Official Report: Monday 08 December 2025

Mr Speaker: I have received correspondence from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in relation to my referral to the Executive of the decision of the Minister for the Economy to instruct officials to prepare additional measures to eliminate any risk of public funds being used to support the manufacture of arms or components that are used for genocide. The advice was that no consensus was reached on whether the Minister for the Economy's decision contravenes section 28A(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as to whether that decision related to a significant or controversial matter, or regarding any actions. I will arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Assembly Library.

Ms Ennis: While the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) was making its mind up as to whether 20,000 dead Palestinian children was quite enough to remove Israel from the Eurovision Song Contest, Ireland, Spain, Slovenia and the Netherlands acted under the weight of their own conscience and took the morally correct decision to withdraw from Eurovision and not allow themselves to be used to normalise and sanitise Israel and its crimes. It is wholly unconscionable that it has been left to national broadcasters to be the moral compass of the competition in the face of the abject cowardice and hypocrisy shown by the EBU.

In 2022, Russia was, rightly, expelled from the competition following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The EBU said at the time that Russia had brought the contest into disrepute. No such consensus was reached about Israel on the genocide in Gaza. Somehow, the starvation, the mass graves, the 70,000 dead Palestinians — 25,000 of them children — the bombed-out hospitals, the dozens of murdered journalists, the flattened neighbourhoods and the live-streamed horror of a people being annihilated does not bring the contest into disrepute. That death toll continues to rise by an average of seven people a day, despite a ceasefire.

We know, because it has been documented, that Israel uses Eurovision as a soft-power tool to sanitise its image and to deflect from its atrocities in Gaza. Eurovision is, essentially, a branding exercise to repackage its apartheid reality as progressive, LGBTQ-friendly, multicultural and fun. When it hosted Eurovision in 2019, Israel erased Palestinians entirely, fined a contestant for holding a Palestinian flag and, much like the Education Minister, showcased illegally occupied territories as Israeli land. Audiences are no longer buying it, however, and broadcasters, artists and viewers across Europe are confronting the obvious fact that Eurovision has become a platform for laundering Israeli state crimes.

I read over the weekend that the deputy First Minister thinks that boycotts do not work. Deputy First Minister, they do work, and I am quite sure that Emma Little-Pengelly is familiar with South Africa. If she does not believe me that boycotts work, maybe she will listen to a South African caller to LBC radio on Friday, who, when asked whether boycotts work, said:

The withdrawal of the Irish, Spanish, Dutch, Slovenian and now Flemish broadcasters was a human response and an act of resistance, and I call on the BBC to follow their example. If the contest is to survive, we, the fans, need to stop it being used as an apartheid talent show. We cannot be complicit in the cultural artwashing that exists to distract from a genocide that Europe continues to arm, fund, excuse and sanitise.

Mr Robinson: The date of 6 December is one that is ingrained in my mind, as it was a dark day in my childhood in 1982. However, it was an even darker day for so many other others. It was the date on which evil descended upon the village of Ballykelly, when republican terrorists decided that they would plant a bomb in the Droppin' Well nightclub, killing 17 young people who were having a night out three weeks before Christmas. Protestants and Catholics, the terrorists did not care who they killed. They could not care less who they injured, some with terrible, lifelong injuries. As I said last year, the bombing was an act of evil republican terrorist violence that served no purpose and advanced no cause other than to rob families of loved ones and remove good and decent human beings from this world. While it is a dark date for me from my childhood — I can clearly remember the wail of emergency vehicles — it is an even darker day for those who are left with an empty chair at this time of year and for those who have the mental and physical scars to this day.

Again, I thank the Cheshire Regiment Association, which ensures that, every year, those who suffered by the evil that was inflicted upon that village and its people are remembered by an annual solemn event in Tamlaght Finlagan. While others wish to stand on the side of evil and terror, I am always proud to stand, every year, shoulder to shoulder with the innocent to show them that we support them and that we still, and always will, care after the passing of all those years. It truly sickens me to the core that gullible young people are brainwashed to believe that individuals who sneak in and plant a 5 kg bomb in a pillar to bring a roof down upon young people having a night out at Christmastime and who then scurry away are heroes and so-called brave defenders of their bloody, filthy terrorist cause. Let us call it as it is: only murdering psychopaths, blinded by hatred, would do such a thing. Parents and those with responsibility must tell young people that there is nothing to celebrate in terrorism, that it was as wrong then as it is today and that it should never be repeated and can never be justified. I tell that to my child, who is the same age that I was when that dastardly evil was brought on the people of the beautiful and peaceful village of Ballykelly.

Mrs Guy: I rise to congratulate two amazing organisations from our community, the Live Life Well-Being Centre and Ballymacash Sports Academy, on being awarded the prestigious King's Award for voluntary service. That is the highest honour that a volunteer-led group can receive in the UK and is often described as the MBE for organisations. To see not one but two groups from our area recognised in that way is an exceptional achievement and a testament to the incredible work that is happening on the ground in Lagan Valley.

The Live Life Well-Being Centre's recognition marks an important first because it is the first time that a group of disabled young people has received that award.

Live Life director of services, Philip Reain-Adair, recently highlighted the type of contribution that the young people make, which includes knitting hundreds of small woollen hats for neonatal unit at the Belfast Royal Children's Hospital, bucket collecting for local charities, supporting local food banks and providing entertainment to nursing home residents.

The dedicated volunteers at Ballymacash Sports Academy show what community-led sports can achieve by giving opportunities to all regardless of age, gender or ability, improving people's mental and physical health. They have demonstrated a genuine commitment to inclusion and are focused on meeting the needs of the local community. What they have built is pretty remarkable and a credit to everyone involved. Commenting on the award, the chairman of Ballymacash Sports Academy, Philip Trimble, said:

As an MLA, I have been warmly welcomed by both groups, and I know that their volunteers do what they do not for recognition or applause but because they care and genuinely want to improve the lives of people in our community. It is inspiring and appreciated. Congratulations to you all.

Mr Burrows: I address a matter of immense public interest. There are no outstanding criminal proceedings in relation to this matter.

The office of Police Ombudsman is one of the most significant in Northern Ireland. The ombudsman exercises vast powers, is paid a vast salary, has ongoing access to top-secret material, investigates the most serious complaints against police officers and issues legacy reports to this day.

Following an incident at Marie Anderson's house on the 22 to 23 September, the West Midlands Police Service conducted a lengthy police investigation. It submitted a file to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) for the offences of perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office. On 9 October this year, the PPS determined that there was insufficient evidence to proceed, and Ms Anderson is, as a matter of law, innocent. However, serious questions about conduct remain.

Shortly after the incident, the media asked the Department of Justice and the ombudsman organisation whether Ms Anderson had tendered her resignation after the incident. They refused to answer. I can now report that Ms Anderson tendered her resignation on 24 September 2023 at 9.38 pm to the permanent secretary at the Department of Justice. Within one hour, the DOJ permanent secretary had said that the resignation would be parked and no action would be taken. I want to know who was involved in making that decision. Was there any political involvement? Why was such a decision made in such rushed way on a Sunday night? That decision is hugely consequential, because the Police Ombudsman has been, off and on, absent from work for a significant period. There has been much speculation about the inability to suspend the Police Ombudsman, yet there was an opportunity to take that resignation right at the outset of the incident.

There are further concerns. There is clear and unchallenged evidence that the Police Ombudsman, during the incident at her home and in the days after, discouraged a member of her own staff from providing a statement to the Police Service about a live criminal investigation and that she divulged confidential information about an ombudsman investigation to a family member, who then confronted a third party with that information. Those are serious issues, which pose serious concerns about the integrity, fitness for office and security clearance of the Police Ombudsman, but we cannot get any answers.

Last year, I revealed that there were no powers to suspend an ombudsman, even if they were charged with murder. If they were out on bail, they could walk into their office. Too many people have been asleep at the wheel for too long in relation to the ombudsman's office. I call on the Executive Office and the Justice Minister to urgently clarify the position of the Police Ombudsman and update the House.

Mr Durkan: I will speak briefly about the severe challenges facing Nazareth House Primary School and St Eugene's Primary School in Derry. Both schools are dealing with unacceptable, unsafe structural issues and huge uncertainty. Our children and families are feeling the impact.

Even in the midst of the disruption, the dedication of the staff in both schools has been exceptional. Their professionalism, compassion and resilience are keeping the school communities together.

They have adapted at speed, reassured pupils and continued to deliver high-quality learning under immense pressure. I pay sincere tribute to every teacher, classroom assistant, principal and member of support staff, as well as to the wider community, which has rallied to support them.

Let me be clear: the roofs did not fall in overnight. Issues had been flagged for almost two decades. If appropriate action had been taken earlier, those crises could — would — have been avoided. Timely investment and appropriate intervention would have spared families, staff and pupils the huge inconvenience and uncertainty that they are now forced to endure. It is beyond time for the Department of Education and the Education Authority (EA) to act decisively to provide immediate and safe learning spaces and to put in place and communicate a firm, funded plan to address long-overdue repairs and rebuilds.

While the leaders of those schools ask, "What next?", others who are fighting similar, seemingly endless battles for funding to address similar structural issues will be asking, "Where next?". Without a proper review of and investment in the maintenance of our crumbling school estate, we will see more forced closures of schools and the chaos that comes with that.

To the staff of Nazareth House Primary School and St Eugene's Primary School and to all those other schools out there, I say this: thank you. We will continue to stand with you and fight for the facilities and investment that our children deserve.

Mr Delargy: I will speak on a matter that will come as no shock to Members, because, for around a week, my party has been clear about the situation at Nazareth House Primary School and the fact that children in my constituency are being denied the opportunity to go to school. Last week, I requested an urgent meeting with the Minister of Education. I got a holding response and have received nothing since. Clearly, the Department of Education's definition of "urgent" is different from mine.

No proper solutions have been put in place. Temporary use of a community facility for a time-bound period — until only Christmas — for some children, in confined circumstances, does not cut it. It is not the job of the principal, school staff or parents to do the job of the Education Authority or the Department of Education. In the run-up to Christmas, when schools are thriving and children are excited to be in school, it is particularly bad. While many local people have stepped in to provide some facilities, children are still being denied their fundamental right to teaching, learning and a proper education.

The situation should come as no surprise to the Department of Education, because a business case for the roof was submitted in 2017. Over eight years on, nothing has happened. For maintenance work, the first of the EA's own criteria prioritises:

yet a recent report by the Public Accounts Committee, on which I sit, showed clearly that there has been poor prioritisation by the Education Authority, and I can think of no clearer example than Nazareth House. In Derry, within a mile of each other, there is one school whose roof has collapsed and another that has had to close because its roof is about to collapse. That will not be lost on the people of Derry, particularly when, in the past year, another school in Derry received a fourth pitch despite not having made a bid for it and despite already being awash with other sporting facilities.

The people of Derry have been failed by successive DUP Education Ministers. The work should be a ministerial priority. The Minister should meet us, as local elected representatives, and go to Derry to meet school leaders and to give parents answers and certainty about what happens next for the children of Nazareth House Primary School.

Mr Buckley: On 16 April 2025, For Women Scotland secured a landmark victory for common sense and for women across the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the word "woman" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex and does not include men who self-identify as women. It concluded that basic terms such as "man" and "woman" are defined by biological sex, not by someone's preferred gender. That has meant a great deal to women in protecting their personal space, their sport and their safety. It is not hard, Mr Speaker. It has never been hard for the vast majority of our common-sense constituents. They know, despite First Minister Michelle O'Neill not knowing, that men should never be able to enter female toilets, that men should never be allowed to compete in women-only sports and that men self-identifying as women should never be able to compromise the privacy rights of biological females.

We thought that, finally, balance was being restored, only to find out in the past week that that common-sense ruling is being challenged by those with ulterior motives. In order to undermine that historic ruling, the argument is that a biological man can somehow magically become a female while on a ferry from Stranraer to Larne. It is literally ridiculous. I have heard of seasickness, but promoting such a narrative really is sick indeed. It is none other than the chief defender of woke causes in Northern Ireland — the Equality Commission — that is taking the case. It is attempting to claim that the Windsor framework's article 2 rights have supremacy over our Supreme Court's ruling. Guess who is paying, Members? The taxpayer.

Make no mistake: this has come about as a result of weak, far-left lily-livered politicians in this place from parties such as Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party, who cannot state basic facts such as that a man is a man and a woman is a woman. It will have consequences. The voters are no fools. They understand what is means to be a man and a woman, and it is high time that Members in the Chamber caught on too.

Mr Donnelly: I draw attention today to the findings of Marie Curie's report entitled 'Dying in Poverty in Northern Ireland 2025'. I recently attended and took part in a discussion on the report launch with the Marie Curie team. It was an incredibly powerful event that highlighted the desperate and inhumane situations that those in their final days face at a time when they need the most support. No one deserves to die in poverty.

The report sets out a stark and deeply troubling reality for people in Northern Ireland and discusses the rise in poverty, specifically fuel poverty, for those at the end of life. Dying in poverty is not inevitable, but, for too many people, it has become their expected reality. The testimonies in the report make for harrowing reading. Extremely sick people have been forced to choose between heat and food, using credit cards to keep the lights on while undergoing chemotherapy. Individuals too unwell to work have been forced to because they lack the income that they need to survive. Those stories highlight a deeply inhumane crisis affecting people when they are at their most vulnerable.

The report states that being in the last year of life is a significant risk factor for falling into poverty, and the rates are getting worse: 20% of people in their last year of life are estimated to be in poverty, rising to 27% if we look at fuel poverty specifically. Council areas in Northern Ireland such as Derry City and Strabane; Belfast; Newry, Mourne and Down; and Causeway Coast and Glens are in the top 20 in the UK for the highest fuel poverty rates during the last year of life. We need to recognise that rising levels of poverty at the end of life do not occur in isolation; they mirror structural inequalities that have gone unaddressed for too long, including gaps in income support, limited access to specialist palliative care services and the absence of coordinated planning across Departments. People receive support only when they reach crisis point or, in some cases, not at all. A more coherent approach, grounded in early intervention, predictable financial assistance and reliable data-sharing, would reduce hardship and strengthen public confidence that government is willing to meet its responsibilities to those who are least able to navigate complex systems at a time of profound vulnerability.

Marie Curie has set out recommendations, such as better identification and information-sharing to ensure that people with a terminal illness are reached quickly with support; a minimum income guarantee that includes early access to the state pension for those of working age and reforms to income support; and measures to address energy costs and to support the most vulnerable in our society in their final days. The report makes it clear that it is an issue for all levels of government, including the Assembly.

People in the last year of life deserve security and dignity, not financial crisis. The evidence that Marie Curie has presented demands a serious and coordinated response, and I urge the Executive and all parties to give the recommendations the consideration that they deserve.

Miss Dolan: I welcome the announcement by the Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, that the Ireland's Hidden Heartlands tourism branding will be extended into Fermanagh. It is incredibly positive news for our county. The Hidden Heartlands initiative has been a major success only a few miles down the road, drawing visitors, investment and new opportunities. Its expansion into Fermanagh will provide a real boost for our local tourism and hospitality sectors.

We are blessed with world-class attractions from Belleek Pottery to the Stairway to Heaven and the stunning waters of Lough Erne. The branding extension gives us the platform to showcase all that we have to offer. At a time when the all-island economy continues to strengthen, it is only sensible that we work together to unlock the full potential of tourism across our island. The campaign is set to begin next year, and I have no doubt that it will attract more visitors to Fermanagh, support jobs and grow our local economy.

I also commend Minister Caoimhe Archibald for her leadership and steadfast commitment to driving that exciting project forward since taking up office.

Mr Harvey: As we move towards Christmas and the focus of many turns to the Christmas story of the Christ child of Bethlehem's manger, I pause to remember the many babes conceived in recent months whose lives have been cut short as a result of the practice of abortion. I was saddened to see that, between April 2024 and March 2025, some 2,899 abortions were carried out in Northern Ireland, legislated for by the previous Westminster Government through the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020. This year's figure represented an increase of 3·7% on the 2023-24 reporting period, which equated to 2,795 souls.

In total, 11,192 abortions have been carried out in Northern Ireland since the new legislation came into effect and to the period ending 31 March 2025. For me, my party and countless thousands across Northern Ireland, that figure represents a mark of collective shame on our society. There are, of course, instances where compassion and medical necessity require such a course of action, but the overwhelming majority of the 2,899 abortions conducted over the past reported year were actions of convenience in which the life of the unborn was unvalued by the individuals involved and, sadly, is now unprotected by the law of the land.

The current legislative framework is far more expansive than the people of Northern Ireland were ever consulted on or wanted. The 2020 regulations were an example of how not to do government. Imposed, as it was, over the heads of democratically elected representatives in this House, it stands as the gravest of warnings to those who would advocate the virtues of London rule in preference to devolution. The injustice of that legislation, which is the most liberal to be found across these islands, continues to be an issue that those of us on these Benches will highlight and fight to overthrow. It is often stated in the discourse around the subject that both lives matter. Every life carries inherent dignity and worth. Human rights belong to everyone equally and without exception or, at least, they should.

Ms Finnegan: I rise to speak about something that matters deeply to the people of south Armagh. I will say it plainly so that there is no confusion: for the first time in over 6,000 years, the South Cairn on the summit of Slieve Gullion is closed. It is the highest surviving Neolithic passage tomb in Ireland, older than the Pyramids, aligned with the winter solstice and a place where families, walkers, tourists and schoolchildren have gathered for generations to witness sunlight travel through a stone chamber that was hand-built by our ancestors. However, this winter, for the first time in its history, they will meet a locked gate.

The Department for Communities closed the South Cairn due to safety concerns. No one disputes that safety matters, but it was closed without funding being in place to fix the issues, a clear plan or a timeline for reopening. That is the core of the problem. A monument that has survived invasion, weather, famine, plantation and conflict now has access to it stalled by bureaucracy. That tells us something that many in south Armagh already know all too well: too often, heritage is the first to be restricted and the last to be prioritised. The mountain is not geography; it is identity, memory and story. Tradition tells us that St Oliver Plunkett, Primate of All Ireland, once hid in that cairn, sheltered by the people of south Armagh, as the Crown hunted and sought to arrest him. A community that risked itself to protect its faith and culture now stands behind a fence at the very site that it safeguarded.

That history of resistance, endurance and defiance is written into the stone of Gullion. It is who we are. Yet, despite its importance, tourism and cultural value and international archaeological significance, our council area does not even carry the name south Armagh. We sit inside the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, even though south Armagh makes up more than one third of the district. Slieve Gullion is routinely marketed under the Visit Mourne brand, despite its not being in the Mourne region.

Slieve Gullion is in south Armagh, which is a region of unique heritage, mythology, language, landscape and creative energy, and we deserve to be recognised, respected and invested in. Our people should not be locked out of their own history, and our children should not grow up being told that their identity is the footnote to someone else's brand. We want transparency, clarity and a commitment to reopen access to the South Cairn, not some day or when budgets appear, but with purpose, because heritage delayed is heritage denied. As a wise woman once said, we are women of south Armagh; born of granite, we endure.

We will keep speaking up for that place, the mountain and the story until the cairn, Cailleach Berra’s house, is reopened.

Mr Speaker: I call Kate Nicholl. I ask that you confine your remarks to two minutes.

Ms Nicholl: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. If anyone is feeling a bit low about politics and needs a dose of inspiration, I have the answer. At the end of November, I had the privilege of meeting with Girlguiding Ulster in Parliament Buildings. I was grilled by them to a level of which no journalist would be capable. It was wonderful to spend time with those young women and talk about the Girls’ Attitudes Survey. This year, the 17th year of the survey, they surveyed over 2,500 girls and young women aged between seven and 21 to hear about the challenges that girls and young women right across the UK face. The survey highlights a lot of the challenges, including key concerns around sexism, misogyny in schools and challenges to mental health. It found:

It also found:

It also found that 36% of 11 to 21-year-olds say that they feel depressed after spending time on social media. Those are sobering and powerful statistics. Even more powerful is the hope and optimism in the survey report, and the action that Girlguiding is taking to turn those statistics around. The survey found:

It also found:

Of the respondents, 72% said that they want more of those opportunities. Another finding was:

I encourage all Members to read the report, engage with young people and, together, take the action that is required to support all young people in our society to develop, grow and flourish.

