Official Report: Tuesday 11 November 2025

Mr Speaker: Sinéad Ennis has been given leave to make a statement in tribute to the outgoing president of Ireland, Michael D Higgins, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to speak, they may indicate to do so in the usual manner.

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

Today marks a moment of renewal and gratitude for the Irish nation. As Uachtarán

Catherine Connolly takes her solemn pledge to serve the people of Ireland, we reflect with deep appreciation on the leadership of Uachtarán

Michael D Higgins. President Higgins has led Ireland with integrity, courage and compassion. Throughout his public life, he has championed social justice, community, Ireland's neutrality and the Irish language. He placed deep value on our peace process, reaching out to all who call this island home. He has been a unifying voice for equality, inclusion and respect, which are qualities that defined his presidency and his vision for Ireland.

On the international stage, he showed unwavering moral courage, speaking out against injustice and oppression, including the Israeli genocide in Gaza. While others remained silent, he gave voice to Ireland's proud tradition of standing for peace and human rights. Beyond politics, President Higgins made an immeasurable contribution to the arts as a poet, cultural advocate and lifelong champion of creativity. His work reminded us that the arts are central to who we are as a people and a source of empathy, reflection and national pride. As his presidency concludes, we also honour Sabina Higgins for her intellect, warmth and steadfast support.

For people in the North, the presidency has always represented belonging beyond borders, yet this must be the last election in which Irish citizens in the North cannot vote for our president. Ireland is changing rapidly. This is a moment in which to embrace opportunity and to build a shared, peaceful future that is based on dialogue, generosity and vision. Relationships across this island have never mattered more. Together, we are shaping a new chapter of our national story: one of inclusion, cooperation and hope for all who call this place home.

The presidency of Ireland is a noble office that stands for the values, ideals and hopes of the Irish nation. Today, Catherine Connolly will become uachtarán na hÉireann

, with a positive vision to champion the Irish language, neutrality and unity and to be a voice for the people. I believe that she will safeguard those values, ideals and hopes with courage as a president who represents all of Ireland with integrity, honour and wisdom.

Go raibh míle maith agaibh

, President Higgins and Sabina, for your years of service, and comhghairdeas

to President Connolly on her inauguration. It is an important moment for our nation.

I close by sharing some remarks from President Higgins that should be heard and reflected on by people inside and outside the Chamber:

Ms Mulholland: It is an honour to have the opportunity to pay tribute to President Michael D Higgins, a man whose contribution to public life, the arts and the Irish language has left an indelible mark on the island of Ireland. His lifelong commitment to the revival and celebration of the Irish language has been a source of inspiration. He has reminded us that the language is not only a means of communication but a vessel of identity, culture, belonging and literature. Through his words and example, he has shown that the Irish language lives not just in classrooms or Gaeltacht areas but in the hearts of all who cherish it.

Equally, his steadfast advocacy for the arts —an area that I am incredibly passionate about — including poets, musicians, storytellers, playwrights and dreamers, has enriched our shared cultural life. During his presidency, he reminded us again and again that the arts help us to see not just ourselves but one another more clearly.

Of course, we cannot speak of his presidency without mentioning his faithful companions: first, Shadow, then Síoda, Bród and, of course, the remaining pup, Misneach

, all of whom so often stole the show at Áras an Uachtaráin. They reflected the warmth, gentleness and humanity that he brought to the role. Has there ever been a more wholesome image of a world leader than that of President Higgins with his dogs nuzzling at his legs, looking for a wee pet on the head, in the midst of press conference?

After 14 years of service as uachtarán na hÉireann

, President Higgins leaves a legacy of compassion, intellect and deep cultural pride. On behalf of those who have admired his leadership, I offer heartfelt thanks for his service to people across this island and beyond in his international role.

As his tenure comes to a close, we extend our warmest wishes to Catherine Connolly as she begins her term in Áras an Uachtaráin. I hope that her service will continue the spirit of empathy, equality and imagination that President Higgins so beautifully embodied. Go raibh míle maith agat, a Uachtaráin, as gach a ndearna tú ar son mhuintir na hÉireann.

Mr Butler: Evidently, I come from a very different background, culturally and politically, to Michael D Higgins, but I have always admired his boundless energy, his undoubtable wit and the warmth of his unique personality. His deep humanity has left an indelible imprint far beyond the confines of Áras an Uachtaráin and was in evidence, not least, as has been pointed out, when we saw him in the company of his beloved Bernese mountain dogs. As a fellow dog lover, I often think that Minnie, my St Bernard, might well have liked to meet some of his companions.

As we know, public service, and the glare that comes with it, is unrelenting, but there is no doubt that Michael D Higgins, towards the latter part of his career, found some energy when it came to his political views, and he was not afraid to share them. The latter part of his career was indelibly different from the start of it, but that is OK; it is always well and good to share our differences. He always did so with grace, intellect and a poet's heart.

One of the things that I will remember from his tenure happened when Robin Swann was the Health Minister, and it always makes me smile when I think about it. Robin quipped that he was finally glad to meet a man whom he could look in the eye. Perhaps that is proof that, even in politics, humour can bridge any height divide or political divide. I wish him well in his retirement.

Mr Kingston: We recognise that this is an important day for the people of the Republic of Ireland, with the inauguration of the new president of Ireland, Catherine Connolly. This is an opportunity to pay tribute to the terms of service of Michael D Higgins in that important head of state role.

From the perspective of the unionist community in Northern Ireland, we have to say that there were occasions of missed opportunity during that service, such as the centenary of Northern Ireland in 2021, but that is a matter for another time, and it will be reflected on. However, we recognise his service. I remember meeting him when Michael Longley received the freedom of the city of Belfast. As a fellow poet, Michael D Higgins attended that event. That was a special occasion in the Ulster Hall. We acknowledge his service to the Republic of Ireland, to the people of Ireland and to all who look to Ireland for their identity. We wish him well in his retirement and many years of happiness to come.

Mr O'Toole: I thank Sinéad, who submitted the Matter of the Day, and thank you, Mr Speaker, for accepting it. I am really pleased that, today in the Assembly, we are able to give thanks to the outgoing uachtarán

, Michael D Higgins, and to say, "Go raibh míle maith agat"

for an extraordinary near decade and a half of service to the people of Ireland. I mean "Ireland" in the truest and broadest sense of the word — this whole island and all who feel an affinity with it, both here and abroad.

Michael D Higgins has been an extraordinary representative of the Republic. It has already been said and said persuasively that he was committed to social justice, the arts, an Ghaeilge

and to championing the rights of new and marginalised communities on the island. All those things are true.

Michael D Higgins has also been an extraordinary voice for intellectual challenge and debate, and I want to reflect on that today, in addition to all his other qualities, including his ownership of the wonderful Bernese mountain dogs. Before and even after becoming a politician, he was a public intellectual and someone who was not afraid to engage in public debate and challenge. He often said that one of the gifts of being a democracy and being a republic is the challenge and gift of democratic debate, which is something that is to be constantly renewed and invested in. He used Áras an Uachtaráin to do that, including through the many events that he staged around the decade of centenaries, the Machnamh 100 events and seminars that got academics, thinkers and writers from all over the island to reflect on our history. He was an extraordinary convener of ideas.

Michael D Higgins's love of the arts is particularly to his credit. I am grateful that Brian also mentioned the fact that he came to Belfast for the awarding of the freedom of the city of Belfast to Michael Longley, a close friend of Michael D Higgins who recently passed. Michael D Higgins represented the love of the arts that is such a distinctive part of the soul of our nation on this island — all of this island. Michael D Higgins proudly represented that. He also welcomed not just the artistic contribution but the intellectual contribution of people from the whole island, including those from a Protestant, unionist, British tradition in this part of the island. We owe him a great deal. We also owe his wife, Sabina, an immense debt. She has been an extraordinary servant alongside him. Spouses of people who are elected to office are not always given that credit.

Michael D Higgins continued the work of Presidents McAleese and Robinson in building bridges across the island. I hope and expect that President Connolly will continue that, and we wish her warm congratulations today. Comhghairdeas

on her election, and we hope to hear more about her plans for the whole island. This is an important day for all of us. Thank you, President Higgins, and thank you, Sabina.

Mr Speaker: Your time is up.

Mr Gaston: It is, of course, a matter for the Irish Republic who its president is. In many respects, who holds that office or what they say during their tenure is a matter of indifference to most unionists. However, since the matter has been raised in the House, I will reflect on the legacy of President Michael D Higgins.

President Higgins will be remembered as the president who used a Holocaust memorial event to attack the world's only Jewish state, prompting a walkout by members of that minority community. He will be remembered for refusing to confront the antisemitic undercurrent in his own state and for attacking those who dared to raise it. He will be remembered for boycotting a service in Armagh marking the centenary of Northern Ireland because the invitation correctly described him as:

He will be remembered for fostering what Professor Liam Kennedy of Queen's University Belfast famously called the "MOPE mentality" — the belief that the Irish are the most oppressed people ever. In that work, Professor Kennedy demolished the nationalist myth that Irish history has been a history of unique and unrelenting suffering.

President Higgins's legacy is one of grievance, politicisation of what should have been an apolitical office and needless offence. Sadly, nothing that we have seen from his successor suggests that she will be anything other than a continuation of that toxic legacy for unionism.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for raising the Matter of the Day. Given how turbulent the world has been over the last 14 or so years, it has been really important to have a figurehead in the Irish state who has stood tall with principles that have helped us carve out a better, fairer and more just world. Given that the familial head of state in Britain has been mired in scandal, controversy and crisis over recent years and weeks, it has been essential to have a figurehead who has stood on the right side of history and stands on the right side in the present.

On homelessness, Michael D Higgins understood that there is a crisis in housing that has been caused by government policy and a lack of action in the South. He used his last Christmas message to refer to that. He talked about Christmas being an important time for people and the fact that a lot of people do not have a home to live in or go to and that many have been forced to travel and leave the South because of the crisis.

Uachtarán

Higgins has also been a clear stalwart of Palestine. Despite the misrepresentation of his position, he has lambasted those who have remained silent. He said that, if we ignored and remained silent on Gaza, it would be a moral failure. Some Members in the House would do well to listen to his lesson on that. Crucially, while the war drums are banged in Germany and across Europe, in Britain and by some in the South, including columnists who will not don military fatigues themselves but want working-class kids to kill and to be killed in the scramble for war, Michael D Higgins has been an important, sensible and sane voice for peace.

Míle buíochas le Micheál agus lena bhean chéile, Sabina.

I thank them for their time and work in the position.

Catherine Connolly is very much her own person. Despite similarities in viewpoints and geographical location — they are both Galwegian Gaeilgeoirí — I doubt that Michael D Higgins can add keepy-up champion to his long list of incredible achievements and accomplishments. Despite all the propaganda against Catherine, she is a person of conviction and principle who cannot be bought and sold, and people do not like that. She will be a crucial voice for peace and justice and in welcoming all who live here, North and South. Whilst disturbing news has emerged in recent days about individuals plotting to bomb a mosque in Galway, Catherine will be a voice for rejecting such hate in Galway, Dublin, Belfast, Derry or elsewhere. Go n-éirí an bóthar leat, a Catherine.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for bringing to the House the Matter of the Day. As Michael D Higgins concludes his two terms in presidential office, I take the opportunity to warmly recognise a record of service that has been defined by intellect, integrity and imagination. Since his election in 2011, President Higgins has used his office not just to represent Ireland but to reflect on what kind of society it aspires to be. A man of depth and curiosity, he placed the arts, culture and civic participation at the heart of our national life, opening Áras an Uachtaráin to community groups, writers and musicians and making culture central to citizenship.

In his speech, 'Toward an Ethical Economy', he argued that societies must rediscover a moral purpose in their economic life that values care, community and human flourishing as much as growth or productivity. He reminded us that the work of sustaining families, friendships and communities is every bit as vital as what happens in markets or boardrooms. The insistence that ethics and empathy belong at the centre of public policy has been a constant theme of his presidency.

In 2014, President Higgins became the first Irish president to make a state visit to the United Kingdom, at the invitation of Queen Elizabeth II. It was a landmark moment in Anglo-Irish relations — a powerful symbol of reconciliation, mutual respect and diplomatic maturity. Through his Machnamh 100 series, President Higgins invited people to reflect with honesty and empathy on Ireland's complex history during the decade of commemorations. Such actions are not unique. Throughout his presidency, he upheld inclusion, equality and dialogue as cornerstones of a healthy democracy.

Through all of that, Michael D Higgins carried the presidency with warmth and humility. He reminded people that public life can be thoughtful as well as practical and that the language of politics can still be rich in empathy, tolerance, culture and imagination. He leaves office having strengthened the sense of dignity and depth of the role of president and having shown that leadership can be wise, humane and profoundly decent. In that, there are lessons for all of us — especially here — to carry forward his example of thoughtfulness, curiosity, tolerance and belief in the power of ideas to serve the common good. Go raibh míle maith agaibh, a Mhicheáil D agus a Sabina.

Is ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.

As the presidency comes to an end, I wish comhghairdeas agus ádh mór

to our incoming uachtarán,

, Catherine Connolly. My hope is that she moves us positively towards a new dispensation on the island.

Mr Harvey: On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, the guns of the Great War fell silent. It was the war to end all wars, but, sadly, the intervening years have seen many bloody conflicts, with millions of lives lost to war. On this Armistice Day, we are reminded of all those who gave their tomorrows for our today: those who fought for freedom in Flanders; those who stormed the beaches of Normandy and the shores of Sicily; and those who fell in the defence of Northern Ireland in recent conflicts. Today is a day for reflection and thankfulness for their sacrifice. In schools, shops and workplaces across the nation, the public will have paused in silent reflection this morning to honour their memory, lest we should ever forget. I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion and all the organisations that play such an instrumental role in leading our cities, towns and villages in the acts of remembrance each year. I always view it as a great honour to attend events in my constituency over Remembrance Weekend and to see each community come together to pay their respects.

Remembrance is not only about the past; it is a call to us in the present to prepare for the future, to reflect, to learn and to build on our common humanity for the good of all. We are reminded in the Book of Ecclesiastes that:

May we be ever thankful for those who gave their all to afford us the peace that we enjoy in this part of the world today, and may we continually pray for an end to conflict throughout the globe.

Mr McHugh: Déanfar Catherine Connolly a oirniú ina huachtarán nua ar Éirinn inniu. Ar dtús – gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Uachtarán Micheál D Ó hUigínn agus le Saidhbhín Uí Uigínn as a seirbhís. Is gradamach, cneasta mar a rinne an tUachtarán Ó hUigínn ionadaíocht dár dtír. Bhí sé go mór i bhfách le gnéithe is fearr na hÉireann a chur chun cinn: muintir na hÉireann, cruthaitheacht na nÉireannach, cultúr, agus luachanna daonlathacha na hÉireann. Ní dheachaigh sé ar chúl scéithe leis nuair a chonacthas dó an éagothroime, an leithcheal nó an éagóir bheith ar bun. Creidim go mbeidh Catherine Connolly ar aon dul leis an traidisiún sin agus í ina huachtarán.

Chuaigh Catherine i gceann feachtas toghchánaíochta a raibh meas, dínit agus aontacht ina chroílár, feachtas ina raibh tacaíocht aici ó chomhghuaillíocht leathan páirtithe polaitíochta ar chlé, lena n-áirítear Sinn Féin, an páirtí is mó ar an oileán seo. Is amhlaidh a fuair sí an líon is mó vótaí d’aon uachtarán riamh ar Éirinn. Rinne Catherine príomhthéamaí den Ghaeilge, d’Aontacht na hÉireann agus de chosaint neodracht na hÉireann ina feachtas toghchánaíochta. I ndiaidh di an toghchán a bhaint, thug sí cuairt ar Oireachtas na Samhna a bhí ar cois i mBéal Feirste - ag tarraingt le chéile beirt de na téamaí sin.

Is geal liom go bhfuil rún aici teanga oibre Áras an Uachtaráin a dhéanamh den Ghaeilge agus an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn agus í ina huachtarán. Is cuid dár n-oidhreacht chomhchoiteann í an Ghaeilge. Chaith Catherine tráth ag cur feabhas ar a cuid Gaeilge agus í ina duine fásta. Tuigeann sí a dheacra atá sí, mar Ghaeilge agus, ar an ábhar sin dhearbhaigh sí nach gcuirfeadh sí trom ar an té nach labharfadh í ach go spreagfadh sí é lena labhairt. Aithníonn sí an luach agus an léargas ar leith a thugann an Ghaeilge dúinn.

Creidim go gcuirfidh Catherine an chomhbhá, an dlúthpháirtíocht, ceartas sóisialta, an tsíocháin agus an comhionannas chun cinn agus í ina huachtarán - ní hé amháin dár muintir féin ar an oileán seo ach ar son ceartas agus síocháin dhomhanda.

Go n-éirí leat, a Catherine.

Miss McIlveen: We have just marked the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. We pause to remember those who gave their all for the freedoms that are all too easily taken for granted. Armistice Day is not merely a date in the calendar for the people of Northern Ireland; the importance of remembrance runs deep. Throughout our cities, towns and villages, memorials are etched with the names of those who answered the call when tyranny threatened the world. They were men from every trade and background who stood shoulder to shoulder on the fields of France and Flanders, and who never returned home. Their sacrifice helped to shape the liberty that we enjoy.

Armistice Day reminds us that our freedom comes at a price. It was bought with sacrifice and bravery, and it must be guarded with gratitude and respect. When we pause for remembrance, we honour not only those who fell in the Great War, but all who have served since, through the Second World War, in Korea, in Afghanistan, and those who defended democracy and law and order in our Province during the dark days of terrorism. When we wear our poppy with pride, it is not a political emblem. It is a symbol of remembrance and respect. It is a symbol that unites generations in quiet reflection to cherish peace, while never forgetting the price that was paid to secure it. Remembrance is not about glorifying war; it is about honouring those who serve and remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms.

As the clock struck 11.00 am today, we stood together in silence, and we recalled the words of John Maxwell Edmonds:

We will remember them.

Ms Nicholl: There is an article in the newspapers today about an all-female, far right group giving out pink knuckledusters at an anti-migrant protest. We need to change how we talk about migration, not just on the human level, but to give the economic perspective. If you set aside the cruelty of this, and the fact that you will be arrested if you are caught with a knuckleduster, anti-migrant protests make no economic sense. We need to talk about the economic aspect more in the Chamber. We are approaching a full labour market, and we have many skills gaps. If you speak to any business, they will say that they are desperate to recruit because it is hard to fill the skills gaps in Northern Ireland. So, we need foreigners. If we want people to look after us when we are old, we need foreigners to come into our economy.

When I post about this subject on social media, people say, "Oh, this is what Kate always says. Liberal Kate. It is about illegal migrants." Tell me what the distinction is, because when vigilantes in east Belfast knock on the doors of people with a different skin colour, they are not checking on their migration status, and it is creating a chill factor in our society.

People from different backgrounds already feel fearful. We have seen over the past couple of summers just how much fear there is in society.

As politicians, we have to talk about the economic realities. If we cannot agree, on the human level, that these are human beings and that they need to be treated with dignity, humanity and kindness, let us talk about the economic side of things. The unemployment rate in Northern Ireland is at an all-time low, and we have a weak labour supply. Growth in the working-age population is weak and will be negative from 2029 onwards. That poses serious challenges for our economy when it comes to skills. Whether it is from the chamber, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and other organisations, we keep hearing that skills are an issue.

Between 2001 and 2023, 293,000 long-term international migrants arrived, but 231,000 people left, so net migration flow was 62,000 people. If we do not have the people and skills to fill our vacancies, how will we grow the economy? We have in Northern Ireland some of the most amazing businesses. Our amazing screen industry is growing, and we have tech: we have so much opportunity. Where we fall down and let people down, however, is in our rhetoric. We demonise outsiders when we need to encourage foreigners and migrants to come here. We can deal with asylum by speeding up claims, dealing quickly with false claims and creating safe and legal routes, but we need to be really careful not to conflate the issues. Our economy needs foreigners to come here, and we need to be very careful in how we talk about that.

Ms D Armstrong: I commend the achievement of a young pupil at Irvinestown Primary School, Mabel Hetherington, who last week was crowned winner of the people's choice award in the child category of the Down's Syndrome Association's 2025 My Perspective photo competition.

My Perspective is an international photo competition for people with Down's syndrome that provides a unique opportunity to show the world through their perspective, using a photographic lens. Eight-year-old Mabel was shortlisted in the child category this year for her photo 'My Happy Mummy' that she took of her mum on a sunny day on Rossnowlagh beach in County Donegal, which, she says, is their favourite happy place. Mabel emerged as the people's choice award winner, competing against photographers from Australia, the USA and Canada amongst others. This year, 250 entries were submitted, so for Mabel to have won the award against stiff competition is such a remarkable achievement.

Last Thursday, Mabel had a wonderful night in London with her mother, Elaine, and father, Gary, at the My Perspective final. The night was made all the more memorable when she took the award home. I speak for everyone here when I say that we in Northern Ireland, especially in Mabel's home county of Fermanagh, are all immensely proud of her.

Mabel is a member of the Fermanagh Down Syndrome Support Group. The support group does amazing work in helping families across the county. Mabel's mum, Elaine, is its chairperson, and I thank her sincerely for all her work and vital support for all those who have Down's syndrome and their families.

On behalf of the Assembly, I extend our heartfelt congratulations to Mabel and her family. Mabel, you are one of our brightest stars, and your skill in photography inspires us all. You are a little superstar with the biggest smile, and I know that you will go on to do even greater things. You have done Northern Ireland and your family proud.

Ms McLaughlin: What is happening today in Sudan is one of the gravest humanitarian and moral crises of our time, yet it remains largely invisible on the world stage. The people of Sudan are enduring atrocities that would shock the conscience of every Government and international institution.

In el-Fasher and across North Kordofan, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) are carrying out systematic killings, torture and sexual violence. They are targeting civilians because of who they are and where they live. Communities are being starved as a weapon of war. Hospitals, markets and even places of worship have been bombed. In one city, as many as 7,000 people were massacred last year, and the violence has only deepened since.

It is not chaos without cause; it is a campaign of terror that is financed, armed and enabled by powerful international actors. Evidence shows that the United Arab Emirates has supplied weapons, drones and funding for the RSF, funnelling support through private military networks, mercenary contractors and others. In return, the RSF provides access to Sudan's gold and other natural resources. It is a trade in blood and suffering.

Meanwhile, the international community has stood by. The United Nations Security Council has failed to act decisively, and the United Kingdom, despite its historical role in Sudan and its position as a UN penholder, has not matched its words with actions. Governments who claim to stand for international law have allowed impunity to prevail, because accountability would mean confronting their own economic interests. We cannot call for peace in one part of the world and turn away from a genocide in another. Sudan's conflict is destabilising an entire region from Sahel to the Red Sea. Its implications for global security, migration and human rights are absolutely immense.

Immediate actions are needed. The United Arab Emirates must be held accountable for arming and financing the atrocities. The Rapid Support Forces should be designated as a terrorist organisation under international law. Arms sales to states that are fuelling the conflict must stop, and humanitarian access to the people of el-Fasher and Darfur must be secured without delay.

Later this month, as chair of the all-party group (APG) on UNSCR 1325, women, peace and security, I will be hosting a number of women from Sudan who will give direct evidence of their first-hand experiences. It is a terrible atrocity happening in plain sight, and it is going unnoticed by the world. I beg Members to come and join me to hear that evidence at the APG.

Mr Gildernew: Comóradh 75 bliana ó bunaíodh an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine (ECHR) an tseachtain seo caite. Tá ról ríthábhachtach ag an choinbhinsiún maidir le síocháin agus cobhsaíocht a chothú anseo in Éirinn. I ndiaidh blianta fada coimhlinte, bunaíodh creat do shochaí chomhchoitianta shíochánta le Comhaontú Aoine an Chéasta 1998 — próiseas atá ar siúl go dtí an lá inniu.

Mhol Páirtí Coimeádach na Breataine agus Reform, gur chóir tarraingt siar as an Choinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine. Dá mbeadh an Bhreatain leis an Choinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine a fhágáil, rachadh sin i bhfeidhm go mór ar an chomhoibriú trasteorann ar fhiosrúcháin choiriúla agus ar chásanna eiseachadta, agus chuirfeadh sé le costais riaracháin trádála agus gnó. Dá mbeadh an Bhreatain leis an Choinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine a fhágáil, rachadh sin go mór faoi chreat Windsor agus faoin Chomhaontú Trádála agus Comhair. Shílfeadh an tAontas Eorpach gur claonbheart a bhí á imirt orthu, agus d’fhéadfadh cliseadh ar na caibidlí dá dheasca. D’fhéadfadh sé gabháil faoin chomhoibriú taidhleoireachta fosta.

Leagadh amach san Acht um Chearta an Duine 1998, a chuimsíonn an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine, leagadh amach ann sin sraith de luachanna coiteanna a sháraíonn deighiltí polaitíochta agus deighiltí seicteacha. Tugadh dearbhú ann do náisiúnaithe nach mbeadh cearta ag brath ar cheannasacht na Breataine amháin ach go mbeadh siad faoi chosaint ag institiúidí Eorpacha. Daingníodh d’aontachtaithe go mbeadh riail an dlí ann taobh istigh de chreat daonlathach atá ag cur le traidisiúin dhlíthiúla na Breataine. Cuireadh síos dúshraith atá bunaithe ar chearta leis an chairt, dúshraith a thacaigh leis an chómhuinín agus a laghdaigh an eagla roimh leithcheal ná ceannas. Sa deireadh, bhí an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine riachtanach ní hé amháin le daoine aonair a chosaint ach leis an phróiseas síochána a chothabháil. Trí chearta uilíocha agus an comhionannas a fhí sa dlí, leanann sé de bheith mar bhonn taca don athmhuintearas agus don chobhsaíocht dhaonlathach.

Mrs Guy: This week is Anti-Bullying Week, and its theme is "Power for Good". That is a challenge to us to act, so do not be a bystander in the face of bullying. Be the hero. Be the person who acts. I cannot stress enough the impact that the small act of kindness of reaching out to someone who feels isolated, hurt or damaged by bullying behaviours can have. Parents and teachers need to nurture that in our children, but they should also be an example to them. Those who are in leadership roles in particular have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Our schools should be inclusive and welcoming to all children, whose uniqueness should be celebrated.

It may be hard to end bullying completely, because it is a complex area. Equally, however, we should not simply accept that it happens. I know from talking to experts that if we focus on embedding best practice in preventative work and on taking swift, decisive action when bullying incidents occur, we can really make a difference to young people's lives. Children and young people will look to see what action is taken if they are facing bullying. They will look to see whether there are signals that people are there to help them or whether they are on their own. Many schools are leading the way on that, but the Minister of Education and the Department can and should do more. They should use the theme "Power for Good" and act.

