically rethink how he can improve patient flow at all stages in the process and to do everything that he can to increase capacity in the community so that patients can be discharged in a timely manner, which is key to easing the extreme pressures on the health service this winter.

Mr Chambers: I welcome last week's announcement on pay parity. The motion refers to the uncertainty that has surrounded pay for our health and social care staff and the knock-on effect that that has had on planning and morale in the service. However, we now have clarity and certainty for those staff, so I want to take a moment to acknowledge the work of Mike Nesbitt, the Minister of Health. From the day that he took office, the Minister made clear that pay parity was not optional but essential. He also did the right thing earlier this year when he said that he was committed to honouring the pay awards. The fact that we are in a position where the Executive have, at long last, agreed to the request that the Health Minister made six months ago to deliver parity is hugely welcome, but it is also tinged with some frustration that it took so long.

Our healthcare workforce have endured years of strain winter after winter and crisis after crisis. As MLAs, I trust that we can all recognise that pay parity is not a reward but a basic recognition of the value of their work. It is a cross-party Executive commitment that parity should be maintained. The agreement secured by the Minister last week is therefore not simply about remuneration but about safeguarding the future of our health and social care service. While it will not be easy, I particularly welcome the indication that, instead of staff having to wait into the year for their annual uplift, the Minister expects that he will be able to offer some degree of immediate uplift at the start of the financial year next April.

The publication of the strategic preparedness plan has been helpful, but the Minister probably agrees with me that even more important is the planning and work under way in individual trusts and their planning documents. Good progress has already been made in reducing ambulance handover delays.

As we know, this winter, like all winters, will be difficult, and a report is coming out about a strain of flu that is circulating. If that comes to fruition here, it will make the situation even more challenging. For the weeks and months before us, the message must be one of stability and shared purpose. With pay parity delivered, the Executive and Assembly must support the Minister in helping the system to help as many patients as possible. In the coming weeks, our hospitals are likely to focus even more on freeing up capacity currently occupied by those who are medically fit to go home. As MLAs, we all have a responsibility when engaging with local families. That means constructive engagement, not headlines. We must also be mindful of those who stand on the sidelines offering commentary but no solutions — the hurlers on the ditch. It is easy to criticise but much harder to negotiate and deliver. The Minister did the hard work, and the results speak for themselves.

I commend the Minister for securing on pay what all other parties said that they wanted to deliver but spent many months actively choosing not to.

Mr Robinson: It is important to begin by thanking the thousands of health and social care workers who, every day, show up and do serious heavy lifting on behalf of us all. The winter preparedness plan rightly highlights that it is vital to recognise the immense dedication and effort shown by our staff across HSC. Staff will tell you, however, that they are sick of warm words alone. They are sick of hearing long-winded speeches but seeing no changes to the pressures that they face.

For years, health staff have faced immense pressure. It is not just this winter that they face such pressure but every winter and all year round. There is no doubt that, at this time of year, they face higher demands and surges in various illnesses, frailty, problems with discharging patients and staff sickness. Then, on top of it all, they are caught in the middle of budgetary issues [Inaudible.]

In such circumstances, staff morale, stability and retention are key. Even the best-laid plans will not be successful if the workforce are demoralised, overworked and underpaid, which they will be until they get the pay rises that they deserve.

The winter months always bring increased demand for health and social care services. As the winter preparedness plan from the Department of Health for 2024-25 reminded us:

That is particularly true of our frail and older population.

Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way?

Mr Robinson: I will not tonight, thank you.

The plan states that, although difficult, measures will be in place, such as the Northern Trust's Hospital at Home service, but that will initially cover just 10 patients and does not appear to be able to be scaled up to make a huge difference this winter.

There are small positive steps, and it would be wrong not to acknowledge them. There are 12 additional beds in the Altnagelvin ED: I hope that that is enough and that there are enough staff to treat patients. The positives do not remove the stress that is being felt by the healthcare system and its staff. They do not allay the frustrations of the staff, nor do they fully reassure the public that the healthcare system here will stand firm and that things will improve, particularly when, so early in the season, we already see huge pressures.

The motion refers to a pay settlement for healthcare staff. That had not yet been agreed despite prior commitments. We had all hoped that the workforce would see that reflected before the winter set in, but, alas, that has not happened. Healthcare staff have been saying to me that it sends the wrong message to staff at a time when the Department is asking them to dig deeper, do more with less and face the winter surges in illness. They say that it is unfair to ask them to wait longer for recognition. In recent correspondence from the Minister to the Health Committee, he gave an assessment that a pay award in full for 2025-26 was doubtful without additional support and that such support was not expected to be available. That was disappointing to read, but I am glad that money now seems destined for those incredibly hard-working staff and that it will be factored in to the beginning of the Department's budget process.