Mr Speaker: I inform Members that a valid petition of concern (POC) has been presented today in relation to the motion. The debate can still proceed, as can the vote on the amendment, which has not been petitioned and, therefore, requires a simple majority. However, the vote on the motion, whether it is amended or not, will not be taken today, as section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires that there must now be a 14-day consideration period. The consideration period for this petition ends on 21 December 2025.

Following that, on 22 December only, the petition may be confirmed. If the petition is confirmed by 30 Members on that day, the vote on the motion, whether or not amended, will require cross-community support. If it is not confirmed by 30 Members, the vote will require simple majority support. In either case, the vote will not take place until a date after 22 December.

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

Mr Speaker: I will take points of order in a moment.

Ms Ferguson: I beg to move

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting my point of order, which is pursuant to the ruling that you just gave us on the petition of concern. What import does a petition of concern have on what is a non-binding private Member's motion? Further, will you confirm that, even if the petition of concern were successful after the cooling-off period, it would not negative an almost verbatim motion that was moved by the official Opposition some months ago and that was not the subject of a petition of concern by any party? Will you provide clarity on those two points?

Mr Speaker: The petition of concern will apply to only the motion that is before us. It is a valid petition of concern that can be presented. I explained the new rules that apply — because we have not had a petition of concern in about 10 years: there is to be a period of 14 days before it can be reconfirmed; after that reconfirmation, we can organise to have a vote on it; if it is not reconfirmed, it will be a simple majority vote.

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. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agree to add 15 minutes to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion, Ms Ferguson.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The motion goes to the very heart of the unique position of the North of Ireland as a region that remains in the EU single market and where over one third of our people retain European citizenship as Irish passport holders and where that birthright is enshrined through our peace agreement. The motion seeks, once again, to address the democratic deficit that Brexit created and give us a stronger voice in Europe. No one has anything to fear from that.

Almost a decade ago, the majority of our citizens voted to remain within the European Union, recognising the significant social and economic benefits to our island as a whole. Those benefits include, but are not limited to, receipt of significant funding towards peace and regional development; enablement of free movement and educational opportunities for workers and students; protection of international human rights agreements; and unfettered trade. Whilst Britain ignored our democratic mandate, our Derry-based MEP at the time, Martina Anderson, got to work, carrying out a dedicated campaign alongside the wider all-Ireland Sinn Féin MEP team. That campaign fought to secure key commitments on no diminution of hard-won rights and protections as outlined in the Good Friday Agreement. The call from the Sinn Féin team in the wake of Brexit was for EU observer status for elected representatives from the North, something that the majority of Irish MEPs has now endorsed and that, I believe, the Assembly would also endorse.

Notably, as of 2022, over one third of this region's population had an Irish passport, and, therefore, Irish and European citizenship. That birthright is protected in the Good Friday Agreement, an international treaty registered with the United Nations, the provisions of which are binding under international law.

Article 3 of the Treaty on the European Union confirms that the European Union shall:

I make the case clearly today that offering observer status to our locally elected representatives will assist in upholding that duty and protecting our peace process. EU observer status enables a formal but limited form of voice and participation in Europe that includes attendance at plenary sessions and the strengthening of lines of communication. It is a practical and constructive step that we can take to strengthen our voice on the European stage.

I am confident that the public see the DUP petition of concern for what it is: a political stunt that, like the DUP's position on Brexit, is not representative of the views of the majority of people in the North and on this island, who oppose Brexit and want us to return to the EU. Only two weeks ago, DUP Members bemoaned the fact that there is a democratic deficit and a lack of representation for people here on Brexit and trading arrangements. It is therefore, in my opinion, hypocritical of DUP Members to attempt to block the motion and its practical call to give our communities greater representation.

As a Derry-based MLA, I am only too aware of the continued impacts of Brexit, which are particularly felt in border constituencies such as mine, on students, workers and the wider community. Those impacts include the continued risk to so many voluntary and community sector jobs and life-saving projects that, without adequate replacement of the funding from Europe that has been lost, will disappear. It is our families, people and communities who will suffer.

I will give one example of the ridiculous implications of Brexit. Some of our councillors recently met the North West Academy of English, which, through ERASMUS, has always hosted European students in Derry. Due to electronic travel authorisation (ETA) regulations, those students now have to stay in Donegal, limiting the potential for tourism and cultural enrichment in Derry city. The context is this: if an MEP were to try to meet students at the North West Academy of English, which is based in Derry, they would not be able to meet them there.

Additionally, vital projects are funded by the European PEACE PLUS programme, including the Cooperation and Working Together (CAWT) cross-border health and social care partnership, representatives of which I met last week. It was set up to improve all-Ireland health outcomes, yet concerns exist about its continuing post 2028. Derry, Donegal and other border counties have benefited enormously from that fund. It has, quite literally, transformed communities across the region.

Whilst we know that, in the event of Irish reunification, automatic re-entry to the European Union is guaranteed, we have a duty in the interim to enhance all-Ireland mobility, to provide businesses and workers with stability and trade continuity and to mitigate the very worst excesses of Britain's failed agenda on Ireland and its people, which include risks to health outcomes and vital support services for some of our most vulnerable people.

Additionally, we support the call for the opening of an EU Commission office in Belfast. Such an official local presence will help to support our position, which has been recognised to be unique, offering an enhanced communication channel and better support for people and small businesses that have been left bewildered.

I will finish with this: we were dragged out of Europe against our wishes, and nothing has come from Brexit for our economy and our people. There are huge opportunities ahead to continue to build momentum for a stronger and fairer Ireland and to realise our full potential as an island and a people. In the interim, in recognition of our unique, at present, position as a region, the fulfilment of observer status is a reasonable, sensible and practical step forward.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Speaker: You will have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to speak to the motion, with which we enthusiastically agree. We are so much in agreement with it that we pre-empted it by six months by putting down basically the same motion, albeit today's motion is updated with the reference to a letter calling for observer status — Sinn Féin MEPs had a part in that — which I strongly welcome.

We, obviously, have engaged with our Irish MEPs on that.

I will not hold it up, because I know that we are not supposed to brandish props, but, in front of me, I have a paper that we produced a year ago called 'Our European Future'. In it, we in the SDLP set out in detail our vision for our European future in the short term, meaning how we will achieve the like of European Parliament observer status in order to improve our responses to some of the questions and dilemmas that people have raised about our post-Brexit arrangements and to build for a European future back inside the European Union.

To be clear, those who are not in favour of our rejoining the European Union via a new Ireland should be, because they have said repeatedly, "You should be in favour of us addressing some of the issues to do with the democratic deficit that have arisen as a result of our being bound by a corpus of EU law on the single market for goods and a couple of other discrete areas". One does not guarantee the other, but we are clear that our vision is for a new Ireland that is back inside the European Union.

We are also clear that the only way for Northern Ireland to rejoin the European Union is via a new Ireland. That is because we have the unique right of automatic re-entry. It is also because British politics looks strikingly and infinitesimally unlikely to move in the direction of a full-blown rejoining of the European Union, even if, although I hope it that does, there is progress towards greater alignment and membership of the single market and the customs union. Even that currently looks unlikely. Therefore, having moved an almost identical motion six months ago, I am more than happy to support this one. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so, obviously, we are keen and delighted to debate this motion today.

I am, however, slightly surprised at the DUP pulling the stunt today of tabling a petition of concern on a non-binding motion when it did not do so six months ago on our motion. Even if the petition of concern is successful after a cooling-off period, not only will it have no effect, because it is giving an indication of the Assembly's will, but it will not matter, because the Assembly voted in favour of the topic only six months ago. The DUP did not table a petition of concern then. This is about two things: first, Sinn Féin imitating our policy, which I am happy about — it has been happening for years, we are flattered by it and that is grand; we are all on the same page on that — and, secondly, the absurdity of the DUP tabling a petition of concern on a motion that is not only non-binding but that has already been given the will of the Assembly. Regardless of whether you like it or not, a majority of Members has already supported the thrust of the motion.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way to the Education Minister in one minute. Further to what I was saying, the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voted for us to remain.

I will come back to that point, because it is germane to our amendment. I give way.

Mr Givan: Obviously, I am not intervening as Education Minister, hence my sitting on these Benches for the debate. He makes a valid point and asks a valid question about the SDLP motion that was tabled around six months ago. For the record, the DUP does not have within its gift the ability to secure a petition of concern. I welcome those in the Ulster Unionist Party and the TUV who joined the DUP in securing the petition of concern.

The Member has talked a lot about majoritarianism. [Interruption.]

He ought to know that we operate on consensus, and nationalists, along with Alliance, need to realise that cross-community consensus is the way forward, which will not be to the exclusion of unionists in the House.

Mr O'Toole: He has made a —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, but I advise Members that if they take an intervention, it is up to the Member who intervened to decide when the intervention has ended, and, when Members make an intervention, it needs to be short.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. That was not a short intervention. Clearly nothing is happening in the Northern Ireland education system if the Education Minister can afford to come in here to debate our European motion. That is fine.

I will respond, because I believe in responding in debates. There were two points from the Education Minister. He said that this place proceeds on "consensus". It proceeds on the basis of our having inclusive, pluralist government respect for one another. It does not proceed on the basis that our constitutional future is decided by cross-community consensus. That would not work, because, right now, we are still part of the UK. I do not consent to that, because I want a new Ireland. That is not how the Good Friday Agreement or, indeed, the St Andrews Agreement works, so that is a factual fallacy that pro-Brexit politicians have constantly pushed.

To come back to the point, a majority of people in Northern Ireland supported us, that is, the UK, remaining part of the EU. We were dragged out against our will. I will not go through all that history, but it is why I am a politician here, and I am sure that the DUP is delighted by that. Our best future is not in the UK as it is currently constituted but in a new Ireland inside the EU, and I will relentlessly make that case.

However, in the here and now, — as Ciara Ferguson said — there are a number of specific reasons why Northern Ireland deserves and should have EU observer status. First, as noted in the ‘Our European Future’ paper, we are distinct within the EU. First, by dint of birthright, even before Brexit, the protocol, the awful Windsor framework and all the stuff that the Members opposite hate so much, people here had an automatic right of citizenship in this part of Ireland. In fact, I should say in this part of the UK, because it is the only part of the UK where people, by birthright, have EU citizenship.

My second point is consistently made by the DUP members opposite: we are bound by EU law. They keep telling us about how we are bound by EU law, and how awful that is, specifically in relation to goods. While I do not think that it is awful, by all means, we need the opportunity to scrutinise, lobby and test, and what better opportunity could we have than through observer status? The best thing that we could have is full-blown EU membership via a new Ireland. They do not want to go there. That is fair enough — it is their position — but EU observer status in the new Parliament would at least give us that opportunity —.

Mr Frew: It is servile.

Mr O'Toole: Members across the Chamber say, "It is servile", as if we want to be in the service of the EU. Those are the same people who, last week, moaned and groaned about everything that the UK Government were doing to them — "the awful British Government that forced an awful Budget on us. Isn't it terrible, but we have to stay inside the UK as it is currently constituted.". It is the worst thing in the world to even talk about leaving the UK. They are silent now, because it is awful for me to aspire to rejoining the EU, and a united Ireland would have exactly the same vote at the European Council as every other EU member state, but we have to stay in the UK as it is currently constituted, where we, in the Chamber, can huff and puff about how much we hate the UK's Budget but can do very little about it. That is their preference, not mine. They can answer for it. Mr Frew laughs. He laughs because his position is indefensible.

Let us go back to the main thrust of the motion and the amendment: better representation for Northern Ireland's farmers and businesses on how EU law affects us. Why not? Even if you are a unionist, that makes sense.

The final point is that I aspire to full membership of the European Union, and I acknowledge that unionists do not. We are guaranteed automatic re-entry into the EU after a referendum on a new Ireland; that is guaranteed to the people of Northern Ireland. We can take that power into our hands, and that is unique. The people of Scotland cannot do that, and Ukraine, which has been bombarded by Vladimir Putin, does not have that power, and many of those people want to join the EU. That right is not automatic. The only place where it is automatic is right here. Therefore, for all those reasons, we have specific rights.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will not give way because your colleague's intervention took up so much time that I do not have enough time.

Specifically, in the here and now — I am very flattered to debate a very similar motion to the one that stood in my name a few months ago — our amendment adds something very practical: a European Commission office. What could be wrong with that? I want business groups, farmers and others who are affected by the consequences of Brexit to be able to say to the European Commission, "Actually, lads, can we engage on how that is being implemented? Can we have a bit of a conversation about that?" A European Commission office in Belfast would not jeopardise anybody's constitutional position; it would be rational and it would be a protection.

The Members opposite are not fans of this UK Government; they do not seem to be fans of any UK Government, which is ironic, because they do not want us to leave the UK. The position of the DUP appears to be that —

Mr Burrows: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr O'Toole: Point of order?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Point of order.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: No, I will not give way. If the Education Minister had not pushed his luck in taking so much time, I would be able to give way to more people.

The best future for Northern Ireland is in a new Ireland, back inside the EU. The SDLP is the most consistently pro-European party in the Chamber and will keep making that case. I welcome today's motion, and we have added our amendment to it, which seeks to support an European Commission office in Belfast. I only wish that the DUP would finally face up to the consequences of its actions, the consequences of the Brexit that it supported and the consequences of everything that it has done over the past decade. We are looking for practical solutions to improve things for people in the here and now, and that could include EU observer status in the European Parliament and, yes, a European Commission office in Belfast. In the future, I want us to be back in the European Union, and there is no reason why we cannot have better representation and accountability in the here and now. I support the motion and commend our amendment to the Assembly.

Mr Buckley: Today's motion is but yet another attempt to rewrite the Brexit referendum. It is as if Christmas has come early for the European Union. The motion is a present that is wrapped in sparkling Sinn Féin wrapping paper, because it is viewed through the lens of a united Ireland and through the lens of majoritarianism.

It will come as no surprise that the Alliance Party is falling in behind that type of proposal. The party has been on record as doing just that in many votes in the Assembly. The approach of the leader of the Opposition, Mr O'Toole, is reminiscent of that of the spoilt, crying toddler on Christmas evening who has lost his Christmas present to a cousin. He has moaned and groaned during the debate so far because other people have the same opinion as him, but — guess what? — no unionist will support the motion today. Unionists did not support such a motion when he brought one to the House, and they will not support Sinn Féin's motion today. That goes to the very heart of why a petition of concern was tabled today.

We want to talk about democratic deficits. That term was alien to those on the Benches opposite from the very genesis of the Brexit negotiations. They did not want to admit that a problem existed. They wanted hard and radical forms of protocols that would damage our businesses and destroy industry. Rigorous implementation has been mentioned. That is the approach that they adopted time and time again, but the white rabbit has now been pulled out of the hat: having observer-status MEPs will sort it all out. Sinn Féin is rather used to being an observer when it comes to parliamentary debate. Observer status is something that comes quite naturally to its MPs. In fact, observer-status MEPs would have more legitimacy than its current MPs at Westminster.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Is it not a bit rich for Sinn Féin to have tabled such a motion, which is divisive and couched in the language of majoritarianism, when it does not even take its seats at Westminster?

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

Mr Buckley: The Member makes a valid point, because, and let us get real, the motion is about misrepresenting views in Northern Ireland. Yes, some constituencies in Northern Ireland voted to remain, but some voted to leave. That was part of the democratic vote. For people to try to rewrite the outcome of the vote here time and time again further undermines trust in these institutions and, indeed, in democracy right across the United Kingdom.

I have not heard one single time when Members on the Benches opposite have been prepared to acknowledge the huge hurt that the Windsor framework and other agreements have caused to our businesses. We import some £16 billion worth of goods from GB. Full customs codes are applied, courtesy of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. We import £7 billion from the EU, yet we are hammered with bureaucracy because of the arrangements that those parties have tried to impose on the people of Northern Ireland.

Observer-status MEPs have no right to vote. They therefore have no right to influence the vote. You are so keen to talk about the issue, yet when 300 areas of law came before the Assembly, resulting in six hours of debate, the vast majority of you did not even speak. You come here, however, to howl in the wind about observer-status MEPs. It is utter hypocrisy.

The DUP tabled the petition of concern for very legitimate reasons. There is a serious attempt, via the motion, to misrepresent the views of the House, just as they were misrepresented by the EU when cross-community voting in this place was discarded to serve its agenda. It is happening again.

It was therefore right to table the petition of concern, which will stop the vote, and I pay tribute to the UUP Members and the TUV Member who signed the petition, because it is important that we ensure that those institutions that are foreign to this one understand that there is no democratic legitimacy to the arrangements that they have put in place. There is no support from one single elected unionist in this place, so it is entirely legitimate for us to use such a mechanism, and we will ensure that the voice of unionism is represented.

I want to see the issues resolved. I want to see the democratic deficit reduced. The way to do it is through votes in this place. Mr O'Toole had no care or concern when over 300 areas of law went through. He spoke for a pitiful 10 minutes on 300 areas of law, yet he wants to throw his toys out of the pram because Sinn Féin stole his motion today. Utter hypocrisy. Businesses know exactly that Mr O'Toole is all about sound bites. He is all about trying to throw around his EU credentials. Mr O'Toole was at the heart of the Downing Street team when these things were being talked about. He has been very quiet about his time there. I mean —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Can you get back to the substance of the motion, please?

Mr Buckley: Absolutely. I will, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

It is rich from the SDLP. We have seen again and again the nationalist front of the Alliance Party, propped up by the SDLP and Sinn Féin —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Buckley: — bringing motions that do not —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Buckley: — bear out reality.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Buckley: We will vote against.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Time is up.

I just want to give Members a wee warning. When I say, "Time is up", time is up, OK? It is just courtesy. [Interruption.]

Yes, good courtesy. It is also courtesy, when you are talking, to talk through the Chair and not point at other Members. I am just reminding everyone of that. [Interruption.]

Yes. OK. Much appreciated. I do not need you to agree; I am just telling you how it is.

I call Stewart Dickson.

Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. Maybe we will try to calm things down after the foot-stamping, screaming and shouting that we have just had.

The Alliance Party will support the motion today, but, before anything else, let me be clear about what the motion is and is not about. This is not a constitutional matter. Nothing in the motion alters the principle of consent or our status within the United Kingdom. What is before us today is how Northern Ireland secures a level of listening and input into processes that already shape parts of our economy by being able to simply observe. That is not a threat to anyone's identity. It is all about good governance, and it really does beg this question: why do the DUP and their colleagues in the UUP want to use a petition of concern on something that is just as easy as our ability to observe?

Our economy, supply chains and regulatory environment remain closely connected to the EU single market. That was the practical outcome of Brexit and the arrangements required to protect the unique circumstances of this region. The Windsor framework and the withdrawal agreement are how those issues are managed on a day-to-day reality. We have an Executive office in Brussels: I hear no calls to have it closed at the same time as there is refusal to have an EU office in Belfast. Those evolving arrangements have created a democratic deficit whereby we continue to be affected by EU law but no longer have a say in the institutions where that law is shaped. We are not on that Commission, and our voice is not heard in the committees that make consequential decisions. We no longer elect Members to the European Parliament.

The idea of observer status in the European Parliament speaks to a real desire for Northern Ireland to be seen and heard within the EU's democratic institutions. We need our listening ear and want our perspective in the room, and that is why the Alliance Party supports the motion and the amendment. Until we return to the EU — I am passionate about that and believe that we will return one day — it is important that we continue to have engagement.