We need an evaluation of the implementation of the Addressing Bullying in Schools Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 since its commencement in 2021. The Department needs to centralise and report, at a system level, the data that is being captured through bullying concern assessment forms in order to analyse trends and then respond with interventions. What good is capturing data if we are not going to do anything with it? We need investment in high-quality research in order to provide an accurate baseline assessment of the nature and extent of bullying in our schools. We need to ensure that schools have a dedicated and trained anti-bullying lead and that they have adequate protected time to dedicate to that important role. We need to ensure that all initial teacher-training education programmes include evidence-based content on addressing bullying in schools and that such content becomes a mandatory part of any future core content framework that is proposed through the TransformED Northern Ireland programme.

I ask children and young people who are facing bullying please to speak up. I ask their friends who witness bullying please to speak up. I ask teachers, youth workers, parents and families, when children are reporting bullying, please to take them seriously. My message to the Education Minister is that more can and needs to be done to support our schools to deal with bullying. I am up for working together to do that.

Ms Forsythe: It was great to see a strong move for common sense in the world of women's sport this week. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has moved a step closer to introducing a blanket ban on transgender women from female categories across all sports. The IOC president, Kirsty Coventry, vowed to bring in the policy as part of her election campaign and subsequently set up a working group on the protection of women's sport. After a presentation by the IOC's medical chief, sources have said that a ban is likely to be introduced in 2026.

The initial findings of the IOC's science-based review suggested that athletes who were born male retain physiological advantages even after reducing their testosterone levels. I would say that that is and always has been common sense. It is simple biology, and the fact that there has been such a debate about it shows how far our society has gone to appease the woke agenda. I am pleased to see that positive progress for women in sport.

Women's rights have been hard fought for across many domains, including sport. We are still not on an equal footing, but we have made significant progress. The recent compromising of women's rights through some attempt to be politically correct is unfair and wrong. I unashamedly stand up for the rights of women: the rights of biological women and of all women and girls from the moment that they are formed in the womb. I feel so strongly about the inequalities that women and girls face in sport that I have brought forward proposals for a private Member's Bill in order to address the issues in Northern Ireland. I thank all those who have engaged with and completed the consultation on the proposed Bill.

Some of the key points that I want to address about women and girls' sport are to do with equality, safety and fairness. On equality, I want to remove barriers for women and girls who wish to access sport. I want to improve safety in sport through having safeguarding processes in place and securing single-space changing facilities for women and girls.

I want us to ensure fair competition in sports between biological women and girls. Together, we can make a difference for all women and girls in sports in Northern Ireland.

As I said at the start of my remarks, this is a good day for women's rights, a good day for women's sports and a good day for common sense.

Mr Mathison: I rise to highlight the need for the provision of new guidelines arising from the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. We heard repeatedly how important it was to deliver the Bill quickly to enable schools to reflect the new guidelines in their prospectuses for the 2026-27 academic year. I declare an interest as a governor of a local primary school.

In an answer to a recent question that I asked on the issue, the Minister stated that primary schools needed to have their prospectuses published by 26 November, and post-primaries by 16 December. There was some suggestion that there could be flexibility, but the clock is most definitely ticking. Any school that needs to change its policy will need to have that written in now. If anything is changing in a school's policy, it will need to have consulted its pupils and parents and it will certainly need to have let suppliers know.

Surely we want schools to be reflecting the new guidelines in their policies, but it now seems that no matter how quickly they appear, they will simply not have the time to reflect them in their new policies. For a start, I do not think that suppliers will be able to deliver that, and the cut-off dates for prospectuses are fast approaching. Writing a new uniform policy is not something that can be done on the back of an envelope. Aside from consultation and supplier engagement, boards of governors need to meet to scrutinise and approve new policies.

I think that we in the Chamber are all in agreement that we want the cost of uniforms to come down, but it looks as if we are heading into a scenario in which policies will be retained or revised before the guidelines can be reflected. Time is simply running out.

I am speaking in my capacity as a private Member, but I was clear when I argued for a longer Committee Stage that it was always better to take the time to get the Bill right rather than to rush it and end up in the strange grey area that we now exist in. Schools are being asked to reflect guidelines that they have not seen or, at best, will see very late, and then reflect them in policies before the Bill even has Royal Assent. That feels like uncertainty rather than clarity. Parents, schools and suppliers need clarity, but, with the prospectus deadlines nearly upon us, I am struggling to see how that can be provided.

If we were going to see schools act on the cost of uniforms, draft guidelines should have been provided months ago. Right now, we know as little about the impact of the Bill as we did when it was introduced. Let us not miss the boat on delivering and get the guidelines out so that schools can update their policies and make the changes that parents need.

Mr Gaston: The date of 11 November reminds us why we can sit here as the elected representatives of the people of this part of the United Kingdom and openly debate and decide on the laws that govern us. We are here because of the courage of former generations. This year, we remember in particular the end of the Second World War 80 years ago, when democracy, after six long and bloody years of struggle, triumphed over the forces of Nazi tyranny.

I proudly reflect on the contribution of Northern Ireland to that struggle. As King George VI stated during a visit to Belfast in 1942:

As Churchill noted:

Shamefully, throughout the war years, Nazi Germany was able to operate an embassy in Dublin. Whilst the rest of the world celebrated the death of a tyrant, Éamon de Valera, the Irish Prime Minister, conveyed his condolences to Nazi Germany on the death of Hitler. The statue of Seán Russell, the infamous IRA chief of staff who died en route back to Ireland on a U-boat in 1940, makes Dublin the only city in Europe to have a statue to a Nazi collaborator. When that statue was vandalised in 2009, Sinn Féin called for it to be restored, describing Seán Russell as a patriot who died on active service.

Of course, in 1987, republicans desecrated Remembrance Sunday by bombing Enniskillen. For as long as republicans defend Nazi collaborators and bomb remembrance services, their attendance at 11 November events will be treated with contempt by many unionists. However, I say to those who sincerely mean it: when it comes to 11 November, we will remember them.

Mr Robinson: I want to say a few words about the Bann bridge in Kilrea, County Londonderry, which, due to safety reasons, was closed to all traffic on 20 September this year. The issue was extensive cracking on the retaining wall that is located at the south-west end of the single-lane bridge that connects Kilrea to County Antrim.

The closure of the bridge is having a huge impact on the business community in that town. Indeed, reports in the media suggest that a drop in footfall has led to a 50% decrease in sales since the bridge's closure almost eight weeks ago. Staff are also being affected, with some having to travel an extra hour to get to their place of work. The closure has seen the town, which sits close to the edge of County Londonderry, cut off from County Antrim. One of the biggest criticisms from traders is what they have described as a lack of definitive information from the Department for Infrastructure. Businesses have said that they have been "hung out to dry", and they say that, had this happened in Belfast, things would have moved much faster. Initially, traders were told that a specialist contractor had been appointed, and work to repair the bridge was to start yesterday. That work would involve a 14-week scheme, meaning that restoring vehicle access over the bridge would be as far away as mid-February. Following further pressure from traders and elected representatives, there will now be an interim solution to install temporary tie bars to provide temporary restraints to the walls while the main repairs are carried out. Only then is the Department optimistic that that work will allow the road to reopen to cars and light vehicles in early December. Even then, that work is subject to suitable weather conditions.

With Christmas fast approaching and traders pleading for support from the Assembly, and given the passing weeks, every piece of armoury must be thrown at the project to ensure that a speedy but safe repair is carried out. No one should underestimate the importance of getting it right and getting the job done. Whilst a longer-term project is being considered to address the single-lane arrangements of a listed bridge that was built 241 years ago, a fully accessible bridge is simply a lifeline to the survival of the town of Kilrea.

Miss McIlveen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During yesterday's debate on an independent environment agency, when I was explaining the risks of independent bodies having complete control over enforcement policy, I used the example of the Equality Commission pursuing Ashers bakery in a case that ultimately cost the public purse over £250,000, which could have been more if Ashers had pursued the Equality Commission for costs. That example was completely relevant to the risks of establishing an unelected quango with independent enforcement powers. However, Mr Tennyson interrupted to make a spurious point of order and accused me of engaging in a "homophobic dog whistle".

That is a grossly defamatory comment. It was clear from my contribution that that was not the case, and to interrupt in that way and make such an offensive and scurrilous accusation was wholly inappropriate. I ask that Mr Tennyson withdraw his disgraceful and inappropriate comments and offer a full apology for the accusation. I am happy to leave that with you, Mr Speaker, for a ruling. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for drawing the matter to my attention. We will look at it and come back to the Assembly on the matter.

Members, take your ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Clarke: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer will have up to 10 minutes to propose the motion and up to 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mr Clarke: The Assembly Commission has a duty under section 40 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to:

It is on the basis of the Assembly's requirements that the Assembly Commission develops its draft budget. The draft budget is scrutinised by the Audit Committee, with input from the Department of Finance to help inform the Committee's scrutiny.

The Commission presented its 2026-2030 draft budget to the Audit Committee on 17 September 2025 and provided further clarification to the Committee on 24 September 2025, responding to the issues raised by the Department. Following that scrutiny of the Commission budget, the Audit Committee produced its report and laid it in the Assembly on 23 October 2025. The Commission thanks the Audit Committee and its officials for its work and scrutiny.

Agreement of the motion will enable the Assembly to determine the resources that the Commission will be given to support the Assembly in carrying out its legislative functions. Once agreed, the budget will be notified to the Department of Finance for inclusion in the three-year Budget to be presented to the Minister of Finance. The budget will ensure that the Assembly can carry on its core functions and continue the programme of investment in key areas such as IT, building maintenance and staffing. When the Assembly was not sitting, the Commission had limited investment in those areas, and that underinvestment now needs to be addressed.

In line with what was being requested of the Departments, the Commission has prepared a multi-year budget to cover the financial periods of 2026-29 for resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and 2026-2030 for capital DEL. The total resource DEL budget for 2026-29 for each of the three years is £67·36 million, £71·07 million and £69·06 million. The capital DEL budget for 2026-2030 for each of the four years is £1·32 million, £2·45 million, £1·79 million and £1·52 million.

There are also costs associated with the operation of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, but those costs are funded directly by Her Majesty's Treasury, and, while those figures were reported to the Audit Committee for completeness, the Assembly is not being asked to consider or approve those figures today.

The first category in the Commission's budget is income, and the Commission expects to receive just over £0·6 million each year. Substantially all that relates to the recovery of ministerial salaries from Departments. The second category relates to the salaries and allowances paid to Members and those incurred by Members in establishing and running constituency offices. The total budget for Member-related costs for the three years from 2026-29 is £21·43 million, £23·75 million and £22 39 million.

Within that, the budget for Members and officeholders' salaries over the same period is £7·2 million, £7·1 million and £7·3 million.

Members' salaries continue to be provided under Part 1 of the Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) Determination (Northern Ireland) 2016. However, the responsibility for determining Members' salaries and pensions will fall to the new Independent Remuneration Board that is currently being established. It is not possible to anticipate whether the board will introduce any changes to Members and officeholders' salaries or pensions or the scale of the changes, if it makes changes. Therefore, the budget is based on the rates that are set out in the current determination, allowing for a small prescribed annual below-inflation increase of £500.

The reduction in the Members' salary for 2027-28 reflects the financial impact of the dissolution of the Assembly and the subsequent election of the new Assembly. Members may recover the costs of establishing and running a constituency office, including the purchasing of equipment, utility costs, rent, rates and support staff salaries. The amount required for the three years is £13·6 million, £15·3 million and £14·5 million. The budget is based on the current rates of allowances, and the key driver for the increase in 2027-28 is the financial impact of the Assembly election in May 2027. Members' annual travel allowances, which assist with the cost of business travel, are forecast to be just under £0·4 million each year. Members' other costs include security measures, disability allowances, ill-health retirement and resettlement allowances.

The third major category in the budget covers salary payments for Commission staff and the administrative costs incurred in delivering the full range of services that are needed by the Assembly. The Commission's staff salary costs for the three years are budgeted at £28·9 million, £29·7 million and £30·5 million. Those costs provide for a net increase of eight staff in the first two years, falling to seven in the final year of the budget period. Those staff will support the delivery of the Commission's public engagement strategy, project delivery and business improvements.

The 'Assembly Commission Corporate Strategy 2023-2028' contains several objectives that relate to the modernisation of IT hardware and software systems, the website and corporate systems. Those activities help to ensure that the Assembly operates in a modern and secure environment that is effective, fit for purpose and secure from the increasing risk of cyberattacks.

Administrative costs for the three years are budgeted at £11·3 million, £11·7 million and £10·7 million. Administration costs cover a wide range of expenditure incurred in supporting Assembly and Committee business and operating Parliament Buildings.

As Members will be aware, there are a number of issues with water ingress in Parliament Buildings related to the roof replacement project, which was completed in 2015. Construction and Procurement Delivery (CPD) is overseeing that work on behalf of the Assembly Commission, and the work is taking place in two phases. The first phase is to fix the rear parapet and the three internal courtyards. It has been subject to considerable delay for a range of reasons. However, it is anticipated that the work will commence in this financial year, with the second phase concluding in 2027-28. The timing and costs, however, will be subject to final scoping and tender.

The next category is payments to parties under the financial assistance for political parties scheme (FAPP) 2024. The budget for the FAPP scheme costs £1·1 million each year.

The penultimate category relates to depreciation charges, which have been budgeted for the three years at £5·3 million, £5·6 million and £4·9 million. That is mostly due to the estimated depreciation of the annual valuation of Parliament Buildings. However, it also reflects the level of expenditure on other assets in the preceding years.

The Commission has budgeted capital DEL of £1·32 million, £2·45 million and £1·7 million over the three-year period. For capital only, the Department of Finance has requested an estimate for 2029-2030, which is budgeted at £1·52 million. The capital budget includes expenditure on the IT modernisation project, which, once complete, will have migrated all existing on-premises infrastructure and IT applications to a secure cloud-based platform. That will also provide for a new website, content management system and electronic records and document management system.

The Commission continues with its programme of improvement to the space of Parliament Buildings, which will include the upgrading of the Long Gallery, education rooms and shared spaces, as well as three major projects to refresh security measures, including the replacement of the east and west security huts.

The Commission's budget includes a diverse range of activities that reflect all the work on the Building to support Members, and I know that Members will join me in paying tribute to the Commission staff who deliver that work. I commend the 2026-2030 budget proposals to the House.

Mr Chambers (The Chairperson of the Audit Committee): To reflect the Assembly's constitutional independence from the Executive, the Audit Committee has a role in the scrutiny of the Commission's draft budget, an informal methodology that was introduced in 2016 similar to that adopted by the Audit Committee in agreeing the Estimates for the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) and Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO). It will be important for the Committee to review how the informal arrangements relating to the Commission's budget are working so that they may be updated and formalised before the end of the mandate.

As Members will be aware, the Commission has a legal requirement to meet Members' costs, including salaries, allowances, expenses, Members' staffing costs and pension contributions. Those budget elements are determination-driven and are not under the Commission's control. The Committee therefore agreed that it was content with the proposed costs for Members but noted that they may be subject to change when the new Independent Remuneration Board reports. The Committee also noted that there is a degree of uncertainty around the Commission's forecasts for Members' pensions due to factors outside its control.

During the recent evidence sessions with Commission officials, the Committee covered all aspects of the proposed budget for the period. However, certain issues were explored in more detail. They included the Department of Finance's comments on how critical it was to create eight additional secretariat posts. The Committee considered the proposed new posts carefully, noted the analysis provided by the Commission that compared Assembly staff numbers with those of other legislatures and was content with the proposals. Overall, the Committee was content that the proposed total staff and administration costs were appropriate and critical to the delivery of the Commission's corporate strategy.

I will move on to ring-fenced funding for costs associated with the operation of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. The Audit Committee adjusted the proposed figures down slightly, on the advice of the Department of Finance, to reflect what has been confirmed by His Majesty's Treasury in relation to those costs. The Committee emphasises, however, that, in the unlikely event that a bid to Treasury to cover the shortfall is not met, a solution will need to be found. It will be essential to ensure that that Committee has the resources that it needs to perform its functions effectively.

The Committee was content with the proposed capital expenditure plans. It noted the Department of Finance's comments around the expected costs and timing and will monitor those closely as part of its normal financial scrutiny process. The figures agreed by the Audit Committee and set out at page 12 of its report have been submitted to the Department of Finance for inclusion in the Executive's draft Budget for 2026 to 2029-2030.

Before closing, I record the Committee's appreciation of the Assembly staff throughout the Building. They all make a significant contribution to the democratic process, and I am sure that all Members will agree with me when I say that we value their commitment and support.

In coming to its conclusions, the Committee was mindful not only of the difficult wider public expenditure position but of the need for a sufficiently resourced Assembly. The Committee was therefore content to agree the Commission's proposed budget with only minor changes, as I have outlined. The Committee looks forward to working with the Commission on its expenditure against plans for the remainder of the mandate.

Mr Carroll: I will make a few brief comments. The irony should be lost on nobody that health and social care (HSC) workers had to fight tooth and nail for pay parity just to secure a below-inflation pay increase of 3·6%. By contrast, the Independent Remuneration Board will likely recommend a pay increase of much more than that for MLAs. Criminal barristers are considering taking industrial action, as are Translink workers and teachers, potentially, while waiting for their pay award. That is not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people working in low- and minimum-wage jobs in the private sector, retail and elsewhere. Will politicians be left waiting for the Department of Finance to find the cash for what is set to be an astronomical pay rise? Will MLAs be forced to use food banks, get into debt or take on second jobs to pay their rent, mortgage or bills? I would hazard a guess and say that the answer is no. I put on record again my opposition to a lucrative hike in MLAs' pay.

The annual Assembly Commission budget offers a chance to look at whom the Commission does business with. I have raised the issue of Hewlett-Packard (HP) devices in these Buildings multiple times. HP is a company that is complicit in genocide and supporting Israel, and it actively administers the digital infrastructure for Israeli apartheid. It is involved in supplying the computer hardware for the Israeli occupation forces, the Israel Police and many others. It is a moderate demand to say that we should not do business with it and should stop spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money on its equipment. It has been described as the "Polaroid of our times". Polaroid was a company that was marred in controversy because it continued to trade with the apartheid system in South Africa in the 70s and afterwards.

We should also turn our attention to companies, such as Pi Comms and Aramark, that operate in this Building and have a public record of mistreating their workers. In the case of Aramark, it was completely discredited as it was directly involved in the administration of direct provision in the South. Workers in this Building from both organisations have raised serious concerns about those companies. The Commission has been silent. It has closed its ears to those matters. I welcome any information on any work that has been commissioned by the Commission to re-examine those contracts and look again at the huge spend of public money and the practices of those organisations. Commercial sensitivity simply will not cut it.

The final point that I want to raise is about a question for written answer that I submitted to the Commission earlier this year. The answer stated:

It is my understanding — I am happy to be corrected — that, in this Building, there are at least 41 staff who are on agency contracts. That is shocking and completely unacceptable. The Assembly needs to lead by example. In respect of what the Chair of the Audit Committee said, I say that workers do not want thanks or to be patronised; they want decent terms and conditions, and that has to mean proper permanent contracts. I urge the Assembly Commission to get on with that really important work.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Colin McGrath to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion on behalf of the Assembly Commission.

Mr McGrath: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who have contributed to the debate.

The Assembly Commission recognises the wider financial pressures in the public sector and has carefully considered that context when drafting the budget requirement for the next three to four years, while seeking to balance the need to ensure that sufficient resources are available to meet its statutory obligations of providing the necessary services to the Assembly and its Members. The Assembly Commission has considered its requirements for 2026 to 2030, recognising that a significant element of the budget is not discretionary and relates to payments to Members, Members' consistency offices and staffing costs, as set out in the relevant determinations.

The Assembly Commission considers the resource DEL budgets for the next three years and the capital DEL budgets for the next four years to be reasonable estimates of the financial requirements to effectively and efficiently support the Assembly and to deliver the required services to Members. The budget proposals presented today embody the Assembly Commission's continuing commitment to ensuring that the Assembly is fully supported with robust, innovative and secure systems in a modern working environment. The budget not only meets the costs that will arise in the provision of services to the Assembly in terms of staff and running and maintaining the Building but ensures that Members have the resources that they require to deliver effective constituency services for our community.

I thank Alan Chambers, who spoke on behalf of the Audit Committee, for the work that that Committee does in scrutinising the Assembly Commission's budget.

I end the debate by joining Trevor Clarke and the other Members who took the opportunity to formally record their thanks to the Assembly Commission staff, who continue to support the work of the Assembly with commitment and dedication.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members should take their ease for a moment, before the ministerial statement.

Ms K Armstrong: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In today's agenda, the Minister is due to speak after Question Time. As it happens, the House has moved through its business a lot quicker than scheduled. Members only received the statement at 12.30 pm, giving them very little time to review it. Could we have time to review the Minister's statement by pushing that item of business back until after Question Time?

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I tried to get my statement out to Members as quickly as possible, but the timings moved forward. I believe that it was sent out at only around 12.30 pm. I would be more than happy to postpone the statement until after Question Time, if that is what the House wishes.

Mr McGrath: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I suggest that, to help the timings of the day, we could take the statement now, and then break. Members would then have their lunchtime to assess the statement. That would be helpful, because there is a lot of business scheduled, which will take us into quite late this evening. If the statement were to be made now, we would have lunchtime in which to consider it and could ask questions on it later.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I will respond to all those points of order. I had been going to make the point about the timing of the statement, but Members and the Minister have addressed that. Before calling the Minister to make the statement, I will say that, bearing in mind the timing issues that have been raised, there is merit in taking the statement now and taking questions after lunch and Question Time. I remind the Minister, however, that Standing Order 18A(2) requires him to make written copies of his statements available to Members at least half an hour before delivering them in the Chamber.

The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. I remind Members that, when we come to questions on the statement, they should be concise in asking their questions. We will deal with those after lunch.

Mr Lyons: My statement is about the outcome of the recent Equality Commission review of the Ulster Boxing Council (UBC). Members will be aware that Daryl Clarke took a case against the Ulster Boxing Council, alleging discrimination on religious grounds, when he was not selected to represent Northern Ireland at the 2022 Commonwealth Games. While the case was settled without admission of liability, part of the settlement was that the Irish Athletic Boxing Association (IABA) and the Ulster Boxing Council would commit to a comprehensive review, by the Equality Commission, of the governance, practices and procedures that are applicable to them in order to ensure that they comply with the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and any relevant codes of practice.

A number of details are now clear to me. First, it is my view that Daryl Clarke was discriminated against because he is a Protestant. Secondly, many of the recommendations of Professor Duncan Morrow's 2013 independent working group on boxing have not been completed or fully implemented. Thirdly, the recommendations made by the Equality Commission must be implemented in order to restore confidence and ensure that Ulster Boxing's practices, as well as those of IABA, not only are fair but are seen to be fair. The status quo cannot continue. No one should have to think that they will not be able to progress in boxing or any other sport based on their religion or community background. Sport is too important for that; we know how it can change lives. Through some of Northern Ireland's darkest days, boxing was a sport that broke through divides and brought people together. It has played an important role and done much for community relations in many working-class communities. We have proudly produced several world champions, who have used their platform to demonstrate that neither religion nor background has to play a role in determining success.

I recently had the privilege of visiting Monkstown Boxing Club as it marked the return of 10 young people who had taken part in a leadership exchange programme in South Africa. I was fascinated to learn about the impact of their visit on the communities that hosted them and the impact on the young people themselves. Monkstown is also Daryl Clarke's home club, where he is now project coordinator. I thank him for standing up for himself and for many others like him. It was not the easiest thing to do, which would have been to do nothing. He persevered, however, not just for his own sake but for the sake of those who come after him.

We now have a review report from the Equality Commission that contains clear recommendations. The commission's findings echo Professor Duncan Morrow's 2013 report, which gathered dust while the old guard clung to control. The implementation of his recommendations was never completed. Many were simply ignored. Today, that ignorance ends.

I will take the opportunity to outline some of the recommendations and the next steps that I will take. First, the report recommends that there be transparent pathways, published standards and selection processes. That guidance must be clearly communicated and will be based on objective measures and the principle of merit.

Secondly, the report rightly calls for a code of conduct that includes the displaying of emblems and flags and other displays of identity. Safe venues for boxers should be non-negotiable for all inter-club and championship events. The report also highlights the long-overdue social media policy, which was drafted in response to the independent working group but, again, not implemented.

Finally, the report makes clear that Protestants are under-represented on county boards, UBC committees and IABA structures. In order for decision-making to reflect properly the respect and balance that is required for all communities in Northern Ireland, it is recommended that there be co-option of new members and capacity-building in order to ensure that that important balance is struck.

Today, I am announcing a new oversight panel for that process. The panel will be established under my direct control and will be complete within 18 months. I will ensure that it properly holds the IABA and the UBC to account through public progress reports. Let me remind the House that those organisations receive public funding through arm's-length bodies of my Department. Any further slippage will not be tolerated.

The commission has also undertaken to engage further with the IABA and the UBC to ensure that next steps are implemented with rigour and in a timely fashion. I put on record my thanks to its chief commissioner, Geraldine McGahey, and its chief executive, Louise Conlon, for their work on the report and for the briefing that they provided to me when we met last month.

My hope is that, if they are fully implemented as the commission intends, those measures will have the effect of increasing confidence in boxing as an inclusive sport for all communities across Northern Ireland. Let me send a message to all our young sporting hopefuls: I want you to fulfil your aspirations. I want you to be able to compete and not have to worry about the impact that your faith or community background will have on your ability to progress. Merit, not identity, must be the determining factor.

I will do all in my power to ensure that the recommendations are implemented. If they are not, those responsible will be held to account. There must be no going back. There must be no acceptance of the status quo. Change is needed, and it must be delivered. I will ensure that that happens. There is too much at stake to do nothing.

To Daryl and others like him, I say this: I am sorry for the barriers that you have faced and for the opportunities that have been lost. That is not your fault. We must ensure that it does not happen again. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you for your statement, Minister. Members, I have taken note of the points of order that were made earlier. The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. Questions on the statement will begin following Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Mark Durkan. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.

Mr Speaker: Questions 2 and 13 have been withdrawn.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 1, 7 and 12 together.

First, I put on record my thanks to the independent panel for carrying out its extensive review of environmental governance, and I welcome the findings. The panel has made 32 recommendations that, taken together, aim to deliver a governance system that it considers to be robust, trustworthy and capable of meeting Northern Ireland's environmental obligations whilst restoring public confidence.

Recommendation 2 states that the DAERA website should offer a clear list of environmental legislation in Northern Ireland, including information on whether it has commenced. Sources of environmental law are complex, and I agree that we should provide greater clarity and transparency in that area to improve confidence and trust in the system. I also fully support the independent panel's recommendation to establish an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body (NDPB). It would have functions that would include the oversight of air and water quality, waste management, nature and biodiversity and the marine environment.

I am seeking the support of my Executive colleagues to agree, in principle, to the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body of DAERA. That agreement would allow us to move swiftly to look in greater detail at the powers, functions and funding of the new body. Following public consultation, firm policy proposals would be brought back to the Executive to enable my Department to draft and implement the legislation that is needed to set up the body.