I will be honest —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Alan, will you draw your remarks to a close, please?

Mr Robinson: — and say that, ahead of this winter, I am scared about the safety of patients.

Miss McAllister: I support the motion and the amendment on the winter preparedness plan or the start of the winter preparedness framework, as it has been called.

It is really important that we discuss the issue enough. My colleague mentioned that, at the Health Committee at the start of the year, the Minister said:

We have often been critical of engagement and consultation with those on the ground who are delivering the care. It was really important that we gave the Health Minister and the Department time and space to go away and work up plans to do things differently, but, unfortunately, that has not borne fruit. I acknowledge that there has been some engagement but not enough to use the feedback to deliver something that can make tangible change. I also recognise that there is a large resourcing pressure on the Department of Health. However, as many in the Chamber have acknowledged during many debates, the Department of Health receives over 50% of the Executive's Budget.

We need to listen to those who deliver the care. Many have mentioned the allied health professionals, whether it is occupational therapists or physiotherapists, and some of the new initiatives that trusts are rolling out to care for people in their home. The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service, GPs and even the Department all have a role to play, but, given where that role is carried out every day, those people will have solutions to the problems.

I would like to highlight a few issues that others have focused on, including domiciliary care, where there have been 7,000 redirected hours. Of the 300,000 hours that are offered per week, that is just 2·3%. That is not new. It must be welcomed, of course, but it is not new. Dementia beds are an issue. There are people in the sector who are pulling away from providing dementia beds because it is difficult to do so. We need to address that. We also need to address the 10,000 care plans that were cited. Are those new care plans or the care plans that GPs already offer, and will those be additionally resourced? It is important that we have answers to those questions, because people ask us them, as members of the Health Committee. We were told back in January that we would have a blank page, new developments and new plans to deal with the issues, so we should have those. Hopefully, through the new framework or plan for winter preparedness, we will see more solutions to the issues.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close, please?

Miss McAllister: Sorry, I have run out of time. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says and what is new in the plan.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): And, on that, Minister, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I will start in reverse order, by addressing the amendment, which I find very welcome. The Minister of Finance promised me up to £100 million towards pay, but the amendment is much more definitive than that: it talks about "£100 million". Therefore, the proposer's powers of persuasion with Mr O'Dowd are admirable compared with mine. I thank her for it.

In next year's pay awards, I have made it clear to the unions and the professional bodies that, as soon as I am aware of what my budget is for 2026-27, the first thing that I will do is make what I call a "down payment", which will be a percentage. This is a pay award, not a pay rise. This year, it is 3·6% and 4%, and that is not a pay rise with inflation where it is. They are pay awards. However, as a sign of good faith, I will put some money up front and into workers' pay packets so that, for once, instead of having to wait months for what they are entitled to, they will get something up front. It will be before the two pay bodies make their recommendations. When they do that, if those awards are higher than the percentage that I have given at the start of the financial year, I will make up the difference. If — this is very unlikely — the two pay bodies are so stingy that we have awarded more than they recommend, the workforce will get to keep the additional. However, as I say, that is extremely unlikely, and so do the unions and the professional bodies.

That is the plan. I cannot tell you what the percentage will be because I do not know yet what my budget will be for next year. Mrs Dodds wonders about the implications for service delivery, and so do I. However, until I know what my budget is and make a decision on that percentage, we cannot deal with what the service delivery issues will be.

As to the winter preparedness plan, many Members have made a lot of the fact that I said in January that, for this winter, we would start with a blank sheet and get all the stakeholders in the room. That is exactly what we did, and that is the genesis of the plan. Everybody knows that there were four workshops, which were oversubscribed. I would imagine that, if I were to go through the list of everyone who attended the four workshops, I would be talking about well in excess of 100 people who are all health and social care professionals. If anybody wants me to get them back together so that you can say, "What you have come up with is really disappointing", just say so. I will not say that to them. That is up to you. I do not know why anybody thinks that it was going to be so radical that this winter was going to be fine —

Miss McAllister: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Nesbitt: — because the big issue, which has been identified by several Members, is with the flow not at the front door but at the back door. It is a lack of community capacity. If anybody thinks that you can click your fingers and, in one financial year, sort out the fact that we do not have enough people delivering care packages at home and we do not have enough care beds in the community, they are delusional. This is a step in the right direction.

What concerns me at the moment is not the plan but the fact that this year's flu is coming early. We know that the flu comes every year from the southern hemisphere. We are seeing an unusually early start to the flu season. Surveillance data shows that it is increasing among children and rising across other age groups, and here we are on only 10 November. The NHS in England is talking about millions of vaccinations this week alone. The latest dashboard for us, which covers the week up to 2 November, has shown a doubling in community-acquired emergency hospitalisations because of flu. In the week to 2 November, it was 52 people, and that is exactly double the number in the week before. The vaccine uptake could be a lot better. In people over 65, it is over 50%, but, among 18- to 64-year-olds, it is only 21%. Here is another figure that was the same last year, in that it was troubling: of all trust-employed health and social care workers, it was 15·8%. We may be dashing towards additional winter pressures due to the flu this year.