Observer status is far short of where I and the Alliance Party want to be in Europe. We are proud Europeans. Today's motion is about what might be possible and focuses on what could make progress for us right now. Let us look at the reality. Observer status is reserved for countries in the accession process and has never been offered to a region or third country. Creating a unique category for Northern Ireland would set a precedent for others, with far closer ties to the EU. There is no intention or indication that the European Parliament is considering such a move, and, even if it changed, it would almost certainly require UK Government initiation and European Parliament agreement. However, that does not mean that we should stop aspiring to have those close ties; it simply means that we should put energy into trying to push open a door that is currently closed. If we are serious about addressing the democratic deficit, we need to walk through the doors that are already open to us and work to widen them.

One such door is the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly (PPA). It is not only the formal forum where MPs, Lords and MEPs meet to scrutinise how the post-Brexit relationship is functioning but —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dickson: No, I want to get through.

Northern Ireland already has observer status in the PPA, which is a useful starting point, but there is a catch: the PPA is permitted to discuss only the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, yet so much of what matters to us around the Windsor framework and the practicalities of trade regulation and market access falls under the auspices of the separate withdrawal agreement. Therefore, it makes little sense to keep those issues in silos; in fact, in 2021, the European Parliament suggested that the PPA should oversee both agreements. Let us push for that. Let us get the Windsor framework properly on the PPA's agenda. That would give us a regular, structured opportunity to raise concerns directly with MEPs at the stage when influence is still possible. We can also take other practical steps.

The people whom we represent deserve politics that engage seriously with the world as it is. They deserve influence, clarity and a seat at the table —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Dickson: — where it counts.

Dr Aiken: The Ulster Unionist Party opposes this unconstitutional motion and the amendment. I shall outline our reasons for doing so.

There is no doubt that the decision by all the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union has had far-ranging and highly disruptive consequences not only here but across Europe. The predictions of slower growth, loss of global influence, the undermining of our existing treaties and the potential large-scale impact on Northern Ireland and our unique position, as laid out by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, that our party made as part of our case to remain — the only unionist party to have done so — have been borne out. Indeed, we are on the record as saying that our wish was for the United Kingdom to stay and give leadership to Europe, as we all faced the multiple challenges of Putin's war in Europe, the growth of China and an increasingly disengaged United States. Rather than it being the best of both worlds, with the UK-USA tariff agreement, the EU single market and the UK internal market, even the most myopic can see that we are suffering the worst of at least two of those three worlds.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: No.

The unattainable chimera of EU observer status will not change that. We already have a report before us from Lord Murphy that makes it clear that we need to beef up our capacity, including giving more staff to the Northern Ireland Office in Brussels, our Departments and the Assembly. The Ulster Unionist Party made those recommendations on page 16 of his report. If we act on those, we would at least improve awareness and be able to try to intervene earlier.

The motion calls for us to apply for accession state observer status in the EU, because, bizarrely, some believe that a united Ireland within the next few years is credible or even possible. That is precisely what the motion implies. As a party, however, we welcome moves by our Government to develop ever-closer relationships with the European Union, not because we believe that we are heading back to full EU membership — that is not going to happen — but primarily because we need to deal with the absurdity of the self-imposed Irish Sea border. On the back of the actions of those who would rather rigorously implement decisions that most other EU nations privately ignore, that border is increasingly morphing into a trade, regulation, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS), digital and, should the ridiculous idea of digital ID cards come to fruition, identity border. However, the motion does not seek to address those issues. It is a farcical attempt by Sinn Féin to undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and further the united Ireland agenda.

As the Connolly House drafters know full well, the EU is very legalistic. The European Parliament observer status is granted only to accession states. That rule is clearly laid out in rule 13 of the rules of procedure of the European Parliament. The Irish MEPs made a particularly clumsy attempt to have the EU follow on behind in recognising that the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom should be changed. This will come as no surprise, but, on the basis of a calculation made in Brussels between keeping the most capable military power in Europe engaged in European security or throwing a Bonio to the biggest freeloaders and tax evaders on the continent, that is not going to happen.

The motion and the amendment are, therefore, a farce. We will not support them in any way, and neither should any party that believes in the peace settlement that was laid out in 1998. Unconstitutional and majoritarian stunts will achieve absolutely nothing — not here, not in London and definitely not in Brussels.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: No. I have just finished my remarks.

Mr Delargy: The majority of people in the North voted to remain in the European Union. That democratic choice was overturned, and our communities have been living with the consequences ever since. The loss of EU programmes, reduced study and work opportunities and weakened international links have had a real and lasting impact on an entire generation who see themselves as European and want the same freedoms as their peers across the continent. This is about young people who have lost access to ERASMUS. Although an alternative has been put in place, we are continuing to punish all generations for a decision that the majority of people in the North voted against. Restoring access to study, work, cultural exchange and mobility across Europe must be a priority. Our young people deserve nothing less.

Despite those challenges, our economy has shown resilience. The Windsor framework has protected our unique dual market access. Businesses here retain the ability to trade freely with the EU and Britain, an advantage that no other region enjoys. That access is drawing investment, supporting jobs and giving firms confidence about the future. If we look at NISRA figures from 2023, we see that sales between the North and Britain rose in that year by 12·4%. Similarly, purchases between the North and Britain rose by 16·2% in that time. When we look back as far as 2001, we see that cross-border trade then was valued at £1·9 billion, and it was at a similar level in 2015. However, that has grown dramatically since the Windsor framework regulations were put in place. In 2022, that trade was valued at over £7 billion a year.

The evidence is clear: the Windsor framework is helping our businesses to grow, protecting our jobs and strengthening our economy. Businesses tell us that they want certainty and that they want to grow by using both markets. At the Economy Committee last week, Invest NI was clear that having dual market access leads to higher exports, more jobs and more skills. Invest NI also highlighted that some companies here will continue to work hard under the current system but will not celebrate that success, because the issue has been politicised by some. We all want our economy to grow. We want opportunities for businesses to develop and for our skilled workforce to expand. That should be a priority for everyone in the Chamber.

As the European Parliament considers establishing an observer mechanism for the North, this is an important moment. It recognises that we did not choose Brexit but had it imposed on us; acknowledges our unique position; and gives locally elected representatives a direct voice on decisions that affect our economy, rights and young people's futures.

Our message is clear: Ireland belongs in Europe. We should not be disadvantaged because of decisions made in London that have been forced on us. Our businesses thrive through having European access. Our young people need European opportunities, and we will continue working for a future in which those connections are strengthened and fully restored.

Mr Brooks: The motion is not harmless, as has been articulated, not only by my colleague Mr Buckley but by Dr Aiken and in the previous speech from the Benches opposite. It wishes to strike at the very foundation of Northern Ireland's constitutional position. The Belfast and St Andrews Agreements were crystal clear: on issues of this magnitude, cross-community consent is essential. Yet, today, those opposite would have that safeguard cast aside. Why? Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party know that they cannot achieve consensus on the issue and therefore seek to impose their will by simple majority.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Not at the moment, thank you.

During the Brexit process, unionists were lectured about protecting the agreement in all its parts — every jot and tittle, we were told — but here we are again, faced with a proposal that seeks to trample on those very principles. While working in the European Parliament, I heard not only Sinn Féin MEPs but those from other nations wax lyrical about the deified Good Friday Agreement, when I am sure that many of them had not set eyes on much of it, much less on all its parts. Some of them had expansive and fantastical ideas about what it said.

The motion is not about political engagement. It is a Sinn Féin a ploy. As has been outlined, it is a stepping stone to its wish to break up the United Kingdom. If the motion is passed, it will lead to a letter being sent to Brussels claiming that the Assembly supports observer status, despite there being fierce opposition from all on the unionist Benches. No legitimacy will be given to the motion in this place today. Those in Brussels will not have the opportunity afforded to them to ignore and ride roughshod over the concerns of the unionist population of Northern Ireland, against the principles of the Good Friday Agreement, as they did when the protocol was imposed following the acquiescing of the UK Government of the day.

Today, the Democratic Unionist Party, along with unionist colleagues, has, rightly, had no hesitation in using the petition of concern to ensure that unionist voices are not silenced or misrepresented. What, after all, does observer status offer? It offers no vote, no influence and no power. It would do nothing to fix the democratic deficit that has been created by the protocol. Instead, it would be an attempt to signal Northern Ireland's willingness to join the EU, a message that those who tabled the motion hope that Brussels would seize upon, entrenching the flawed arrangements that have already damaged our economy. We are still battling threats to veterinary medicine supplies and restrictions on car dealers registering UK-approved vehicles. Those are the real consequences of surrendering control.

In many ways, perhaps having the privileges of partial membership that were outlined by my colleague, without the responsibilities or costs, would suit Sinn Féin well. Is that not the arrangement that they have at Westminster, where they are free to travel to London and live the London lifestyle without having any of the responsibility of the work of the House of Commons or any voice for those whom they represent? Perhaps the plan is for John Finucane to add "EU observer" to the jobs that he has but does not do, while he continues his legal career.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes.

Mr Dickson: I am interested in the fact that the Member rails against all those things in his speech but is nevertheless quite happy to represent the Assembly on the reference group for the Committee of the Regions, which is the only listening ear that we currently have there.

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

Mr Brooks: I assure the Member that I would not give up my seat for it to be filled by one of the Europhiles on the other side of the House. Yes, we will listen intently, but we will respect the vote of the United Kingdom. I know that the Member would like to reduce the referendum to one that is at a more local level, so perhaps he would look at how East Antrim voted in that referendum.

I will give the SDLP its dues: it has, at least, been consistent in its Europhile position, whereas Sinn Féin, as we know, has flip-flopped on the issue. Even now, with its relatively new-found passion and enthusiasm for fighting for freedom of sovereignty from the existing Union so that it can hand over power to Brussels, it criticises the Irish Government for not being neutral enough. It wishes to speak about European values and be part of the European system, but it does not want Ireland to contribute in any way to the defence of those values and people. It seems that Sinn Féin's position is no different now than Ireland's was in the 1940s, which is: "We're all right, Jack: you can pay for our defence while we sit on the edge of Europe". It wants to continue to take the benefits of that system, whilst the UK stands with those in Ukraine, as my colleague said, to ensure that defences are maintained across Europe.

The protocol was imposed over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland, without the support of a single unionist representative. Checks resulting from the border in the Irish Sea undermine our economy and constitutional integrity. If passed, today's motion would compound that harm by further eroding the principle of consent — the cornerstone of our settlement, which it championed when it suited it and at national behest. Some claim that this would give us a voice, but the truth is that Northern Ireland has already had negligible influence over EU laws. Engagement has been tokenistic: merely communicative and not participatory. Goods regulations will still be dictated by Brussels, without the UK's input. The SDLP's answer is not to take back control of our laws but to have an EU office in Belfast.

For what? So that we can go to that office to beg, after the fact, after those regulations have been imposed —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Brooks: — on our businesses?

Mr Tennyson: As a passionately pro-European party, Alliance supports the motion to secure observer status for Northern Ireland in the European Parliament and, indeed, a European Commission office in Belfast. The debate has highlighted the fact that, despite having campaigned for Brexit 10 years ago, the DUP is still not able to name one solitary benefit of leaving the European Union. You cannot come to the Chamber, having campaigned for Brexit, and pin all its inevitable consequences on the Windsor framework. That is the political equivalent of driving your car into a brick wall and then blaming the airbag for your broken nose.

The DUP was warned pre referendum that Brexit would inevitably mean increased friction and barriers and that that would impact on the UK's ability to influence the European Union, to make rules and to contribute on matters of peace and security, poverty, migration and the global economy. That is exactly what has happened. Despite not causing that mess, Alliance has consistently come to the Chamber and other forums with practical and pragmatic solutions that would address the situation in the best interests of people in Northern Ireland. We believe that, by having observer status, we would be able to influence upstream EU law that has an impact on Northern Ireland.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Would he suggest that his party's position of rigorous implementation of the protocol was in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland?

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

Mr Tennyson: It was through faithful implementation that we were able to secure trust and confidence for many of the changes that followed in the Windsor framework. Unlike the Member, we are not in the business of championing breaches of international law. In his contribution, Mr Buckley said that the debate was about rewriting the Brexit referendum and misrepresenting the views of the House. Of course, that is exactly what the DUP did when it held the balance of power at Westminster between 2017 and 2019, when it was only the voices of members of the DUP that were heard in the room. They are the architects of their own misfortune in all of that.

Mr Brooks cannot claim that there must be cross-community support for how we Brexit but not for whether we Brexit in the first place; you cannot have it both ways. That principle needs to be applied consistently and fairly, but, more important than that, Northern Ireland has evolved and changed since 1998. There is no majority and minority in the House. We are all minorities: those who are unionist, those who are nationalist and those of us on these Benches who do not designate as nationalist or unionist. Our voters deserve better than to be treated as second-class citizens.

The deployment of a petition of concern on this vote is a shameful perversion of democracy and an abuse of process. Prior to the debate, the Members opposite complained in their press statement of a rigged debate. There is no clearer way of rigging of a debate than the deployment of a petition of concern, because nobody's vote matters now except for that of the DUP, which wishes to govern by diktat.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: No, I will not give way. I gently say to the Members opposite that we have seen where this has led in the past. In previous mandates, the petition of concern was deployed and abused to deprive LGBTQ+ people of their rights, to prevent Members from being held to account and to derail bread-and-butter politics. That directly led to a breakdown in relationships and a collapse of the institutions. That is simply not good enough. No one should play fast and loose with the operation of the institutions.

I also gently say to the Members opposite that there has been an awful lot of sneering and laughing in the debate. This is not a game; this is not debate club. We come here to work together in a spirit of respect and cooperation to deliver for the people who elected us, not to knock lumps out of one another and trade insults across the Chamber every day. The politics of distraction, fear and division is what upended the institutions in the past. The people whom we represent deserve better.

Mr Martin: I am a little surprised by the Member's criticism of, I assume, Members over here for student politics and sneering. Often, when I watch across to the Alliance Benches, I see him laughing at some of our Members when they are speaking. He is angry, and he can be angry if he wants.

My colleagues have covered a range of points, and I have no intention of going over them again. The United Kingdom has, contrary to what the motion suggests, a democratic mandate to remain outside the European Union. Therefore, there is no need or requirement for observer status. In fact, EU observer status in the European Parliament would bring with it no right to vote. It would do nothing to address the democratic deficit that we have with the protocol or the deprivation of locally elected representatives' ability to make laws.

I have said before in this place that many countries in Europe are incredible. They have interesting cultures, many of which I love, and I have very much enjoyed travelling to many of them. However, there is no dichotomy between valuing European countries and culture and being wholly opposed to an economic lock-in with them. The motion suggests that we would be:

That is the same nirvana that many in the Chamber suggested when they said, "If only the Assembly was back up and running, everything would be great. All our problems would be solved". I certainly was not in the Assembly — I was not elected at that time — but I remember watching many of the Members who have spoken today going to the gates at Hillsborough saying, "If only we could get this place back up, all our problems will be solved". We all knew then — I certainly did — that that was never going to be the case. It was never going to be the nirvana that people said it would, and telling the electorate that or, in the context of the motion, telling them that rejoining the EU will somehow solve all our problems is simply dishonest.

It is also worth looking at some of the economics underlying that premise, particularly the economic performance of some big EU countries. Data that the OECD released last week states that UK GDP growth outstripped that of eurozone countries in quarter 1 of 2025. It is particularly noticeable that we will continue to grow faster than Germany through all three quarters of 2025.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will give way to the leader of the Opposition.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way, and, in the spirit of debate, I will be brief. He points out that the UK is outperforming some eurozone countries, and that is true. Will he also acknowledge that Northern Ireland is outperforming the UK, despite what his party would deem to be the imposition of the appalling sea border?

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

Mr Martin: That is very kind. I always welcome the leader of the Opposition's comments. A lot of that is about diversion, and we have heard some of the diversionary arguments. Trade is going down South that we would like to see going to and coming back from GB, and that is a consequence of the operation of the protocol.

Germany, of course, is the economic powerhouse of the EU, yet it is suffering and struggling financially. In fact, France has stagnated all the way through 2025 and is struggling still. Data from the World Bank this year confirms that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the sixth largest economy in the world and is ahead of all eurozone countries except Germany. Therefore, why would we want to leave the strength of the United Kingdom for a united Ireland or, for that matter, to rejoin the EU?

I will move on to the letter that spawned the private Member's motion. I think that it did, but there has been some debate on the other side of the House over who exactly is responsible for the motion or whose idea it was. I will not get into that, but I checked who signed the letter, and I found that one of the people was a lady called Lynn Boylan, who is a Sinn Féin MEP. Many in the Chamber will not have heard of that lady, but she was in the news recently for one particular reason, which was that she abstained from a resolution in the European Parliament that called for EU support for Ukraine. After three years of Russia's war and aggression, there was a proposal for a 30-day ceasefire and an expectation that Russia would agree to it and would cease all attacks on Ukraine. Ms Boylan could not even support that.

I do not believe that it is in our best interests to rejoin the EU. I also note that, in their letter to President Metsola, the MEPs who signed the letter even admitted that the granting of observer status would in fact, and I quote directly:

Therefore, to be honest, I am not even sure why the motion refers to writing to the EU Parliament, unless the policy wonks on the other Benches have got it so badly wrong at the drafting stage.

Regardless, I will not support the motion, and nor will my party.

Ms Ennis: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I have all of 10 seconds, and you can have it.

Ms Ennis: I appreciate the Member giving way. I find the complete lack of self-awareness on the part of the DUP almost comical. Your colleague Jonathan Buckley said that the way to demonstrate the will of the people was through votes in the House —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Ms Ennis: — yet you misuse a petition of concern to block a vote in this place. What are you afraid of?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Martin: My time is up.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We all gather that. Thank you, Peter.

Mr Burrows: I oppose the motion. It is divisive, negative, fails to learn the lessons of Brexit or our past and wastes time dealing with matters that we have no authority over. Frankly, if we are building something in Northern Ireland, it should not be an office for bureaucrats in Belfast but homes for young people. We are short of homes in Northern Ireland. This shows that our focus is entirely on the wrong thing.

Brexit was divisive and negative, and I say that as a lifelong Eurosceptic. The EU is an organisation that was committed to ever closer union, was not very democratic and was tin-eared to reform. David Cameron tried to strike a deal but got nowhere. However, the Ulster Unionist Party, to its credit, before I was in it, thought through the implications of Brexit with its head and not its heart and realised that it was going to be particularly difficult for Northern Ireland, as it came to pass. I credit my colleagues, before I came into the party, for that.

Majoritarianism is worrying. A signal is being sent by many in nationalism and now Alliance that majoritarianism suits when they are in the majority, otherwise we have to exercise cross-community consent.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I am not going to give way. I will towards the end.

Ms Ferguson, I think, said that people in Northern Ireland did not endorse Brexit. However, people in Northern Ireland have not supported this stunt. This is a constitutional change, yet it has no support from the people of Northern Ireland, only the arrogance to think that we in the Chamber can make a decision that is constitutional and rests squarely with the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is a constitutional issue.

Let me deal with this. Frankly, for MEPs to write to the president of the European Parliament to say that we should have observer status is little different from me writing to Catherine Connolly and saying, "Dear President, I think that Ireland should join NATO. It should join the Commonwealth". Members of the Dáil, who sometimes have more sense, would not waste their time debating it. They would realise that they have more important things to do, like build infrastructure for young people like those from Friends' School Lisburn, if I recognise the uniform, who are watching from the Gallery.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He talks about issues that are more important. At the moment, a cliff edge for veterinary and pet medicines is impending because of the obstinacy of the European Union. Should we not be talking about that issue today, rather than fantasy school politics?

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

Mr Burrows: Thank you. We will come back to that in a moment.

The motion is about supporting a united Ireland. The Alliance Party has fallen into a trap. I do not want to paint them green, white and gold; they never got over me painting them yellow on Facebook [Laughter.]

I have committed that I will not paint any of their faces again. However, that is a trap that they fall into.

Let me deal with the democratic deficit. The biggest democratic deficit in Northern Ireland is —

Mr Tennyson: You [Interruption.]

Mr Burrows: Thank you.