The costs of inaction are simply too great. I am fully committed to strengthening environmental governance, improving public confidence in our arrangements and, ultimately, reducing environmental degradation, and I will seek the support of the Executive and the Assembly in doing so.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister. Support for something is one thing; concrete action is another. Minister, you will know that there is growing frustration at the snail's pace at which movement on an EPA's being established is happening. Will you give a guarantee to the House, environmentalists and people who are interested in Lough Neagh and all the other environmental disasters that are out there that an independent EPA will be legislated for before the end of the mandate?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Gerry. My passion for and commitment to environmental protection and setting up an independent environmental protection agency are on the record, and I restate them here today. I would like to see an agency legislated for in this mandate.

I am extremely disappointed in the outcome of the vote last night, when some of my DUP Executive colleagues voted against the motion to set up an independent environmental protection agency. That is extremely disappointing and is yet another example of our need to reform these institutions so that they can deliver for all the people in Northern Ireland.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister. Minister, could I ask you for a bit more of your reaction to how the DUP, including the deputy First Minister, voted against yesterday's motion on an independent environmental protection agency?

Mr Muir: We all know about the environmental challenges that we have in Northern Ireland. There are the situations with waste crime, Mobuoy and Lough Neagh, and the list continues. The case for an independent environmental protection agency is clear. It really frustrates and disappoints me that the DUP is taking the approach that it is. Its lack of care for the environment and consideration of the need for us to take further action to better protect it for future generations is deeply disappointing, but I will continue the work that I do because it is important that we look after our environment for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: Justin McNulty.

Mr McNulty: Question 3.

Mr Speaker: You should ask a supplementary question, Mr McNulty. Your question is grouped on the independent EPA. We will move on.

Ms Finnegan: How will the independent EPA work collaboratively through cross-border mechanisms to address pollution and environmental challenges, given that pollution recognises no borders?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Aoife. The review that was undertaken by the independent panel — I again put on record my thanks to it — recommended a range of actions, one of which is about how we can work better together. Another recommendation was about the need for memorandums of understanding between bodies, and I will seek to take that forward, because it will be really beneficial for us. I recognise, as you said, that environmental challenges do not respect borders, and we need to work together on that. We are ready to do that at official and ministerial level, and I am committed to addressing those issues head-on.

Miss McIlveen: It is true that the old adage, "Where there's a will, there's a way" applies. Will the Minister apply the same determination and enthusiasm to bringing forward legislation on a wildlife intervention, as requested by the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), to deal with bovine TB in this mandate?

Mr Muir: Given the challenges that we face from TB, I am very grateful that all the stakeholders around the table agreed a blueprint for the way forward, and I am committed to delivering the actions arising from that. The blueprint is based on three pillars: people, cattle and wildlife. I have been very clear that there has to be a wildlife intervention in order to allow us to deal with the challenges of TB and how they affect family farms in Northern Ireland.

We will consult on the wildlife intervention in spring next year. It is important that everyone comes back and gives their responses to that. Once we have considered the responses, we will set out the way forward, and that will include legislation.

Mr Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Mr Muir: The 2030 and 2050 emissions reductions targets in the Act were agreed by the Northern Ireland Assembly unanimously at the Bill's Third, and final, Reading in 2022. Subsequently, the 2040 target and the first three carbon budgets were approved by the Assembly in December 2024. My Department's focus is on delivering on those targets and the other requirements in the Act that, whilst challenging, are achievable. Therefore, I have no plans to review the legal targets that the Assembly has previously agreed.

Mr Brett: Minister, since the passing of that legislation, at three meetings in the past two months, the Executive have had to approve additional run hours at Kilroot power station. The Utility Regulator and the chief executive of Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) Networks have said that the 2030 targets will not be met. Why do you know better than those experts?

Mr Muir: As the Member will be aware, legal proceedings are under way, and if there is litigation in relation to a case, I am limited in what I can say. However, the Economy Minister has provided written ministerial statements on the issue, and I refer the Member to those.

Ms Murphy: Minister, can you detail what specific actions DAERA is taking to embed just transition principles in its agricultural policy?

Mr Muir: A just transition is absolutely key. It is embedded in the legislation and in my Department. We have a just transition fund for agriculture. We secured that as part of the budget for this year. We are bidding for additional funding for next year and the years beyond, because it is important that we give that support to agriculture.

In addition, I am looking to set up a just transition commission for Northern Ireland. I am seeking Executive approval so that we can make those regulations and appoint people to a commission. It is important that we have a commission and the funding in place. It is a commitment not only for me but for my Department and, hopefully, the Executive.

Mr Speaker: John Blair.

Mr Butler: On the Climate Change Act and its ambitions, the Minister will be aware that the EU has moved in that space to recognise that flexibility and pragmatism may be required for a much more regional approach. Is the Minister not going to respond to that?

Mr Muir: I am very conscious of the developments across the world. The EU has very strong ambitions on climate action. Discussions are ongoing within the European Union. I welcome the fact that the European Union is committed to climate action, and it is important that we do that here as well. It is a reality that is affecting us in Northern Ireland. There are opportunities for economic development, and we should grasp those.

Mr Speaker: Stand up, the real John Blair.

Mr Blair: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your patience. I am, of course, well known for mine.

Does the Minister agree that parties that are now reneging, and that are seeking others to renege, on those climate commitments undermine confidence in Northern Ireland and risk people here missing out on the benefits of climate action?

Mr Muir: It is very disappointing that, just three years after passing the legislation, some parties are calling for the Act to be scrapped. Businesses need certainty. There are economic opportunities from decarbonisation in Northern Ireland, and it is really important that we grasp those. We in Northern Ireland need to be ambitious for our citizens in delivering economic growth and the benefits of decarbonisation, be it in relation to warm homes, cheaper energy bills, green jobs, innovation, improved health and well-being or a cleaner environment.

It is something that I am determined to do. I will be powering on in relation to climate action, because it is the challenge of our generation, and it is important that we deliver for everyone.

Mr Gaston: The 2030 climate change targets commit to a reduction in livestock of 22% in dairy cattle, 17% in beef cattle and 18% in sheep, pigs and poultry. When will the Minister start standing up for the agriculture industry, of which he is meant to be Minister?

Mr Muir: I am proud to serve as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Just recently, we consulted on the climate action plan for 2023-27. In that, there are no proposals for herd reduction. We seek to work with the farming community to deliver productivity and efficiency on the ground. We are doing that through the sustainable agriculture programme. We are considering the responses to the climate action plan, and I will seek Executive approval so that we can deliver the just transition and support to everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 4 and 9.

Under the Windsor Framework (Implementation) Regulations 2024, the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland is a matter under the direction and control of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Nevertheless, I remain committed to doing all that I can to ensure the continued supply of veterinary medicines into Northern Ireland, including those from Great Britain.

I welcome the publication of the UK Government's new protecting animal health policy in June 2025 and the practical solutions that it provides to ensure the continued supply of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland. The policy supports the roll-out of two new schemes that are designed to provide a responsive, adaptable and flexible means of addressing supply issues that arise with veterinary medicines, including unforeseen issues. I believe that the new schemes offer sustainable solutions and represent a significant step forward in securing the future of our local veterinary medicines supply. Over the time ahead, I will continue to engage with the UK Government and the veterinary medicines working group on the important detail, governance and oversight arrangements to ensure that the schemes deliver the outcomes that they are designed to achieve.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for that answer. Can I push the Minister to ask him what discussions he had to ensure that clear, Northern Ireland-specific advice and guidance on the two new schemes — the veterinary medicine health situation scheme and the internal market scheme — will be published before January 2026 for practising vets and farmers? Will it cover at-risk categories, how the two schemes will operate in practice and contingency arrangements?

Mr Muir: The Member makes legitimate points with regard to communication and clarity for the industry. Those are the points that I have been making to the UK Government and will make again today to the Minister of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is important that there is clarity around the issue and that people understand how to navigate the schemes, because that is probably the key message that has come back to me, alongside other issues, such as suitably qualified persons (SQPs), for example.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his response. Has an assessment been done of the potential cost implications for Northern Ireland practices and farm businesses? Has consideration been given to potential mitigating measures?

Mr Muir: As the matter does not sit under my direction and control — it sits under the direction and control of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) — I will refer your question to DEFRA and make sure that it is able to respond to the questions that you have raised.

I understand the concerns, and I have been continuing to engage with the UK Government to find a way forward. That is why those schemes have been announced. We have to be clear that the schemes that have been announced will not resolve everything, but I have been very clear in my engagement with the UK Government of the need to ensure that there is a focus on the issue, particularly in relation to communication, SQPs and online sales.

Mr Muir: DAERA and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) are developing a stocking protocol to ensure compliance with the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and prevent the spread of zebra mussels. Results from water sampling at the Department's fish farm at Movanagher have been assessed for the presence or absence of live zebra mussels. That has provided understanding of the level of zebra mussel reproduction across the entire year and identified periods that would permit stocking. Therefore, as a precautionary measure at this time, stocking has taken place only when there has been no live reproduction present and the water temperature has been below 10°C.

That stocking approach has allowed a limited stocking of the public angling estate (PAE) waters, which is part of the usual annual stocking programme. That has allowed around 29,500 brown trout to be stocked out over a number of weeks up to 26 March 2025. The Carrickfergus dams were stocked at that time. The window for stocking the PAE from Movanagher closed when water temperatures rose to 10°C.

The stocking of fish to the PAE waters is planned for the autumn and winter period of 2025-26, when conditions allow compliance with the Wildlife Order. Only 27 of the 89 PAE waters are normally stocked. Despite the reduced stocking, the waters still contain wild fish suitable for anglers. Therefore, a wide variety of wild fisheries and angling opportunities are available to PAE permit holders.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his answer. There is extreme concern about this in East Antrim, and I understand the issues involved. However, as only 27 of the 89 estates have been stocked, has any consideration been given to reassessing the cost of the rod licensing fee to reflect the affected areas or, potentially, to reduced or limited stocking in the future?

Mr Muir: We keep the fees under review. I am keen to ensure that there is restocking, but we do not want to enable the spread of zebra mussels. It is about striking a balance, and it is something that is on my radar. I have visited Movanagher and seen the work that is done there, and we are trying to strike a balance between restocking and preventing the spread of zebra mussels, because we can see the impact they have had, for example, in Lough Neagh.

Ms Bradshaw: Can the Minister provide an update on his Department's review of the public angling estate?

Mr Muir: Following the strategic insight light lab held on 17 June, my Department received a final report from Innovation and Consultancy Services (ICS) in August. The report identified 16 key outputs that have since been refined into six strategic recommendations. On 24 October, I approved the recommendations and a plan with 10 objectives to guide the development of the future delivery of the public angling estate. Officials will now engage with stakeholders to explore the implementation options. All relevant documents have been shared with the participants in the June events, and further updates will be provided at key milestones.

Mr Muir: My Department’s Forest Service works in partnership with local councils, commercial entities and interest groups to facilitate forest-based recreational and environmental projects for local communities across Northern Ireland. The partnerships have proven successful in facilitating numerous development projects across the forest estate and a wide range of community-led events.

My Department is committed to increasing woodlands in Northern Ireland, and I have recently announced the development of a tree-planting action plan to be co-designed with key stakeholders. New diverse woodlands support many community interests, including health and well-being, and a wide range of flora and fauna, birds, insects, mammals and their habitats. My Department's Forest Service manages the forest estate to provide a wide range of benefits for our citizens and to ensure its long-term sustainability for future generations. That includes ongoing engagement with a wide range of stakeholders and local community groups in reviewing and developing forest management plans that include the full consideration of societal interests.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, I have worked closely with the Cappagh Village Regeneration Group. It has really good plans to regenerate the village, and the forest is a major part of that. Will your officials meet me and my colleague from West Tyrone, Declan McAleer, to discuss how we can further the conversations between councils and Forest Service officials to make the most of the potential of Altmore Forest?

Mr Muir: I am delighted to agree to that. It is a good example of bringing communities together to enjoy the benefits of forestation and tree planting for the local area. I am keen for officials to engage with you on the matter and give any assistance that we can.

Mr K Buchanan: In the COVID times, we saw the benefits of forests, and many people went to them. Obviously, that is still developing, because more and more people are going to them. Can you provide an update on what your Department is doing to put right the devastating damage caused by the storms at the start of the year? I appreciate that trees do not grow overnight, but what work is going on to put that back the way it was?

Mr Muir: The storm at the beginning of the year had a devastating impact, and I have seen that on the ground in many places. There have been a lot of clearances and then tree planting in response to that. I can understand the concerns from some communities who have seen forests being cleared as a result of the damage that has been inflicted on them, but it is important for the Department to give grant support for the planting of trees more broadly in Northern Ireland, and we should take a more strategic approach to redoubling our efforts. That is why we have announced the tree-planting action plan and, in conjunction with stakeholders, we are getting everyone around the table to focus on the actions to ensure that, despite the storm, we can increase tree cover in Northern Ireland.

Mr McMurray: Will the Minister give an update on the Forest Service's work in Donard Forest, given the flooding in Newcastle that was caused by storm Amy?

Mr Muir: Forest Service staff were in Donard Forest recently to monitor the functioning of the forest drainage system during storm Amy. High rainfall resulted in extremely large volumes of water running off the hillside that exceeded the capacity of the drainage infrastructure, including the outflow from the forest. In the immediate aftermath of the flooding, the extent of the damage caused to the drainage channels and culverts was inspected. Works are ongoing to repair the damage, and the necessary installation work will be done to increase the flow capacity of culverts to accommodate greater flows with lower risk of impediment.

The Forest Service has agreed to meet relevant agencies and residents to consider what more can be done to help lower the risk of flooding in the area. I was grateful for the opportunity to meet local residents that you facilitated, Andrew. The impact of that event was significant, and I am keen that the Forest Service works in conjunction with local people to address any issues in the forest.

Mr Muir: For the purpose of monitoring and reporting, Belfast lough is divided into three discrete water bodies: Belfast harbour, Belfast lough inner and Belfast lough outer. The water bodies in Belfast lough are failing to meet environmental standards for nutrients and/or the presence of chemical substances. Nutrient monitoring data shows a gradient of very high levels in the inner part of Belfast lough, which is Belfast harbour, that decrease towards the outer lough. Nutrient levels in Belfast lough outer currently meet the standard for high status. However, evidence suggests that nutrient levels in the whole lough are increasing, and that is a cause for concern.

Nutrient inputs to Belfast lough come from urban sources, namely waste water discharges and combined sewer overflows, and from agricultural sources, such as fertiliser and agricultural run-off. Water quality monitoring has also shown an increase in the number of chemical substances, such as pesticides and herbicides, as well as legacy chemicals, in the water. That apparent increase is due in part to improved monitoring and laboratory analytical techniques resulting in the detection of more chemical substances. Furthermore, new substances are being added to the list of chemical pollutants for monitoring and reporting. The environmental quality standards for many of those chemicals are extremely stringent, and failures across Northern Ireland, the UK and Europe are, sadly, common.

Mr Chambers: I know that the Minister shares my concern that Belfast lough has the potential to become the new Lough Neagh in the next 10 years. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the Executive take measures to avoid an environmental disaster similar to that in Lough Neagh?

Mr Muir: The actions that fall to me are in regulation and enforcement. I have been on the record as saying and will repeat today that I want to strengthen regulation and enforcement on sewage pollution in Northern Ireland. There is a separate regime for Northern Ireland Water; I do not think that that is sustainable, and I will bring a paper on that issue to the Executive soon. I will continue to engage with my Executive colleagues, and I will soon have a meeting with the Infrastructure Minister on the actions that we need to take on waste water infrastructure. It is important that we do that. We also need to support our farmers in a just transition as part of the way forward on improving water quality. I am committed to doing that. We will also do further reviews of bathing water. Surveying and reporting on that is important, because people entering bathing waters need have confidence in and know the quality of the water.

Mr Dickson: Minister, have you been able to identify the sources of pollution in Belfast lough? What action have you taken in respect of those who caused the pollution?

Mr Muir: Modelling studies have indicated that urban and diffuse agricultural discharges account for, respectively, 53% and 47% of the pollution in Belfast lough. Improvements in water quality are being sought through Northern Ireland Water's investment in waste water treatment upgrades, sewer misconnections work and improvements in storm water overflows. Agricultural inputs of nutrients will be managed through our approach in the nutrients action programme. It will require full implementation of all those measures to deliver water quality improvements in Belfast lough.

Mr Buckley: Given the ongoing delays in the upgrade of the Kinnegar waste water treatment plant, will the Minister's discussions with the Infrastructure Minister include aspects of the living with water programme and, indeed, how that programme will improve water quality? Is there a risk that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency will find that Kinnegar is non-compliant from 2027?

Mr Muir: The discussion with the Infrastructure Minister will be at a strategic level and will be around the need to have stronger regulation and enforcement. The responsibilities around that sit with me. The investment responsibilities sit with the Minister for Infrastructure. I am concerned to see the lack of investment in the living with water programme in the Belfast area. That is contributing to the situation that is unfolding on Belfast lough, which is of great concern to me. It is affecting the day-to-day lives of people who want to engage in sports activities on the lough. The scale and development of the pollution is also of great concern, and it is important that we take action on it. I will do what I can, and I will seek to work with the Infrastructure Minister on it.

Mr Muir: On receipt of an application for a new or varied pollution prevention and control (PPC) permit, NIEA officials will initially confirm that the application can be considered "duly made" under the regulations, including that all the information set out in Part 1 of schedule 4 or schedule 7 to the PPC regulations has been provided and the application is accompanied by the appropriate fee. For applications for specified waste management activities, that stage will include checking whether planning permission is in place. An assessment will also be carried out to determine whether the operator can be considered a "fit and proper" person". Those checks are not required for non-waste PPC permits.

Once an application is considered "duly made", it is made available for public consultation via newspaper advertisements and placed on NIEA’s online public registers. All statutory consultees are notified, including the relevant district council where the installation will be operated, the Public Health Agency and other relevant consultees as appropriate to the application. Responses from the consultees or other third parties are considered in the determination of the application.

There is a requirement for all applicants to evaluate the environmental impact of their proposed processes. That will include an assessment of the impacts in respect of air emissions; odour; noise; emissions to water or groundwater; energy use; raw materials to be used; waste generated; and sensitive habitats. The NIEA’s determination will include an assessment of whether the installation will be able to comply with the best available techniques for the sector. All decisions are recorded in a decision document. Once the determination is complete, a draft permit will be prepared, and, on completion, a further consultation with the public will be carried out prior to issue.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Minister. That is at the application stage. Will you confirm whether, if what happens on the ground varies from the planning application, and the planning permission therefore comes under question, NIEA can go back and retrospectively remove the permit that was given?

Mr Muir: If there is a variance from the planning permission, that is primarily a matter for the district council that issued the planning permission. If there are concerns about a variance from a planning application, the Member should raise those with the district council. If there are specific allegations in relation to a specific site, the Member should raise those through the appropriate channels.

Mr Muir: The Northern Ireland wildfires strategic framework was agreed by the Executive on 4 September and published on 8 October. Publication of the strategic framework will enable the development of an associated wildfire action plan by March 2026.

Since publication, my officials have sought feedback from members of the strategic wildfire group and the wildfire stakeholder forum regarding actions that they are currently undertaking or planning that would assist with the implementation of the strategic framework. That will enable collation of actions already being undertaken and the development of new actions where gaps are identified. A series of strategic and stakeholder group meetings will take place over the coming months to help draft the wildfire action plan, which will form the basis for the implementation of the framework. I thank all the stakeholders who are working with us on that. The only way to deal with it is by working together.

Mrs Guy: Thank you for that answer, Minister. What role will communications and education play?

Mr Muir: Communications and education are key elements of the wildfire strategic framework. Communications and education will make the public and landowners more aware of the conditions that cause wildfires and the adverse impacts that they can have on human health, the environment, society and the economy. Education and awareness will help to ensure that those engaging with the countryside are better informed and will promote responsible use. A better informed public are more likely to be vigilant of wildfire risks and to assist in the prevention and reporting of fires. They will be more informed about the unacceptability of lighting such fires and may be more willing to provide information to the authorities about who is starting the fires. That will be highly beneficial to ensuring successful prosecution of rural arsonists. A series of communications will be issued to alert the public to the risk of wildfires prior to the next wildfire season.

Mr McAleer: With their huge amount of local knowledge, community groups, farmers and landowners are able to assist the emergency services in dealing with wildfires. Will the Minister give an assurance that such groups will be involved in the new framework?

Mr Muir: Yes. The wildfire stakeholder forum forms one part of the strategic framework. The forum includes representation from the farming sector, other key land managers, environmental NGOs, government and council agencies and the Met Office. An official from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine sits on the forum as an observer in order to ensure cross-border knowledge exchange and awareness. It is important that we bring people together to work collectively on the matter, as that is the way forward.

Mr Speaker: We now move on to topical questions.

Mr Muir: I come here to account for my job as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and I am happy to do that. Last night's debate on an independent environmental protection agency was constructive, and many Members were on the same page about the importance of setting up such an agency. I said earlier in Question Time and will say again that I am deeply disappointed by the position that the DUP, including some of my Executive colleagues, took last night when they voted against setting up an independent environmental protection agency. I believe in power-sharing and in working with people; it is what these institutions are based on. I will continue to do that and continue to push for an independent environmental protection agency, despite the illogical objections of others.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for his answer. What is the real barrier to establishing an independent EPA? Is it an overly bureaucratic Department, obstructive and divided DUP Ministers or a Minister who simply cannot get the job done? Crucially, what steps are you taking to confront the obstacles and finally deliver the independent regulator that Northern Ireland needs?

Mr Muir: My record of standing up for the environment is there to be seen. I believe in it and am prepared to take the difficult decisions. The opposition comes from the DUP, and that is why I believe in reform of the institutions. The majority in the Assembly have voted for an independent environmental protection agency. The institutions therefore need to be reformed so that we can take decisions and end the cycle of stop-go government that has really damaged the environment. We need to fix the situation in order to ensure that, if one party leaves, the show continues. There is no rhyme or reason to the objections to an environmental protection agency other than not caring about the environment.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Nick. The commencement of the Farming with Nature package was a key priority for me this year. I am encouraged by the good uptake of the first strand of the package, which is the Farming with Nature transition scheme. It has demonstrated that demand exists in the farming community to do more for nature. It is planned to build on the first strand of Farming with Nature through an expanded transition scheme with more actions available. It will open for applications in 2026. My officials are working at pace to develop future strands of the Farming with Nature package to open in 2026, such as focused support for designated areas and priority habitats and a strand that will allow collaboration among farmers on a landscape scale to deliver environmental outcomes.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his work in that area. Following on from that answer, what support can he offer to farmers who are on the higher level of the environmental farming scheme (EFS), which is due to close in December 2025?

Mr Muir: The issues with Farming with Nature and the EFS are to do with the outworkings of Brexit. I am, however, determined to make progress on supporting the agrienvironment. It is planned that the existing EFS agreement holders will be eligible for future strands of the Farming with Nature package. The prioritisation of EFS agreements that are due to expire at the end of this year is being considered.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Declan. The rates of TB in Northern Ireland are far too high, and we need to act to reduce them. I have kept in place the 100% compensation rate, which the Secretary of State wanted to remove when the institutions were down. I recognise, however, that the full cost to farm families is way beyond what we provide in compensation, and it is important that we take action on that.

I thank the stakeholders who came together and agreed a blueprint for eradication based on the pillars of people, cattle and wildlife. I have put additional funding in place for testing to help farmers to identify TB. Also, I have worked with my partners in the South and agreed with them a new cross-border initiative, funded through the Shared Island Fund, that takes a regionalised approach to tackling bovine TB. I will continue to work on that, and we will consult on a wildlife intervention next spring. It is important that we act on the issue, and I am committed to doing so.

Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin.

I am pleased to hear about the Minister's engagement with his counterpart in the Twenty-six Counties. However, infection levels here are twice the level in the South, so what action is being taken to adopt an all-island approach to the emergency?

Mr Muir: I recognise that the island of Ireland is a single epidemiological area, and that is why it is important that we work together on issues of animal health. My officials are working with officials in the South on that regionalised approach, and, following engagement with stakeholders, I will make further announcements because it is important that we do that. It is important that we are able to do something collaboratively with our partners, as we do already on many other issues, such as avian influenza. I thank officials in my Department and in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine for the work that they are doing together to address that issue. We face animal health challenges on the island of Ireland, and I commend the partnership work that has taken place. I wish to redouble that, and it is important that we do so.

Mr Muir: Avian influenza is a challenge and is developing across the island of Ireland. It has also occurred in England and Wales. The Department has taken action in response to that: we have made biosecurity measures mandatory and introduced a housing order. We are working North and South on the issue. Of late, we have had three cases in Northern Ireland and four in the Republic of Ireland. In response, officials from my Department have been assisting my colleagues in the South, because it is important that we work together.

I would need to get more detail from you, Mr Gaston, about your concerns. I am happy to discuss those with you afterwards or you can engage with officials on them. It is important that we heed the need for biosecurity and the housing order measures. We are working closely with stakeholders on those matters. I commend the poultry industry for its partnership working with my Department. It is important that we work together so that we can address the challenge, which is of real concern to me.

Mr Gaston: The 2016 avian disease control strategy on the DAERA website states that gassing birds is the preferred option. Will you give the industry an assurance that enough gas is available in Northern Ireland to ensure that there will be no delays in culling future infected birds? Is the Department considering other methods of culling large flocks?

Mr Muir: The culling of flocks is difficult for the farmer and for the officials who have to undertake the task, and I commend everyone for the work that they do on that. The preferred method is gassing, and we will continue to seek to secure supplies of gas to effect that. The situation is extremely challenging for officials North and South, and I commend them for their work from a senior level to those who are on the ground assisting farmers, in response to it. We will continue with that work.

Mr Muir: Water quality is a priority for me and my Department. I expanded the bathing water programme this year, including seven new sites, which brought the number of identified bathing waters to 33. I also launched the bathing water platform, which has been well received. The Department works in partnership with stakeholders to manage bathing waters and improve water quality at identified bathing water sites through the bathing water action plan. Beyond bathing waters, improvement to water quality is required through stronger regulation, the enforcement of sewage pollution measures, investment in waste water infrastructure and the implementation of the nutrients action programme.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. Will your Department engage with councils ahead of the upcoming review of bathing waters to encourage the designation of more sites in Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: Officials from my Department hosted a bathing water review meeting for councils on Monday 3 November. That meeting was designed to prepare non-bathing water operator councils for the upcoming review by sharing information on bathing waters and bathing water operator responsibilities. All councils are invited to the bathing water review stakeholder workshop this month being hosted by Innovation and Consultancy Services. That workshop will bring together a range of stakeholder voices to discuss key bathing water topics in order to inform a public consultation.