I will go through some of the points in the plan. One is tackling ambulance handover delays through a new approach to collaborative working. There is the vaccination programme, and I again encourage all MLAs to encourage their constituents to get a vaccination, if they can. We have initiatives with Community Pharmacy, such as the Living Well and "Stay well this winter" campaigns. There are Pharmacy First services across community pharmacies, including the sore throat service, which has proved popular and effective. There is additional assistance for GP practices. Improving mental health and learning disability bed pressures will reduce the demand on emergency departments and ensure that the right care is available in the right place. We will support social care delivery in the community, improve system flow from hospitals and avoid ED attendance and admission for end-of-life care for those whose preference is to be at home. That is a big issue. We know that people who are terminally ill want to pass away at home, and we are concerned about some people sending sick people to emergency departments, where there is no bed for them, when they had a bed in a care home. We need to think about that.

There were seven outputs from those four big conversations: the identification and risk stratification of frailty in the over-65s; supporting people to be well and cared for at home; avoiding admission for end-of-life care, which I mentioned; the provision of appropriate or sensible care — some clinicians are risk-averse, so someone might get an X-ray, a CT scan and an MRI scan when doing so is not necessarily in the best interests of the patient or the hospital flow; a frail, elderly pathway for ED attendees; clinical advance care planning; and a fractured neck of femur pathway improvement group. Those were the seven categories.

I want to make another point or two, but I will give way to the Member.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Minister. Much earlier in the debate, you said that the plan was not "radical", because we cannot be radical. However, with respect, you are the Minister who stood up and said that there was a blank sheet of paper and that you were willing to take on the solutions. Many in the sector said that the plan was not good enough. That comes not from us as MLAs in a vacuum but from our engagement with people in the sector who carry out the work.

Mr Nesbitt: I am glad that the Member has engaged with the sector. The four workshops were oversubscribed because people wanted to engage with the Department. We have engaged with the sector in great detail.

The final point to which I will refer was, I think, brought up by Mrs Dodds. The Northern Trust does not have the Hospital at Home service but is starting the process to put that in place. Mrs Dodds said, "But, there are only 10 beds", and that that is great for those patients who end up being one of the 10 who get those Hospital at Home service domestic beds. That is fair enough, I suppose, but it is a start. What I question is this: how can you say, "You can only afford to do 10 beds", then say, in the same breath, "Ah, but the Department of Health gets over 50% of the entire Executive Budget"? Hospital at Home costs money. It is an initiative and a development. It is new. You cannot magic it out of the ether without money.

The idea that the Department gets over 50% of the Executive's Budget is a bit of a red herring. Remember, we got the Executive and the Assembly back up and running at the beginning of last year by persuading Treasury that the block grant should be based not on a crude headcount but on assessed, objective need. When we are looking at the Health budget, why do we go back to that crude count and say, "You have got just over 50%"? Why do we not sit down collectively and decide on the assessed objective need to deliver world-class health and social care? My answer is that I do not want to take a greater and greater percentage of the Budget; I want to shift left into a neighbourhood delivery model that concentrates on prevention and early intervention. That is what we will do over the course of 2026. In the meantime, however, we will deal as best as we can with the winter pressures, which are additional to the 365 pressures that our health and social care workforce have to deal with every day.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. I call Colm Gildernew to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Colm, you have three minutes.

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I am very pleased to follow the debate and wind up for my party on the amendment. Órlaithí has already outlined how the Executive have worked successfully to create the conditions for a pay deal for health and social care staff. I will not reiterate that in detail, but I will focus on what that now means in practice for staff and patients. For too long, health workers have lived with uncertainty about their pay, staffing levels on wards and whether the system around them will hold up when the winter pressures hit. The agreement that has now been reached and accepted by the unions gives much-needed certainty on pay. That is welcome, and it matters not just to staff but to their families and for paying their mortgages and household bills.

Pay certainty has to be matched by certainty in planning. The Minister has said that winter preparations have been ongoing throughout the year. In that case, people are entitled to see a plan being rolled out that they can recognise in their own experience when they walk into an emergency department, ring for an ambulance or, indeed, start a shift. When we talk about winter pressures, it can sound abstract, but for our constituents, it means very real situations. It is the older person who is perhaps reluctant to ring 999 because they do not want to be an extra burden on the system. It is the parent with a sick child who sits for hours in a crowded waiting room, not knowing when they will be seen, and it is the nurse finishing a 12-hour shift, staying on because there is simply no one to hand over to. A serious winter plan has to speak to all those realities. That means a clear pathway so that people can get help in the community before they end up in A&E, properly joined-up arrangements so that someone who is medically ready to go home is not stuck on a ward for days waiting on a care package, and honest and transparent information about where the pressures are and what is being done. As the Minister said, prevention has to be front and centre, and people who are eligible for vaccines need straightforward ways to get those in communities, workplaces and settings that suit them, and the staff need to be supported to take up the vaccinations.