The biggest democratic deficit is that people in eight out of 19 constituencies in Northern Ireland are represented by Sinn Féin MPs who do not go to Westminster. It is all right for the ones who voted for Sinn Féin but not for the rest of the electorate, who only get one choice of MP. Here is the thing: what could they be doing at Westminster? Making a contribution to the assisted dying Bill, lobbying about the family farm tax, making representations about veterinary medicines or, like our party, putting amendments down to the Legacy Bill — the Troubles Bill — that mean that those who committed sexual crimes in the name of the IRA can be investigated by the Legacy Commission.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Mr Burrows. I really do not mean to interrupt your flow, but can you return to the substantive —.

Mr Burrows: I am dealing with the democratic deficit: the real one.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I know where you are going, but it is not relevant to the motion.

Mr Burrows: It seems as though we have failed to learn the lessons from our past and from Brexit. In this place we should be joining together and asking, "What can we agree on, so that we can lobby to change the invidious and iniquitous Irish sea border? On what issues can we can come to a consensus as a body so that we can then go and make representations?". We do not do that, however. The motion is a divisive stunt and party politicking by a party that wants to cause endless problems in Northern Ireland.

When we deal with economic issues, we should welcome investment such as the Bank of America investment, but we do not. That is the reality. Alliance has made a mistake here. It has fallen into a trap set by Sinn Féin. We in the Ulster Unionist Party have thought with our heads and not our hearts throughout. The motion is dangerous and unconstitutional, and we are right to oppose it forthrightly.

Mr Gaston: We have heard a great deal today about democratic deficits and observer status in Brussels. Once again, we have witnessed the republican and nationalist alliance in the House fall over itself to see which party can stand up and say, "We are the biggest Europhiles". My goodness, we even got a Christmas card from the SDLP with its list of priorities. Matthew, I think that the SDLP takes the prize today for being the biggest Europhiles, having outdone Alliance very marginally.

When we strip away all of that, however, we need to remind ourselves of the simple democratic reality. In 2016, the people of the United Kingdom were asked a straightforward question: should the UK leave the European Union? The answer that came back from the British people was equally straightforward: "Yes, leave". That democratic decision should have been honoured.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: It should have been implemented in full. It should have restored the sovereignty of the nation.

I am happy to give way to Mr Dickson. Let me hear you.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Member for giving way. I am just interested in knowing whether you and your party believed the lies that were printed on the side of a bus.

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

Mr Gaston: There were have the Alliance Party. The SDLP, Sinn Féin and Alliance were able to come together to cook up the fudges that were the protocol and the Windsor framework. When any business has problems in Northern Ireland, blame those three parties. They were the chief makers, pushers, movers and shakers.

What we now have is an arrangement that leaves Northern Ireland governed by laws that we do not make, that we cannot change and that are interpreted by a foreign court. If we want to talk about a democratic deficit, why not start there? That does not suit the narrative of the nationalist and republican alliance, however. The idea that the solution to Northern Ireland's problems and to the democratic deficit is somehow more EU involvement, more EU buildings or EU observer roles is frankly nonsense. The deficit comes from the EU's continued grip on Northern Ireland. It will not be remedied by allowing the EU to tighten its grip even more.

We then have the SDLP amendment and its proposal on:

That sounds very official. Let me be clear to the SDLP: Northern Ireland does not need a European Commission office; it needs full restoration of its place within the United Kingdom. What is an EU office in Belfast supposed to achieve? Is its purpose to normalise EU oversight of laws that we do not make? Is it to entrench a system in which Northern Ireland is treated differently from the rest of the country and the Union to which we belong?

After all the talk about democratic deficit, I remind the House of what happened when the Assembly was asked to vote on the continuation of the protocol — the very arrangement that means that we have no say on vast swathes of the economic laws that govern us. What did it do? Ah, it did not want to know. The Members who support the motion today are the very ones who supported the motion on the protocol. You cannot complain about democratic deficits if you support the very arrangements that led to our colonial status. Why did they do that? Some claim that it was to protect the sacred Belfast Agreement, but their protocol destroys the basis of that agreement. The Belfast Agreement states that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom until the people of Northern Ireland say otherwise. If that promise means anything, it means that I have the same rights as anyone else in the UK to take part in national referendums and have the result respected. The agreement says that no significant or controversial decision can be taken without the buy-in of both communities.

We have the petition of concern; that is good. Let us work together for unionism. The DUP brought this place back on the basis of the dodgy Donaldson deal. For that, you will pay the price. To the SDLP and Alliance I say this: all your cuddly relationship is doing is pushing you down and down in the polls, sitting behind the TUV. Let that sink in. You are cuddling up to Sinn Féin as part of your pan-nationalist and republican alliance. Whatever you want to tell yourself, come 2027, the people in this country will cast their views on everything that has taken place since the restoration of Stormont. Those who gave away their principles to become implementers will have to face the electorate, as will the Alliance Party and the SDLP, which have cuddled up to Sinn Féin over the past number of years.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak will be Sinéad McLaughlin to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Sinéad, you have five minutes.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking the proposers of the motion for bringing the SDLP's former proposal back to the Assembly. It is really good. I also thank Timothy Gaston for giving the SDLP the prize for being the most European party here. That is almost as good, sincere and heart-warming as FIFA's peace prize for Trump at the weekend. [Laughter.]

As many contributors to the debate have said, we cannot ignore the simple truth that Brexit has not delivered what people were promised. The DUP petition of concern is just a farce. There was no cross-community consent for Brexit. That was not on the agenda. Cross-community consent is also not required for the constitutional status of this place.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way on that point. Does she agree that there are different methods of measuring cross-community support, such as a weighted majority vote? In fact, there was cross-community support for Remain in 2016.

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

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you.

I agree, Eóin. It is just wheeled out when Members want to put wedge issues into this place to create bad politics and a bad environment.

Brexit has held back our economic growth, caused real pressures for businesses and affected social and political cohesion here and across these islands. The Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, said in a recent podcast that it was self-evident that Brexit had damaged the British economy. He is right, because that is what the evidence tells us. According to information collated by Best for Britain, the cost of Brexit to the UK economy is now estimated at £240 billion. An estimated 1·8 million jobs have been lost in the UK, and households pay over £250 more a year for food as a direct result of Brexit-related pressures.

We cannot plan for the future unless we are honest about where we are. However, today's debate is not about running old arguments. Well, I suppose that it precisely is about running old arguments, because today's debate is like a copy or cut and paste from previous, pointless debates that have taken place in the Assembly.

We should be prioritising limiting the damage and creating better opportunities for people here. The majority on this island voted to remain in the European Union. They deserve a serious, practical route back towards closer partnerships with our largest trading partner. We are already seeing the UK Government take steps in that direction — small steps, but steps nonetheless. The recent UK-EU agreement on areas that include trade, fishing and defence shows that cooperation works. The expectation that the UK will rejoin ERASMUS, for example, is hugely positive for our students, universities and local industries. Northern Ireland should not be left behind as that relationship improves. That is why the SDLP consistently proposes ways that we can rebuild our European links.

Observer status in the European Parliament, the central idea of the motion, was set out in the SDLP's 'Our European Future' paper. That idea has now gained strong international support. Just last month, 13 Irish MEPs and an Italian MEP wrote to the President of the European Parliament arguing that Northern Ireland representatives should be granted observer status. There is nothing to fear from that. That is a significant endorsement, reflecting the unique position that we are currently in. However, if we truly want to support businesses — the party opposite often says this — strengthen democracy and maximise the benefits of dual market access, observer status alone is not enough. That is why the SDLP amendment calls for the establishment of an EU Commission office in Belfast. To put it plainly, it makes no sense that we do not already have one. Every week, businesses tell us the same thing: they are trying to navigate the Windsor framework; they want to trade confidently but do not know where to go to get reliable guidance.

Mr Buckley, I totally refute your assertion that we do not raise issues in relation to barriers to the economy. I have raised it in the Committee, and you are in the Committee with me, so do not play that game with me. You will go nowhere with it, OK?

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: No, I will not. [Interruption.]

I raise it regularly on behalf of my constituents. [Interruption.]

I have raised it regularly in the past on behalf of my constituents. I have been in contact with the Northern Ireland chamber; I have been in contact with the FSB. The office would give clarity, improve communications and act as a point of support for traders who simply want to get on with their work. Many businesses were pushing for that during Lord Murphy's review of the Windsor framework. Unfortunately, it was seen as politically unacceptable for unionists.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sinéad, your time is up. [Interruption.]

Sorry, I was getting a lecture from Mr Buckley on Standing Orders in the middle of all that. [Interruption.]

Ms McLaughlin: I did not know who was talking: was it me or Mr Buckley? [Inaudible.]

Mr Buckley: Sorry, do you want to give way?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No. Time is up. Apologies about that.

Mr Tennyson: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to reference directly another Member across the Chamber rather than engage in the debate through you? I ask because Mr Buckley needs to cool his jets. [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: A lot of Members in the Chamber need to cool their jets, Eóin

but I also think that the lack of courtesy from certain Members, at least, is consistent, and I ask them to reflect on that.

We move to the winding-up speech on the substantive motion. I call Declan Kearney. Declan, I advise that you have 10 minutes.

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

Every party in the Assembly agrees on one thing: Brexit has left us all with a democratic deficit. The difference, of course, is in how that democratic deficit is defined and then addressed.

Some carp about that deficit without facing up to realities, still refusing to acknowledge that they themselves bought them and us all a pig in a poke.
Then there are the rest of us: the representatives elected to this place who represent the citizens in the North who voted against Brexit — the majority. The POC attempt by unionism overshadows the DUP approach to the debate. Let me briefly deal with the fake news narrative that the motion is somehow a constitutional stalking horse. It is divisive and inflammatory to say that, because the constitutional future of this place will be addressed and resolved under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. That is a settled matter. This is a case of back to the future, with the abuse and misuse of POCs to subvert democracy. You could say that unionism appears to be resolved to undermining the democracy of the institutions with negative politics in one hand, and the misuse of a POC in the other.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree, as I said previously, that it is disgraceful for the DUP to talk about votes in this place while using the petition of concern — a mechanism that was designed to protect minority rights — to block a vote that would give voice to people's views? That would be democracy, so why are they afraid of it?

Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat as sin.

I would go further; it is a subversion of democracy. It is a classic case of cutting your nose off to spite your face. Why would you not look for increased access and maximum engagement with the European Union and the British Government on how we navigate the post-Brexit realities? By contrast, there have been reasoned contributions in the debate from others, which are predicated upon the logic of maximising democratic engagement with the European Commission. In my remarks, I will touch on the importance of that.

Brexit has been an economic, political and social disaster for citizens and businesses here and in Britain. Since its imposition, Sinn Féin, other parties here, the Irish Government and the EU have sought to mitigate its worst impacts, and the mechanisms now exist to do just that through the protocol and the Windsor framework. While our regional economy is showing growth because of the dual market access that is available under the Windsor framework, our voice is silenced in the European institutions because Brexit removed our ability to directly input in them. Unsurprisingly, British Governments have been focused on the democratic deficit that their approach provoked. They have failed to address how that can be best remedied.

The good news is this: the damage caused by right-wing Tory and DUP recklessness does not have to be a permanent condition for people in the North. Practical and pragmatic approaches are available to us, and I agree with many of our local businesses, and with the report of the Murphy review, that a one-stop shop mechanism to simplify administrative processes would, indeed, be an advantage to us. The British Government need to listen and take on board the need for those reforms.

On maximising our input to EU processes, a decision to confer observer status representation for the North at the European Parliament and the opening of a European Commission office in Belfast would be good starting points. Maximising our democratic input in the post-Brexit systems, for which the British Government and the EU are responsible, makes sense. Brexit has swept away all the constitutional, political and economic assumptions about this place, but the North of the island also enjoys distinct advantages over other regions that have been directly harmed by Brexit. In 2017, as colleagues have mentioned, the European Council stated that in the event of Irish reunification, the entire territory of Ireland would become part of the European Union. We, in the North, therefore have an automatic legal route to rejoining the EU via constitutional change and a referendum on a new Ireland. The reunification of our island is no longer just an aspiration; it is a viable project that should be pursued in earnest by the British and Irish Governments. Irish unity has become the defining issue of our generation. The case for constitutional change is being made across this island and further afield by people from all walks of life. It is time that the British and Irish Governments began to plan and prepare for the constitutional change that is allowed for under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. The Dublin Government should do so through the appointment of a Minister of State for reunification, the immediate publication of a Green Paper on constitutional change, and the convening of a citizens' assembly on our constitutional future.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kearney: In a moment.

The British Government should set a date for a unity referendum before the end of this decade. The EU played a strategically important role in helping to develop and consolidate our peace process through political, diplomatic, economic and financial support. Twenty-seven years after our peace settlement, it is time for us to open up the next phase of the peace process based on national reconciliation and reunification.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. In the first part of his contribution, he told us that this is not about constitutional change. He then went on to talk a lot about constitutional change. Which is it? Is the motion, tabled by Sinn Féin, a tool for constitutional change?

Mr Kearney: Did you read the motion?

Mr Buckley: I did.

Mr Kearney: You did. Did you understand the motion

because it appears that, characteristically,

having —? Listen, the pantomime season has not even begun. It will start, but we are not going to start it here today. Thanks for your intervention.

The proposals advanced in the motion will help to address the current democratic deficit and navigate the new post-Brexit trading realities. At the same time, they will create pragmatic interim arrangements to facilitate a smooth reintegration of the North within the European Union, and in the context of constitutional change and Irish unity. Therefore, supporting the motion is not about the fake news narrative being purported by some on the other side of the House. It is, in fact, about pragmatically addressing the practical realities and challenges that we face in the immediate term — in the here and now — and how we can sensibly prepare for the democratic transformations and opportunities that lie ahead, instead of, as some would prefer, sticking our heads in the sand.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. I propose, therefore, to put the Question on the amendment after Question Time, and, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): The Executive Office is committed to ensuring that the Equality Commission has the resources required to fulfil its statutory responsibilities, including those that it has under evolving equality standards. The commission has been allocated £4·7 million in resource and capital budget from the Executive Office for the financial year 2025-26. We engage regularly with the commission, including through quarterly partnership meetings and attendance at its audit and risk assurance committee. That engagement helps to align resources with responsibilities and supports the identification of emerging needs. As an arm’s-length body of the Executive Office, the commission participates in the required forecasting and monitoring budgetary processes.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the deputy First Minister for that answer. Earlier this year, the Equality Commission published a research paper entitled 'Funding for Equality Groups in NI: The impact of the transition from EU funding to UK Shared Prosperity Fund'. Which recommendations from that research has the Department considered, and which, if any, is it taking forward?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. We want to ensure that there is adequate funding for community groups across all areas, including those in the equality space that work with older people, younger people, people with disabilities and many more. It is important that they are properly funded and that they know well in advance what funding they will get for the coming year. There is no doubt that the three-year Budget will help with that process.

As the Member is, no doubt, aware, however, there is a particular issue with the ending of the Shared Prosperity Fund and its transition into the local growth fund. I have corresponded with and spoken directly to the Finance Minister on that issue. I have worked with a number of groups throughout Northern Ireland that are very concerned about that transition. We are actively looking at options to support those groups. The fact that we, as an Executive, had such late notice of the replacement of that funding with the local growth fund is unacceptable, as is the impact of that on employees in the organisations that are still in a position of uncertainty.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Can the deputy First Minister confirm that the budget figure that she read out will not impact on the work that the Equality Commission does, particularly for vulnerable groups, on equality, inclusion and, indeed, respect?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. From speaking to groups, including our arm's-length bodies, we know that they could always do more with more — there is no doubt about that — and, indeed, we have to make difficult decisions in order to balance that with the budget that we are allocated. I have no doubt that the Equality Commission wants to do more and that it could do more if it had a bigger budget, but it has a sizeable budget of almost £5 million. In this case, that budget is very much for the commission itself, because the groups on the ground are funded through a range of Departments, agencies, councils etc. We always want to work in a collaborative way to ensure, as far as possible, that those groups get sufficient funding and, as I said, sufficient notice of the funding that they will get; hopefully, the three-year Budget process will really help with that.

Mr Clarke: Has any assessment been done of what the Equality Commission spends its budget on and, in particular, how much it has spent on the legal cases that it has taken recently?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The Equality Commission has operational independence from the Executive Office. There is, of course, concern among many people out there about the commission's prioritising. Just this week, we have seen further action being launched in relation to the Supreme Court judgement on the definition of "sex" and the biological definition of "man" and "woman". I do not believe that that is necessary expenditure; however, the commission is operationally independent, and that is a decision that it can make. However, the question is about whether it should make that decision. Should it prioritise it? I advise the Member that the commission has a full-time equivalent staff cohort of just over 100 and is carrying a significant number of vacancies. Just under 50 staff are in place. That is not uncommon across the system, because we are carrying a significant number of vacancies. Part of that is because of the challenges within our budget and trying to ensure efficiency across our system.

Mr Gaston: Does the deputy First Minister agree that it is a disgrace that the Equality Commission has enough money to take an action against the Supreme Court to try to get men into girls' bathrooms? Does that not suggest that her Department is giving the commission far too much money if it can waste it on a futile challenge such as that?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: That aligns with my answers to the substantive and supplementary questions. At this difficult time of fiscal constraint, people should be looking at what they are doing and making decisions that are based on what best serves people. I do not believe that that legal action is necessary at all. It is more legal action, more cost and more delay, but on what? It is about common sense, and common sense must prevail. I think that most people find the issue to be completely bonkers, not because they want to hate on anyone but because it is common sense that the definition of a man or a woman is related to biological sex. More important is the reality that there should be, and must be, safe spaces and female-only spaces, be they in changing rooms, toilets or places of sanctuary. It is also about fairness. We have seen that play out in sport. As a woman, I never consented to my rights being diminished by that definition being changed or by evolving attempts to change it. However, what we see now is an Equality Commission that is arguing that to reset that to a common-sense definition of biological male or female is somehow a diminution of somebody else's rights. That is wrong. It is absolutely bonkers; we need to get back to common sense and to stop wasting money on that type of thing.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Urban Villages initiative has had a positive impact on communities in Belfast and Londonderry. In the Colin area of West Belfast, a total of £12·7 million has been invested — £10·4 million to support 11 capital projects and over £2·3 million in revenue funding. Capital investment has included a £5·6 million transformation of 15 acres of derelict land into a new park, as well as new community centres, a football and community club, a healthy living centre and a transport hub. Revenue funding has supported 275 events and 575 workshops, engaging more than 24,500 participants.

Support that Urban Villages provides will ensure the sustainability of investment and support local community organisations to create a lasting, positive legacy for the community. Urban Villages helps to drive regeneration and community development across the area, providing much-needed physical regeneration, creating safer communities and making a positive difference to people's lives.

Mr Baker: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. The Colin area is the wee part of the world that I live in and represent. We benefited greatly from Urban Villages, especially after we came into the Belfast City Council area after decades of neglect when we were under the Lisburn council. Will the deputy First Minister provide an update on phase 2 of the initiative?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. As he will be aware, I was very much involved in the creation of Urban Villages. The junior Minister at the time, who represented the area, and I engaged with people in the Colin area. I felt very strongly that there were significant gaps in service provision. I very passionately supported Colin's inclusion in a programme that I created and helped to develop. The programme is a commitment to work with communities — that means all communities — right across Northern Ireland. I am really pleased to see that the local community's hard work has contributed to the collaborative design, the actions that are being taken and the investment from the Executive Office, which has transformed the Colin area, as he is well aware.

As we move to phase 2 of Urban Villages, we should reflect on its huge success. It has been a success in many areas. There have been lots of nuances and differences in the schemes. The First Minister and I are actively looking at phase 2. The programme should absolutely roll forward, because it has provided much support. We are looking at areas to see where we can maximise that type of investment through the Executive Office.

Mr Kingston: As the deputy First Minister knows, Urban Villages funding has been allocated in North Belfast to the much-needed replacement of the Sunningdale community centre.