Mr Muir: Thank you, John. I commend the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, the Prince of Wales and many others for their leadership on the issue. My Department will continue to engage with and support the UK Government on their engagement in COP30. The big focus of COP30 is climate action and rightly so, and it is about achieving the goal that was set out in the Paris agreement. Before the Paris agreement, the world was on track for warming of 4°C. Continued action on that has brought us down, but we are not on course to meet the target. Global clean energy investment is, however, set to reach $2·2 trillion in 2025, which is double that of fossil fuels. Whilst Northern Ireland is only a small contributor to wider global emissions, it is vital that we all play our part and do not miss out on the economic, environmental and biodiversity opportunities provided by addressing climate change.

For some countries and nations, particularly those in the Global South, tackling climate change is about their very existence. I will continue to take action on the matter and engage with my partners in the UK and Irish Governments. Climate change is the defining issue of our generation, and it is important that we take action on it.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that reply. Further to the previous question, will the Minister outline why climate action is vital for our economy?

Mr Muir: When I consider climate change, I look to experts, particularly Lord Stern, who produced seminal work back in 2006 and recently published a publication on the issue. In that, he recognises that climate action boosts living standards and prosperity, improves air quality and reduces poverty. He challenges the misconception that China and India are doing nothing and that the UK should not bother. We know that the reality is very different. In a recent article, Lord Stern stressed the need for political leadership and stated:

I believe in taking action on the matter. I understand and respect the importance of science and evidence, and it is important that Northern Ireland is not left behind when the opportunities for decarbonisation arise.

Mr Muir: As Minister, I am committed to improving our resilience to climate change. I will shortly bring Northern Ireland's third climate adaptation programme to the Executive for their agreement to publish. The programme sets out the details of over 250 actions that Departments and key stakeholders are to deliver over the coming five years. Whilst the lead departmental responsibility for flooding sits with my colleague in the Department for Infrastructure, my Department is leading on a number of significant areas to help alleviate flooding. They include the restoration of peatlands, planting new forests and the sustainable management of our soils. It is important that we adapt and improve resilience to the impacts of climate change in Northern Ireland.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he please outline what he feels will be the impact if we continue to dither and delay on climate action?

Mr Muir: We need to take action to address the impacts of climate change. Doing nothing is not an option. The cost of inaction, economically, socially and environmentally, is significant, Northern Ireland is already experiencing the effects of climate change: the rise in temperatures, increased rainfall, more frequent flooding and biodiversity loss. These trends are projected to intensify, threatening food security, public health and the resilience of our rural and urban communities. It is important that we take action, and that is what I seek to do.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Members should take their ease for a moment whilst we change the Table for the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We return to the statement from the Minister for Communities. We will take questions in response to that statement, and the first is from Mark Durkan.

Mr Durkan: Discrimination has no place in sport or in society. It is worth noting that the Irish Athletic Boxing Association (IABA) rejects any form of discrimination or sectarianism. We welcome the Minister's recognition of the recommendations from the Equality Commission and look forward to him being as welcoming of its recommendations elsewhere. Minister, you say that you are announcing a new oversight panel. How will that look and be made up, and how will you ensure that the panel, to ensure balance, is, itself, balanced?

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): That is still to be determined, but I will be very clear with the Member and the House: I want to see action being taken, and that is what is going to drive me on this. For over 12 years, we have been waiting for action to be taken, and too many of the recommendations made in the report in 2013 have not been implemented. Therefore, I do not believe that this should take a long time, but I will consider how and when to set up that panel. Let me be very clear: speed is of the essence because this should not be allowed to continue for a moment longer.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Following from that, Minister, given that you have stated that you are taking ministerial control of this process and that you are the Minister responsible for allocating funding to lots of sports, how can people be assured of its independence?

Mr Lyons: There is a requirement on me to make sure that public funding goes to organisations that uphold the law and demonstrate high levels of governance and a commitment to good relations. The recommendations are very clear on what needs to happen. They were clear in 2013, of course, but they were not implemented. Therefore, my involvement will be to make sure that there is faithful implementation of those recommendations, and no one should be fearful of that.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. It is quite shocking that, in 2025, we are presented with those facts and that case of discrimination against a Protestant boxer. Daryl Clarke is to be commended for taking forward his case. In the face of difficult circumstances and that type of discrimination, what sort of support is available for those brave individuals who come forward to take discrimination cases in sports, which are under the remit of your Department?

Mr Lyons: The Member is right to highlight the bravery of those who have been prepared to stand up, speak out and take action. It is not the easiest thing to do. As I said in my statement, the easiest thing is to stay quiet and say nothing at all. However, I commend Daryl and others who came forward and made their case, because they did so not only for themselves but for those who come after. It is a difficult thing to do, and they should be praised for that. I will send this clear message: I will not tolerate discrimination in any shape or form. This should not come into sport at all. I hope that that is an encouragement to everyone that they can step forward and that they will have support from me and my Department in making sure that we have policies and procedures in place that are fair to everybody.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you so much for bringing the statement to the House, Minister. I absolutely agree with some of your points about how there should be no discrimination in any sport, regardless of a person's background or perceived background. I welcome the fact that the review took place, and I welcome its recommendations. Minister, will you give us a wee bit more detail about why you believe that the Department did not follow through on the recommendations in the 2013 Morrow report and about how the recommendations on the code of conduct and social media policy will flow through via an arm's-length body?

Mr Lyons: The Member highlights one of the issues that existed in the first place, which was that it was not for the Department to take those recommendations forward. That is why I want to make sure that there is a role for me in this matter so that there can be oversight and that progress reports can be provided. Perhaps one of the other reasons why some of the recommendations were not taken forward was that there was a reluctance on the part of those who were involved to do so because it would have upset the status quo. There can be no room for the status quo when that does not lead to fair and equitable outcomes for everybody. That is why I am determined that there will be progress. People are long past fed up with how long it has taken for some of those issues to be resolved. The same applies to the recommendations on social media policies and other policies that will need to be put in place.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his statement and the actions contained therein. Will the Minister advise on whether his Department has carried out any analysis to make sure that similar issues are not present in other sports bodies across Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware that reviews of governance procedures always take place in different organisations. I can certainly provide him with information on those. I am more than happy to use whatever powers I have to step in where we need to take action to ensure that everybody is treated equally, because what happened was outrageous. No one should feel that they cannot progress in any sport because of their background, the community that they come from or their faith. I hope that we can stand united on that around the Chamber.

Mr McHugh: Minister, as a member of the Communities Committee, I am well aware of the fact that many other strategies have not come to fruition during your time in office. I think particularly of the Irish language strategy. How confident can we be about that, when you are now, seemingly, having the time to take on an interest in issues in boxing?

Mr Lyons: The Member conflates different issues. The Irish language strategy, along with the Ulster-Scots strategy, is being developed in coordination with other Departments. A lot of that is outside my control.

What we are dealing with here are allegations of discrimination and practices that have been going on for far too long that should not have gone on. We are trying to right a wrong. We are trying to make sure that what happened in the past cannot happen again in the future. We are talking about the real impact that such practices have had on people. Those people have not progressed. Imagine being at the top of your sport but not being chosen to take part in the Commonwealth Games, not because of your talent, ability or skill but because of other reasons. That is scandalous and wrong. It is right that we put the pressure on to make sure that those recommendations are implemented. I will do that as soon as I can.

Mr Kingston: Minister, you will also be aware of the previous case of Lewis Crocker, who, in similar circumstances, experienced religious bias in selection. In that case, he was excluded from the Northern Ireland squad for the Commonwealth Youth Games in 2015, despite the head coach's recommending him for selection. He subsequently won a settlement of £8,500 from the Ulster Boxing Council under fair employment law. Despite that setback, and to his huge credit, he went on to become the International Boxing Federation (IBF) welterweight world champion just two months ago and is the pride of Sandy Row. Are you now satisfied that the culture of discrimination against Protestants in boxing has ended with the case of Daryl Clarke from Monkstown Amateur Boxing Club?

Mr Lyons: No, I am not satisfied that it has ended, but I am satisfied that I will do everything that I can to make sure that it does end and that we are not in this situation again. The Member is absolutely right to mention Lewis. I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating him on his outstanding achievements, which are of particular note considering what he has had to go through and the barriers that were put in his way. That should not happen to anybody again. It is only because of his perseverance that he got to that stage, but no one else should have to go through that to achieve in that way. There is still much work for the organisations to do in order to rebuild trust with all sections of the community, and I hope that my oversight of the panel will ensure that the matter is dealt with as soon as possible.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, I join you in condemning any sectarianism towards any person involved in sport who is prevented from taking part or progressing purely because of their religion or cultural background. I thank you for your statement today. You say that you are taking "direct control" of an oversight panel. That is an unusual step for a Minister to take. Why do you, rather than one of your arm's-length bodies, need to do that, given the fact that you are so busy with matters of poverty, homelessness and lack of social strategies? Will you clarify why the Department needs to do this?

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for her question. I am glad that she said that it is an unusual step to take. I am happy to step out of the status quo and what is normal in order to get things done. Sometimes things move slowly, and you need to get in there, be prepared to put your shoulder to the wheel and do the work yourself. I am happy to do that. I want to have control over this to make sure that I push it forward and it is not left. In the past, in 2013, it was left, and recommendations were not implemented, so I hope that I can bring the weight of ministerial office to the process and make sure that we get on with it and get it done. I have emphasised again and again today that this is unacceptable. If it is unacceptable, we must do everything that we can to make sure that it does not happen again. I assure the Member that I will continue to deliver on all other areas in my Department, but I can still give this the time that it needs in order to get it sorted once and for all. In doing so, I hope that it will never be on any other Minister's plate in the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, I clarify that, normally, Members not present during a Minister's statement would not be called to ask a question. However, given the circumstances and the limited time to consider the statement prior to suspension, I will call Members on this occasion, but I ask Members, when they are called, to refer to the earlier announcement from the Chair stating that questions should be brief and that long introductions should be non-existent.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I will be brief. I very much welcome the Minister's statement and the clarity around the shocking case of discrimination against Daryl Clarke. Does the Minister agree that the onus is now fully on the Ulster Boxing Council and the IABA to regain their reputation and the trust of the boxing community, and is he assured that they will now do that in light of the Equality Commission report?

Mr Lyons: Sport should be inclusive of all communities. This case is an example of how we could be dragged into the past, but I will not allow that to happen. That is why I have decided to intervene. The review panel will report regularly to me, and I hope that I and others in the House will be satisfied by the progress that it makes.

The Member referred specifically to the IABA and the Ulster Boxing Council. I hope that they realise that there is a responsibility on their part to ensure that change takes place so that we can move forward, and I look forward to them playing their part and making the change that is long overdue.

Mr McMurray: Does the willingness to step outside and take control demonstrate a lack of confidence in Sport NI, Minister?

Mr Lyons: No, absolutely not. Perhaps it shows some confidence in me instead. It is not a reflection on Sport NI at all. It is about bringing the weight of my ministerial office to making sure that it is done. It needs to be a priority, because I believe that what happened was egregious. It should never have happened and should never happen again. We are doing everything in our power to make sure that it does not.

Ms Brownlee: Minister, I absolutely love this statement, and it comes not a moment too soon. Public money demands public accountability, and, without real consequences, nothing will change. Will the Minister detail what the consequences will be for the IABA and the Ulster Boxing Council if they do not engage and show sufficient progress?

Mr Lyons: It is the same for any organisation that receives money from Sport NI or indeed from any arm's-length body of my Department. It is a requirement for them to demonstrate high levels of governance and a commitment to good relations. If that is missing in any way, of course there will be consequences. It would be unfathomable for me or my officials to endorse a funding relationship in its current form if that issue has not been dealt with.

Mr McNulty: Minister, discrimination of any form has no place in sport. Boxing on this island, however, has a proud tradition and has produced multiple world-class fighters and champions. Further to previous questions with regard to fairness, you

objective measuring and the principle of merit. Is it not below the belt for you to take direct control of the establishment of an oversight panel?

Mr Lyons: No.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Brett: The boxer's name is Daryl Clarke. I know that Members on the other side of the House have not bothered to mention his name. The Equality Commission did a report on his case, which the IABA settled on anti-Protestant discrimination. The Equality Commission reported —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Is this a question, Mr Brett —

Mr Brett: It is, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): — or a statement? Could you get to your question?

Mr Brett: It is a serious issue in which I have been heavily involved. I was shouted down when I raised it before. I have been threatened with legal action outside the Chamber, but I have been justified in the actions that I have taken. Minister, do you agree that, despite what others may say, the days of discriminating against Protestants are now over?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: First, I pay tribute to Phillip Brett and Cheryl Brownlee for the work that they have done in bringing this issue to the fore and drawing attention to the matter, because there are many who would have liked to see it brushed under the carpet. Many people would have liked to pretend that it was not happening and that it was not a serious issue. I am absolutely delighted that they have taken the stand that they have taken. They have been determined in bringing it forward. I know that Mr Brett, in particular, has brought it to the Floor many times, and it is right that that is acknowledged and that his work on the issue is recognised, because it should not be acceptable any more. It should not be something that we can just turn a blind eye to. I certainly hope that this is starting a journey down a road, because it has gone on for far too long. It is not acceptable.

The Member is absolutely right to mention Daryl by name. It is absolutely unacceptable that someone was not able to progress, when they had the skill, talent and ability to do so, because of their community background or perceived religion. That is wrong. That needs to stop, and I can assure the Member that I will do everything in my power to make sure that this is the end of it.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I remember having conversations many years ago with Ian McSorley from Sandy Row Boxing Club about this very issue, so I am delighted to hear that the Minister is taking firm action today. I share his encouragement and congratulations to Lewis Crocker from my constituency.

The code of conduct is not just needed for boxing and could possibly be replicated in other sports. Is that something that the Minister is minded to do if it proves to be successful?

Mr Lyons: It should ultimately be for sports to bring forward their own policies. It is not necessarily the right way forward to lift something from one sport and put it in place for everybody. The issue has been highlighted because of how the problems that already existed have come to the fore. We are always willing to look at issues to make sure that everything that can be done is being done so that people can operate in a fair and equitable way.

I thank the Member for welcoming the statement; everyone in the House should welcome it. Everybody, together, should want to make sure that the work is completed as quickly as possible so that this is not an issue for anybody in the future.

Mr Clarke: I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is disappointing that many Members from those Benches would have more to say if Daryl Clarke came from a different community background. Whilst they often cling on to the Equality Commission as being their saviour, it is not lost on anyone on the Benches on this side of the Chamber that, in your statement, you said that the 2013 report:

You went on to say that the "ignorance" will end.

Clearly, Minister, there is an issue in the organisation. Do the recommendations go far enough? Is there any form of sanction that you could apply in the short term until we make sure that those recommendations are followed?

Mr Lyons: I want to see the recommendations implemented. It is right that we pick up on what some of those recommendations are. One is:

That shows that it does not currently reflect the communities in Northern Ireland. Another recommendation is that we need to see:

Again, I believe that that is indicative of that not being in place at the minute. I will read some of the other things that the report says, because it is important to highlight them. It says:

That all indicates that there is a real problem, especially with governance. I will repeat what I have said to the House previously: it is a requirement for any sports governing body that is recognised by Sport NI to demonstrate high levels of governance and a commitment to good relations. That is lacking right now, and the situation needs to change. There will be consequences if there is not that change.

Mr Gaston: Minister, your statement on the treatment of Daryl Clarke is welcome. However, in 2013, the Assembly made an amendment, tabled by my predecessor, Jim Allister, which called for the formation of a Northern Ireland boxing association. There was no path for people from Northern Ireland to box for the UK in the Olympics at that time, and that remains the case. In your statement, you said nothing about that issue. What are you doing to address that?

Mr Lyons: I have raised that issue. We need to do a number of things to make sure that that happens. One of those is to get the sports councils of the UK to look at the issue. I am pleased to announce to the House, if it is not already aware of it, that they are undertaking a review of the recognition policy. I look forward to learning of any proposed changes arising from that review and to understanding those changes' implications for sports that are seeking to establish a governing body in Northern Ireland.

I have also written to international governing bodies in support of organisations that wish to become the national governing body for their sport in Northern Ireland. I have to recognise that all sports are self-governing, and that World Boxing, as the recognised international governing body, has the ultimate authority to decide how boxing is organised in Northern Ireland. I do not believe, however, that what we currently have in place fulfils the promise in the Good Friday Agreement about people being able to compete under their own identity. Change is needed. Our particular circumstances need to be accounted for. I took this issue on when I came into office, and I assure the House that I will continue to press on it until we get the changes that are so desperately required.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes questions on the statement.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Dr Archibald: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Decarbonisation is one of my four key objectives. Reaching net zero requires action across every sector of our economy, including the aviation sector. Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is designed to reduce the environmental impact of air travel. It is produced from renewable or waste-based sources and can be used in existing aircraft engines and infrastructure with little or no modification. Compared with conventional jet fuel, it can reduce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions by up to 70%. Sustainable aviation fuel production has the potential to generate hundreds of skilled jobs in engineering, logistics and research as the industry grows. There are also potential benefits for our agri-food and waste sectors from providing feedstock sources for sustainable aviation fuel production.

The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 14 May 2025. The Bill establishes a revenue certainty mechanism, which provides producers with a guaranteed price for their fuel, thereby reducing investment risk and encouraging market growth. The Bill also establishes a framework for further regulations and mechanisms to follow in support of the sustainable aviation fuel industry. The Bill contains 19 clauses, 11 of which would apply here. The proposal is that they be extended to this jurisdiction via a legislative consent motion (LCM).

I will turn briefly to the specific clauses in the Bill that require legislative consent. Clauses 1 to 5 establish the legal framework for revenue certainty contracts. They also allow the British Secretary of State for Transport to direct a designated government-owned counterparty to offer guaranteed price contracts to sustainable aviation fuel producers. The clauses also provide for the publication and registration of contracts, the designation of the government-owned counterparty and the ability to transfer responsibilities between entities. The clauses ensure transparency, flexibility and investment confidence in the sector.

Clause 10 ensures that any surplus funds that are collected through the levy that are not needed to support revenue certainty contracts are returned to levy payers. The levy itself will be imposed on aviation fuel suppliers and will remain a reserved matter. Clause 11 allows for financial penalties to be imposed for failing to comply with regulations on the levy, which is considered to be reserved, and for failing to comply with regulations on surplus, which is considered to be devolved. Penalties are intended to ensure compliance and to maintain the integrity of the revenue certainty mechanism. Initially, the Bill omitted the North from the recovery provisions. That was addressed at Committee Stage in the House of Commons through an amendment to ensure that unpaid penalties are recoverable here, thus aligning with procedures in England and Wales.

Clause 12 enables the British Secretary of State for Transport to direct the government-owned counterparty on the exercise of any of its functions. That intersects with the devolved responsibilities if the direction concerns the revenue certainty contracts. The same applies to clause 13 on information and advice. Clause 14 relates to funding the counterparty only to enable it to fulfil its liabilities under the contracts, which is considered to be a devolved issue. Clause 15 sets out how regulations under the Bill will be made. It intersects with devolved responsibilities if they relate to non-levy regulations.

The Bill can help support the establishment of a world-leading sustainable aviation fuel industry, reducing reliance on imported fuels and boosting energy security. The Bill cuts across economic development, environmental matters and the application of financial penalties here.

My Department has consulted the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department of Justice. I acknowledge the positive responses received from the respective Ministers, who indicated their support for the LCM. They also acknowledged the potential environmental and economic benefits of applying the Bill's provisions here and that the financial penalty provisions in clause 11 are necessary, proportionate and unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the justice system here.

I thank my Executive colleagues, who have given their support to consent to the Bill. I also thank the Committee for its engagement on the matter and for the report that it produced. I commend the motion to the Assembly and thank Members for their support.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I rise on behalf of the Committee to support the LCM tabled by the Minister. I thank her and her officials for the usual courtesy that they have shown the Committee in ensuring that we could deliberate on the matter.

Sustainable aviation fuel is described as a cleaner alternative to traditional jet fuel and is part of the process of reducing carbon emissions from air travel. The Bill is described as aiming to boost SAF production through the establishment of revenue certainty mechanisms to encourage investment and support the production of SAF across this United Kingdom. The Bill will allow the Government to impose a levy on suppliers of aviation fuel in the UK who are subject to renewable fuel obligations. That levy will then be used to support the revenue certainty mechanism and thus help producers.

The Department advised the Committee at its meeting on 24 September 2025 of a number of producers in Northern Ireland and the potential for economic spin-offs from related technology. Officials advised that, if the provisions of the Bill were not extended to Northern Ireland from the start, that would lead to uncertainty for our producers. The Committee noted the potential benefits of the new fuel and the important role that it would likely play in reaching climate change targets. Thus, it afforded me this opportunity to say that we support the LCM.

Mr Delargy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the sustainable aviation legislation that has been brought forward at Westminster and to acknowledge the constructive engagement that our Sinn Féin Minister for the Economy has had in that important area. The Bill is a step towards addressing one of the major challenges facing our economy: how we continue to connect people and places while reducing our impact on the environment.

Aviation remains vital to our all-Ireland economy. It supports tourism, trade, inward investment and access to global markets. However, it is also a significant contributor to carbon emissions, and tackling that requires long-term strategic planning. Sinn Féin's policy of decarbonisation is a key pillar of our tenure in the Department for the Economy, and the Minister's focus on exploring sustainable aviation fuels and green innovation shows forward thinking.

By supporting R&D across our universities and industry, we can ensure that we are at the cutting edge of skills and opportunities that are part of a lower-carbon future. That approach recognises that sustainability and economic growth go hand in hand. The development of cleaner aviation technologies has the potential not only to reduce emissions but to create new high-quality jobs and position our economy as part of a growing global sector.

While the legislative process sits at Westminster, it is essential that the voices and the priorities of people in the North are represented and that any policy that is developed works for our needs to support connectivity, protect jobs, align with our commitments under the Climate Change Act 2022 and protect our broader economic vision. It is about planning responsibly for the future and ensuring that aviation remains viable and sustainable for future generations. I commend the Minister for continuing to champion long-term practical solutions and for ensuring that our region plays its part in a cleaner and fairer economy.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for moving the LCM. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I am pleased to support it. It is about three things: decarbonising aviation; backing innovation and creating jobs and skills; and making sure that this region is not left on the sidelines while the rest of these islands move ahead. The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill sets up a UK-wide system for sustainable aviation fuel. After the Bill is passed, our focus must be on how we make the most of it and grow our economy. We need to provide investors with confidence to base themselves in Northern Ireland, grow our economy and create jobs here for local people.

It may be a small area — a niche area, if you like — but Alliance still sees the opportunity for growth, innovation and clean industry. That is exactly the kind of industry and space that we want this place to lead in. We are well placed to take advantage of it, and we already have work on it going on, with a world-class agri-food sector, a heritage of innovation that is core to the people here and innovation and technology companies. Excellent research is already being done throughout our universities; our airports and ports are well located; and, uniquely, for us, there is dual market access to the UK internal market and the EU single market. With the right framework, this can bring us another opportunity to turn waste and landfill gas into high-value jet fuel instead of into more methane emissions and could create skilled jobs in engineering, logistics and operations that are based here in the emerging industry.

The independent analysis of the UK Government shows that a mature SAF and low-carbon fuel sector could supply thousands of jobs and billions of pounds to UK GVA by 2050. We have to make sure that we have more than our fair share of that and do not watch it happen elsewhere while we miss out. It fits directly with our Climate Change Act, green growth strategy and Alliance's long-standing belief that climate, energy security and economic growth go hand in hand.

Finally, we have to be honest and highlight this point: we in Northern Ireland were forgotten about from the start. That is not acceptable — absolutely not acceptable — and needs to be put on the record. The UK Government's failure to properly follow protocol and notify the Executive on a devolved issue cannot be allowed to become a habit. From now on and as we move forward, cross-departmental working should be done, alongside work in the Economy Committee. I appreciate the Minister's work with the AERA Minister and the Justice Minister to bring the matter to the House today. We are where we are, but it has to be noted that that failure cannot become a habit.

Alliance supports the LCM in order to provide green investment, jobs, skills and connectivity. We will always choose opportunity alongside climate responsibility.

Ms D Armstrong: I, too, support the legislative consent motion. It offers an important opportunity to help Northern Ireland become a hub for sustainable aviation fuel innovation and development, building on work that is already under way here. I join David Honeyford, our colleague on the Economy Committee, in mentioning the fact that Northern Ireland, as a devolved part of the UK, was left out of the consideration. That is not acceptable, given that it posed a risk that we would be left out of line with GB, robbing us of the potential benefits of developing further investment in sustainable aviation fuel. Thankfully, that has been rectified, and the Ulster Unionist Party is content to support the Minister's request for legislative consent.

The Bill offers economic opportunity and strategic foresight to help harness the vast developing changes in an industry that is so vital for our connectivity and commerce. The industry is also one of the fastest-growing sources of carbon emissions. With the Bill, more investment can be attracted, more green jobs created and waste from agri-foods and forestry can be turned into wealth, transforming landfill gas and agricultural residues into clean jet fuel.

As I read, in July this year it was announced that 17 companies in the UK that are developing the fuels will receive shares of a new £63 million funding boost, which will support around 1,400 jobs. It has been warned that, if the Bill is not extended to Northern Ireland, it may lead to revenue uncertainty for producers of SAF. When we see the benefits of the investment in SAF in Great Britain, we find that it makes little sense for Northern Ireland to neglect such opportunities. Environmentally sustainable aviation fuel aligns with Invest NI's green economy strategy and has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in aviation by up to 80% when compared with standard jet fuel. It can also support our Climate Change Act targets as a cornerstone of the local net zero transition.

The legislation, once enacted, will guarantee sustainable aviation fuel producers a revenue certainty mechanism to support the production of sustainable aviation fuel. It will remove the financial uncertainty that hinders investment, provide a guaranteed price for fuel and help future-proof the developing sector, all while making progress towards our green energy goals. I am happy to endorse the extension of the Bill to ensure that Northern Ireland is not left behind on clean aviation fuel.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): There being no further speakers listed, I call on the Minister for the Economy to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Dr Archibald: I thank Members for their contributions to today's debate and the interest that they have shown in this important issue. I thank again the Economy Committee and its Chair for their support and engagement. I will pick up briefly on a couple of the points that Members made.

I agree that we have a real opportunity here for job creation and innovation and supporting businesses. There are already a couple of businesses here that are engaged in sustainable aviation fuel production. There is clearly an opportunity to be grasped. It very much links with some of the strategies that have been mentioned and the forthcoming circular economy strategy that we intend to bring forward in the near future.

I will pick up again on the point about the lack of engagement on LCMs on some occasions. It is not always the case. There are Ministers and Departments that engage early and well on potential legislative consent motions, but, on a number of occasions, that has not happened, and it is across all Departments here. The First Minister and deputy First Minister have raised that on a number of occasions and have again committed to raising it as a machinery-of-government issue.