On the pay award, the reality is that the Executive have created the space for that settlement. Every Department is certainly under pressure, and every Minister could certainly use more money. We cannot, however, ignore the harm that industrial action would have caused if those issues had not been addressed. Staff would have been forced on to picket lines, patients would have waited longer for treatment and families would have been under increased pressure.

We will continue to challenge the British Government's austerity agenda. The Executive have helped to secure the pay award, prioritised health in every monitoring round and given the Department of Health a record budget. The focus now needs to be on delivery, and we need to see a plan that makes a real difference during the coming winter and supports staff and patients.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Patsy McGlone to conclude the debate on the motion. Patsy, you have five minutes.

Mr McGlone: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate. There are common threads running through all the contributions — from my colleague Colin McGrath, Órlaithí Flynn, Diane Dodds, Danny Donnelly, Alan Chambers, Alan Robinson, Nuala McAllister and, indeed, Colm Gildernew — in the references to the very real issues that affect people on the ground in our constituencies: our neighbours and friends and the problems that they are faced with.

We are one year into the Minister's three-year strategic plan, which is apparently based around the three pillars of stabilisation, reform and delivery. Unfortunately, there is no stability. If you visit any of the emergency departments, it is often just madness, and doctors and medical staff are having to try to deal with that. The stability is certainly there in regard to the waiting lists, in that they are at record lengths. I will say one thing, Minister: the waiting list reimbursement scheme is having a material effect, and a good effect. There is one aspect of it that is not necessarily within your Department or even within the trusts, and that is the communication from the hospitals in Dublin, particularly the UPMC Sports Surgery Clinic, to the relevant staff here. I had a case recently where a gentleman had a double hip replacement. He was due for discharge last Friday or Saturday, and the trust here did not even know that he was due for discharge, because it had no communication from the hospital in Dublin. It was the hospital's duty and responsibility to inform the central comms centre so that a discharge package, whether that was occupational therapy, physio or rehab, be put in place for him. The scheme needs a wee bit of tweaking around the edges, but it is a good scheme, and many a person visits their local credit union to help out with it.

As my party colleague said, we accept the Sinn Féin amendment, noting the allocation of £100 million from the Executive Budget towards the overdue pay settlement for healthcare workers. However, as the Minister outlined, the belated allocation will not cover the full cost. I trust that he will not, but it looks as if he may have to overspend his budget for this year by an additional £100 million to fulfil that pay settlement, and, as he pointed out, it is a pay settlement, not a pay increase. It is yet another example of the Executive's annual cycle of crisis management. If health and social care staff have finally secured long-overdue pay parity with colleagues across these islands, it has come about after months of confusion, mixed messages and public infighting between Ministers. As the joint First Minister helpfully told the media last week:

I do not know what that is supposed to mean. I am sure that the Minister has been grappling with that too. Nevertheless, if the Executive could find that money now, they should have found it months ago without causing the unnecessary anxiety for healthcare staff.

We need long-term planning for funding and genuine Executive coordination, which the public and healthcare staff want to see. We cannot have the Executive scrambling at the last minute to fix problems that have been there for a long time. Everybody knows what the problems are. It is just about getting a plan to fix them. Whether it is the child waiting for an operation, the adult waiting for treatment and care in hospital for a medical condition or the older, or maybe not-so-old, person waiting for joint surgery, those are our constituents. They are people with real, human conditions: our very real neighbours, friends and relations. Let us have no more public arguments between the First Minister and the Health Minister. People just want this to be resolved.

A common theme has run throughout the debate. At the end of July this year, around 3,000 people in the North were waiting for all or part of their home care package. Almost 1,000 of those people were in the Northern Trust area, which is mostly my responsibility in my constituency. That was during the height of the summer, before the start of the build-up of pressures. The Minister has referred to flu vaccines and a peak in the earlier set-in of the flu in the community. The figures were from before the start of that. For as long as I have been an MLA, I have encountered the same problem, year in, year out, except that it appears to have started earlier this year. A key element of alleviating those winter pressures on the health service is ensuring that —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Patsy, will you draw your remarks to a close, please?

Mr McGlone: — when a patient is medically fit to be discharged from hospital, the appropriate care package and support are available for that person.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before we adjourn, I remind Members that tomorrow's sitting will commence at the later time of 11.30 am to enable Members' attendance at events to mark Armistice Day.