There have been issues with securing planning permission. Will the deputy First Minister advise the House on her commitment to delivering that much-needed project?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his hard work for the community, and both our North Belfast representatives have been heavily involved in the North Belfast Urban Villages scheme. I know that because I get actively lobbied on their constituents' behalf to ensure that those schemes move forward. There is an absolute commitment from the Executive Office for the Sunningdale project. There have been difficulties with the planning system, but we remain committed to the scheme. We will work with the local community to navigate the changes and, importantly, to ensure that we deliver the outcome, which is a facility and services for the Sunningdale community.

Ms Bradshaw: I very much welcomed the announcement made earlier in the year that the School of Music in Donegal Pass was going to be included in the Urban Villages programme in that area. Can you give an update on the arts creative hub? Have any collaborative arrangements been put in place with other arts groups?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. I was pleased to see those additional projects come through, not least the tunnel project, which has been on the go since before my involvement in South Belfast. I am pleased that we were able to include some additional projects, including the Westland community centre. I met representatives from the Westland community, maybe 10 years ago, and they needed that service. I am pleased to see its inclusion, both the political commitment and the flexibility in the scheme. I am also pleased that the School of Music has been included. There have been a number of Urban Villages projects there, which demonstrates the delivery of everything from play parks to re-imaging to the exciting project at the police station, and the School of Music coming on board is a welcome development.

The Member is absolutely right, we are working with local community groups on collaboration because we want to make sure that not only the local community benefits from the scheme but other organisations can come in to complement and supplement the arts offering in that area, which has a rich history, heritage and diversity.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We are aware that many of our communities continue to be impacted on by paramilitarism and drugs, including those in rural and semi-rural areas. Communities in Transition (CIT), which is part of the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, delivers support across the eight designated areas identified as those most impacted on by paramilitarism and organised crime, with a key focus on paramilitarism and drugs.

Although North Antrim is not formally included in CIT, it is part of the planned interventions programme, which funds community activity to engage young people most at risk of entering the youth justice system and/or at risk of paramilitary recruitment. By providing positive alternatives for our young people, the programme mitigates the impacts that antisocial behaviour can have on community tensions.

Ms Mulholland: Deputy First Minister, I appreciate your answer. There is a real fear about hidden harm, especially in rural and semi-rural communities. You mentioned the planned interventions, but can there be an evaluation of whether an extension to the existing programmes, such as Urban Villages and Communities in Transition, would prevent those rural and semi-rural communities from being left behind?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question because that is an issue that is very close to my heart. Very often, the challenges that a community faces can be hidden because of its location, whether in a rural area or in a city or town, where it is surrounded by relative wealth. That is why, over the years, I have supported schemes that are nuanced enough to pick up on those challenges. The reality is that if you have a need, it does not matter where you are living, and your ability to access the services can be very different depending on whether you live in a rural area or one that does not score under neighbourhood renewal or other schemes.

We have asked the Department to pick up on that, and Urban Villages is good at picking up on those needs, but we are conscious that it does not have a rural aspect — the clue is in the name "Urban Villages". We want to extend the scheme and take the learning on co-designing a series of interventions to increase community resilience and community social capital to ensure that all communities are able to engage in enduring cross-community work with confidence. We can spread the work outside the urban areas into the rural areas.

We are trying to integrate more flexibility into the planned interventions programme. In the aftermath of what happened in the summer and the previous summer, we need to have programmes that can commence really quickly and work with young people. The idea of having a lengthy application process, where it is six or 12 months before the outcome is found out, is not fit for purpose. We are actively looking at that, and we want to work with all communities to make sure that programmes are fit for purpose.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, you will know that the Communities in Transition programme made a significant contribution to building communities that are equipped to deal with paramilitarism and organised crime. Can you set out how the Communities in Transition programme is currently being delivered to achieve that outcome?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: There has been huge investment made under the programme, with £29 million invested across the eight CIT areas. The real focus has been on tackling some of the root causes that can create the vulnerability through which people are dragged into antisocial behaviour, paramilitarism or crime. We are looking at community resilience, prevention and support for addiction and mental health. We are looking at trying to provide better opportunities, with ambition for the young people who live in those communities. There has been a huge amount of success. Yes, there is frustration that it has been limited to some geographical locations, but there is lots of really good practice that we can roll out.

One of the issues that I am passionate about is making sure that we get better collaboration. If something works in a particular scheme, let us look at expanding it and mainstreaming it into other interventions that we have. We need better collaboration and cooperation. There is so much to work with, because there have been examples of really good practice here.

Mr Dunne: What assessment has the deputy First Minister made of Communities in Transition, specifically on how it has tackled paramilitary coercive control in communities across Northern Ireland?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: With such projects, it can be difficult to drill down into them, because a lot of what they are trying to do involves stopping things happening. They are trying to stop young people being dragged into antisocial behaviour. They are trying to stop young people being pulled into paramilitary organisations and criminal gangs, and they are trying to provide better opportunities and outcomes for young people. It can therefore be difficult to determine some of the outcomes, but I am really pleased to say that, since the beginning of the programme — not that programme alone, because there are communities working together across so many interventions — we have seen a 60% reduction in paramilitary-style attacks. There has been a 70% reduction in the number of households reporting homelessness due to paramilitary intimidation. The number of convictions for paramilitary-related and criminal gang-related offences has increased sevenfold since the beginning of the programme.

That is evidence that it is working, but we should stand together and say clearly that criminal gangs and paramilitarism are absolutely wrong and that there is no place for them in our society. They need to go away. They should never have been there in the first place. I really support all such interventions to support communities to be resilient against such organisations.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Executive Office received one item of correspondence regarding the event at Belfast City Hall on 19 October 2024, which was an invitation dated 9 September 2024 forwarded by junior Minister Aisling Reilly from her constituency office to the Ministers' mailbox.

Mr Clarke: I thank the deputy First Minister for that answer. During the question for urgent oral answer last week, the First Minister — or the Sinn Féin vice president; I am not sure which she was on the day — was at pains to talk about the invitation. Can the deputy First Minister confirm or otherwise whether there was an invitation issued to others or whether tickets were available for the event?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As is common from time to time, when we receive invitations to our constituency office accounts, we will forward them to the Department to ask for them to be considered as ministerial invitations. Understandably, people who are out and about do not necessarily make a distinction between a consistency office email and the departmental account.

In this case, junior Minister Reilly had received an invitation with, I think, four other Sinn Féin MLAs copied into it, offering five tickets to the event. That is what was forwarded to the Department, and junior Minister Reilly had requested to attend the event as a junior Minister. I can only assume — I do not know, because the junior Minister did not attend the event as a junior Minister — that it was not accepted as a junior Minister event. She therefore attended it in her capacity as a constituency MLA.

Mr Sheehan: The First Minister has indicated that she has signed off on a letter to the Committee dealing with misinformation around this issue. Can the deputy First Minister explain the reason for the delay in that letter issuing?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The letter is currently under consideration, but it will say what I have just said to the House. The junior Minister and four other Sinn Féin MLAs received an invitation to the event. The junior Minister wanted to go as junior Minister, but it was not agreed for her to attend in that capacity. The letter clearly offered five tickets to Sinn Féin Members, whether those Members were named in that email or whether they went to other people.

I want to be very clear: the events of that night were disgraceful. There were plenty of people there, including, it appears, a number of Sinn Féin MLAs and other people. While it is absolutely right to say that people have a right under the law not to cooperate with a police investigation, not to incriminate themselves and not to cooperate with whatever investigations are happening, it is not the right thing to do, not to cooperate. I appeal to Sinn Féin Members who were at that event — clearly, they were at that event — to say what they saw when they were there, to come forward and cooperate with all investigations and to tell the truth about what happened in what looks like an appalling sectarian attack that happened at that event that night.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The North Belfast strategic good relations programme is managed by the Community Relations Council and delivered as part of the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy. In 2024-25, 40 projects were delivered, engaging approximately 14,000 people, with local solutions being provided to local issues. The programme has been independently reviewed, most recently in 2022, and was found to be successful in meeting its intended aims. It is currently being considered as part of the T:BUC review, and we are currently working with officials on the development of a refreshed approach to good relations, including how to meet the ongoing needs of North Belfast.

Mr Brett: I thank the deputy First Minister for that update. Can the deputy First Minister confirm that the fresh look at the scheme will take into consideration the geographical changes that have happened in North Belfast since the scheme was first introduced? Will she also confirm that the groups that currently benefit from that funding are representative of the entire community and not just one section of the North Belfast community?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. I also thank him for being a relentless champion for the groups in North Belfast and ensuring that the issues remain actively discussed and on the table. I am pleased to say that, just in this financial year, there are over 120 funding awards to North Belfast totalling somewhere around £2·6 million. That is a significant amount of support.

The Member is absolutely right: the scheme was developed some time ago, and it is fair to say that a number of the groups that historically benefited from the scheme are, for a range of reasons, no longer part of that scheme. That has meant that there is not a fair and equitable distribution of that funding in North Belfast, nor is it accurately and relevantly getting to the places that it needs to get to. The scheme needs to be reviewed, and it certainly needs to be revised with more groups coming into that, but we are also looking at that in the context of the T:BUC review to see how best we can support the communities in North Belfast that the Member champions.

Miss McAllister: Minister, do you agree that taking a fresh look at the good relations strategy in North Belfast should also include considering the reasons that keep communities apart? Some fantastic work goes on in my constituency of North Belfast, but, 25 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, we still have peace walls, with one in particular that runs through the park. Should peace walls also be part of that initiative, working alongside the Department of Justice and the council to bring communities together so that —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Miss McAllister: — we can address the reasons that divide them?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. She will be aware that I was heavily involved in the creation of the first T:BUC strategy, and I look forward to T:BUC 2, which will be the refreshed and revised strategy. However, it is also fair to say that the core aspects of that strategy remain as relevant today as they were when we first launched it. It is all about community cohesion and community resilience but also, importantly, working with communities.

There was a signature project as part of the first T:BUC strategy that was about the reduction of the barriers between communities. There has been some success from that, but it has not been as fast as we would have hoped. We set ambitious targets to remove all peace walls. We worked closely with her then party colleague David Ford in the Department of Justice and others to push Departments to do everything that they could to remove them. Some really good work has been done in North Belfast to that end, but, importantly, it is about working with communities and ensuring that they feel safe and secure. It is not about doing things to communities but about working with them to make sure that there is community consensus.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The module 2 report sets out 19 key recommendations concerning governance and decision-making that we will now carefully consider. Our priority is to ensure that the Executive can respond swiftly and cohesively in any future emergency and that the governance arrangements support collaboration rather than division.

Mr O'Toole: Speaking of collaboration rather than division, deputy First Minister, the Hallett inquiry/COVID inquiry was scathing about the two big parties, particularly your party's use of cross-community vetoes to block public health measures. You were a special adviser in TEO at that point: were you involved? Did you support and advocate the use of those cross-community vetoes? Do you stand by them now? If not, do you agree that the inquiry has illustrated the need for fundamental reform of how this place works?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is an incredibly important but sensitive issue. We have worked with the Northern Ireland COVID Bereaved Families for Justice, and there is no doubt that that group wants to see improvements in how we handle and deal with such situations. I take that responsibility hugely seriously. We have been working through all the recommendations. We will go back to the families and will publish that report every six months. Serious consideration is being given to how we can make meaningful differences.

Ours is not an easy system of government to operate at the best of times, but it is particularly difficult in challenging circumstances because four parties are around that table. I was a special adviser at the time. I recognise how challenging it was, particularly because, as the report highlighted, there was no clear evidence to follow. Often, the mantra was "follow the evidence", but the evidence was not there. It was "follow the science", but the science was very unclear. In that sense, of course, there needs to be discussion, challenge and examination. I am pleased to say that we have already taken action on some of those recommendations, such as the appointment of the Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser (CSTA) and ensuring that we have by right a seat around the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) table, so that, if such things happen again, we are very much integrated with the medical and scientific evidence.

Mr McGuigan: Deputy First Minister, how will Executive Office structures apply the lessons from what was an unprecedented global health emergency?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Recently, we had Exercise Pegasus across the UK to see what improvements had been made to the systems. It was a mock exercise, but it was taken seriously. For example, there were a number of Executive meetings at which we considered the evidence that emerged. There is no doubt that, at the heart of it, there must be the right structure and the ability to get advice from the right people in a timely way. We in the Executive must ensure that we ask the right questions, take the advice and try to plot the way forward. Often, particularly with things such as pandemics, it will be an evolving situation when it comes to the issue itself and to the evidence and the scientific issues that come out about it. Should it happen again, we want and need to get it right. That is why we are taking time to improve the structures so that we have clear decision-making mechanisms and, importantly, get the right advice in a timely way.

Ms Forsythe: Does the deputy First Minister agree that the attendance of the First Minister at the funeral of Bobby Storey during the pandemic was hugely damaging to public confidence and the Executive's advice?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Personally speaking, I agree with the Member: it sent absolutely the wrong message. I spoke to many people about it. I have friends who lost loved ones during the COVID pandemic. They could not have a proper funeral, and, if they had a large family, they could not have all of their family at the funeral. They sat at a funeral and could not be comforted by family members. That was absolutely heartbreaking. So many families across Northern Ireland did not get that closure, but they abided by the rules. It was so offensive for them to see what played out when thousands of people turned out at that funeral.

Regardless of the technicalities around whether attendance was within the guidance, the people who set the rules ought to have abided by them, in detail and in spirit. That incident really let us all down. We need to learn from that and move on. The people whom we serve must be at the heart of everything that we do.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: That was a rather laboured metaphor. The Budget is a serious matter, and we will deal with it seriously. The exchange of letters between the Finance Minister and the Education Minister outlined starkly the challenges that we face in our core public services. Throughout this year, Health and Education in particular have made clear the pressure that they are under. That is not new; we know that there are big challenges in those areas. Until we can get transformation, we will continue to run inefficient services that cost too much of what we have. Those are big issues for the Executive to take on. We must tackle transformation and inefficiency and ensure that the money that goes to Departments for our public services is maximised. The Minister of Education and the Minister of Health are up for that, but it is an important discussion to have, because, again, the heart of the matter is that we want excellent public services for the people whom we serve.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, there is nothing laboured about holding you to account for what your party does. Today, you have failed to give me a commitment on a multi-year Budget and on institutional reform, both of which are essential. Your party claims to want to make Northern Ireland work, but your actions suggest anything but that. In sincerely wishing you and your colleagues a merry Christmas, may I say that, if a ghost appears before you or your colleagues on Christmas Eve — the ghost of Christmas yet to come — and shows you a vision of a new Ireland, you should reflect on whether your party's actions have helped to hasten the arrival of that day?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am absolutely committed to making Northern Ireland work. We must all work together constructively, drive forward transformation, drive forward efficiency and make sure that we deliver excellent public services.

We have a challenge at the moment in our big Departments. That is no laughing matter. It is not a joke. It is serious, and we will engage on that in the next days and weeks, because I fully support a multi-year Budget. There are challenges, looking across all the needs and demands in each Department, but I give an absolute commitment to work with everyone to drive forward the outcomes that we want to see.

Mrs Guy: I do not have any festive metaphors. I just have a simple question.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. We are actively looking at that. We have looked at a range of ideas and proposals for what a civic forum would look like. The reconstituted Civic Forum will be smaller. The idea behind it is that people with particular expertise on an issue can be brought in to produce a report. We are actively looking at a range of issues, in line with other developments that we have been pushing forward in the Executive Office, including the delivery unit. It is about finding a way of adding value to the work that happens in Departments and other places to ensure that it amounts to value for money, and, perhaps, to bring a different way of looking at those issues. The value of the likes of the Civic Forum is in bringing people in from the outside, partly as disruptor and partly to come with different ideas and new ways of doing things to try to better reach the outcome.

Mrs Guy: I will interpret that as a "No" to the question of getting those proposals by the end of 2025.

Staying with civic engagement, there is a commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' to bring forward one to two issues a year for civic engagement, including one citizens' assembly. We are halfway through that decade. Will TEO deliver a citizens' assembly next year? Does the deputy First Minister agree that reform of the institutions is the logical first topic of discussion at that citizens' assembly? Without the institutions, we cannot deliver for any of our people.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. There is a tendency in this place, from the Ministers from the Member's party in particular, to try to devolve responsibility for decision-making from this place, should that be to arm's-length bodies, new bodies or new commissions. I do not know how many of those are coming through. Reform is an issue that should be discussed, but it should be discussed in this place, not put out to another body.

I also say to the Member that we need to be very careful when talking about 'New Decade, New Approach'. Members in this place talk, all the time, about so-called commitments in 'New Decade, New Approach'. I ask that everybody look at that document carefully. There are a number of annexes and attachments to it that indicate that such issues may be "considered" by the Assembly, but there were not political agreements across the parties on those. We have no plans to have a citizens' assembly.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. As I indicated to the House previously, international relations is not a devolved issue, although we do, of course, engage internationally, which is why our international relations strategy will incorporate a range of work that we do through Invest NI and trade discussions, as well as through soft diplomacy of the type that we do around St Patrick's Day and incoming visits to Northern Ireland from a range of delegations. All those aspects of the strategy are very clear: we do that at the moment.

The Member will be aware, however, that a number of significant global issues have been happening. We have asked the international relations team to fully consider those, particularly how we engage on tariffs and the evolving nature of the UK-EU discussions on the substantive trade deal. There are a number of moving parts in our international relationships. We want to make sure that what we come out with is fit for purpose and takes into account not just the way that we have done things in the past but the challenges that we have seen evolving over the past 12 months.

Mr Donnelly: Without wishing to extend the seasonal metaphors, that is Christmas fudge. The Economy Minister is in China. Does the deputy First Minister accept that such overseas engagements are happening without an Executive-agreed framework and that the lack of strategy is potentially damaging to Northern Ireland at a time when clarity and agreement are urgently needed on the approach to handling issues such as human rights?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. No, it does not impact on that at all. It does not take there to be a strategy for people to know that they need to go out and champion Northern Ireland and our businesses to try to attract inward investment. We have a strategic direction for that, which is set with Invest NI, in where our offices are. I support bringing forward a revised and refreshed international relations strategy that brings in all those threads, but I highlight the fact that, Michelle, the First Minister, and I raised the issue of human rights when we met the Chinese, and that I have asked for a look to be taken at what a human rights framework for the approach to international engagement would look like, particularly in our China office.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. The mechanisms set down by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and amended by the St Andrews Agreement recognised that significant sections in each community are represented in the Executive and in this place. In fact, it was her party and nationalist parties that pushed so hard to ensure that there were minority vetoes and consensus on the various voting blocs in this place. It is now the case that, every time that there is a majority, or there is a feeling that there may be a slight majority, on a particular issue, no matter how divisive that may be, that that should simply prevail. That is not how those mechanisms work. We have seen that play out in City Hall and in this place. There is no consensus on that issue.

From the point of view of a power-sharing Executive in a place where we are all here by consensus — we agreed on the terms of Executive formation and Assembly restoration — we need to be clear that, where there is no community consensus, the petition of concern is the mechanism to very clearly demonstrate that, and, on this issue, there is no community consensus.

Mrs Dillon: It is to protect minority rights. There was consensus from the people of the North that they did not want to be removed from the European Union; I just make that clear. Do you now accept that Brexit, with everything that has resulted from it, has been an economic and political disaster that is supported by a shrinking minority in Britain, in the North and, indeed, in the Assembly and that the people of the North voted to remain in Europe?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: There was not consensus on the issue in Northern Ireland; there was a majority that voted in Northern Ireland, but there was also a majority across the United Kingdom that voted to leave. At the very heart of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was an acceptance that Northern Ireland would remain, in its entirety, part of the United Kingdom until such time as the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland separately voted otherwise: the Member's party accepted that. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. By democratic referendum, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Regardless of your view of it, that is a democratic decision that, of course, the UK Government ought to have abided by. It is not about how the constituent parts of the UK voted. The UK, as a whole, voted to leave, and the UK as a whole, of course, ought to have abided by that referendum and to have left.

Mr Speaker: Mr Bradley is not in his place.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question, which, as he will know, is about something that is close to my heart. Our veterans have not been treated and respected as they ought to have been. The needs of Northern Ireland veterans are just as important as those of veterans in any other part of the United Kingdom, if not more so. We contribute significantly more per head of the population to our armed forces, and many people were impacted on by the Troubles.