I thank Members for their engagement in today's debate. I look forward to working with them to ensure that we play a leading role in the transition to cleaner aviation. I therefore recommend that the Assembly agree the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for concluding the debate.

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

Mr Gildernew: Molaim an rún. 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 in which to propose and 10 minutes in which make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Mr Gildernew, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Gildernew: A number of weeks ago, the British Government announced that they will bring forward a new form of mandatory digital ID that we all know as the "BritCard" The reaction to the BritCard has been, it is fair to say, universally negative, both here and, ironically enough, even in Britain, with all parties in the North in agreement that the BritCard should not apply here.

Sinn Féin is resolutely opposed to the BritCard or any such mandatory ID scheme. The motion today will send a clear message to the British Government that the scheme is not wanted by the majority of people here and that they need to reflect on that hare-brained scheme.

First and foremost, it is an attack on the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement makes it explicitly clear that citizens in the North have the right — the right — to identify as Irish or British or, indeed, both, as they so choose. The idea that Irish nationalists living in the North, who carry Irish passports as a proud birthright, would accept a mandatory form of ID that forces them to identify as British is absolutely ludicrous. We all know that people here feel strongly in their sense of identity, as is their right, and any attempts to coerce people to accept an identity that is not theirs is doomed to fail from the outset. The Good Friday Agreement was designed in such a way to allow people to express their identity in whatever way they wanted, with a recognition that identity does not remain static and can change over time. Crucially, it also afforded equality to those of us who choose to identify as Irish. The so-called BritCard would drive a horse and cart through that inclusive and equal recognition of our many complex identities.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. As the Member talks about the Belfast Agreement, will he say why he called for a carveout of the scheme here in Northern Ireland but not to scrap it across the United Kingdom? For those of us who proudly identify as British and whose allegiance is to the United Kingdom, surely, calling for it to be removed across the UK would have gone better with what the Member has just articulated.

Mr Gildernew: Very simply, we believe that if they decide to go ahead with it across the water, it should not take place here. We will not be supporting the amendment as we feel that it weakens our motion in that sense. Thank you for that.

Workers here are already required to show various forms of ID when searching for employment, and we already have government ID, such as passports and driving licences, which most people are able to produce when asked. In the North, we also have electoral ID cards, which are available to any citizen who is registered to vote, completely free of charge. The BritCard is simply another layer of bureaucracy that duplicates what already exists, and it will only serve to confuse and disorient those who are seeking employment.

I also have concerns about the digital aspect of the ID. As we all know, many people in the North are not IT literate and have no means of accessing internet platforms. Are we seriously suggesting that people who may not know how to use a mobile phone, or, worse again, people who cannot even afford a mobile phone should be excluded from gaining employment? There is also a lack of clarity on what it would mean for the thousands of cross-border workers who live and work here, particularly along border regions. The constituency that I represent includes one of those regions. Many people cross the border for work daily. The question is this: will Irish citizens who live in the South but work in the North — many of them valued workers in our health service and many other places — be required to carry a BritCard? That is another gaping hole in what is a daft idea.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I brought this issue as a Matter of the Day about a month ago, and I referred to it as the "BritCard". I did not really think that that would cause offence, but, that day, it was clear that it does cause offence to some Members. Did you not reflect on that after that Matter of the Day and consider that you could have tempered the way that you term the digital ID scheme to reflect greater cooperation in the Chamber?

Mr Gildernew: I have not heard it referred to as anything other than "BritCard". I did not hear the Matter of the Day, due to other business, but that is the only term that I have heard used, and I think that it is widely used. It is widely in circulation, even yet; it is not simply me who is using it.

The scheme has the real potential to block thousands of workers from contributing to our economy by placing unnecessary barriers in front of people who are trying to make a living. The more that we look at the scheme, the more that it becomes obvious that we in the North were not factored into the decision whatsoever. Frankly, that is nothing new, and that is a problem in itself.

The British economy is in free fall, largely as a result of Brexit, it must be said, and there are unprecedented labour shortages across all sections of the economy. It smacks of political desperation to make such a proposal. At a time of continuing British austerity, when we have seen pensioners lose their winter fuel payment, sick and disabled people lose their benefits and now more unfair taxes being proposed against the least well-off, the British Government are proposing to spend £400 million on this folly. It beggars belief.

The proposal shows how out of touch with reality the British Government are. Trust in the British Government is at an all-time low. Keir Starmer is the most unpopular British Prime Minister in living memory, and now he wants to force citizens to hand over their personal data to his Government: a recipe for disaster. Anyone and everyone that I have spoken to about this scheme has said that they do not trust the British Government to responsibly handle their personal data, and, to be clear, neither do I. We live in an age when hackers can access vast quantities of personal data and use it for criminal purposes, and Governments around the world seem to be completely inept at protecting their citizens' data. That is why I believe that the digital ID scheme will never be accepted by people here.

Keir Starmer can dance to the Reform tune as much as he wants, but people here refuse to get caught up in these Westminster games and distractions. We have had enough of the bad decisions that come from Westminster, which have had a disproportionate impact on the people who live here. It is time that the British Government took their heads out of the clouds and started listening to the people on the ground.

Mr Frew: I beg to move the following amendment:

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

Mr Frew: Sinn Féin is so wrong-headed on this subject, it is crazy. The reason why it is so wrong-headed on this is that it is hung up on the nickname "BritCard". If this was brought in in the Republic of Ireland, or if it was brought in in the EU, which there are plans to do, Sinn Féin members would lap it up. They would all sign up for their digital ID cards.

Mr Delargy: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will.

Mr Delargy: Will the Member acknowledge the fact that Sinn Féin MEPs have consistently challenged any mandatory introduction of the card, and Sinn Féin's position on this has been absolutely clear? We have opposed any mandatory introduction of cards in Europe.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his contribution and his Eurosceptic tendencies. However, there is one weakness in the motion: what about the workers from the Republic of Ireland who work in GB? They will get the digital ID card — or the BritCard, if they call it that. Sinn Féin has completely failed and discarded the people of the Republic of Ireland in its motion, whereas we are fighting for all the people who work in the United Kingdom, even citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Sinn Féin has completely forgotten about the Irish people, and that is because it is so hung up on this. It is the most British thing to do to oppose digital ID. It is the most British thing to do to oppose mandatory ID of any form, because the British people have never suffered or accepted it, and nor should they ever accept it.

This scheme is a so-called solution that is trying to find a problem, and the Government just happened to select the number-one issue that has vexed so many British minds of late: immigration. Do not be fooled: illegal immigration and illegal working are totally unacceptable, and the issues need to be resolved immediately. They need to be resolved across the UK, and that includes Northern Ireland, but this scheme will not do that. It is not even designed to do that. The scheme is state overreach, and, as is always the case, it is about making people a lot of money. We do not need to give over 70 million people a digital ID to stop 0·05% of that number from arriving illegally. We already have a visa system that displays people's right to work, but it is not even enforced. If employers do not check visas, why would they check digital ID?

A digital form of ID is not a harmless card in your hip pocket that can be shown to a person in authority. The British people have baulked at such a proposition, even in the worst of times. Such measures can and have been used, even in recent history, to coerce people into a position that they did not wish to be in. They enable the Government to widen the scope to cover all other matters and control what people can and cannot do. That is what vaccine certification did during the pandemic. It is worth noting that the motion has been tabled by Sinn Féin, the party that, along with the Alliance Party, the SDLP and the UUP, was a passionate advocate for digital certification for COVID vaccinations. It did not care about personal rights or privacy then, so what has changed? I warned at the time that that was a precursor to digital ID, and I am glad that all the other parties have rowed in behind me on that serious matter.

The Government could easily change the scope and conditions of every sphere of life because of the digital nature of the ID, and we would have no say in it and no choice but to comply. They have already done exactly that, as the Prime Minister stated on his social media page. That shows footage of him talking about digital ID to customers in Barclays bank, of all places. He tells them that the digital ID will contain their basic information. He then says a peculiar thing:

Really? Does he think that we are stupid? Needing it in order to work is a pretty big deal, so, if digital ID is mandatory for that, it is, basically, mandatory for everyone of working age. He goes on:

He then looks towards the camera — a bit like Big Brother, just softer and gentler — and says:

Enforcing a digital ID scheme raises serious concerns about the protection of an individual's private data in a world where cybersecurity is becoming ever more threatened. Forcing people to store personal information, all in one place, in the form of a digital ID would be deeply unwise. The first question in the debate should not be what it is called — BritCard or otherwise — but why the state is making it mandatory. Why are they enforcing it? If it is such a great idea, make it voluntary. The state should not force people to do anything that could put them and their private information in jeopardy.

I hear people out there say, "But I have a digital wallet for all sorts of services on my phone: I hand over personal information all the time, and it makes my life so handy". We give data to private organisations, but they cannot compel us to do so: we have a choice. We can choose whom we give our personal data to, whether that be an organisation, a business or a private entity. Only the Government of the day can pass laws to control people's lives and actions and use a digital ID to make us comply.

It is worth noting that many Members on the other side of the Chamber were happy to cheer the arrival of the new Labour Government. As a party, we will always stand up for the rights of people in Northern Ireland. Whether that be through our Minister rightly restoring the winter fuel payment to our pensioners or our principled stand against the unfair tax on family farms, the DUP will continue to fight on issues relating to schemes such as the digital ID that are not in the best interests of people in Northern Ireland or across the UK. Included in that are the Irish people from the Republic of Ireland who go to GB to work whom Sinn Féin has forgotten about. We will not forget about those people; we will fight for those people. It is not right for the British Government or any Government or state to impose digital ID on any one of their citizens, no matter who they are.

This is fascinating: I have spoken about digital wallets and other such things, and you would think that young people would be OK with this.

However, it is very clear from the LucidTalk poll that 80% of people aged between 18 and 34 — I fall just outside that bracket — are totally opposed to digital ID. Surely that speaks volumes. In my age range, which is 45 to 54 — I fall just inside that category — it is also 80%. I am proud to say that those are the two groups that have highest resistance to digital ID.

It is a non-runner. It is an absolute no-brainer to resist digital ID, given all the dangers that it would bring not only to our freedoms but to our personal information, which could fall into the hands of all sorts of unscrupulous people, including the current Prime Minister.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank Sinn Féin for tabling the motion for debate. As I said to a previous contributor, I raised the issue as a Matter of the Day in the Chamber when the UK Government first announced it, and I have not seen any evidence since that dissuades me from thinking that it is the wrong approach. The proposal will try to fix a problem that does not exist. There is no evidence of widespread identity fraud or any system failure that would justify something so intrusive, expensive and complex. It feels less like a genuine solution and more like a political exercise. Meanwhile, people here are dealing with far more pressing issues, such as the cost-of-living crisis, access to healthcare and pressures on our public services. Against that reality, spending millions of pounds on a national digital ID scheme seems, at best, misguided.

Beyond the politics, there are real concerns about fairness and accessibility. Not everyone has a smartphone or feels confident with technology. For older people, those on lower incomes and those without digital access, the scheme could become another barrier — another way of their being excluded from services that belong to us all.

There is also the issue of trust, which is the most fundamental of all and something that the Alliance Party cares deeply about. Placing everyone's personal data into a single, centralised system is a huge risk. Who controls that data? Who uses it? How secure is it? Governments around the world have learned the hard way that even the most advanced systems can fail. In India, the digital ID scheme has seen repeated breaches. Databases have been exposed online, and personal information has been sold illegally. In Estonia, which is often held up as the model of digital government, a flaw in the national ID cards' encryption left citizens' data vulnerable and forced a national recall. Singapore's Singpass system has seen thousands of compromised accounts appear on the Dark Web. In Ukraine, the platform that digitised identity and public services has been repeatedly targeted during the war, proving that centralised data systems can become key targets in times of crisis. Therefore, when UK Government Ministers tell us that the technology is safe, we have every reason to be sceptical. No system up to now has proven that it is unhackable, and, once trust in government data handling is lost, it is almost impossible to rebuild.

For Northern Ireland, the concerns are amplified. Our constitutional and social landscape is complex and sensitive. People here have the right to identify as British, Irish or both. That is part of the Good Friday Agreement, and it matters deeply to us all. Any digital identity scheme must represent that pluralism, not undermine it. A one-size-fits-all digital identity scheme from Westminster risks cutting across the delicate balance that has helped to sustain peace and stability here. Then, there is the simple, practical reality of life on this island where thousands of people cross the border every day for work, study and family reasons. A UK-wide system that ignores that fluidity risks creating confusion and potentially unnecessary bureaucracy. Once again, Northern Ireland seems to have been treated as an afterthought.

I share the intention behind the motion, but I think that we need to go further. The issue is not whether Northern Ireland should be exempted from the proposed scheme; it is that the scheme itself is fundamentally flawed. It is unnecessary, unworkable and unlikely to deliver the security and efficiency that it promises. Ultimately, the debate is not about technology but about rights, privacy and respect. People deserve to know how their personal information will be used, that their identity will not become political property and that their privacy will not be treated as expendable. For those reasons, I will support the motion and the DUP amendment. The amendment recognises that the scheme cannot simply be tweaked or improved and therefore needs to be binned entirely.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Ms Bradshaw: We feel that the amendment acknowledges the broader risks not just to Northern Ireland, given our unique circumstances, but to personal privacy and public trust across the UK. This is not about constitutional identity, nor is it about party politics. Rather, it is about practicality, proportionality and protecting everyone's rights.

Mr Butler: I firmly support the motion, but only if it is amended. The Sinn Féin motion is obviously a very unsubtle attempt to separate Northern Ireland from its rightful place within the United Kingdom. I commend the Member on his speech. He got in as many "Brits" as he could.

Mr Gildernew: the next time.

Mr Butler: The ambition is OK, but it is never going to happen. We will support the motion as amended.

The Assembly must send a clear and united message, however, that our freedom is not a barcode to be scanned, stored or sold. The Government's plan, as outlined in the Westminster research briefing paper 'Digital ID in the UK', claims to offer efficiency and security. We know that history tells us a different story, however. From the abandoned ID card scheme of the early 2000s to costly IT failures across Departments, grand projects too often drained public coffers and delivered little of value, if any at all. At a time that health waiting lists are growing and schools fight for resources, spending millions — the proposer of the motion mentioned a figure of £400 million, but I suggest that it would go way over that, perhaps into the billions — on an untested national ID system is not reform. Rather, it is reckless.

The Assembly knows better than most what happens when citizens lose faith in how their data is handled. Northern Ireland's people have lived through decades in which identity was a political currency, particularly for our security forces, where trust, privacy and personal safety were never guaranteed. To many here, the notion that a government database could hold and track their personal information is not reassurance. We need only look at recent data leaks, about which we are all very concerned, in many different fields, such as the recent Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) data leak. I did not mean that as a pun. I reiterate that our freedom is not a barcode to be scanned, stored or sold.

The Ulster Unionist Party has been clear and consistent that the proposal is intrusive, unnecessary and ill-considered. In the House of Lords, Lord Empey rightly said:

Steve Aiken MLA warned that citizens should not be forced to hand over their privacy in the name of digital efficiency. Both are correct. The amendment is welcome, as it strengthens the motion by recognising that such a scheme will jeopardise personal privacy and open the door to the misuse of data, and we know that once that door is opened, it is rarely closed again.

Let us also remember, as has been talked about in the debate already, that not everyone is digitally equipped, or even able, to participate in such a system. Many older people, particularly those who live in rural areas, and those with limited access to broadband could be left behind or excluded from essential services. The digital divide would deepen, and the people who are in need of support would, once again, be those most at risk of being forgotten. If Westminster insists on pressing ahead with this ill-conceived policy, we must be resolute at Westminster and in the Assembly in saying that it is not acceptable.

We will not allow another top-down mandate to override local realities, local rights and local voices. Let us therefore make it plain today that we support progress but not at the cost of privacy, that we embrace technology but not at the expense of trust and that we defend security but not at the cost of freedom. At the heart of this lies a simple truth that should guide every Government decision: our freedom is not a barcode to be scanned, stored or sold. We will support the motion if it is amended.

Ms Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the motion and thank the Members to my left for tabling it. The SDLP will support the motion and the amendment. I firmly reject any form of digital ID. The debate is about freedom and its importance, and it is about the right of every citizen to exist without being monitored, logged and tracked by their own Government. I fiercely condemn the proposed introduction of the so-called BritCard, a digital ID scheme that has no place in a free society and certainly has no mandate or want from the people of Northern Ireland.

Every citizen has the right to exist outside digital infrastructure or entirely off the grid if they wish. They have a right to personal liberty. The principles of autonomy and the right to privacy are sacred. Yet, under the guise of modernisation, the British Government now want to bring in a digital ID that could link your identity, finances, health, travel and, eventually, freedom into one state-controlled system.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms Hunter: No, thank you. I have a lot to get through.

That, in many ways, feels reminiscent of '1984' or, more modernly, a 'Black Mirror' episode. The BritCard is not about convenience; it is very much about control. To many, a digital ID can sound harmless — to some, it may even sound helpful — but when the Government hold a single key to your data and identity, they hold the power to decide eventually who you are and what you can access. We in Northern Ireland reject that wholeheartedly.

We have seen the trajectory in other countries and how digital IDs can become a precondition for opening a bank account, seeing a doctor or accessing public services. Sadly, we have seen that, once implemented, those systems do not stop expanding. They grow quietly and incrementally until surveillance becomes normal and privacy becomes suspicious. This Government have no right. Not only will the scheme be incredibly costly, as other Members have mentioned, but this Government cannot be trusted with that power and with the data of our people.

In the Northern Irish context, the language is inherently divisive. Having something called a BritCard imposed here would be divisive by design and would undermine the delicate trust that has been built through decades of peace and shared institutions and the right to identity.

Our history tells us that, when the Government seek to know everything about everyone, freedom is always the first casualty. This is about rights, democracy and the right to choose what you want. It is about the right to privacy, which is not a luxury but the foundation of freedom of thought, speech and conscience. Without privacy, there is no real democracy. The European Convention on Human Rights recognises that, as do international law and our moral conscience. When people fear that their data, associations or movements are being monitored, they self-censor and withdraw and democracy decays from the inside out.

Freedom is messy and inconvenient. Sometimes, it means that Government do not know everything about everyone but that is a good thing. A truly democratic Government should trust their citizens more than their want to control them. The digital ID proposal flips that principle on its head. It says, "We own your identity, not you". That is why today is so important: it means that we can have a vote to reject and resist this.

The debate has been interesting and eye-opening. I welcome the fact that every party, despite their beliefs, background or views of London, is standing together to reject what is a violation of privacy for our citizens here. Today, it is digital ID, but, tomorrow, it could be something a lot more sinister such as facial recognition, databases, movement scoring or technology-driven profiling. We say no to that: it is Government overreach. We must say no now and say no later —

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms Hunter: No, thank you. I am almost done.

Once we accept the premise, the technology has the potential to invade our lives and individual freedoms even more.

The mark of a free society is not how efficiently it monitors its citizens but how fiercely it protects their right to live unmonitored. The BritCard is not the future, but it is a warning that our privacy, autonomy and very humanity are being traded. The people of Northern Ireland value their freedom more than a digital footprint. Let us lead by example, stand for liberty and say with one voice that we are citizens. As Robbie Butler rightly said, we are not barcodes. We reject the idea of a digital ID, and we will defend the right of our citizens to freedom and privacy without Government oversight.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Finnegan: Let me begin by saying that I am not a British citizen. I never have been, and I never will be. The proposal for a so-called BritCard is not just unnecessary but deeply offensive to the principles of the Good Friday Agreement, which guarantees the right of the people in the North to be Irish, British and, indeed, both. The scheme, by its very nature, assumes that we are all British, and that cannot and will not be accepted.

Beyond the fundamental issues of identity and equality, there are real practical and economic reasons why the proposal should be rejected. First, it is an outrageous waste of public money. The administration of the scheme will cost upwards of £400 million at a time when our health service is under immense pressure, our education system is crying out for resources and our working families face rising costs. How can Keir Starmer justify spending hundreds of millions on pointless bureaucracy when people are waiting months for hospital appointments and our community services are being cut? The British Government talk about fiscal responsibility and belt-tightening, yet they are willing to pour money down the drain on a vanity project that nobody asked for and nobody needs.

Secondly, the scheme risks creating barriers between workers on this island. Many people from the South, including members of my family and my constituents in south Armagh — my constituency borders County Monaghan and County Louth — cross the border every day for work. It is part of natural everyday living on this island. If employers in the North are forced to administer a Brit ID system, that additional layer of red tape could deter them from hiring workers from the South. It sends entirely the wrong message. Rather than building cooperation and economic opportunity on an all-island basis, the scheme risks creating new divisions and new barriers.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Ms Finnegan: I have a lot to get through.

It also duplicates the identification process that already exists. Workers already have to have a National Insurance number and valid work documentation. The scheme would add nothing but red tape.

The people of this island deserve better than gimmicks and political gestures. They deserve investment in health, education, jobs and their communities. This BritCard proposal disrespects our identities, wastes public money and risks dividing our workforce. This ludicrous proposal should be scrapped. If the British Government insist on proceeding, we in the North must be exempt. Sinn Féin will continue to stand for the rights of everyone here — Irish, British or otherwise — to live freely, equally and without bureaucratic or political interference in who we are.

Mr Brett: To follow on from the contributor who just spoke, I was born a British citizen, I am a British citizen and I always will be a British citizen. That is why I support the amendment tabled in my name and the names of my colleagues. I do so not just with my voice but with the voices of over 5,000 of my constituents in North Belfast: 5,000 people who are unionist, nationalist or have no constitutional view. They also do not have a voice in our national Parliament to make their view clear. Although my Member of Parliament would rather spend his time earning money from legal aid than representing those whom he was elected to serve, I will stand here today and speak on behalf of the 5,000 people of North Belfast who have signed that petition. They, like me, see the policy for what it is: a dead cat policy.

The most unpopular Prime Minister in the history of the United Kingdom claims that a digital ID card will stop illegal immigration. That is because he has failed in the first duty of any Government, which is to protect the borders of the country that he serves. Is he seriously telling the people of the United Kingdom that those who enter the country via small boats will be put off because they do not have a digital ID card or that those who enter Northern Ireland through the international border with the Irish Republic, where there are no checks, and are then able to reside in the United Kingdom illegally will stop doing so because Keir Starmer has introduced a digital ID card? That is for the clouds.

We are told that we should trust Keir Starmer. Look at what he promised the people of the United Kingdom and what he has delivered. He promised working people that he would never increase their taxes, but, at the end of this month, the Chancellor will increase taxes on hard-working families. The Labour Party pledged that they would never increase the tax burden on businesses, but they have already increased the rate of National Insurance contributions. They promised pensioners across this United Kingdom that they would protect the winter fuel payment, but their first act was to grab that from pensioners across the UK. They told us that they would protect our veterans, but one of their first acts was to placate nationalism and not move forward with the protection of veterans in Northern Ireland. They told us that they would protect innocent victims in Northern Ireland, but, yesterday, the Defence Minister was unable to say that an IRA terrorist could not serve on a panel that would decide who would and would not be entitled to immunity. Forgive me and the Members on these Benches if we do not trust the words of Keir Starmer.

In our amendment, we recognise — not just as a unionist party — that those from all backgrounds in Northern Ireland who work in other parts of the United Kingdom and travel daily and/or weekly to other parts of the United Kingdom would be impacted by this. That is why we call for the full removal of the scheme.

I thank the SDLP, the Alliance Party, the Ulster Unionists and the Members yet to speak who support our amendment. The proposer of the motion says that this has always been called "a digital BritCard" and he has never heard it called anything else. I encourage him to read the motion that purports to be in his name, because the word "BritCard" is not included in it. Perhaps he did not read what he was asked to sign by Connolly House before coming here.

The Democratic Unionist Party will always be proud of its unionist credentials. However, we propose the amendment not just in that spirit but as people who will continue to stand up for liberty and freedom. We look forward to the settled will of the Assembly being that a UK-wide, mandatory digital ID scheme needs to go straight into the bin.

Mr Gaston: I support the DUP amendment, which puts the emphasis exactly where the fight against digital IDs must be. The amendment strengthens the motion, and Sinn Féin, deep down, would recognise that, but only if its members removed their anti-British balaclavas.

The amendment does not tinker around the edges or ask for a Northern Ireland opt-out. It says plainly that the scheme is wrong, full stop, and that it should be scrapped for everyone in every corner of this United Kingdom. This is not a narrow regional issue, nor is it simply a question of cost. It goes to the heart of the kind of country that we want to live in. It is about freedom, privacy and whether government still knows where its boundaries lie.

The motion refers to the potential waste of millions of pounds, but even if the digital ID scheme cost nothing, it would still be wrong. ID cards were tolerated during the war because of the exceptional circumstances of that time, but, in peacetime, the British people rightly tore them up. We have always believed that a free citizen should not have to prove who he or she is in order to live freely in their own country. That belief runs deep in the British character: the conviction that government should serve its people, not watch over them.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He alludes to the British character in not accepting ID, and so we should not. The debate has been illuminating for a number of reasons. The Member was not here, but his colleague was when the DUP and the TUV opposed vaccine certification. It has been illuminating to see that Alliance, the SDLP and the UUP have moved away from digital ID and to see that Sinn Féin has completely forgotten about workers from the Republic of Ireland.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention. I am always happy to take an intervention, even though it seems to be a common theme that Members on the other side of the House shy away from taking interventions. Mr Sheehan did that yesterday, and nationalist Members have done so today.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I remind Mr Frew, who was here at the time, that every time that I spoke on the COVID regulations, I said that, as a liberal party, we supported them with a very heavy heart.

Mr Gaston: "A very heavy heart": that is an admission that there is a change in policy by the Alliance Party.

I go back to the British character. A mandatory ID scheme changes that. It is not simply about convenience; it is a database of identities. Once built, it becomes an instrument that future Governments could use in ways that we cannot foresee. If history and experience teach us anything, it is that such tools are rarely left unused. George Orwell wrote 'Nineteen Eighty-four'' not as a prophecy but as a warning to us all about what happens when the state knows everything about its citizens. No one is suggesting that the UK has become Orwell's dystopia, but, when government starts to build the machinery that makes such control possible, even in the name of efficiency, that is precisely when we must stand up and speak out. The amendment recognises that risk. It warns of the misuse of citizens' personal data and defends the principle that privacy is not a privilege granted by government but an inherent right of free men and women.

That point is entirely missing from the motion, and I think that we all know why. The original motion was not motivated by a defence of personal liberty. When has Sinn Féin ever shown genuine concern for human rights? Its motion is about something else. It is about advancing a narrow nationalist agenda and forcing yet more divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of our United Kingdom. Freedom is not something to be carved up or confined by region. If digital ID cards are wrong for Belfast, they are equally wrong for Birmingham. Freedom does not stop at Larne. That is why the amendment calls on the Prime Minister to withdraw the plans entirely.

Protect the rights and privacy of every citizen of the United Kingdom. That is not about right or left. It is about a fundamental principle of British identity: that the state's power must always be limited and that the individual must always be free. Let the Assembly send a clear and united message to London, Belfast and every corner of our United Kingdom that we reject the digital ID scheme and we reject the creeping hand of state intrusion. Mindful of Orwell's warning, we say with quiet resolve that we will not allow our society to drift inch by inch towards a world where movement is logged and every life is watched. We stand today for freedom, and I trust that all Members will get behind the amendment and back it.

Mr Carroll: I support the motion, and, surprising as it may sound, I support the amendment.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Carroll: Do not get carried away. I have not spoken yet. [Laughter.]

George Orwell was referenced. Members would do well to read 'Homage to Catalonia', because there are a few lessons in that book for some in the House.

The digital ID scheme was proposed by the British Government in a supposed attempt to curb illegal immigration, although no human can be classed as "illegal" in any humane society. The proposers of the scheme claim that preventing asylum seeks from accessing work, housing and other public services will deter others from entering the country, as they say, illegally. Not only does that show a lack of understanding of why people migrate but it is completely false. It will not deter people from migrating or seeking asylum, something that is as old as time itself. It will not make some migrants leave; it will simply make their lives more difficult by forcing them into exploitative off-the-books work and unsafe housing, further marginalising them.

The introduction of digital IDs in France and Belgium has not prevented unauthorised migrants from working or living there; rather, it has led to more scapegoating of them.

This is not going to be effective. It is simply an attempt by Labour to look tough on immigration. It is all about the optics and about chasing Reform. The only tangible impact that it will have is on our privacy. The introduction of digital IDs is just another attempt to expand digital infrastructure for a surveillance state. I welcome the new-found scepticism, especially to my right, of big capital and the surveillance state, and I hope that Members will take the logical conclusions from that.

Mr Frew: What about big pharma?

Mr Carroll: Indeed, what about big pharma? Do you want to talk about big pharma?

Mr Frew: And Moy Park?

Mr Carroll: Yes, indeed: what about Moy Park? The list goes on, Mr Frew.

There are huge privacy issues in relation to the proposed scheme. It is not clear what data would be shared with government bodies or private companies or whether discredited companies such as Fujitsu would be lined up for contracts. I hope that the Member to my right will also oppose that company's getting further contracts. A digital ID system would risk excessive data disclosure and data sharing if there were to be long interactions between individuals and services.

Moreover, the One Login system that will manage the IDs is reportedly not secure and is vulnerable to cybersecurity attacks. The ID scheme that was proposed under Blair's Government suffered a major data breach, so how can we expect people to support this ID scheme, knowing that the Government are incapable of protecting our data? Just this year, the Legal Aid Agency suffered a cyberattack that led to a breach of legal aid applicants' data, including their contact details, dates of birth and criminal history. As has been mentioned, the digital ID schemes in Norway, Estonia, Poland and India have all been subject to cyberattacks that have put people at risk.

Crucially, excessive monitoring and surveillance would give the state the ability to suppress and censor political dissent with ease, and we know whom it would come after, because it comes after people already. In addition, it is likely that people of colour and those of migrant backgrounds would be subject to a disproportionate level of ID checks, which would create a further hostile environment for racial minorities. The existing eVisa digital ID scheme has been flagged for giving an inaccurate record of people's IDs and how it operates.

The British Government claim that they are simply playing catch-up with other countries that have adopted digital IDs, but that is nothing to boast about. Alarmingly, it was reported that authorities in Egypt and Indonesia require religious minorities to renounce their faith in order to obtain an ID card, and the picture being painted in the US is even more bleak.

The introduction of digital IDs will make the lives of older people, in addition to ethnic minorities, significantly more difficult if they are unable or unwilling to access digital services. That could seriously impede their ability to participate in public life and access vital public services.

The scheme is based entirely on exclusion and discrimination. It is designed to assess who may have access to our public services and who may not. Those in the conservative camp will decry the scheme for its threat to our privacy, but they will fail to recognise that that is exactly where those hateful, exclusionary, anti-immigrant sentiments and ideas lead. We reject both the rhetoric being pushed by the right and the pandering of the British Government to that anti-immigrant narrative.

Mr Speaker: I call Jonathan Buckley to wind on the amendment.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This debate gives me much joy and much hope, for two reasons. First, if I were to close my eyes in the Chamber, I would almost think that every party had found its inner Paul Frew. [Laughter.]

Let freedom ring; liberty for all. It truly is breathtaking and shows such a journey from some difficult and dark years. The second reason is that it is a genuine sign of cross-community working that ultimately leads to better results.

A Member: Will the Member take a point?

Mr Buckley: In a moment. I do not think that I will have an extra minute, because I am winding up.

This motion, when amended, shows those of a British identity and those of an Irish identity working together to show Keir Starmer and the Labour Government that digital IDs will not stand in Northern Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales. We stand united in this place to send a clear message to the UK Government: no to digital IDs. That is quite an achievement. It may not have been the intention of the Members who tabled the motion, but, ultimately, it can and will be the conclusion.

Members, we have to remember the origins of digital ID. It is the same bucket of cold sick that Tony Blair tried to foist upon the people. It would have been a different excuse but the very same concept. Digital ID introduced under the banner of reducing and curbing illegal immigration really is quite something. The cats and the dogs on the street know that there is not one chance that such a scheme would have an impact on those arriving daily on our shores, illegally and undocumented.

I could not be clearer: I would not trust this Labour Government to take my bin to the end of the lane, never mind to store my personal data under the banner of a digital ID. Let us look at their legacy when it comes to illegal immigration. Apparently, one of the most secure places on earth for citizens who are under supervision and under watch is where? Our prisons. Has anybody watched the chaos in the United Kingdom of prisoners, asylum seekers and those with sexual convictions being released? What about the policy of one in, one out in controlling illegal immigration, only for them to return on the very next boat? It is a case of absolute gaslighting to the people who have serious concerns.

The Government tell us that digital ID will be the authoritative proof of identity and residency, containing our name, date of birth, nationality, residency status and even biometric data. That is not convenience: that is control. It is a step towards population-wide surveillance, and one that jeopardises privacy and trust in the use of private data. This Government have shown their record when it comes to storing personal data. There have been several cases of cyberattacks and the release of information pertaining to private citizens.

I do not trust this scheme: I never have, and I never will. It is important that the House is united. I will say this: we have the chance in the Chamber to do something great today. If amended, the motion will send a united, clear message that the scheme should not apply right across the United Kingdom. Every party, with the exception of Sinn Féin, has accepted the amendment. It will pass. Will Sinn Féin make it a full house and ensure that we speak as one voice in saying to the UK Government, "No to digital ID"? I await the vote.

Mr Speaker: I call Pádraig Delargy to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

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

I stand here today as an Irish citizen: I always have been, and I always will be. Neither Keir Starmer nor any British Government can take that away from me, change that or impose their BritCard on the people here in the North. The scheme is absurd. It is an insult to our people, and it is an affront to the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement was signed when I was two years old. It promised a better future, and it promised to enshrine my rights as an Irish citizen. The British Government today seek to roll back on that, but, as Irish citizens, it is our right, and no Government in London will ever take that away from us.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I hear what the Member said about identity, and that is fine. However, does he realise that, if he were to change job or any of his family members were to go to GB to work, they would have to have the digital ID? Call it what you will, but they would have to have that ID, so why did he have that exclusion in his motion?

Mr Delargy: I thank Mr Frew for his intervention and for earlier misrepresenting Sinn Féin's position on a number of fronts, which I will go through. My first point is about the fact that you implied that Sinn Féin supports a mandatory ID across the board. That is not true. As I mentioned to you earlier — you chose to ignore Mr Gildernew's speech, Ms Finnegan's speech and my speech — Sinn Féin has consistently opposed the introduction of any mandatory IDs. Our MEPs proudly stood up against mandatory IDs, and we will continue to do so. I am not sure whether you were not able to hear that or chose not to hear it, but please listen and try to understand that point.

The reception to the BritCard has been universally negative in the House. That is for various reasons, and Members have emphasised different points, but there is unanimity of purpose on the objective. Paula Bradshaw noted the identity risks in other countries. That is very important. We have to look at examples of good practice, as well as examples of practice that has not been so good but where there are opportunities to learn. This has certainly not been without difficulties in other parts of Europe and, indeed, across the world.

The issue of the cost of the scheme has been emphasised across the Chamber, particularly because of this being a time when public services are on their knees. As we have seen, the British Government have continuously cut public services, have taken away the winter fuel payment for pensioners and have been on an austerity agenda that they promised to reverse but continue to impose on ordinary people. The scheme would have been bad at any time, but it is particularly bad at a time when the British Government are challenging and putting pressure on ordinary households across the North and in England, Scotland and Wales.

The scheme has practical implications as well. Across the Chamber, we talked about duplication: the scheme duplicates passports, identity cards, driving licences and other forms of ID; it is another layer of bureaucracy.

A key point to address is that the people who will be most excluded — the people who will feel the impact of the scheme most acutely — are our older people and those who are locked out of digital access through poverty and other means. As Gerry Carroll mentioned, ethnic minorities will be disproportionately affected by what amounts to a racist scheme and an opportunity that the British Government are trying to use to tackle — or apparently tackle — what they consider to be illegal immigration. This cannot be dressed up in any other way: it is racism; it is bigotry; and it is xenophobia; that is what the card is about.

The issue of cross-border workers has been brought up across the Chamber. Others may choose to deny this, but the all-Ireland economy is booming. People in my constituency, elsewhere in Derry, in Donegal and across our country have the opportunity to move between the North and the South for employment. As Mr Gildernew mentioned, healthcare workers are the backbone of our economy. The scheme will present yet another barrier to the all-Ireland economy at a time when they are the backbone, driving the country forward. Border communities such as mine will feel the effects most acutely. We have to look at collaboration and cooperation, not at introducing barriers that will reduce opportunities for people to work across the country.

I am glad that Mr Frew made the point about exclusion, because I have not been able to get clarity from his party or from the UUP about their view on our calling for people from the North to be exempt from the scheme. You did your survey, Mr Frew; regardless of whether you want England, Scotland and Wales to be exempt from this, surely people replied to that to tell you that the North should be exempt. Would any of those Members care to explain whether they will support the North being exempt from the proposal?

Mr Brett: I am happy to.

Mr Delargy: I will give way to Mr Brett.

Mr Brett: As our amendment makes clear, and as the House will make clear by voting down your motion, we all support the scrapping of the scheme across the entirety of the United Kingdom.

Mr Delargy: You did not answer my question. I will be happy to give way again. We want the scheme to be scrapped. I am asking whether anybody in the DUP or the UUP will support people in the North being exempt from the scheme.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Delargy: I will.

Mr Frew: There is a very simple answer: do not comply. I will never have a digital ID. If everyone across the United Kingdom were to take that approach, the scheme could not be implemented. That is the exclusion that he is talking about. You do not need to create a differential between GB and here in order to create that exclusion; just do not have a digital ID.

Mr Delargy: Mr Frew, I am sure that people will listen very carefully to your advice. You still have not answered my question, however. Will you support the fact that people in the North should be exempt, irrespective of what happens in England, Scotland and Wales? [Inaudible.]

Mr Delargy: OK, but do you agree that people in the North should be exempt? Again, there is no answer from the unionist Benches.

It is extremely important that, in the North, we can have our Irish identity respected, just as you can have your British identity, any other identity or both a British identity and an Irish identity respected. I commend the motion to the House.

Ms Bradshaw: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List. The Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes can be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Honouring our dead is one of the most profound things that we will do as human beings. It speaks to love, vulnerability and our shared capacity for grief. Across cultures and generations, people carve stones, plant trees and light candles. Those are small gestures that say something very big, which is that we value life and memories and that we have compassion. That need to remember is universal, but it carries particular weight here in Northern Ireland for a society that has known far too much loss. Remembrance is not a luxury but essential. It allows us to acknowledge pain, recognise the humanity of others and begin the slow work of reconciliation.

The motion seeks to uphold that right — the right to remember — while ensuring that it is exercised in a way that is respectful, lawful and inclusive. We must be honest about the challenges that are in front of us, however. As the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) made clear in its 2021 report, memorials are amongst the most sensitive expressions of identity in post-conflict Northern Ireland. The commission recognised the right to remember but warned that, in practice, remembrance too often becomes a source of division rather than reflection. The report's recommendations called for an audit of memorials, a protocol for respectful commemoration and guidance on future memorials, all of which are echoed in the motion.

The commission also highlighted where challenges remain. Those challenges include how to handle unauthorised memorials, how to deal with paramilitary imagery and how to ensure that public remembrance does not glorify violence. Those are precisely the issues that the motion seeks to address. Public memorials can powerfully shape the stories that we tell the people around us. When remembrance slips into glorification of organisations, acts of violence or the conflict/Troubles itself, however, it reopens wounds instead of helping them heal. It creates fear, not reflection, and sends a message that some lives matter more than others and that violence is still to be celebrated. Academic research reinforces that point. Studies by Professor Dominic Bryan and Dr Neil Jarman have documented how memorials, flags and murals can function as territorial markers in contested areas. Rather than being static relics of the past, they actively define boundaries and signal exclusion. As Professor Bryan wrote:

That is why we must find ways to commemorate that are not just about who we are but who we want to be.

Public land belongs to all of us, and its use must be shared, lawful and welcoming. Under the Planning Act 2011, any permanent structure, including a memorial, requires express planning permission unless it has an exemption. If it is on public land, it also requires the consent of the landowner, such as the Housing Executive or the local council. Together, those requirements constitute lawful authority. When memorials are erected without that authority, they are, by definition, unauthorised structures.

This is not about politics; it is a matter of legality and equality before the law. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has confirmed that more than 100 memorials are on its land without planning permission, many of which display paramilitary emblems or references to violence. That is not acceptable in 2025.

The motion calls for three practical steps: an audit of memorials on public land to establish a clear and transparent record of what exists, where they are, what is contained on the memorials and under what authority they were erected; a re-imaging programme to support communities to look at replacing violent and exclusive imagery with designs that are creative, inclusive, lawful and dignified; and the development of clear guidance in partnership with the various agencies to ensure that future memorials meet planning law and good relations standards. We know from experience that that approach to working with communities works.

The Arts Council's Building Peace Through the Arts initiative has proved that contentious murals can be transformed through dialogue and creativity. Over the course of a decade, more than 90 projects involving some 20,000 people across Northern Ireland showed that, when communities are supported rather than dictated to, they can lead the change themselves. I saw that locally when I worked in the Village area of South Belfast: we successfully re-imaged a series of murals with strong local input and ownership. For example, the poppy trail along the Donegall Road honours loss across both world wars and is a shared story of service and sacrifice that unites rather than offends.

As I said, at the heart of the motion is community ownership. The slow and patient work of dialogue is, in fact, the quickest route to lasting change. Communities that feel respected will lead transformation. Communities that feel targeted will resist it. Some may say that that risks erasing history or culture. It does not. History and culture live on in our museums, archives, classrooms and family stories. What we are talking about is our shared public space, where children play, neighbours meet and visitors form their first impressions of who we are. We cannot tell our children that peace means leaving the symbols of war or terrorism untouched. We cannot expect reconciliation to flourish if the landscape around us still romanticises violence.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way and recognise the vital work that she carried out in South Belfast when she worked in another capacity. I seek some clarity on the motion's reference to:

You talked about war. In North Belfast — I am sure that it is the same in South Belfast — we have a proud tradition of commemorating war heroes. Does she include that in the reference from the motion? Obviously, war causes misery and pain. Does she accept that those memorials should stay, or is she calling for their removal?

Ms Bradshaw: I welcome the opportunity to clarify that. That is exactly what I am talking about. If you go along the Donegall Road from the RAF mural just outside Belfast City Hospital, you will see that there is a series of them. Today is a very important day for many who commemorate the world wars and subsequent wars. This is not about trying to eradicate their history; it is about presenting what happened in a way that is respectful and dignified.

There was some criticism of some of the work that we did to re-image murals. One was a huge mural of King William of Orange. Some people asked why public money was used for it. I said, "Well, look, we replaced a mural of paramilitary figures holding guns and wearing balaclavas". The imagery that replaced that may not have been to everybody's taste or reflect their cultural heritage, but this is about the transition process, in which we can have respectful expressions of our cultural heritage or history that do not offend.

To move on — and to speak to Mr Brett's comments — we can and should honour bravery, loss and sacrifice, but we must do it in a way that upholds dignity, legality and values of shared future. The 'Good Relations Indicators 2024 Report' found that more than 80% of people in Northern Ireland want shared spaces to be welcoming to all. The Commission for Victims and Survivors, likewise, found strong public support for respectful, community-led remembrance. This is not about removing memory, but it is about re-imaging it with the communities where that is needed.

Of course, that work must be done sensitively. Mistakes have been made in the past, such as the removal of Somme plaques by the Housing Executive without consultation. That shows the importance of proper process, engagement and respect. They are all essential if a programme of work such as this is to succeed. If we get it right, Northern Ireland can provide a model for other post-conflict societies, showing that remembrance can become a bridge, not a barrier.

We will support the DUP's amendment. We recognise that there are structures there. This is a strange day for the Alliance Party in the Chamber, but we do recognise that there is some really good work going on through the Communities in Transition (CIT) programme and structures. That is probably the best way that that work can be continued.

We will not support the UUP amendment because it reframes our motion into a criminal justice issue, and that risks turning what should really be a partnership approach into a punitive one. The law already prohibits the glorification of terrorism. The motion is about managing our shared space constructively and inclusively. It is not about punishment but about partnership; not about erasing the past but about building a shared future. The best way to honour the dead is by creating spaces that the living can share, spaces defined by respect not rivalry, by memories that heal not hurt, by remembrance that unites not divides. That vision is at the heart of the motion and is the vision that the Alliance Party will always support.

Mrs Cameron: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Speaker: Mrs Cameron, you have up to 10 minutes. Please proceed.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak, and I thank the Alliance Party for tabling the motion.

At the heart of the debate lies a question of principle: how do we remember our past and the values that those acts of remembrance represent? For the Democratic Unionist Party, that principle is clear and firm: permanent acts of remembrance and memorialisation must always respect the rule of law and must never commemorate wrongdoing.

Everyone in Northern Ireland, from every tradition, should have the right to remember their dead in a respectful, dignified and sensitive manner, but that right must never be misused to glorify violence, terrorism or criminality. Crucially, in all that we do, we must ensure that innocent victims are never forgotten and are remembered with dignity, compassion and respect.

That is the foundation of the DUP amendment in my name and that of Mr Phillip Brett. Our amendment makes it absolutely clear that the glorification of terrorism is hurtful, shameful and wrong. It is hurtful to innocent victims who continue to live with the trauma of loss. It is shameful because it attempts to rewrite history and justify the unjustifiable. It is wrong — legally, morally and socially — because it undermines everything that we have worked for in building a peaceful and democratic society. Such displays retraumatise victims and send the wrong message to our young people.

At the same time, we will resist any attempt to erase or restrict the lawful commemoration of those who served with honour in our armed forces, our police or other services, or of those who gave their lives in defence of peace and order. Respectful remembrance of courage and sacrifice is not the same as celebrating terror, and we must never blur that line.

Although I acknowledge the intentions behind the Alliance motion and appreciate the tabling of it, the wording is, for us, just a little too broad and too vague, so we would welcome support for the amendment. The phrase "references to acts of violence" risks capturing legitimate memorials, including those marking world war service or honouring members of the security forces who were murdered while upholding law and order.

We also remain concerned that some memorials are used to mark territory rather than commemorate respectfully. That is unacceptable and contributes to division rather than reconciliation. Clarity matters, and principle matters. We must not allow any process to undermine lawful remembrance or to disrespect the innocent victims whose pain remains so real.

The DUP recognises the importance of ensuring that any memorials on public land comply with the law. That is why we support determining the need for an audit, not to impose unnecessary bureaucracy but to understand the scale of the issue and to ensure that enforcement is consistent and fair where planning permission has not been sought. We know from experience that legacy memorials exist in many communities and that enforcement has often been inconsistent or delayed. A targeted audit would allow Departments and local authorities to take proportionate and coordinated action while continuing to respect community consultation and grassroots initiatives such as Communities in Transition. That approach balances the need for lawful compliance with the reality that community-led solutions remain the most effective way to remove harmful imagery and to reimagine public spaces positively.

A word on planning. Northern Ireland's planning system is, of course, under significant strain. We all know that housing, infrastructure and health projects already face unacceptable delays. While planning law must be applied consistently, we must ensure that the appropriate priority is given to what truly matters. Creating new layers of bureaucracy for a small number of memorials would not be an effective or proportionate use of resources. Our amendment promotes a balanced approach, combining compliance with the law and practical, realistic enforcement.

One of the most effective ways in which we have been tackling harmful memorials and murals has been through the Communities in Transition programme. CIT works directly with communities, engaging residents, schools, sports clubs and cultural organisations to reimagine walls, spaces and memorials in ways that celebrate shared heritage, pride and creativity while removing paramilitary imagery and messages of division. CIT's work is careful, thoughtful and inclusive. It does not impose solutions from above; instead, it brings communities together to consult, negotiate and decide collectively how their public spaces should reflect their values. The positive results speak for themselves. In my consistency of South Antrim, the Ballyduff Community Redevelopment Group led a re-imaging project that replaced previous paramilitary imagery with a multi-panel remembrance mural honouring the Somme. As another example, in Monkstown, a paramilitary badge was removed and the 18th Newtownabbey Football Club mural was put in its place, which transformed it as a mural with vibrant artwork, celebrating teamwork, local identity and inclusion. The project was delivered in partnership with the Monkstown Community Association, the Housing Executive, Clanmil and the PSNI. The final example is the Airtastic mural project in Bawnmore, north Belfast that brought together schools, GAA clubs and local residents to capture history, culture, music and community pride in a positive and lasting way. Those are just a few examples.

Those transformations happened not because the Department ordered them but because the community chose them. Across Northern Ireland, CIT has helped communities move away from threatening or paramilitary imagery, giving young people safe, positive role models and stories to look up to. Those examples show that bottom-up, grassroots initiatives work far more effectively than top-down, regulatory schemes. CIT has delivered measurable improvements in community cohesion, the visual environment and cultural pride. It is precisely that approach that the DUP seeks to build on, not replace.

The DUP's amendment is grounded in balance, fairness and respect. It upholds the rule of law, ensures that innocent victims are remembered with dignity, rejects the glorification of terrorism and builds on the proven success of the Communities in Transition programme. CIT has shown that community-led consultative approaches are the best way to remove harmful imagery while celebrating culture, history and shared identity. Our amendment ensures that those programmes are supported and extended rather than undermined by unnecessary top-down interventions. We want a Northern Ireland where remembrance unites rather than divides, where public art and memorials reflect pride and positivity and where innocent victims and respect for the law remain central.

Progress is not imposed: it is built, and communities are actively building it. Thank you, and I hope that we can get support for our amendment.

Mr Beattie: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Speaker: Mr Beattie, you have up to 10 minutes. Please proceed.

Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We have no issue with the motion or with the DUP amendment, and we will not force a Division on either. However, if I may, I will be a bit more direct with regard to memorialisation. Here is a simple truth about Northern Ireland: there are more memorials in Northern Ireland to the perpetrators than to the victims. It is a sad indictment of our society that that is the case. Everyone has a right to remember their dead — it is easily said; we say it all the time, and I am saying it now — but that cannot be at the expense of the victims. Let us be honest: victims are impacted when they see perpetrators being venerated online, at memorials, in murals, in stone monuments or in words. What we see continually is terrorism and terrorists being glorified daily, while the innocent victims find themselves forgotten, marginalised and isolated.

Thomas McElwee was a terrorist. He burned a young mother to death in Ballymena. Her name was Yvonne Dunlop. Every year, the glorifying of McElwee in words, deeds and memorials brings renewed grief to her family — every year. Thomas Begley was a mass murderer, yet he has a memorial that celebrates his active service in murdering 10 people, including children. Why, as a society, do we think that that is right? Why do we think that remembering your dead cannot be done without climbing all over the victims?

The murder of the members of the Miami Showband was an appalling atrocity, and it was perpetrated by those who showed no regard for life. Every year, there is a parade to remember one of the murderers: Wesley Somerville. That has a direct and negative effect on those who survived that atrocity and on their families. It glorifies terrorism, and it is illegal. Brian Robinson murdered an innocent Catholic and was then shot by undercover soldiers. Again, a memorial and a parade that celebrates his action is allowed to take place each year. Imagine what it is like to be the family of the man who was murdered when they see the man who murdered their loved one being venerated in that manner. I am conscious that they had families and that those families still grieve their loss — we must always be mindful of that — but, for me, it is the victims whom we should focus our attention on. To that end, our amendment asks the Justice Minister to ensure that the criminal justice system is configured to take affirmative action, as laid out in the Terrorism Act 2006, against those who directly and indirectly glorify terrorism. We also propose that other Ministers work in collaboration. This cannot be one Minister alone. The Infrastructure Minister should take direct action to remove illegal memorials that contravene planning permission. The Minister for Communities should lead a programme to support the re-imaging of memorials:

— very close to what is in the motion. The Executive Office should give support in coordinating those efforts and conducting an audit of said memorials in line with the original motion.

This can be fixed if we take direct action against those who are unwilling to make the change that is needed to end the glorification of violence. A criminal justice and police intervention; a Communities and Housing Executive intervention; an Infrastructure and planning enforcement intervention —.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. He knows that I am bringing forward a private Member's Bill. When I have raised the issue of flags in the Chamber, he has said that we cannot have statutory agencies coming in and doing exactly what he has just said about removing flags. He said that communities had to be involved. Why is he now putting this at the Justice Department, as opposed to Communities?

Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for her intervention. If she had listened to my words, she would have heard that I did not put it all on to Justice; quite the opposite. I literally just mentioned Infrastructure, TEO and Communities. It needs a multi-agency, multifaceted approach, and criminal justice is part of that. We cannot ignore what is illegal. Glorifying terrorism is illegal, and I am saying, "Let us stop the illegality". We are not far apart, but that is where I am.

Have we seen change previously? Yes, we have: many murals have been re-imaged. There was a mural depicting Billy Wright, not far from where I live in Portadown, and it was just outside a school. It was re-imaged into George Best, and now it has been re-imaged into Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. That is positive, and the community was involved in that, which is the point that the Member makes and makes well.

In many ways, the military and the police have led on it. Some of you will know that the military took the vast majority of its memorials, including those to the construction workers who were murdered because they worked in military bases during the Troubles, and centralised them in Palace Barracks. If you go to Palace Barracks, you will see a memorial garden with memorials from across Northern Ireland. The garden is private, and people can go there to have a look at the memorials. The police did the same. Controversially, the police removed memorials from the public view, but they are still there for the police to see. Of course, there is the RUC memorial garden, which you can visit, but it is not in your face. There are things that we can do.