We have many people coming forward for the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme who suffer from a range of mental health issues and, it is important to say, from post-traumatic stress disorder. It is clear from listening to people talk about that that it was not treated as it ought to have been at the time.

Our armed forces community has significant needs, and we need to do more to support it. I am pleased to say that, under the armed forces legislation, there are particular obligations for Education, Health and councils. Each relevant Department is examining those in order to push them forward, but I firmly believe that the Northern Ireland Executive should fully adopt the armed forces covenant. We should step up and support those who, like you, did so much to defend and to serve.

Mr Allen: I declare an interest as a military veteran. I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. What further steps are available to the Executive to oversee governance and accountability and to make sure that, where disadvantage arises, it is tackled and addressed head-on?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Unfortunately, there is not, nor has there been, political agreement in the Executive Office, because Sinn Féin takes a particular approach to the issue. I appeal to the Sinn Féin Ministers in the Executive to overcome their prejudice against our armed forces community and to recognise that it has objective needs. We often hear from the Sinn Féin Benches that things should be based on objective need. There are objective needs in our armed forces community, and Sinn Féin should overcome what it thinks politically about our armed forces in order to make sure that those needs are met.

I would like the Executive to agree the armed forces covenant.

We talk about a minority and a majority, and I believe that there is a majority in the Executive to support an armed forces covenant being fully applied across all our Departments. In the meantime, individual Departments, such as the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and the Department of Education, can drive forward what they can do to really support those in our armed forces who did so much to defend and protect all of us in Northern Ireland and across the UK.

Mr Speaker: Members, please take your ease for a moment while the Ministers change.

Mr Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Over the past five financial years, my Department has implemented the following policies to tackle fuel poverty and reduce the impact of rising energy costs. The COVID-19 heating payment scheme was established in 2021 as part of the COVID-19 response to assist households to offset additional heating costs incurred during the pandemic so that they would not create an added burden or anxiety. The energy payment support scheme was implemented in 2022. The cost-of-living support payments commenced in 2022-23 and extended into 2023-24. In October 2024, I secured £17 million in Executive funding, enabling a one-off £100 payment during the winter of 2024-25 for pensioners affected by changes to the winter fuel payment scheme. Alongside that, over the past five years, my Department has continued to deliver cold weather payments, discretionary support schemes, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) oil-buying networks, the NIHE energy savings advice line, the affordable warmth scheme and winter fuel payments.

Mr Allen: I thank the Communities Minister for his answer. Minister, the question refers to tackling fuel poverty, so will you elaborate on the analysis that the Department has done of how those initiatives have driven down fuel poverty?

Mr Lyons: I do not have that analysis to hand. However, before the end of this month, I will present the new fuel poverty strategy to the Executive. The point of that strategy is to make sure that we have measures in place that will make a difference. I am clear that we need to make sure that we target people with interventions that will make a difference not just for one winter but year after year. We will do that by making sure that improvements are made to homes and to heating systems. Those measures have the longer-term impact and bring better value for money, which is what I am determined to deliver.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his commitment to address fuel poverty. Minister, do you have any plans to increase funding for the affordable warmth scheme?

Mr Lyons: Yes, because that is one of the most effective ways that we can use our money, whether that is on boilers, insulation or other measures that can have benefit year-on-year, as I outlined in my previous answer. I committed an opening budget of £7·5 million to the affordable warmth scheme this year, covering 5% of committed approvals from the previous year and £2·5 million for new approvals this year. As always, I requested additional funding for the affordable warmth scheme in the monitoring rounds; however, those bids were not met. For that reason, I have committed a further £1·5 million to the scheme this year for new approvals, and that will be found from within my Department's budget.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, we await the much looked-forward-to fuel poverty strategy. Have you made adequate application to the multi-year Budget to fund any innovative measures that will come forward in that strategy?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to confirm that I will make significant bids to the Executive for the fuel poverty strategy. I want it to be ambitious and transformational, and it is a good investment. We have been good in recent years at handing people funding to help them with their energy bills, but that helps for only one year. I want to do something that is much longer-term and that has recurring benefit every year without a recurring cost. That is one of the best ways that we can use our money and one of the best ways that we can tackle poverty, because so much poverty in Northern Ireland can be attributed to fuel poverty and the costs associated with it. I will make ambitious bids to the Executive and look forward to support for something that can be truly transformational.

Ms Hunter: With regard to fuel poverty, can you outline what effort you are making to tackle the issue of damp and mould in houses across Northern Ireland? Have you considered introducing Awaab's law in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: That is why I am bringing forward the fuel strategy and why it will have targeted measures to help those most in need. The issues that the Member raises are a direct result of the inefficiency of some of our homes, so that will be addressed.

We are not considering Awaab's law at the minute because we have other measures and standards already in place in Northern Ireland that were not present in England and the rest of the UK. However, those things will all be kept under review.

Mr Lyons: I anticipate that, throughout the lifespan of the strategy, as individual Departments develop and deliver actions, they may wish to use the potential of the Children's Services Co-operation Act to ensure a joined-up and sustainable approach to delivery. That will be especially important where actions to be delivered require partnership work and extend across the competency and vires of more than one Department. In particular, when developing the associated action plan for the anti-poverty strategy, I will ensure that colleagues consider the Children’s Service Co-operation Act where appropriate.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. There are so many issues, as he has alluded to, in tackling poverty for which we need cross-departmental action, not least when we seek to tackle poverty that affects children. The issue of widening access to free school meals was debated a couple of weeks ago in the Chamber. What collaborative work is he undertaking with the Education Minister to deliver on that agenda?

Mr Lyons: The Member is right to highlight that there are issues that cut across Departments, and that is why it is a cross-departmental and Executive anti-poverty strategy. There have been ongoing discussions at the cross-departmental working group level to look at the actions that we can put in place that will make a difference.

We need to spend our money where it can be most effective and go towards those in need. That is where the issues come, along with the universal approach to free school meals in particular. I assure the Member that there has been close working with the Education Minister on a number of the issues that will affect children and young people in schools.

Mrs Cameron: Both Sinn Féin and the Alliance Minister have talked about introducing a child payment similar to that operating in Scotland. Has the Minister assessed that, and can he share any indications of associated costs?

Mr Lyons: I want to see targets set that are realistic, achievable, sustainable and, most important, based on evidence. The last estimate that we have of the cost of introducing a child payment in Northern Ireland is just short of £300 million a year, and that does not count IT and other delivery costs. However, I have yet to see clear evidence that that funding would have the intended impact. Scotland is not on track to meet its targets, despite the delivery of a new child payment costing their Government in excess of £471 million annually.

Let me be clear: I am not at all opposed to spending more money to make sure that we tackle poverty, but I want it done in the right way. That highlights the distinction between choosing what is popular and what is right. We need to work hard at getting more people the opportunities they need, getting more people into work, tackling fuel poverty, having better energy efficiency and ensuring that we have better-paid jobs in Northern Ireland. That is what I want to focus on.

Mr Lyons: I am fully committed to helping people into employment as a key route out of poverty. That is why I have championed employment programmes and initiatives to help people across Northern Ireland, including in the Upper Bann constituency. I have provided £685,000 to the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Labour Market Partnership this year. That funding is delivering a wide range of supports to individuals, including a return-to-work programme, a disability employment programme, a disability upskilling programme and a classroom assistant academy.

On 6 October, I announced a £12·4 million JobStart scheme focused on supporting working-age benefit claimants to move into employment. There has been a positive start across Northern Ireland. In Upper Bann specifically, over 40 JobStart opportunities are already available for claimants in the area. Staff in my jobs and benefits offices in Banbridge, Lurgan and Portadown provide help and support daily to claimants and jobseekers in the Member's constituency. That ranges from job clubs and mini job fairs to bespoke employment and training opportunities. We also fund a range of activities that are designed not only to get more people into work but, importantly, to keep people in work, particularly if they are trying to manage health conditions or disabilities.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister, for your response. We all want to see a more inclusive economy in which people with disabilities can play a part and be economically active. What further work can be done to lower barriers and provide more help for employers who are willing to look at that route to providing employment?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right to raise the issue. That is why my disability and work strategy is out for consultation right now, as she will know. Its ambition is to lift the disability employment rate from 40% to 50%, which represents an additional 50,000 people in employment. That is the combined total of the current workforce of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. That is the difference that we can make.

Not only is it good for employers to have access to a wider pool of talent and for employees to have the economic and health benefits of being in work but it will result in savings from welfare payments and in money from income tax of £750 million a year. We are simply saying that we want to get the disability employment rate up to where it is in the rest of the UK and that doing so will have £750 million of economic benefits. That is why the strategy is out for consultation. I encourage people to respond to it. I hope that, in doing that and through implementing the measures, we can change the perceptions of disabled people and show that work is a route for them. I hope that the strategy will impact on many people in Upper Bann and beyond.

Mr Lyons: My published response outlines the actions that I have instructed my officials to take. Actions that can be delivered in the shorter term include approving an industry code of practice from 1 January that will strengthen existing provisions associated with the recommendation for mandatory training on responsible service, protecting vulnerable groups and alcohol harm for licence holders and staff; improving the accessibility of the licensing regime, including updating the Department's dedicated liquor licensing web page and working with court staff on the design of its modernisation and digitalisation programme; and investigating the options for the licensing of cultural venues, including the potential to introduce secondary legislation to expand the categories of venue eligible to apply for a place of public entertainment licence. The relevant recommendations in the report on a review of the local producer's licence are to be considered as part of a departmental review of those provisions that is expected to launch early next year.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, the report that your Department commissioned was unequivocal in showing that the surrender principle prevents new pubs from being set up. Evidence shows that two thirds of existing licences are being surrendered to off-licences rather than to bars. Do you accept that your do-nothing approach will do further damage to the night-time economy and will cause the number of bars in cities, towns and villages to continue to reduce while preventing entrepreneurs from setting up new bars and businesses?

Mr Lyons: The abolition of the surrender principle in its totality would have a detrimental impact on existing hospitality businesses. I do not accept, however, the Member's assertion that I am taking a do-nothing approach. I have already outlined some of the actions that I will take in the near future. There is also further work to be done — I have set out that work already — on how the current licensing regime has contributed to the growth in off-licences at the expense of pub licences and how that is informed by changes in demand. We will look at how increases in pub sales have contributed to alcohol-related harms. We will also look at occasional licences and at producers' licences. The Member's characterisation of the issue is wrong.

Mr O'Toole: If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker: this place is some craic. Sinn Féin asks this question today, but it opposed the review that I secured in law four years ago. It did not vote for it. The Minister and his party, who are now not doing anything about it, did vote for it. This place is bonkers. I am proud to have been the most consistent champion of reforming the way in which our licensing system works.

People in lots of small towns and villages across Northern Ireland will not be able to go to the pub over Christmas because the pub has shut. The pub has shut because an off-sales has had to open, which means that people will go in and buy big slabs of beer and drink it in far-too-large quantities in their house. If the Minister is not going to reform the surrender principle — I accept that it is a challenge to reform that — will he at least look at establishing a licensing authority? The system is totally opaque and cannot continue the way it is.

Mr Lyons: The Member is just making generalisations. We do not have any evidence for what he has just said. That is why we have said that we are going to look at what the causes are of the licenses being surrendered to off-licences rather than other pubs. You have to look at the picture across the UK and Ireland, where there are different licensing regimes in place. They are having similar issues in those areas. Pubs and bars are struggling to stay open in other parts of the UK as well, so I do not think that you can lay that entirely at the feet of the licensing regime. I hope that the Member listened to what I said when I made the statement in the Chamber and to what I have said today. He is wrong to assert that nothing is being done on the issue.

Mr Martin: Minister, what is your plan regarding the report recommendations specifically around providing help to local producers by extending taproom opening hours and the possibility of allowing guest taps in pubs?

Mr Lyons: I have not rejected the author's recommendations in relation to local producers' licences. We introduced those licences to modernise the regime in 2022. We are under an obligation to undertake a statutory review of the provisions, which I anticipate will be launched early next year. My response to the author's recommendations, in addition to the need for further revision and reform, will be considered in the context of the responses to that wider review. My Department does not have the power to require pubs to provide a guest beer tap on their premises, and it will be for the Department for the Economy and Invest NI to look at that, but we will be reviewing that next year.

Ms Bradshaw: Minister, I was in the Chamber along with many others on the day on which you made your statement on how you were taking forward the recommendations from the University of Stirling's review. It was very clear that day that you took your direction on the surrender principle from conversations, possibly, with Hospitality Ulster. Will you explain why you failed to engage with other stakeholders, such as local brewers and producers and CAMRA, in your decision-making?

Mr Lyons: The Member is making that up. She has no idea of what informed my view or the view of this —.

Ms Bradshaw: I am going by what you said, Minister.

Mr Lyons: You have to let me answer the question. That is how Question Time works.

I engaged with other stakeholders. I have engaged with those who came forward. The response to each of the recommendations was set out by me in the Chamber, and they were informed by a variety of factors. Do not try to muddy the waters in any way and say that —.

Ms Bradshaw: Minister, I am just explaining that you said —.

Mr Speaker: You asked a question, Ms Bradshaw, and it is now the Minister's turn to speak, so you should let him.

Mr Lyons: You are trying to muddy the waters and insert some uncertainty into this. These were all carefully considered. I have to take into consideration all the evidence. That is exactly what we have done.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: We do not do points of order during Question Time.

Mr Lyons: All Departments are engaged in the development of the Ulster-Scots language, heritage and culture strategy and the Irish language strategy through the work of the programme of the cross-departmental working group. The group is working to ensure that each strategy is coherent, costed and accompanied by a series of achievable actions within departmental remits. The detailed timing for that work is, to a large degree, outside the control of my Department. There is a wide range of material to be considered. Ministers need to take into account their existing departmental priorities and budgets and the practicalities involved in delivering on the vision. Once the group has completed its work programme, and on receipt of relevant departmental approvals, officials will bring both draft strategies for my consideration, and I will then bring them to the Executive.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra.

Now that Pól Deeds has been appointed as the Irish Language Commissioner, will the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with him around the development of an Irish language strategy and what role the commissioner will have in its implementation?

Mr Lyons: I have not met the commissioner at this stage. Obviously, right now —. The Member is shaking his head, but it is the truth. I have not met the commissioner at this stage. [Interruption.]

I have not met any of the commissioners yet. Right now, the working group —. He is sighing quite a lot, Mr Speaker. He is not very happy, but I am setting out the position for him.

Mr Sheehan: interest is zilch and zero.

Mr Lyons: He says that my interest is "zilch and zero" on the issue. Let me tell the Member that I have not had responses on the issue yet from some Departments. I have had no responses from the Department for Infrastructure.

Some Members: Ooh.

Mr Lyons: I have had no responses from the Department for the Economy —

Some Members: Ooh.

Mr Lyons: — and I have had no responses from the Department of Finance.

Some Members: Oh dear, dear.

Mr Lyons: So, perhaps he might want to spend his time asking some of his party colleagues where their interest lies in the matter. [Interruption.]

He can shout —. He likes to do this: when he does not have any arguments left, he likes to shout from those Back Benches. [Interruption.]

Mr Sheehan —.

Mr Speaker: I think that Mr Sheehan would need to let the Minister respond.

Mr Lyons: Mr Sheehan, the truth might hurt —

Mr Sheehan: The truth is that you are not interested.

Mr Lyons: — but that is what is happening.

Mr Sheehan: You are not interested in developing —.

Mr Speaker: Mr Sheehan, you have been heard. It is the Minister's turn to be heard.

Mr Lyons: Mr Sheehan says that I am not interested in the matter, but it appears that it is his Ministers who are not interested.

Mr Donnelly: We have just heard from the Minister that he has not met any of the language commissioners yet. Does he have any dates or plans to meet them?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I do have plans to meet them, but I am not sure whether those dates have been set yet. If the Member has a genuine interest in that, I am happy to let him know when those meetings happen.

Mr Brooks: There will be some cross words, it appears, in the Sinn Féin group room.

Minister, having seen some of the costs that are being brought about by policies in Belfast City Council, will cost be taken into account in the development of the strategies?

Mr Lyons: I assure the Member that we will certainly not allow ourselves to get into the position that Belfast City Council has allowed itself to get into over the issue. It is right that, when we bring forward proposals on language, those are costed, proportionate, reasonable and accepted by the wider community. Unfortunately, with Belfast City Council, we have seen what happens when some parties ride roughshod over others and have no care or consideration for the public purse. That will not happen in the development of these strategies.

Mr Durkan: If the Minister wants to assure us that his interest in the Irish language is not zilch, will he outline what steps he has taken since being in office to promote and safeguard the Irish language?

Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware that the promotion and development of the Irish language takes place through my Department in the funding that is given to the North/South language bodies. Last week, we had a North/South Language Body meeting and were updated on its work and the new, innovative programmes that it is rolling out. That is where that work on the Irish language takes place.

Mr Lyons: Employment issues for individual Sport NI staff are a matter for Sport NI. At present, the interim chief executive officer remains in place. I am not aware, at this time, of any planned recruitment of a new chief executive officer.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, as we all know, Sport NI has been beset with governance issues for a number of years. It is crucial that that organisation has effective and stable leadership. Will the Minister give an update on the overall governance arrangements of Sport NI and whether he plans to review them?

Mr Lyons: The Member will understand that I cannot comment further on that particular issue. However, there has been considerable improvement over the past year, in particular. I am very supportive of and pleased with the work that the board, under its new chair and the interim chief executive officer, is doing. We are in a much better governance position in Sport NI than we have been in the past, and I hope that it can focus now on sporting issues rather than some of the governance issues that have been such a cause for concern over the past number of years.

Mr McMurray: While Sport NI has had its travails, with two chief executive officers and the governance issues that the Minister has referenced, the jewel in its crown — Tollymore National Outdoor Centre — remains closed. What commitments and assurances can the Minister give that a new Sport NI chief executive officer will ensure that NI retains a national outdoor centre and ensure the safety of all those involved in outdoor recreation?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for his question and for his support of the project. Both he and Diane Forsythe have raised it with me separately, and I understand its importance, not just for South Down but for Northern Ireland more widely. The Member will be aware that a review is taking place. I cannot say anything more on that at the moment, but I promise to keep him and other interested Members updated.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give an assurance that, during the search for a new chief executive of Sport NI, consideration will be given to finding someone who will strive to ensure that people from Northern Ireland can compete for the United Kingdom at an international level in all sports if they want to?

Mr Lyons: Under my leadership, that is the policy of the Department. That is what we are pursuing, and we believe that people should be free to choose. There has been ongoing work on that since I came into office, and I have made very clear what I expect of officials. Work is being done, some of it at an international level, and some of it at a UK-wide level as sports councils meet to set policy. The Member can be assured that that is the policy of the Department under my leadership.

Mr Lyons: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 8 and 14 together.

I can advise that 744 of the 835 applicants who submitted expressions of interest have been invited to complete a stage 2 application. The stage 2 application process opened on Thursday 4 December, and it will close on Monday 23 January 2026.

Stage 1 — the expression of interest — was deliberately light touch to make it accessible for all groups. However, stage 2 will be a more in-depth application form, which will be assessed by Co-operation Ireland. Applications will be scored against evidence of need, impact and sustainability, capacity and readiness and value for money. It is intended that applicants will be notified of the final outcome by the end of March 2026.

Mr Clarke: First, I commend the Minister for the programme. It has clearly been successful, given the high number of applications. As I am sure that the Minister knows, a high number of those will be from rural locations. Will the Minister give an update on Mr Muir's commitment to providing additional funding, given that he has responsibility for rural areas? Also, now that the application window is open, will the Minister look to move the requirement for building control certificates to a later stage so that the process is not front-loaded? Otherwise, that could make it difficult for some applicants.