Is there an opportunity for a single memorial for all victims? Not just yet. We can look at that and strive for it in the future, but we are not there yet, and that is a reality. I spent three years on FICT, and I know what it did and talked about. I know where the conflict was in FICT: memorialisation was a huge conflict, and nothing was agreed. The FICT report clearly states:

That does not matter, because that was the FICT report. We can make an agreement. We can decide which way to go forward. We can go forward with the motion and the amendment. Our amendment is a little stronger, but I will not divide on it. We need to go forward, and we need to change. We simply cannot have a situation where we walk down the street and see memorials to terrorists popping up all over the place and victims having to walk past them every day. We spend a lot of time talking about flags, and I understand the private Member's Bill about flags, but flags can be taken down. Some of the hard memorials are seriously large structures that cannot be taken down, and the victims are traumatised by them every day.

I say that the FICT commission did not come up with recommendations: it did come up with them, but they were not agreed by any of the political parties or anyone on the commission. Again, that does not matter: we can make that decision. I am clear, as is the Ulster Unionist Party, that, if something is illegal, the criminal justice system has to act. If something has been built on private land that does not have planning permission and contravenes our laws, we have to act. If that has to be through the criminal justice system, it is through the criminal justice system; if it has to be through the Department for Infrastructure, it is through the Department for Infrastructure; if it has to be through the Department for Communities, that is where it is through. The Departments have to work together, but we cannot allow those people to illegally do as they wish and take no action. We are direct, and I make no apologies for being direct about the issue.

I hope that the House does not divide. It is a good motion, and the DUP amendment is good. We will certainly not push for a Division.

Ms Ferguson: All people should have the right to remember their dead in a respectful, sensitive and dignified manner. I welcome the recognition of that fundamental point in the motion. The importance of providing places where individuals, families and communities can gather to reflect, reminisce and remember their loved ones, their history and their stories should not be undermined. As outlined in the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition report:

Equality should be central to our vision for society: a society underpinned by fairness and respect. That should also be a society where we are able to deal with difference in a positive and constructive manner; demonstrate openness; and show maturity and respect to all people regardless of any identity factors. In truth, as outlined by the Ulster University lecturer Eilish Rooney:

To that end, I support the view that we should not advocate removing existing places that provide a sense of acknowledgement or peaceful closure for communities who have experienced significant ramifications of our recent conflict. However, we should work to deliver community cohesion, inclusion and equality.

We support the adoption of a day of reflection, as referenced in the FICT report, to be held on 21 June each year. We also emphasise the need for an audit of all memorials across the Six Counties rather than a selective audit that focuses on some political identities whilst ignoring others. Reconciliation must reflect and recognise equally the experience of all in our society. There should be a particular focus on reflecting the stories of women, which are often invisible or largely unexamined in our history. The steps by Belfast City Council in recent years to erect statues in honour of Mary Ann McCracken and Winifred Carney are welcome attempts to address that imbalance.

There is no denying that, if an audit were carried out on memorials, it would reveal that there is a disproportionate number of unionist and state memorials in the form of cenotaphs, statues and plaques. Many of those monuments were erected during the time of an inbuilt unionist majority that was created as a result of partition, when consensus on such memorials was not reached or even sought. Their presence should be examined in our changed political dynamics, which have seen the unionist majority come to an end in successive elections and the election of a nationalist First Minister. I do not want to labour the point, but I emphasise the fact that there is room in both those realities to apply a concept of additionality and work collectively to provide a truly shared space for all our citizens.

It is notable that the motion is silent on the imagery and actions of British state forces and on the pain and misery that their actions inflicted on many in our society. That is a glaring omission in a conversation such as this. We must instead create opportunities for all sections of society to tell their story in their own words and have those reflected to provide a more accurate perspective.

Let us work collectively to listen to all others and their stories without judgement; recognise different rationales and the pain that people carry; and, fundamentally, deliver a real process of reconciliation and build a better future for all.

Ms McLaughlin: As Members have mentioned, many people in our society feel a deep need to remember those who have died. Memorials can play an important part in that, as a way for families and communities to pay tribute, reflect and remember, but how we remember matters. In a society that is still carrying the legacy of conflict, remembrance must be done in a way that is respectful, lawful and sensitive to others. What may bring comfort to one family can, for another, reopen wounds that are never truly healed. This is not about one community or another but about how we collectively choose to live together after conflict. If we are honest, we all know that there are memorials and murals across Northern Ireland that would cause deep unease if they were to be placed in a different area.

For too long, the approach to the issues has lacked direction and political courage. There has been no clear process, no consistent standard and, far too often, no consultation with the people who must live beside such displays. Many memorials are erected without any lawful authority, appearing overnight in shared or residential areas, with no engagement and no planning. That is not how remembrance should be done in a democratic society. Communities deserve to have a say in what stands in their streets and in their public places.

We also have to recognise that some of the displays are not about remembrance at all but about control. They are designed to mark territory, to intimidate and to signal who is in charge. The law is clear on it. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, it can be an offence to invite support for a proscribed organisation. Murals that glorify violence, display weapons or depict masked men can easily cross that line. They are not expressions of culture but hate expressions in a public space, and they provide a basis for police action.

That is why my colleagues and I tabled an amendment to the motion, but, unfortunately, it was not accepted. It would have asked the Justice Minister to examine whether the PSNI's existing powers are being properly used to prosecute those who erect and maintain such murals and whether additional powers are needed. The PSNI has a role here not simply to observe but to enforce the law where it is being broken.

I also acknowledge the work of the Executive's programme for tackling paramilitary activity and organised crime. A comprehensive review was carried out in 2020, which led to phase 2 of the programme beginning in 2021. The Executive agreed only recently to extend the programme until March 2027, after which it is expected to close. The Ending the Harm campaign has helped raise awareness of what paramilitaries do, but awareness alone will not end their activities. It has now been five years since the most recent review, and I believe that another should be undertaken to test whether the current approach is truly reducing the grip that paramilitaries still hold in some areas, because we all know that that grip still exists.

Too many people still live under coercive control, where illegal organisations dictate who can speak, who can paint a wall and who can take down a mural. There are, however, reasons for hope. Across Northern Ireland, we have seen many paramilitary-style murals replaced with images of cultural, sporting or historical figures, often supported by the Arts Council. That is a positive example of re-imaging, where communities have been able to celebrate their identity in ways that are inclusive and non-threatening. It shows that change is possible when people are supported to take ownership of their spaces. What we need now is the political will to build on that. We need to make sure that remembrance is done lawfully, is dignified and is respectful and that the law is upheld when it is not. We have no issue with people celebrating their culture, but culture and commemoration can never be an excuse for glorifying violence or causing hurt. As we look ahead, we should support communities that want to re-image their areas, that want to move on from intimidation and fear —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms McLaughlin: — and that want to live side by side with dignity.

Miss Hargey: These are important issues that we are discussing here today. The FICT report states:

The motion rightly acknowledges that people should have the right to remember the dead. That approach was recognised in the FICT report, which stated:

We see that across our society, whether it is in memorial gardens or on plaques or cenotaphs that are in public spaces, government buildings or our communities. In republican areas, as in others, there are memorial gardens located in communities that have an emotional attachment to, and acceptance of, them, as those who are being remembered were often from those very communities. Those areas provide a space for remembrance and reflection, particularly for relatives, friends and the local community. They are often community initiatives that are financed, constructed and maintained by the community. Of course, that act of remembrance and reflection takes place right across our community, and those spaces often provide a sense of acknowledgement and reflection to those communities that have been impacted on by our recent conflict.

As I said, those spaces can take many forms, such as gardens, cenotaphs, statues and plaques. They are located across all our neighbourhoods. They also reflect the diverse narratives around the cause of, and factors that sustained, our conflict. They are a recognition that we have a contested past that emanates from that conflict. People who have been impacted on by the conflict can often have different, as well as shared, lived experiences. We may not agree with each other on the narratives and perspectives, but we can listen and understand others' narratives and the impact of the conflict as we attempt the process of understanding and reconciliation.

I will give the example of City Hall in Belfast, which Ciara Ferguson touched on. I was directly involved in looking at the memorabilia in that building, which, because of the building's history, came from a predominantly unionist perspective. The DUP, UUP, Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin all sat in on that process. We had a historic centenaries working group, and work was done on the display of memorabilia. I was directly involved in each of those groups. Through that work, we came up with a set of principles and an agreement, which the five political parties signed up to, to recognise the different narratives that pertained to the conflict and the impact that it had on our history. That meant that we could mark those occasions, and when we looked at the decade of centenaries — from 2010 to 2020 — we did so in an inclusive manner that respected all the different perspectives and traditions. That did not mean that you had to agree with a perspective that you found difficult, but that perspective had a place and it was represented, and the approach was inclusive.

I believe that that can be done now. All the parties in Belfast City Hall marked key occasions, including the centenaries of the signing of the Ulster covenant, the First World War, the Battle of the Somme and the 1916 Easter Rising. Do you know what, folks? The sky did not fall in. People came together and marked those occasions, and then we moved on to the next process, which was about re-imaging.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Miss Hargey: I will, if I have time at the end, Phillip, no problem. I am just conscious of my time.

The need for inclusivity, and to rebalance and represent, can be satisfied. The Housing Executive's re-imaging scheme has been mentioned, and it was successful. It was involved in my community, and the re-imaged murals that depict the history of the Market are still there today. That scheme assisted many communities. What made it work and what was unique about it was that it was a voluntary process that engaged communities and built capacity at that level. It was not imposed on the communities that it was trying to work with. Those are important points to make.

There was further talk of a day of reflection. The FICT report mentioned the need for that. I know that Healing Through Remembering has a day of reflection on 21 June each year. When we are looking at these issues, we should engage in a way that is inclusive and has communities at its heart.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Miss Hargey: Belfast City Hall is a prime example of that.

Mr McMurray: I thank my colleagues for tabling the motion. Ms Bradshaw has already spoken about it in quite a bit of detail, but I want to focus on a few points that stand out for me.

Let me say at the outset that the Alliance Party is committed to respecting people's right to remember their dead. There can be no doubt about that. Remembrance is important, and it can certainly have a positive impact in a society such as our own. We have to accept, however, that we are becoming increasingly aware of the harms that can be done through memorialisation.

Turning to the matter of planning, our motion calls for:

The DUP amendment calls for:

Those two things argue the same point.

It is my understanding that many memorials, depending on their nature, size and scale, implicitly require planning permission. Others, such as murals and plaques, would be considered as permitted development and would not normally require express planning permission. I believe that, on that point and the other proposals from my colleague Ms Bradshaw, when a formal process is applied to a matter such as this, it helps that a certain amount of toleration and acceptance is built in.

The fact that a large number of memorials exist without planning permission shows that the current approach is not working. Planning permission for memorials is important for a host of reasons, one of which is their contentious nature, and the consultation requirements in the planning process can help with that. There are also reasons for rules on the safety of physical structures in the public space, and it is in everyone's interest to ensure that memorials do not pose a hazard to people's health. Guidance to make those requirements more explicit would be helpful.

Enforcement of planning breaches would be a matter for councils, and that remains a sensible approach. However, councils need clear policy to work under. It has been my experience that, when issues are brought to councils' structures, on-the-ground solutions, much like those that Ms Hargey spoke about, can be worked out and agreed upon. Yes, we can sometimes get things right in this place.

However, Northern Ireland goes a wee bit beyond the sterile lab conditions of a policy document. I was struck by the words of Farida Shaheed, a UN special rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, who said:

She further said:

Ms Ferguson made a point about it being a predominantly unionist/British thing. I turned 40, and the border turned 100, so I took a wee cycle around the border, and, according to my observations, it is not a one-sided issue. There are many contentious memorials from the other side, too. I will leave it at that.

Our challenge is to build a society where we can work together to build a better Northern Ireland where everyone can thrive and where reconciliation and toleration are continually built and worked upon. Indeed, "reconciliation" and "toleration" are doing words, led by actions and not by way of saying the right thing. That is why I am involved in politics. Many of the memorials that we see in Northern Ireland are firmly holding on to the irreconcilable and antagonistic versions of our past. What vision of the future are we looking to provide for our children? What kind of attitude towards their fellow citizen are we fostering in them? Respectful memorials or the perpetuation of past hurts and glorified wrongs?

I was watching one commentator yesterday, who asked whether our politicians were beacons of hope for the future, and they answered their own question with "No". We certainly cannot be beacons of hope for the future if we continually glorify the wrongs of our past and antagonise each other in the process. This is about finding a way to remember that helps our society to come together a little bit more and builds something new and hopeful that helps future generations to thrive.

The process that we are envisaging is one that supports communities to re-image memorials. That approach builds on the successful experience of working with communities to re-image their murals. It has been a collaborative process, carried out in partnership with the communities in which the murals are located. There has been a lot of references to "community". We have to bring communities along because that is the only way that these things work.

The Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition recommended that all those involved with memorialising the conflict reflected in a spirit of generosity, reconciliation, respect and accommodation on how they did so. That requires a good deal of good will, openness and emotional effort on all sides. For my part and my party's part, we want to play a positive role in that.

Ms K Armstrong: It is lovely to be in the House today when we are hearing Members speak with one voice in agreement that this issue is something that we do need to work on across Northern Ireland. What we are talking about today is a step towards healing and progress in this place. I completely support re-imaging our communities. If I was to stand here in front of you and point a gun image at any of you, it would be disgusting, yet I have that in my constituency on the corners of houses. It is time that we recognise that those symbols, while rooted in history, often perpetuate division, fear and territorialism. If we are to build an inclusive, welcoming place for all, we must be brave enough to reshape the visual landscape of our neighbourhoods.

The Housing Executive has already begun that journey. As a housing spokesperson, you can understand why I will focus on that. In west Belfast, the Housing Executive partnered with the Falls Community Council and the Upper Springfield Development Trust to remove the controversial Bobby Sands funeral mural. With £5,000 in funding and support from the Ulster Museum, the mural was carefully taken down and preserved, demonstrating a respectful yet forward-looking approach. This is not about erasing history. It is about relocating it to places of education and reflection, just not in our daily lives.

In my constituency, there are housing estates that are very uncomfortable to be in because they have paramilitary-themed murals on the walls. In fact, in 2021-22, when the review was done, it confirmed that there were 31 political murals on Housing Executive properties in one of the council areas that I represent. Those images of men — it is always men — wearing balaclavas and holding guns as if they are waiting to ambush or get ready to shoot are being replaced with panels that include local historical information, and I can honestly say that the relief in the area is tangible. Many people have said to me that that change sends out a clear image that the gun and the threat of violence no longer control their community. The pressure of the boot on the neck of the community is being lifted. Billy Sproule of the West Winds Development Association said:

That is an area that very often gets vilified as being unpleasant. People say, "It is very loyalist. Nobody wants to go in there. It is dangerous". The change for that community is incredibly positive, so we must support the Housing Executive's community cohesion teams to work with communities, not against them.

The Housing Executive's re-imaging project showed that collaboration can lead to transformation, but we must go further. Any future memorials or murals in Northern Ireland should require formal planning permission. That would ensure public accountability, community consultation and alignment with shared values, and it would prevent the unchecked rise of divisive imagery and promote art that reflects unity, diversity and hope. I do not think that we need to be held hostage by the past any more. We should honour it in museums and classrooms and through respectful dialogue, like we are doing today, but not on the walls of our homes and streets.

The future of Northern Ireland depends on our ability to imagine something better today. We all know that, too often, you ask the authorities to take something down or remove something because you have been asked to do so by residents, and the authorities say no because they are afraid of the attacks that they may face. Today, in the House, given the support for the motion, we have to say this to all our public authorities: it is public land and public buildings. We are behind you. We want these things removed or re-imaged so that we can have a better Northern Ireland for all.

Mr O'Toole: I will not speak for very long, but I am pleased to speak on today's motion, I thank Ms Bradshaw of the Alliance Party for moving it. We broadly support the motion. I have certain concerns about both amendments, particularly the DUP one, which removes and softens the requirement to audit memorials on public land and talks about considering an audit. I do not know why that needs to be softened, but there may be broad consensus on that. If our party had drafted the motion or the amendments, we would not have used that precise language, but that is the nature of these things.

Lots of what I will say has been said very eloquently already by my colleague Sinéad McLaughlin. I also agree with things that have been said by many Members who have spoken. Nearly everybody has talked about the need, and indeed, the solemn onus on all of us to respect communities' and families' right to remember their dead. Remembering our own loved ones is profoundly personal. It is very distinctively Irish and of this island, and when I say "Irish and of this island", I mean that it stretches through all our communities, including British unionist communities. We take it very seriously on this island in all our traditions.

It is important to say a couple of things, though. In this debate, we often conflate the public and the private. When it comes to commemorating and remembering our dead — people that we have personally lost or we have lost in a close communal sense — it is not the same thing, in my view, as broader society being willing to tolerate any form of commemoration of organisations that those individuals were part of or, indeed, acts that were committed by those organisations. I recognise that, by definition, the people who suffered the most in the conflict in Northern Ireland were in working-class communities. Almost inevitably, those communities were also the people from whom paramilitary organisations drew their membership, whether it was the Provisional IRA, the INLA or loyalist groups. That is true, but it is also true that those communities suffered most at the hands of those organisations. When we talk about these things and use words like "communities", we should not assume that all the people in those working-class communities were supporters of the IRA, the UVF or the UDA, because, in many cases, those were people who suffered at the hands of those organisations. When we make these broad statements about remembering our dead, we should be careful that we do not simply conflate communities with individuals. All individuals, whatever organisations they were involved in, whatever path they took in life, whatever reason they died or however they died, their family and those immediately around them and who cared about them deserve to remember them in a solemn and respectful way.

We then come on to the question of public memorials. We have a contested history: that was said by Deirdre Hargey, and she is correct. We do have a contested history. There is however an onus on all of us, as public representatives, to create structures that enable us to move on from that history. There is a famous Brian Friel play about memory, identity, language and history. It is called 'Translations', and many Members will be familiar with it. In it, there is a famous line where a character says:

It is said in a slightly trivial way: I do not think that people should be prevented from remembering or reminiscing about things that they or their community experienced. Indeed, real, bitter pain and loss needs to be remembered. However, it is also the case that we cannot have a situation where we legitimise past deeds at the risk of the future.

For example, in talking about the future, it is important for unionist politicians that those who speak on Armistice Day are able to remember people whom they lost in that context. However, I do not think that it is legitimate to put up the insignia of the Parachute Regiment, which was done by some DUP politicians, when the Bloody Sunday families, who were innocent victims, were hearing the judgements at the High Court in Belfast. As someone who wants to build a new Ireland, I am not willing to trade off a conversation about a new Ireland at the price of IRA memorials, because that is the past. Though that past exists, and it needs to be understood and talked about sensitively, the conversation that I am most interested in is about the future and moving on from that difficult past. The past should be understood, and people who suffered need to be able to remember that suffering —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: — but that cannot be at the cost of our future.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. Thank you. We now move to the winding-up speech on amendment No 2.

Mr Burrows: We are guided by three key principles when we deal with issues of legacy. They are that innocent victims have their integrity and dignity preserved, we do not allow history to be rewritten and we uphold the rule of law. That is the lettering that runs through the stick of rock in our amendment.

When it comes to innocent victims, it is entirely wrong that people in our society worry about opening a newspaper, watching TV or listening to the radio in case they hear about the commemoration of ghouls such as Brian Robinson. He was loyal to no one but a small group of gangsters, just as republican terrorists were evil people, loyal only to themselves. That is why it is so important that our amendment says that we need to acknowledge that victims are re-traumatised by those memorials, by loose language and by dealing with the people who inflicted loss on them, be it the loss of a loved one, one of their limbs or their mental well-being, as anything other than criminals. I do not use the term "ex-combatants"; they were terrorists.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. Not for the first time in the Chamber, he has demonstrated that he does not do detail. Had he looked at any of the academic research on memorials, he would know that the word "combatants" is used as a collective noun. It was from there that I took that word. The debate has been respectful this afternoon, but, as usual, the Member has tried to use it for political point-scoring. He should be ashamed of himself.

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

Mr Burrows: I generously gave way to the Member. I hope that my tone has been respectful. Certainly, anyone who listens to my contribution or reads it in Hansard will see that I have been disrespectful to no one. That is another attack on my integrity, despite the fact that I have just called out, as clearly as could be, loyalist and republican terrorism. I will move on.

Our amendment strengthens the motion, because it ensures that we do not allow history to be rewritten. We need to deal with the elephant in the room. Those who were victims or those in uniform who tried to uphold the law are entirely different from those who were terrorists, loyalist and republican alike. We cannot allow that truth to ever be blurred. That is why I say that the motion is good, but our amendment strengthens it.

The Shankill bomber was wrong. The Shankill butcher was wrong. There can be no equivalence between them and people who tried to do their job. If a police officer did something wrong, like those who got involved in the Glenanne gang with UDR members, I would see them as a traitor to their uniform. They should be given an additional sentence for that breach of trust. I have never justified any criminality by anyone who wears uniform. Let me say this: those who murdered people at Greysteel were wrong. It can never be right or complex: that can never be the narrative. Yes, academics will look at such things from an academic point of view, but those people were wrong. They went into a bar, shouted, "Trick or treat" and sprayed the pub with bullets. They do not deserve any memorialisation. [Interruption.]

I will not give way any more. If they are on an illegal memorial, it should be taken down.

This is where I come to the rule of law. We have allowed the rule of law in Northern Ireland to be sacrificed to the path of least resistance. Our amendment strengthens it again. Farmers in my constituency cannot get a farmhouse or henhouse through planning and will not build it until they get planning permission, yet people build memorials to terrorists with impunity. How can that be right? How have we got ourselves into that position? How can people on the other side of the House justify that? If the memorials are illegal, bring them down. Do not let them be built again.

That is why our amendment says that an audit should not only be taken but published. Let us be clear about how many memorials in our country are illegal by virtue of having no planning permission and by virtue of what is on them. Let us see that in black and white. The memorials to British servicemen that the Member on the Benches opposite talked about are not built without planning permission and are not breaking any law. They commemorate servicemen just as an Garda Síochána and the Irish Army commemorate their dead. I would never tolerate a memorial to a loyalist involved in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings being placed alongside a memorial to an Garda Síochána and being called the same thing. That is not a new Ireland to which unionists can subscribe. Those are truths, and that is why our amendment is strong.

Miss Hargey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will not give way, because I am just finishing up.

Right and wrong are important. We will speak for them. Our amendment strengthens the motion, and I commend it to everyone.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Phillip Brett to wind on amendment No 1. You have up to five minutes.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been a useful discussion, in which a lot of commonality and common ground has been found. I have the privilege of representing North Belfast, and the issue of memorials is evident across our constituency. I pay tribute to the work of and leadership shown by community organisations across the board that have devoted time and, sometimes in difficult circumstances, put their heads above the parapet to try to remove unwanted murals and insignia. I thank Queens Park Women's Group, Rathcoole CREW Women's Group, Tiger's Bay Community Group and to the bands in Rathcoole that have, on every occasion, stepped forward to work with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to have memorials to terrorists and recruitment posters for illegal paramilitary organisations removed. They have done so not for thanks or praise from me in the House but because that is what the local community wanted and they knew that it was the right thing to do.

I am slightly disappointed that no representative from the Executive Office is here, because I had hoped that someone would come forward. There is some good news in that the Communities in Transition programme may be extended to other parts of my constituency. It does excellent work, but the false barriers that it has created make no sense. For example, CIT operates and does great work in the New Lodge, but, over the peace wall beside it, Tiger's Bay is excluded from that work. Those communities come together daily to work to overcome the issues, but they are unable to benefit from that scheme.

Although we have come a long way in North Belfast, we still have a long way to go. As other Members have articulated, we have the unwanted annual Brian Robinson parade on the Shankill Road, which commemorates someone who killed an innocent person. I can stand here without fear or favour and say that that is completely wrong and should not take place. I just wish that others in the Chamber could get up and say that the memorial on the other side of the road to Thomas Begley, who blew up 10 of my constituents — men, women and children — should also be removed.

It is important to focus on the progress that has been made here today. Ms Bradshaw, who opened the debate, brought personal experience, which is important in such issues. People such as Ms Bradshaw in her previous role play a vital role in communities. It is the community development workers who listen to the community and are able to bring fresh ideas, bring partners together and source the funding that is required to replace the murals. It is through leadership — through the role that Ms Bradshaw and others have played — that we have seen the work that has taken place across South Belfast.

Ms Hargey highlighted the really important work that was done at Belfast City Hall. That was through agreement between the five political parties, but the key to it was additionality rather than removal. That is an important principle that we should all strive to uphold: rather than seeking to remove someone's history or something that they hold dear and that is legally in place, we should add to it to ensure that it reflects all parts of Northern Ireland.

On this rare occasion, I will make no party political statements. I thank everyone here for their contributions to the debate. It has set a useful template that there is political consensus that Northern Ireland will no longer be held to ransom by the men and women of violence.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Stewart Dickson to conclude the debate and wind up on the motion. Mr Dickson, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I record my thanks and those of Paula Bradshaw to every Member who contributed to the debate. It has been a respectful debate. It has been a conversation and one, indeed, that we may not have been able to have a few years ago in this place or in Northern Ireland. We are on a journey. Phillip said that we should focus on progress, and that, by and large, is what the debate has been about. That journey continues.

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. I thank Paula Bradshaw for proposing the motion; Pam Cameron; Doug Beattie, who told us that he will not oppose the motion, which is welcome; Ciara Ferguson; Sinéad McLaughlin; Deirdre Hargey; Andrew McMurray; Kellie Armstrong; and Matthew O'Toole.

In every community, there are people who still carry the pain from the loss of a loved one, and the right to remember those who have died is something that we should all respect. It is deeply personal, as some described, and it needs to be treated with sensitivity and dignity. The motion is about how we do that well. It is about ensuring that remembrance takes place in a way that brings comfort while not hurting the grieving. Our public spaces are spaces for everyone, and they should not be exploited by the symbols of division or control.

It is a sensitive issue. Memorials take many forms. Some are roadside tributes to sudden loss, while others are long-standing monuments to events that have shaped our history. Across our towns and estates, there are memorials that mean different things to different people. There are, however, also those that were placed without permission or that carry imagery that others find painful or disputed in their content or context. The aim of the motion, which, I think, has been embraced in the Chamber, is not to erase anyone's memory or to rewrite history but to bring about fairness and transparency and, above all, to care about how we mark the past.

In the first instance, the motion is a call to deliver an audit, which will help us understand what exists and under what authority, if any. That will then allow us to take another step in the conversation. It is about guidance that will help us understand and ensure that anything that is created in the future is lawful, respectful and agreed. It is about a re-imaging programme that will support communities that want to make positive changes themselves.

Many in the Chamber have spoken about real and positive re-imaging programmes that have taken place. I have seen them in East Antrim and in my home town of Carrickfergus. We have seen how they can work. We have seen peacebuilding through the arts and the Re-imaging Communities programme funded by the Arts Council. The Special EU Programmes Body and others have shown what can be achieved when communities take the lead: not when they are being led, but when they take the lead. Across Northern Ireland, we have seen gable walls that once carried divisive symbols being transformed into public art in order to tell a different story: a story that shares our history. That takes a lot of hard work and determination, and some communities take steps forward to re-imagine and replace murals on walls. Sometimes, they are stopped, but they have the tenacity to keep going. It takes a lot of trust between local residents, community leaders and public authorities, but it demonstrates that progress is possible, not impossible.