Mr Lyons: I am pleased to report that there has been positive engagement with the AERA Minister. As the Member will be aware, over 50% of applications were from rural communities. I hope that we can make progress and announce the detail of that very soon. It is an important fund, which will make significant changes to communities, rural and urban, and I look forward to its being progressed. I understand the Member's concerns with regard to the high costs involved with building control applications. I will be meeting officials after Question Time to discuss that, and I am happy to provide the Member with an update in due course. It is important that projects are shovel-ready to ensure that all spending is incurred within the financial year, but I hear what is being said, and I will do my best on that.

Ms Ferguson: Many groups are frustrated by the fact that you have to have planning permission in place to qualify. Will the Minister clarify why that requirement was added?

Mr Lyons: As I have said, we need to make sure that projects are shovel-ready so that the money can be spent in the next financial year. We did not want to be in a position where we were taking a risk on applicants being able to get planning permission, because that would put the ability to spend that money in-year under pressure. That is why that rule was put in place.

Mr Butler: I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the Ballinderry War Memorial Hall in my constituency, which is a small volunteer-led community hall. Will the Minister detail how those smaller community halls will receive equitable access to the funding and support with any further application processes?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to confirm that it will all be done in a completely fair and transparent manner. That is set out in all the guidance notes and documentation. I encourage Members, and members of the public who have applied, to read that guidance, where they will see the processes that will be put in place and what we will be doing to help the projects to progress.

Ms Egan: Minister, will you commit to producing, once the funding is allocated, a full list of the successful applications, the works to be carried out, the location of the community halls and the amount awarded to each?

Mr Lyons: There are rules around the release of information — some of it may need to be caveated or redacted — but I am more than happy to do everything that we can within the law to be as open and transparent as possible.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: The Department and the sector face many challenges, particularly in relation to budget. Those challenges create opportunities for us to be creative. We need to do more with less. We need to work together to address the barriers to finance and social housing supply. I have not seen the research that is quoted in the media today. I have no doubt that it will continue to be a challenging environment for housing associations if they continue to do everything in the way that they have always done. That is why I have said that I will work with them urgently on the design guide and other regulations to find efficiencies and make it as cheap as possible, within current standards, to build more homes. Yes, the reduction in the grant, if that is the only thing that happens, will have an impact, but it needs to be matched by other actions, looking at efficiencies, the design guide and private investment.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer, although I am surprised that he has not had time to see that important research. There are varying opinions on the impact of the Minister's move. I sincerely hope that he is right; I fear, however, that he will be proven wrong. He has now committed to working with the housing associations; he did not consult with them prior to the decision. What assurances can he give to the 40,000 households on the waiting list that the changes will not impact on them negatively?

Mr Lyons: We have done extensive work and research to make sure that we are putting the grant where it can make the most impact and deliver the most homes. I need to stretch it as far as possible. Quite frankly, Mr Durkan, the status quo is not good enough. I can do only what I can with the money that I have. I need to make it go further. That is why I need the housing associations to work with me and to look at, yes, additional private finance but also making the moves that we can make, and that they have asked me to make, to make the building of homes more cost-effective.

There are issues around the design guide that I have said that I will look at urgently. The housing associations have asked me whether every single home needs to have the extra structure in place so that they can be adapted for disabilities. That requirement adds thousands of pounds to the cost of every house, and removing it would more than outweigh the reduction in the grant that is available. I am more than happy to say that I will not stick to the status quo and will always look for innovative ways in which we can do our job and meet our targets. I will work with the housing associations on that, and we will use every lever that we can. It is important, however, that we get as much out of our grant as possible so that we can build as many homes as possible.

Mr Lyons: We have a problem in this country with economic inactivity. In the UK as a whole, economic inactivity is at 21%; in Northern Ireland, it is at almost 27%. That is why I am investing over £12 million in a new JobStart programme that helps those who find it hardest to access employment. We need to get more people into work, and that is what we are doing through that scheme.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that it is simply unfair that an ever-increasing number of working people are being asked to pay more to cover the cost of rising benefits bills and that that situation is becoming completely unsustainable?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. I will give the Member some figures. Ten years ago, working-age benefits across the UK cost £57 billion. Today, the cost is more than £127 billion. In Northern Ireland, five years ago, the estimated working-age welfare bill was £3·2 billion. In just five years, that has risen to £4·7 billion. That is an increase of almost 50% in five years. Let me ask this: do we feel 50% better off? Have we dealt with poverty through that? No, we have not, so we cannot keep going down that route. We need the economy to be more productive and to get more people into work, because that is unsustainable. We cannot continue to find ourselves in a position where, perversely, it is more economically advantageous to be on benefits than in work.

It is about how we will create a functioning, better society. We need to make sure that we become more productive overall. We also need to tackle not only the benefits bill but fraud and error in the system. The cost of that is £350 million a year. Our constituents go out every day to work hard, but there are those who deliberately misrepresent their circumstances. People ask, "Why do you always go on about this? Why do you always go on about welfare fraud and welfare error?". I do so because that comes at a cost to the people whom I represent and impacts on those who are in need. I am unashamed in standing up for and alongside those who go out and do a decent day's work. The question is this: why will Sinn Féin not join me in that? Why will it not let my paper go on the Executive agenda so that we can put a plan in place to deal with welfare fraud and error? I am on the side of working people. Why is it on the side of criminals?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for raising the matter. I raise it all the time in the House, and I have to say that I am starting to get really fed up with how we are going round and round in circles on it. I am quite happy to update the House today. The Treasury asks for more information, we provide that information and it then asks for more. We need the Government to recognise how urgent it is, and we need them to get on with it. This is not complex; it is about a slight clarification of what the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is. We need to get on with that, and we need the Government to step up. I will continue to make that case.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you previously indicated that you plan to bring a policy to the Executive on utilising public land for social housing. When will the details of that policy be made public?

Mr Lyons: I hope to bring that to the Executive very soon. Before doing so, I wanted to engage with the Department of Finance — that is what I have been doing — and Land and Property Services on some of the issues. Unfortunately, we are still going back and forth on them. I hope to bring that policy to the Executive very soon, however, because I want us to use every single tool in our arsenal to get into a position to build more homes. I will continue to work on that.

Mr Lyons: I absolutely agree with the Member: the voices of young people need to be heard. Their voices are heard in different ways. We have public consultation processes in which young people can share their views. I have had a number of engagements with the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People. Engagements have also happened through different arm's-length bodies to ensure that we meet the needs of young people and hear their views. If the Member thinks that we should take any further actions, I would be happy to hear about them.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. Do you therefore support the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in domestic law?

Mr Lyons: I would need to do a little bit more work on that to see exactly what would be involved and what additional responsibilities it would place on the Department, but I will happily come back to the Member on that.

Mr Lyons: We are not currently undertaking reviews of the football fund, because we are progressing through to the next stage and doing the due diligence that we said would be done. That continues, and I look forward to its being completed so that we can move on to the next stage.

Mr Delargy: Minister, Derry City Football Club is a thriving club, but your Department left it out of the football fund. What will you do to support Derry City Football Club and the other clubs that were excluded from your fund?

Mr Lyons: I would like to see all clubs going through and all needs being met. Perhaps if the money had not been held to ransom over the past 14 years by members of his party, we might have been able to see more people get through. He shakes his head, but that is the case. There is no reason why that money could not have been released earlier. There is no reason why we could not have made progress. It was left —.

Mr Delargy: There is no reason why

to the north-west.

Mr Lyons: It was left by members of his party to get us to this stage. I am the one who is driving it forward. It would be preferential if it had been done long before now.

Mr Lyons: Those discussions have taken place. There has also been correspondence, but, to date, there has been no positive response from the relevant Ministers.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I thank you for your reply. Allowing early access is the right and caring approach to ensure that people who have been diagnosed can focus on the precious time that they have left without the worry of finances. What support is your Department providing for those who are in such circumstances?

Mr Lyons: A number of supports are available through the Department, including discretionary support for those who find themselves in difficulty. If the Member would like a full list of the supports that we give, I would be happy to provide it to her directly in writing. I understand what a difficult time that can be, and we want to be in a position to help. We have a number of schemes that will help those who are in need.

Mr Lyons: I am not sure how much will come from that or how much will be a Barnett consequential that we will be able to avail ourselves of. However, none of it will come ring-fenced; it will be for the Executive to decide how to spend it.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Minister. As has been referenced, the latest labour force survey shows that around 23,000 young people in Northern Ireland are not in education, employment or training. In that context, if Barnett consequentials materialise on the back of the UK scheme, will you make the case that some of it should be allocated to tackling those numbers and the underlying causes that keep young people out of employment and training?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. We have another expansion of the JobStart scheme to ensure that we can get more people into work and give them the support that they need. Certainly, I will make a bid for that, because it is a programme that has had a high success rate.

Mr Lyons: I have two papers with the Executive on fraud and error. I cannot comprehend why the party opposite is not allowing them on to the agenda. The Treasury has committed to a business case that would see Northern Ireland recover some of the money that is lost to fraud. When we have Ministers going around saying how tight budgets are, I would have thought that they would welcome the fact that I am bringing forward something that would take money off criminals — those who are deliberately misrepresenting their circumstances to take money that is not theirs. That does not involve a few hundred pounds, but £30,000, £40,000 and, in some cases, £65,000. Therefore, we need to deal with the issue.

Ms Forsythe: Will the Minister detail the risk that is involved in breaking parity with GB through the Bill that is going through Parliament and other interventions by DWP to tackle welfare fraud?

Mr Lyons: The Bill is going through Westminster, and, if we cannot get the Executive's agreement on the matter, we will not have the same enhanced measures to detect, prevent and deter fraud and to recover money that has been overpaid or stolen. It means that the Treasury may consider penalising the Northern Ireland block grant, so there is a reputational risk.

My goodness, how shameful would it be if we were unable to recoup money from criminals and fraudsters but continued to pay them and be fined by Westminster for that? It is a black and white issue. It is straightforward, and it is time to get on with it. Let us target those who are stealing from the rest of us and do everything we can so that we are not fined.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends questions to the Minister for Communities. Members can take their ease for a moment or so.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As a valid petition of concern on the motion has been accepted, I will proceed to ask the Question on the amendment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As Members are aware, because a valid petition of concern has been presented in relation to the motion, the vote on the motion will not be taken today. That concludes the debate.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will make two brief points of order. First, I mentioned earlier that the House had debated a very similar motion and indicated that the House had supported it: it did not, as some Members abstained. I wanted to correct the record in that regard. I am happy to do that, unlike others who are happy not to correct records.

Secondly, I wanted to record that a majority in the House have now given their clear view that there is a need for a European Commission office in Belfast. The public will draw their conclusions about what the House supports.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Thank you for that, Matthew. Neither of those points was a point of order. [Laughter.]

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

Mr McGlone: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

Patsy, please open the debate on the motion.

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

The SDLP has tabled the motion in recognition of the widespread public support for the introduction of Caoimhe's law; in fact, Caoimhe's parents, Marie and Noel, are with us today in the Public Gallery, along with other people and relations who have faced similar trauma as a result of the recklessness of others.

The support for legislation on the issue is a result of growing concern at the increasing trend of individuals and media outlets capturing and distributing online distressing footage of fatal or critical road traffic collisions with no thought for the families affected. Usually, the person who initially takes the images or videos has no connection to the victim or their family. The scene is simply something that they witnessed, and they want to record it as if they were at a music gig or a festival. The legislation that we want to see implemented would:

Our motion calls on the Minister of Justice and the Minister for Infrastructure to work together to deliver legislation by the end of the mandate.

Caoimhe O'Brien was a young woman who died in a road traffic collision on the A5 between Derry and Strabane in October 2016. News of her death was broadcast on social media before some of her relatives could even be informed of the tragedy. Caoimhe's law is named in her honour and in recognition of the additional trauma caused to her family by the online content about the accident and her death.

I thank and pay tribute to Caoimhe's mother, Marie, and the members of Road Victim Support Northern Ireland-Donegal for their tireless campaign to raise awareness of the pain and hurt that has been caused to families and friends of victims of road traffic accidents (RTAs) by the thoughtless actions of strangers — strangers who, for whatever reason, chose to record the often gruesome scenes of accidents and publish the recordings online, compounding the pain, grief and loss of the victims' families. We want the Assembly to say loudly and clearly to those people, "It is not your story to tell".

A number of councils have called on the Assembly and Executive to legislate. In my constituency of Mid Ulster, SDLP councillors, one of whom is here today, Councillor Malachy Quinn, secured unanimous support for their motion, which called for legal restrictions on the sharing on social media of images and videos taken at the scene of serious traffic collisions. Motions in support of the introduction of Caoimhe's law have also been passed by Newry, Mourne and Down District Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council. Those motions also had cross-party support, reflecting the public desire to see action being taken. We hope that all parties in the Assembly will support our motion today.

We recognise how difficult it is to control the spread of images and videos once they have been published online. The reluctance of social media companies to accept their role as publishers and the legal restrictions that that brings has resulted in a hands-off approach to content moderation by those giants of modern technology. That approach allows them to continue to make massive profits through the sale of their users' personal data while abdicating responsibility for any pain and hurt caused by the online activities that they facilitate. Shutting down individual accounts often fails to prevent the spread of the hurtful content. The ease with which new accounts can be created can result in lengthy and costly battles with social media companies and with the offenders themselves. That is why it is particularly important to place primary responsibility with the person who chooses to take and share the image or video of the scene. That is not to say that the media companies and other individuals would be immune from the legislation, but making the act of taking the image a criminal offence would send a clear signal that we, as a society, do not accept that activity.

In the North, it is not a crime to film or share footage of victims of fatal crashes, and it should be. It is an affront to the dignity of the victims in their final moments. It is a violation of their privacy. Recording those moments and publishing them online creates a painful, often permanent, reminder to families and friends of those final moments.

We are not alone in trying to combat the voyeuristic impulses of some people at the scene of an accident. Some countries continue to rely on outdated legislation that fails to take account of modern technology and the speed at which that content can be replicated and shared across social media. Other countries are looking at specific ways in which to address the issue. In Spain, for example, constitutional privacy protections extend to the families of the deceased; sharing images of dead or injured people without consent can lead to criminal and civil penalties; and, importantly, families can sue for the emotional harm caused by the publishing of those images.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that, after the fact, the harm has already been done? Speaking as somebody who lost someone in a horrific road traffic accident, I can tell you that I am glad that we did not have to see that scene. I can also tell you that we will always remember how we were told that we had lost our loved one. Every family should be afforded the same dignity. After the fact is much too late. People need to take personal responsibility for the harm that they do.

Mr McGlone: Absolutely, and my sympathies are with you, Linda. To be told in such a way — by proxy on social media — must be awful. It is gruesome. It shows no empathy, sympathy or understanding; no reaching out to the other human being or thinking, "This is the wrong way to do things". I do not understand why anyone would even attempt to do that, but, unfortunately, they do. As I said, the most effective way to prevent it is by influencing the actions of people at the scene, because, once the images and videos are online, it is increasingly difficult to put the genie back in the bottle.

A few countries have taken the initiative to put in place robust legislation that, we believe, shows the way forward. In Germany, for example, it is a criminal offence to take or share images that violate a person's highly personal sphere of life, including injured or deceased victims. German police can seize phones at the scene if they suspect that illegal recording has taken place, and German courts have upheld convictions for photographing crash victims even when the images were not shared.

It is important that any legislation or proposal for legislation be done in a coordinated manner and on an all-Ireland basis. Every day, there is a lot of movement of traffic across the border, and the legislation to stop those practices should not just be in one jurisdiction but be comprehensive and all-embracing. New Zealand has the wide-ranging Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, which makes it an offence to share images that would cause "serious emotional distress". New Zealand police can order the immediate removal of images that have been posted online. Significantly, so-called bystander filming can be prosecuted if it breaches privacy or causes distress. In comparison, the only crime that someone can be arrested for here is obstruction of emergency services at the scene. Caoimhe's law would change that.

This is not about censorship; it is about compassion, respect and dignity. Families should not find out through a video on social media that their loved one has been killed or injured, nor should they have to relive those moments every time they unexpectedly come across a video of the scene. It is cruel, traumatising and unacceptable. The legislation is urgent, proportionate and widely supported. That is why we call on the Executive to act without delay to introduce the necessary legislation by the end of the mandate. Caoimhe's law will put compassion, respect and dignity first.

Ms Sheerin: I support the motion and thank my constituency colleague for moving it. As Mr McGlone outlined, motions have been passed with cross-party support by a number of councils, including our own Mid Ulster District Council. We hope to see that replicated here today, because it would be important legislation. I commend the campaigners, particularly the O'Brien family, some of whom, I know, have travelled here today. Their quest to see the harm caused to them as a family not repeated for others is admirable. They should be commended for their work.

As we will hear throughout the debate, road traffic accidents and fatalities are all too regular an occurrence. We are coming into a time of the year when we seem to hear about more and more accidents on our roads. Every life lost on our roads is a tragedy, and that hurt, pain and grief is compounded and exacerbated by the unnecessary sharing of images and videos on social media. I approach the conversation almost with disbelief. I cannot really believe that we need legislation to stop people doing that. I want to believe that it is a lack of awareness — ignorance — rather than malice that causes someone to whip out their phone when they come upon a road accident to do anything other than call emergency services. Unfortunately, however, we too often see circumstances in which that happens.

We talk an awful lot in the Chamber about the dangers of social media and about how toxic it can be when it is not used for good. This is an example of something that causes untold damage and harm; that is completely unnecessary; and that feeds into a culture of people seeing likes, hits and other forms of attention as more important than basic human decency and kindness.

Even while we wait for legislation to be put in place — we know that implementing it properly and policing it will be complex and that it needs to be thorough and well thought out — and work towards that, we can send a clear message from the Chamber today, asking people to think in the wake of a road traffic accident and not to take pictures or videos of people in their most vulnerable moments. Doing that adds absolutely nothing in such a situation; no one adds any value by taking photos or videos of that. People need to cop on a bit and to think carefully before they start filming something like that. The message that we need to send today, even while we wait for legislation to be put in place, is this: everyone needs to think seriously about how their actions can impact on a family in their worst moments.

There has been a spate of measures, and the Infrastructure Minister is working on road safety measures. There have been a number of losses on our roads in recent years, and we want to see that reduced. We want all road users to think carefully when they are out and about. The motion is about just a small element of that that should be common sense. It should not even have to be said, but it is important that we all say it clearly today.

Mr Frew: I support the motion and commend the proposer of it for bringing to the House a very sensitive issue. We are a legislature, and, in legislating, we need flexibility to bring in new laws when they are required. As life becomes more modern and digital technology takes over, the Assembly must adapt. The legislative process takes a long time, as it should, for all sorts of good reasons, but we really need to get started on legislation that is required for the modern era. We support the motion wholeheartedly, because it is simply wrong to take an image on a phone or to use another device to take a picture of the scene of a horrific incident in which someone might be seriously injured or, indeed, lose their life.

I was a first responder to an accident. There was a fatality in a multi-vehicle traffic accident that blocked the road in both directions, which meant that ambulances had to come from both directions, putting them miles out of their way. When I came across that, I would never have dreamt of using my phone to take a picture of the horrific scenes that I witnessed. Not only do people sustain injuries in such incidents, but others can suffer from shock, causing them to do things that are completely out of character. In that moment, such a situation can be dangerous and volatile. Rather than take your phone out, you need to deal with what you see in front of you. You need to think about the casualties who need your help and how you can respond in the best way that you can in that situation while feeling, as you do, completely hopeless. The last thing that you should do is take out your phone, other than to contact the emergency services.

When I came across that scene, I was able to communicate with the fire and ambulance services in order to describe where exactly the accident was on the road and to make sure that appliances came from both directions, as was required. When people come across accidents, it is important that they act responsibly and as best they can and that they communicate with the people whom they need to communicate with, not least those who are involved in the accident.