To be clear, the motion is not about forgetting the past but about looking to the future. When communities are supported to reclaim their spaces and to express pride in a way that excludes no one, it strengthens the sense of belonging for everyone who lives there. We have examples from councils that have already developed clear and fair policies for memorials. Their experience can guide the Executive as they develop a consistent approach across Northern Ireland. That is the leadership that we are looking for in the debate. That consistency will protect communities, give clarity to public bodies and ensure that what stands in our shared spaces reflects the values of all of us.

I again genuinely thank the Members who contributed to the debate this evening. Many spoke with understanding and compassion but, at the same time, withheld their views. We may view aspects of the issue differently, but I trust that we all share the same goal, which is to make remembrance something that helps heal rather than divide. If we can get it right, we can give people confidence that their history is respected and their pain understood and that the places that we share are truly open to all.

Let the work be guided by respect, partnership and hope, and let remembrance be a bridge between the past and the future, not a wall between neighbours.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if amendment No 1 is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As we move on to the next item of business, I ask that those who are leaving the Chamber to do so quietly. Mr Butler is waiting eagerly in anticipation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Robbie Butler to raise the matter of on-street parking in Lisburn.

Mr Butler, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Butler: I beg to move the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not need to move the motion — I have not done one of these in a long time. I will strike that from the video later, Mr Honeyford. I thank the Deputy Speaker for indulging me and hope that the Minister will attend the debate.

Lisburn remains one of only two towns in Northern Ireland where on-street parking charges still apply. That creates an unfair disadvantage for local businesses and visitors. The policy is, quite simply, archaic, undermining the vitality of high streets, pushing shoppers to out-of-town centres that offer free parking and contradicting the "Town centre first" approach. A fair and consistent policy is needed in which either all towns charge or none charge. I propose a first-hour-free system as a practical first step to support trade, footfall and fairness. Across Northern Ireland from Bangor to Banbridge and from Carrickfergus to Derry/Londonderry, people can pull up, park and pop into their local town without paying a penny for the privilege — that was a lot Ps — yet in Lisburn we are expected to treat as a luxury something that is free everywhere else.

The debate is not about opposing the fair management of our roads; it is about consistency and fairness. If charging for on-street parking truly is best practice, why are Lisburn and Newry the only places where it applies. Within a 20-mile radius of Lisburn, not one of the following towns charge for on-street parking: Antrim, Banbridge, Bangor, Comber, Carrickfergus, Downpatrick, Lurgan, Moira and Portadown. Not even our larger regional cities, such as Derry/Londonderry and Armagh, charge for on-street parking. That inequality has a real cost. It costs local traders footfall; it costs families convenience; and it costs Lisburn a competitive edge. I had better make a declaration, in case the Minister declares it, that I have fallen foul of the redcoats in Lisburn far too many times. However, the purpose of the debate is not for me; it is for the shops and the high street.

During the 2020-21 Chamber of Commerce and Industry campaign, Lisburn Chamber of Commerce, alongside its compatriot in Newry, secured support from Liz Kimmins MLA, who now serves as the Infrastructure Minister, for the removal of on-street parking charges. At that time, she recognised the unfairness of the system. Now, perhaps, she has the authority to finally deliver on that pressure. We are not asking for special treatment; we are asking for equal treatment: either all towns are charged or none. The rules must apply equally across Northern Ireland.

The high street faces its most difficult decade in living memory. Sadly, retail habits have shifted online. Energy and wage costs for businesses are up, and margins are thin. Every decision that makes it harder for people to come into our towns pushes them further into decline. We are told that we must adopt a "Town centre first" approach, yet we see the opposite from DFI, with talk of increasing parking charges and removing spaces to discourage car use as part of an eastern transport plan. That approach might make sense in a city like Belfast, where public transport options are abundant. However, in Lisburn, which people come to from surrounding villages and rural communities and, often, have to carry their shopping or their children or accompany elderly relatives, car access is essential.

The operators of out-of-town shopping centres know that. They offer free, unlimited parking and easy access. Where do people go? They go where it is convenient. Rather than supporting local businesses, they go where parking does not feel like a penalty. We need to make visiting Lisburn as frictionless as possible. Every barrier, whether it is a meter, a confusing app, an overly strict time limit or the anxiety, which I feel, about whether the app is working and whether I have got a ticket, discourages people from coming into my city centre. Often, one hour's parking is not enough to allow a visitor to do their messages, meet a friend for a coffee or browse our independent shops. People should not have to rush back to their car mid-conversation, mid-meal or mid-purchase. However, we have to be realistic about what we can do here. We have created a system that favours the quick errand, not the lingering visit, and it is the lingering visit that sustains our high street.

For around 60 years, since the Lisburn Chamber of Commerce's earliest meetings, parking has been one of the retailers' greatest concerns. Decades later, the same issues persist. We are still talking about lost trade and frustrated shoppers in streets that are empty earlier than they should be. Many years ago, I was a butcher in Lisburn. I worked six days a week. I suppose that I have romantic memories of walking around the town carrying meat parcels into shops and round restaurants when the high street thrived — and it did. Sadly, we have lost that. We are talking about lost trade and a frustrating disconnect with the people who call Lisburn "home".

Without meaningful action from DFI, Lisburn, like Newry, risks losing the commercial heart that has sustained it for generations. What do we propose? At the very least, there should be a free first hour of on-street parking. That is a balanced, common-sense reform. It would encourage people to get back into the city, take their time, support local traders and get to know one another once again. It would not remove enforcement altogether, but it would restore fairness and flexibility. It would send a clear signal that Lisburn is open, welcoming and ready to compete. Such a change would be simple to implement and widely supported. Public engagement has shown overwhelming public support for a better solution for parking in Lisburn. People want to shop local and support small businesses. They just need a system that makes that possible.

As I said, before Minister Kimmins was a Minister, she stood with the campaign to remove the charges. I hope that, now, as Minister, she can complete that journey. Lisburn is not asking for charity; we are asking for fairness. The city has one of the most vibrant communities in Northern Ireland. It is consistently rated as one of the best places to live in Northern Ireland. That reputation should be reflected in the vitality of our city centre offering. We should make it easier, not harder, for people to come to, shop in and belong to Lisburn. Our high street is not just an economic engine; it is part of Lisburn's identity. It is the heartbeat of the community. Every small retailer, every café and, on a Tuesday, every market stall contributes to that heartbeat, and every empty parking bay represents a lost opportunity to keep that heart beating strongly.

Let us act. Let us end the outdated, unfair policy that singles out Lisburn and Newry. Let us adopt a fair and consistent approach across Northern Ireland. As a minimum and as a first step, let us introduce a free first hour of on-street parking. It is a simple change that would make a world of difference because, when Lisburn thrives, Lagan Valley thrives and Northern Ireland benefits. A fair parking policy is not a small matter but a signal of how we value our towns, traders and people.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Paul Givan. You have approximately six minutes in which to speak in the debate.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thanks to my friend and colleague Robbie Butler for securing the Adjournment debate. I know that the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee will also make some comments in his role.

I will not elaborate on some of the points that Mr Butler has made. I agree with a lot of what he has said about the importance of our on-street car parking. The issue has been raised on countless occasions. He rightly highlighted the fact that there was a time when the current Minister actively campaigned for these things to be dealt with. She now holds an important role in our Executive and has an opportunity to do something about the very issues on which she campaigned as an MLA. That is the benefit of being able to move from the Back Benches into ministerial office. I look forward to positive announcements during the Adjournment debate.

One of the issues that has been raised in the past is the time at which enforcement comes into operation. Mr Butler referenced the one-hour-free aspect to encourage people. Enforcement practices also take place when there is ample car parking; the times at which it starts in the morning and concludes in the evening are not at peak periods. I think that we can all agree that, during those peak hours, when people come into Lisburn to go to coffee shops and retail centres, we want to have a flow of traffic. We do not want a scenario in which people park on street all day in close proximity to retail areas. That is not conducive to our local economy. However, I question why enforcement takes place at certain hours of the day when there is no need for it because there is often ample parking opportunity.

I want to bring a connected issue to the Assembly this evening: the abuse of blue badges. An increasing number of complaints come to me in Lisburn, particularly from elderly people, who are rightly entitled to a blue badge for accessible parking on single yellow lines yet are not able to access it because so many other vehicles are also able to avail themselves of it. I question, first, how some people seem to be able to access a blue badge and, secondly, how robust the test is when it comes to mobility. I also believe that there are people who are placing the blue badge of a family member in their vehicle and then leaving it. It is difficult to enforce that and police it because you need to be able to check the person's vehicle and the blue badge. Enforcement people have told me that, when they say to people, "Can you turn round the badge so that we can see the image on it?", they refuse to do so. That is a real challenge that we need to understand. Anecdotally, it appears that there is abuse. It is right that the blue badge scheme is there for people who are entitled to accessible car parking, but the integrity of that scheme needs to be protected. I have real concerns that it is being undermined. I would like to hear more about that from the Department for Infrastructure. The Minister may not be able to provide that information to me today — it is not specific to the Adjournment debate — but I would certainly appreciate a written response as a follow-up.

I very much support the endeavours that have been made by my colleague in the area. They build on previous representations that a number of us have made. I think that all of us in the Lagan Valley constituency would support progress being made on the issue.

Mr Honeyford: I am really delighted to speak on the issue today. I thank my colleague and friend Robbie from Lagan Valley for securing the Adjournment debate. I also thank the Minister for being with us to listen.

Parking might seem like a small issue on the surface, but, in Lisburn, it is tied to the life of our city centre, how people use it and whether businesses thrive or survive. I am deeply passionate about the regeneration of our city. I have talked about it regularly in the Chamber and in Committee. I continue to look at how we can repurpose and revitalise the Bow Street and Market Square area to bring it into 2025 and think about what it will look like in 2035 and 2045.

In my discussions, parking in the city centre is something that is raised time and again. Over the past year, I have been asking people for their views on the city centre, and parking has always been part of the discussion. I continue to engage with people and listen to their opinions. I am currently carrying out a survey on the topic. Surveys are often carried out: for example, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) came to the Economy Committee with a survey about British businesses and the Windsor framework.

Four times as many people have responded to my survey than responded to the FSB survey. That is the level of engagement that we have had: responses from people who live, work and shop in Lisburn, who come from our city and who visit our city regularly. Those are the voices of people who actually use the place. They are not views or opinions but real experiences, and their voice is what I want to highlight tonight.

Robbie dealt really well with the issues. I just want to put some substance to that, because the message that came back was really clear, and I want to highlight a few of those points. First, it was around cost. At the moment, it costs £1 an hour to park on the street. We asked what people thought of that. Two thirds — 67% — of the people who responded said that it was not good value. A lot of the comments were not just about the price but about the principle, with people feeling that they were being charged simply to try to keep their local city centre alive. They pointed out that neighbouring towns — Robbie referenced this — are either cheaper or do not charge for parking. We are seeing footfall drop and flow to those towns instead, and we all know what happens: when the footfall goes, the businesses and everything else go too.

The second issue, which has also been raised, is the one-hour limit. That really hit a nerve when the question was asked: 90% of people who responded said that one hour was not long enough. It makes absolute sense, and I declare an interest as well. I have regularly got one of those yellow stickers on my car — once for a stay of one hour and six minutes, when I had nipped into the office and got on to a phone call. I paid, and that is fine, but an hour does not let you go to the shop. It does not allow you to meet friends, to go for a coffee, to grab lunch. One person in the survey said, "You go in looking at the time rather than enjoying what you are in the town for." That tells the entire story. When we asked the obvious follow-up questions: "Would two hours work better? Would two hours of free on-street parking make you more likely to shop in Lisburn?", the answer came back, and 82% said yes; 82% of everybody who posted said, "That would make a difference". Most of those people said that they would be much more likely to use their town centre, so it is not a marginal preference. It is a clear ask from local people for something practical that would help.

Finally, I want to highlight another issue that has been raised. Actually, Paul raised it. It is not about being anti-regulation or anti-enforcement. I have just told you that I got a ticket for parking for an hour and six minutes. People understand that there have to be rules, but what came through really strongly is the tone of the enforcement. Many people described it as "really too heavy-handed", the kind of approach that makes you think twice about even getting out of the car. If the experience makes people feel stressed, they will simply choose to go elsewhere. As Paul was speaking, I was reminded of an elderly gentleman who came into my office in the past month. He had a blue badge and was parked just outside. He had left his grandkids in the car to go to the bank. When he came back, he saw that his grandkids had lifted the badge to look at his picture and had turned it upside down — the same way up, but upside down. He got a ticket because the badge was not sitting clearly for people to see. That is the kind of tone that we need to call out and change.

We ask the Department to review on-street parking for a couple of issues. I genuinely thank the Minister for joining us and listening to all of us as we raise these issues. I would say that we need two hours' free on-street parking and, at the very least, the maximum stay should be extended to two hours. Those are things that we absolutely need in Lisburn. Secondly, it is that piece: we all understand that there needs to be enforcement. Paul referenced it, and I agree. We need people to move on and to keep that flow of people coming through the city, but we need to ensure that enforcement supports our town.

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

Mr Boylan: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I realise that the Minister, who is my constituency colleague, is well familiar with Newry. It does not surprise me that Mr Honeyford stayed for one hour and six minutes and got a fine.

I speak today as my party's spokesperson on transport and as a constituency MLA who fully recognises the issues that the debate sponsor has raised. It is clear to us all that our town centres and high streets are very different places from what they were when the original restrictions on parking were developed. With greater consumer use of online shopping, our high streets face challenges in attracting people to retail units and shops. It is therefore welcome that we are having this Adjournment debate today to put a focus on exploring ways in which to encourage people to visit our towns and high streets, not deter them from doing so. Having spoken to the Minister about the topic, and knowing how aware she is of the issues facing constituencies such as Lagan Valley and her own, I am certain that she is keen to play her part to create a busier shopping culture for businesses not just in Lisburn but in Newry and right across the North.

A certain degree of flexibility on parking restrictions is needed around the time that people can spend parked in the one spot to help attract them to nearby businesses. We must ensure, however, that any future flexibility is not at the detriment of those same businesses, given that long-stay parking, quite possibly for a full day, as many other Members mentioned, also creates challenges for our town centres and high streets.

I welcome the opportunity to speak today on this important topic. I hope that the Minister can, in the future, work to ensure that her Department supports our town centres and high streets to flourish.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for Lagan Valley for securing this important topic for debate. My colleague Pat Catney, who has campaigned relentlessly on the issue for many years, will be pleased that it is being discussed as it relates to Lisburn in Lagan Valley.

I rise to speak on the matter of on-street parking charges. The issue not only plagues Lisburn but impacts on people in Newry. The people of Newry are required from the outset to pay for on-street parking. Between January 2024 and June 2025, there were 372 parking tickets issued for every 1,000 residents in Newry — the highest number of tickets issued per capita in the North. That over-enforcement is rooted in Newry's controlled parking zone status. That is unfair; plain and simple. Why should people in Newry be subjected to heavy-handed enforcement?

Between 2023 and 2025, 763 penalty charge notices were successfully appealed in the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area. The fact that such a large number of tickets was successfully overturned further emphasises just how excessively such charges are meted out. It should not be the responsibility of the people of Newry or Lisburn to appeal those baseless tickets in order to avoid fines. It is the responsibility of the Minister for Infrastructure to ensure that people are not taken advantage of by overzealous enforcement.

In 2021, Liz Kimmins MLA — I thank the Minister for being present here today to hear this important debate — called on the then Minister for Infrastructure, Nichola Mallon, to address the issue. Ms Kimmins stated:

Ms Kimmins, the now Minister, said that in 2021.

I submitted a question for written answer on the issue. In the answer that was provided on 7 October, the Minister for Infrastructure, Ms Kimmins, stated of the controlled parking zone in Newry:

Minister, why the sudden change of heart? Why the volte-face? Why the U-turn? Why change your stance on the issue when you have the power of your ministerial post —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr McNulty.

Mr McNulty: — to implement trial parking?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr McNulty, one second. I do not want to rise, given the constructive tone of the debate, but I remind you that we are speaking about on-street parking charges in Lisburn. It is courteous to remember that the Member was granted the Adjournment debate to discuss that topic.

Mr McNulty: The one-hour parking zone in Lisburn is exactly the same as the one-hour parking zone in Newry.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Except that one is in Lisburn and one is in Newry [Laughter.]

Mr McNulty: Yes, it is the same principle. As the Minister believed in 2021, before she was Minister, we should be trying to uplift local businesses by encouraging people to visit the city centre, not punishing those who do with undue charges. Traders and businesses in Newry are angry about the parking regimes in our city and in Lisburn, which discourage shoppers from coming into those city centres, sending them to other places where parking is more accessible.

The Minister is yet to respond to my question for written answer in which I have asked for:

Without that transparency, it is hard for people to trust the merits of the parking charges against the cost that is borne by consumers. I call upon the Minister for Infrastructure to stick to her words and to reconsider the controlled parking zone status of Newry and Lisburn. I strongly urge the Minister to support the trial, which she suggested, of one-hour free parking in Newry, Lisburn and other controlled parking areas to achieve the goal of better parking turnover and sharing of urban spaces while allowing people sufficient time to park and enjoy our cities, without charge.

Lisburn residents, Newry residents, shoppers, traders and visitors are not asking for anything special; they are asking for fairness. They are asking the Minister to let them compete on a level playing field, with a fair parking policy and one-hour free parking. Minister, be true to your word and introduce one-hour free parking. That is all that we are asking for.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Peter Martin. Although he is not speaking in this capacity, he is the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am speaking in my capacity as a DUP MLA who leads on infrastructure. I have learned a lot from the debate this evening. I learned a lot about Lisburn and Newry, and I am worried that I will incur your wrath, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I use the word "Bangor" as much as my colleague across the way said "Newry". I will be cognisant of that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): A precedent has been set.

Mr Martin: I do not think that I will make that bar, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am aware of the situation in Lisburn, and I will make some general comments around it. As I approached the debate, I learned that there were 240 on-street car parking spaces within the controlled zone that Mr McNulty referenced. I, too, have fallen victim to that — not in Lisburn, and certainly not in Newry, but in Bangor, where my office is located just across the way from an on-street car park. I have to admit that I have got a ticket, twice. The challenge for me was how I would manage to pay the fines without my wife finding out about them. I had to be expeditious in that regard.

We are incredibly fortunate in Bangor in that we have free parking in those areas. It does not affect our residents in the same way that it does in Newry or Lisburn. The impact of that is that it encourages people to come into the shopping areas to shop, which is what we all want. As has been reflected in the debate, keeping the traffic flowing through a town is incredibly important in helping to keep the high street open. There is a wide range of views, and Mr Honeyford reflected some of them. We have to be cognisant of the need, from a business perspective, to ensure that that throughput is maintained. If we transferred all that car parking and said, "You can park here for four hours, free", businesses would come back and say, "That's too long, because those spaces need to be freed up so that other people can come in and shop in the area".

Let us bear it in mind that local businesses are competing with large out-of-town shopping centres that offer free car parking. While the signs may say that it is four hours, it is for as long as people want it to be.

I also have a question for the Minister. I am cognisant of the fact that she may not know the answer, so I am more than happy for her to get back to me in writing. Minister, last month, you signalled that a new parking enforcement contract was coming into effect. I quote:

Are you willing and able to outline what the strategy will achieve? The Committee may have a look at the matter.

There are definitely areas of compromise, and I agree with my colleague and others in the Chamber that the idea of one hour of free car parking is where we should land. We know that our high streets are under enormous pressure from internet shopping and, to a degree, out-of-town shopping. Whatever else we take away from this evening's debate, we have to listen to the traders in our town centres about how we can support them, but we also have to facilitate for them the best shopping experience that we can. We are all aware of the concept of shop local — sometimes it is #shoplocal — and that is important for towns such as Lisburn and Bangor. With that slogan in our mind, we also have to keep the focus on how we best facilitate our constituents who want to shop local and go into town to buy a coffee, a bun or some produce. The concept that Mr Butler mentioned of an hour's free parking at the start of the period would be one way of achieving that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate. I call the Minister of Infrastructure to respond.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Mr Deputy Speaker, how long do I have?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have 10 minutes.

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

I thank Robbie Butler for securing the Adjournment debate. It may come as a surprise to Members that I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak about car parking. I have raised the issue for many years. I work extremely closely with businesses, particularly those in my constituency, and I have done so consistently throughout my time not just as an MLA but as a councillor. I have also worked in the health centre in Lisburn, and I have told some of my Lagan Valley colleagues that I too have fallen foul of the wardens, having come out of my work as a social worker to find a lovely ticket on my windscreen. I have a note in front of me, but I will probably go way off it, because everything that has been said this evening is absolutely where my head is and where it has been for some time.

I tried to research how controlled parking zones came in. They were introduced in 2008 at the request of local businesses, because there was significant parking congestion at that time, particularly in Belfast, Lisburn and Newry. A consultation process took place, and other procedures had to be followed. Controlled parking zones were then introduced in an effort to support businesses. Up until the early 2010s, they worked well. Since then, however, we have seen dramatic changes in our town centres and in the ways in which people shop. We are now very much in a space in which people do not have the same incentives to go into our town centres. The nature of how we shop has changed, because we have moved online or to out-of-town options, which, given the busy lives that we all lead, can seem more attractive to many people. Our "Town centre first" approach has been strong across the North. We have to look at the changes that have occurred over the years.

My constituency colleague Mr McNulty was vociferous in his advocacy of the removal of parking charges or of one hour of free parking. I am delighted that he has been able to find the quotes, because, unlike some, I am consistent in what I say. Back in 2021, when I raised it with his colleague, the then SDLP Minister for Infrastructure, I asked for a trial of one hour of free parking in response to the ask from local businesses. That trial never came in the time that she was in post; in fact, I did not get the support of my constituency colleague for that demand. I will quote him. When I raised it with the Minister on one of many occasions, all of which are on the record, the Member said, in asking a supplementary question, that he welcomed the:

— four years later, we have not seen that road map —

Mr McNulty: Of course there are other issues.

Ms Kimmins: When you checked my quote, you should have checked your own.

Mr Butler: She has officials to do it for her.

Ms Kimmins: They did not. I did that myself.

I am not being facetious when I say that, when I commit to something, I absolutely commit to it. I listen to businesses and have been doing so for a long time. When I came into my post nine months ago, I asked for a meeting with officials at the first opportunity to look at the available options. It is not as straightforward as lifting the regulations tomorrow. There is a legislative process. I have gone back and forward — my officials will attest to this — to look at what we can do. We also have to strike a balance, and some Members have articulated that well today. I know from my conversations with businesses in recent weeks that they do not want a free-for-all either, because that is not conducive to keeping trade moving.

Mr McNulty: There is no problem.

Ms Kimmins: No. I am not saying that anyone is saying that.

We need to look at how we can test the change. I am looking at that. I said that there were no plans because I do not have a plan at present. We are working through options because we want to find the best way of testing the change so that we can reflect in it the needs of businesses and shoppers and other people who want to come into our town centres. My office, like Mr McNulty's, is on one of the main streets in Newry. We get — Cathal will attest to this from the times that he comes in for meetings — a lot of people in our office who probably come straight from their car to see whether we can help them appeal a ticket. That has been happening for many years.

I am acutely aware of the real concerns for businesses and traders at a time when they have suffered blow after blow, from being hit with COVID to the cost-of-living crisis and the growth of online shopping and out-of-town retail. That has all had an impact. I want to look at that, but I want to do so sensibly so that we can test it. I am looking at something that we could do over the festive period.

The point about the difference between Belfast and Lisburn and Newry is very pertinent. Belfast has the Glider and other public transport options, so, generally, people do not even want to travel in by car because they like that flexibility. There is good public transport, and we recently introduced late-night transport, so there are many more options. For people in the likes of Lisburn and Newry, however, that is not always the case.

We do not want people to feel under pressure. Members can disagree with me on this point if they feel that it is wrong, but most people do not mind paying for parking. It is more about the pressure of having to rush back to your car if there is a £45 or, indeed, a £90 fine.

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Kimmins: I have a lot to get through, and I want to finish, because I am tight for time.

I am acutely aware that we need to do something. I have some options to look at, and we are going back and forth on them. We will try to do something around the Christmas period if possible. It would obviously be something that does not require us to change legislation, because that is a lengthy process. It is important to reflect on why the charges came into place. There was a need for them, but we are now in a different space, and I recognise the need to review how beneficial they are.

I will reflect on some of the questions that were asked. Paul Givan raised the abuse of blue badges. I agree that it is difficult to police that. Traffic attendants are trained to identify the misuse of a blue badge, and they take enforcement measures where they are able to; in fact, there is a full-time traffic attendant in Belfast who deals specifically with the fraudulent use of blue badges. I recognise that it is difficult to challenge someone about that. However, if an individual is using it in place of the badge-owner, who is not with them, the owner's photograph is on the badge, so I imagine that that is the key to determining what is going on.

The new contract for the app started on 1 November. People can use it to buy time, rather than having the app running indefinitely and overpaying because they forget to switch it off. Hopefully, that will be beneficial, but there is a balance to be struck.

Mr Butler: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Kimmins: I have already said — very quickly.

Mr Butler: I appreciate that, because you have used up all your time on Newry. I have two questions about what you are hoping to do. Will it be for the forthcoming festive period, and would you be open to looking at the fines? Rather than a £45 fine, would you consider a £5 per hour fine that is added every hour that someone is late but does not discourage people from staying in the space, even for an hour, so that they can continue shopping?

Ms Kimmins: That is a good suggestion. It is something that we can take away. I am keen to have an initiative during the festive period, and I am working out what that would look like. We are restricted by the time frames and what can be done without legislation. If I am able to do so, I intend to take something forward that will allow us to test flexibility around parking. We need to see whether it will work. If it results in absolute chaos and the traders come back and say that it is not working, so be it. We have to find a way to test it.

The other side of that — I am sure that the Minister on the Benches opposite will empathise with me on this — is that, at a time when public funds are limited, it would take out revenue that we probably have accounted for. We have to balance that. We have figures on what the impact would be. I would, however, argue that it would increase the numbers of people coming in to the towns, who will be paying for parking. I am not an accountant, but that is why we have to test it and get a real sense of the implications.

My commitment to Members today is that I absolutely hear what everyone has said. As I said, I have advocated strongly for a solution for many years, and I still hold that position. I recognise that we need to listen to traders and the wider community. We need to see what we can do to give people a leg up, essentially. We need to revitalise our town centres, bring people in and show them that we are open for business and that they do not need to go out of town. We need to bring our town centres back to life. I will keep Members updated as I progress through the options that I am looking at.