It is really important that we send the message today that it is wrong to take images at the scene of a tragic, fatal or horrific road accident. You are not serving the people who are caught up in it, you are not solving any of their vulnerabilities and you are absolutely not helping at the scene of an accident. Therefore, I support legislation that will prohibit someone taking an image of such a scene. Think of the devastation for the families finding out that their loved one has perished or has been severely hurt. Think how much more negatively impactful that would be if you were to hear it or see it on social media. Of course, when loved ones get that message from the police, it is all about trying to get around extended family before they hear it from somewhere else. They do not stand a chance if the news goes out on social media quickly and instantly and travels around the community and the town or village where they live. They have absolutely no chance.

I think that we can do this, and we should search through all the existing legislation to see whether we can amend it to include this matter.

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

Mr Frew: That is the way that we should go on the issue in order to have it in legislation as quickly as possible.

Mr McMurray: I thank Mr McGlone for tabling the motion, and I thank the family members of those involved for taking the time to travel here today.

For a long time, we have treated the online world as a separate realm that has limited impact on real life, but that is no longer appropriate. We are becoming increasingly aware of the real and substantial harm that online activities can create, whether those are child abuse, bullying, online scams or the capture and distribution of distressing footage of road traffic collisions. We are discussing the latter today, but it is important to recognise that the motion is part of a bigger piece of work, as Mr Frew referenced, of tackling the much wider picture of online harm. The Minister of Justice, who I thank for being here, has begun to tackle online harm in relation to violence against women and girls, and, in the previous mandate, she strengthened the law in that area by making cyberflashing a criminal offence. Furthermore, she introduced the new offences of adults pretending to be a child to groom a child and of disclosing or threatening to disclose private sexual images. Finally, Minister Long recently consulted on criminalising the creation and sharing of sexually explicit deepfake images. All those offences commonly happen online, and those are important steps in tackling online harm. Something else that those offences have in common is that they are an assault on a victim's dignity and privacy, and the same is true of taking images of serious or even fatal road traffic collisions or, for that matter, other tragic incidents.

I pay tribute to the families who are here today. The family of John O'Brien, who was tragically killed in Newry this year, will know much about the videos that are being shared and how awful that is, with the loss of dignity and the sadness that goes with it. First and foremost, it is about dignity and privacy in the most intimate, private and personal moments, which, of course, include death. In this day and age, we are used to sharing and even oversharing a lot of our private lives, but I do not believe that we have lost the capacity for empathy yet. It has been expressed that the very idea of learning about someone's death through social media, be that by a message or some other way, does not bear thinking about.

For members of the public, the one and only legitimate use of a smartphone at the site of a road traffic collision is to call 999. As Mr Frew described it, as a first-aider, you wonder what you would possibly do in such a scenario, but taking out your phone to voyeuristically capture such things does not bear thinking about. Taking pictures and videos of victims and distributing those images online is completely unacceptable. It can cause real hurt and emotional harm to families, and that should be reflected in the law. An individual was arrested under the Communications Act on suspicion of the misuse of a public electronic network to send a grossly offensive message. That is one route, but it does not tackle the pictures having been taken in the first place, and, among other considerations, it is ultimately dependent on the interpretation of whether the footage shared is grossly offensive. It would be helpful to have that clarity.

Legislation to that effect is already in place in several European countries, and we should follow suit. Road safety is primarily a matter for the Infrastructure Minister, but this proposal touches on the responsibilities of, among others, the UK Government and the PSNI. The Minister for Infrastructure should do her part, and I urge her Department to work with key stakeholders to bring forward legislation as soon as possible.

Mr Beattie: The Ulster Unionist Party will support the motion from the SDLP. We see three elements in it.

The first is that it outlines the trend of taking pictures at the scene of an accident instead of assisting. We now have some elements of society who are so wedded to their phones and social media, scrambling for likes and shares and making media input, that they are too busy creating a story to help. They have lost all sense of decency, morality and compassion. We saw that back in October of this year, as has just been referred to. In a road traffic accident, a 67-year-old pedestrian was struck by a lorry and, sadly, passed away at the scene. Some people stopped to help, but others just stood and took pictures. For reasons known only to them, they decided that they would share those distressing images, which had a terrible effect on the family. John O'Brien, our lovely "Scottish John", or "Scotty John" as he was referred to by many, deserved better. His family deserved better.

Sadly, the trend of taking pictures instead of helping goes well beyond traffic accidents. We see it with assaults on the person, abuse of staff and accidents in the workplace. One of my own staff saw it in the attempted abduction of a female. It has to stop. It is a societal issue that we are going to have to deal with.

Secondly, the motion calls for support for the campaign known as Caoimhe's law:

I absolutely support that, but I would go further and count in all those other instances that I mentioned. Caoimhe's family learned of her death through social media. How utterly reprehensible, disgusting and disgraceful that that could ever happen. It was done by design by those individuals. The individuals responsible have lost touch with any form of morality. They caused unimaginable hurt to Caoimhe's family and friends.

Lastly, the motion calls for the Justice Minister to bring forward legislation:

to make the taking of those ghoulish images illegal. I support that 100%, but, on a practical level, I am not sure that we can get that done before the end of the mandate. I hope that we can and that the Minister can find a way. My colleague on the Justice Committee Paul Frew outlined a way of doing that, and I would support that. However, if it cannot be achieved by the end of the mandate, we need to use what we have available to us to create a deterrent to prevent people from taking pictures. The Communications Act 2003 was used by the police to arrest a 47-year-old woman under the misuse of the public communications network to send grossly offensive and indecent material in regard to the death of John O'Brien in Newry. It did not stop the images, but it can act as a deterrent. We need more of that, but, as was mentioned in a previous debate, the police need the resources to do that, and the courts need to ensure that a deterrent goes with it.

As I bring my remarks to an end, my thoughts are with the families of "Scotty John" and Caoimhe and with all the families who have suffered in this way. It is truly appalling. While the criminal justice system is not the answer to all the issues — I fully accept that — where we have nothing else, we have to use it. We have to create that deterrent.

We have to make people aware that, if they are at the scene of an accident or if they witness something else, such as an assault, and their first action is to pick up the phone not to dial 999 but to take a video, they are wrong, and the justice system will come down on them.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the signatories to the motion, alongside Derry City and Strabane District Council and others that have agreed similar motions in recent weeks. I acknowledge the individuals and families across Irish society who have been affected by fatal road traffic accidents and collisions and have suffered unimaginable loss and heartbreak that no family member, parent or grandparent would ever want to happen to them. I also thank the road safety organisations across our small island that have focused on providing emotional and practical support to people who have been impacted on by the greatest possible tragedy as they navigate life after such heartbreaking loss. I recognise the work that they do on training, education and advocacy around road safety awareness, responsibility and care. As a Derry MLA, I acknowledge the work of Life After and Road Victim Support NI-Donegal. They are voluntary, family-led initiatives by people who have used their personal grief to support others through providing professional counselling services and peer support on shared harrowing experiences and through awareness-raising initiatives.

In border constituencies such as mine, we know that partnership working across Ireland and honest conversations about what we can all do are vital if we are to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. I commend our Minister, Liz Kimmins, for her work on the Share the Road to Zero campaign, which is a road safety initiative encouraging all road users to slow down, stay alert and respect others, alongside specific campaigns for Road Safety Week, the wearing of high-visibility clothing and the protection of particularly vulnerable groups. I acknowledge the Department's road safety strategy and the accompanying action plan and targets, which have been set in collaboration with the blue-light organisations in order to keep a shared focus on reducing the number of fatalities and on specific matters including excessive speed, pedestrian casualties and the prevention of driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.

I recognise the distress and trauma to which the motion refers that can be caused by the recording of footage by individuals or media outlets of individuals at their most vulnerable: injured or, devastatingly, deceased. In current times, that is all the more prevalent, given the constant access to phones with cameras and to social media. Such sensitive situations should be treated with dignity, compassion and respect for the individual and their grieving family, friends and community. They should be left alone. We should help reduce crowding to enable our first responders to act and, vitally, to allow families to be properly informed by the relevant authorities. Alongside my Justice Committee colleagues, I encourage whatever can be done within a review of existing legislation to be done. If something could be done in this mandate, that would be welcome.

I will finish by sending my solidarity to the family of Caoimhe O'Brien and the many other relatives here today who may have lost loved ones. I thank and commend them for their efforts and for their ongoing campaign to highlight the human impact on families such as theirs who have been affected by that reality. We have a collective duty to close a harmful gap and ensure that those who are suffering do not have to face additional suffering.

Mr Martin: I send my condolences to all families across Northern Ireland who have been impacted on by road collisions and road traffic accidents. They are simply terrible events for the families who have to go through them, and they often live with the consequences for years to come. As other Members have reflected, immediate coverage and distressing images being shared on a range of online platforms can severely compound their loss. My colleague Paul mentioned an example. As he was talking, I thought about the fact that I have witnessed only one road traffic accident. I was a special adviser to a Minister at the time. It all came back to me as Paul was speaking. We came across a fairly bad RTA that had just happened. A husband and his daughter were in one car, and another car was involved. The young girl was bleeding fairly badly and trapped in the car. We phoned 999; we were the first on the scene. The Fire and Rescue Service and the Ambulance Service came out and so forth. I would never think of photographing or videoing that sort of thing. We need to get the message out that, in that situation, phones are useful for one thing, which is to phone the emergency services.

Caoimhe was 23 when she passed away. Her family, as they told their loved ones, were slower than social media, which is so speedy these days, and her name was shared online by strangers. I cannot imagine the pain that that caused the family. I acknowledge Caoimhe's family, who are here today. That singular act is so immeasurably cruel and heartless.

I want to clarify one aspect. In answer to a question from Cathal Boylan, the Justice Minister — I am happy to give her the Floor if she wishes to respond to this, or she can answer me when she is summing up — said:

I am happy that the Justice Minister is here. Is there a reason that she is here, rather than the Infrastructure Minister, if the Infrastructure Minister holds the vires? I will give her the Floor if she wants.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I volunteered; otherwise, there might not have been a substantive response to the motion, and I wanted to ensure for those who have been affected that there was an Executive response. As I will outline further, it will require a lot of cross-cutting cooperation between a number of Departments and, potentially, the UK Government.

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

Mr Martin: That is great; thank you very much.

At this point, I pause to thank the Justice Minister and the Infrastructure Minister for meeting a constituent of mine whom I will come to in a second. I lost a constituent called Jaidyn Rice on 8 July. She was just 16 at the time of her death. She had a bright future ahead of her; she wanted to join the army. A man has subsequently been charged with causing death through dangerous driving, causing death while driving without a licence and causing death while driving without insurance. I thank the Justice Minister and the Infrastructure Minister for meeting Elaine and Judith, Jaidyn's mum and grandmother, who are creating a legacy for Jaidyn by trying to protect other pedestrians in the future and keep them safe. What a legacy that would be.

I pay tribute to Patsy for proposing the motion. As he mentioned, legislation exists in Germany, where photographing or recording an incident or victims is treated as a crime. This party fully supports the introduction of such legislation in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Christmas spirit has finally descended on this place, because we will send a united message today that capturing or distributing distressing footage of fatal or critical road accidents is disgraceful and should be made illegal.

My party supports the motion. We would like to see, as the Justice Minister has just mentioned, quick and firm coordination between Justice and Infrastructure, if the vires lies with it, which seems to be the case. As Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, I will raise the issue with the Infrastructure Minister. I have spoken so far as DUP lead on infrastructure, but I think that I can get away with saying, as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, that we will raise the matter with the Minister and see what the Committee can do to get some traction on Caoimhe's law.

Mr Blair: I thank the Members who tabled the important motion. It reflects current concerns and the worry that fills us all that we face a troubling trend of people and some media outlets capturing and distributing upsetting images and videos from serious or fatal road traffic accidents. What used to be rare and isolated decades ago has, with smartphones and social media, become a common and deeply invasive problem for victims and their families.

Countries across Europe, such as France, Spain and Norway, have introduced strong privacy and image rights, ensuring that sharing identifiable images of victims is less permissible. In the United Kingdom, while it is legal to photograph in public, there remains no adequate safeguard against the harm caused by publishing such images. Therefore, we need a legal change.

Many who stop to assist at a crash site show immense bravery and compassion. It is, however, utterly unacceptable for anyone in those circumstances to exploit those moments of crisis and turn the suffering of others into a spectacle for likes or retweets or for a fleeting — for want of a better word — moment of fame. Those actions betray not only the victims and their families but our shared sense of community decency. Such behaviour is driven by selfishness, and those responsible should feel shame and must be held to account. Moreover, social media platforms must do more to remove such material rapidly so that it cannot continue to traumatise families. At this juncture, I thank publicly my Alliance colleague Sorcha Eastwood MP for her work at Westminster, calling for greater regulation of social media platforms. Media outlets must also exercise responsibility. Drones and new technologies should not become new tools for disregarding the dignity and privacy of the deceased or their loved ones.

I especially thank the campaigners for Caoimhe's law. My Alliance Party colleagues and I firmly support making it a criminal offence to record or share images at the scene of fatal traffic collisions. Hopefully, the relevant Ministers across Departments can, moving forward, work closely together to deliver legislation or the appropriate regulation as soon as possible.

We become elected representatives not only to improve the lives of our constituents but to uphold their dignity, demonstrate compassion and take all possible measures to reduce harm. At this juncture, I draw attention to how inaccurate reporting or the broadcasting of speculation can also cause serious harm to the families of road accident casualties. I know personally those who have been impacted by that after losing a loved one. No retraction and no token compensation can mend the hurt or trauma or both caused by speculation on circumstances before a fatal accident or about police inquiries afterwards. Broadcast media must be held responsible in that regard, especially where so-called initial reports do not reflect the facts.
Legislative change backed by cross-departmental effort is essential and must be accompanied by a fundamental behaviour change in our society. I am hopeful that we can move forward and away from such acts and ensure that no family endures additional pain at a time of tragedy. I therefore urge Members to support the motion in the strongest possible terms.

Mr Dunne: As a Member of the Infrastructure Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the motion. I, too, thank Mr McGlone, the proposer of the motion, for tabling it.

The loss or serious injury of a loved one in a traffic collision is a truly devastating event. It not only tears through the fabric of immediate family life but can have a lasting and deeply distressing impact on close friends and the wider community from which the victim comes. I, too, commend Caoimhe's family for their campaign over the years. To have that trauma exacerbated by the selfish actions of individuals chasing engagement on social media or, indeed, any other form of media outlet is as immoral as it is avoidable. Importantly, it can also interfere in the work of our emergency services and compromise the judicial system.

It is disappointing that measures such as those proposed through Caoimhe's law should even have to be considered, but, with the omnipresence of social media in the lives of us all, I agree with the Members who tabled the motion that it may, ultimately, be a necessary step.

We have seen examples, as others have said, in Germany and other parts of the world, including the Netherlands, of various steps being taken to tackle the issue. The evidence suggests that that has had a positive impact on dealing with it.

In recent years, there has been a noticeable increase in the level and, indeed, the graphic and disturbing nature of the content, which is so easily accessible for all users, regardless of age, on social media platforms, such as Facebook, X, TikTok and others. There is, ultimately, an ethical duty on those companies to play their part in moderating the content on their platforms. The role of AI has added a further layer of complication, raising questions about what is genuine and what is fake news. Unfortunately, that only adds to the pain of loved ones and those who are left behind. All of that can be done so instantly — within seconds — which also highlights the seriousness of the situation and reaffirms the need for action.

Loved ones should have dignity, and family privacy should always be respected during such heartbreaking times. No family should ever have to see such horrific videos or images of their loved one's final moments or, indeed, find out from social media that their family member has been involved in an accident. We have heard countless stories of cases in which the families first heard about the accident through social media rather than the official channels of the emergency services. There is no doubt that that type of activity is a form of voyeurism. We have to call it for what it is: non-consensual. Often, it makes victims of people while they are vulnerable, exploits them and causes them, their families and the wider community humiliation.

Members have rightly reflected on the experience of Caoimhe's family and, sadly, we can all point to similar stories in our constituencies. As my colleague mentioned, in recent weeks and months, we have had the privilege of engaging with the family of the late Jaidyn Rice, who was just 16 years old, with her whole life ahead of her, when she was so horrifically killed in a road traffic collision in Bangor. That was only a number of months ago during the summer. Losing a loved one devastates families, and spending a short time with the family of Jaidyn was a real reminder of the pain, hurt and heartache that is now a part of their lives, 24/7.

The unauthorised recording and sharing of photos of road traffic collisions is truly traumatising for families, and it can spread so rapidly and virally across the world in such a short space of time. It goes not just to a local paper distribution area but right across the globe. We support the motion and wish to see more constructive and joined-up work between the Minister of Justice, the Minister for Infrastructure and the UK Government to that end.

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

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a very important motion. I very much welcome the proposer of the motion tabling it and giving the Assembly an opportunity to condemn the sharing of images and videos of fatal road traffic collisions, which is an utterly deplorable practice. It is also a very important opportunity for us to show unity of purpose when it comes to something that can affect anyone at any time in our community.

I commend the hard work of Road Victim Support Northern Ireland-Donegal, the O'Brien family and all the families who have campaigned to raise awareness of the issue and for the introduction of Caoimhe's law, named in honour of Caoimhe O'Brien, who was killed in a crash on the road between Derry and Strabane in October 2016. Caoimhe's mother, Marie O'Brien, has written to me: we have corresponded, and I hope to meet her soon as part of a round-table that we are organising to discuss a way forward.

I have also been disgusted, frankly, to hear stories about bystanders photographing or recording images of fatal road accidents and subsequently sharing them on social media, without any thought or empathy for the impact on the families and friends of the victims. I thank Linda Dillon for her powerful intervention. Any road traffic death is traumatic, but it is especially cruel to have that trauma compounded by the capturing and distribution of images of the scene in the immediate aftermath, causing distress to families, survivors and others who may have previously been involved in road traffic collisions. It is difficult to imagine the pain experienced by family and friends who have lost a loved one in those circumstances only to have their dignity and privacy, and that of their loved one, violated by someone else's voyeurism — and you are right that it is voyeurism. Such images, when shared, can also trigger others who witnessed or were involved in serious road traffic collisions. There is no avoiding those videos once they go online: they will be there in perpetuity and will always turn up on people's feeds.

I was deeply concerned to read about the experience of Fiona Ferris, who bravely stopped to provide CPR to Dominic McGrath after he was knocked down by a bus in Newry in December 2024. Despite the brave efforts of Ms Ferris and others, Mr McGrath sadly passed away at the scene. In the aftermath, it transpired that Mr McGrath's family had been sent a video recording of the scene, although, mercifully, it was received after the PSNI had informed the family of his death. Nonetheless, the callous nature of that type of recording, and the devastating impact that it can have, is clear. As Ms Ferris's brave testimony demonstrates, the recording and distribution of such images not only causes untold pain for the family of the deceased but has the potential to traumatise people and even discourage potential Good Samaritans who attend a scene from being willing to provide medical and first aid assistance.

It is important that we ensure that that type of behaviour is discouraged and identify the best approaches for doing so. As proposed in the motion, one such approach could be the introduction of a specific offence prohibiting the recording and sharing of:

A similar approach, as many Members noted, was adopted by the German Parliament in 2020. It is important to note that, whilst no equivalent offence exists in Northern Ireland, police recently charged an individual for that behaviour under the Communications Act 2003, which contains offences relating to offensive, malicious and nuisance communications. However, the clarity that would be provided by a change in legislation that makes it an explicit offence would, I think, be welcomed by all. Introduction of the proposed new offence would be novel and cut across the responsibilities of many Departments and organisations, including mine. Sadly, we continue to see lives lost on our roads in the most tragic circumstances. Every family that finds itself in that situation has my deepest sympathy and that of my Department. I would dearly like to see a future in which no family has to endure the loss of a loved one in that way.

Whilst primary responsibility for road safety legislation lies with the Department for Infrastructure, my Department and I are working hard to ensure that sentences delivered in the courts reflect the seriousness of the related offences and the impact that they have on, and the sense of loss felt by, victims and their families. To that end, my sentencing Bill will deliver tougher sentencing by increasing the maximum penalty and minimum disqualification periods for the offences of causing death or serious injury by driving. It is important that Ministers work together across the Executive to find timely and effective solutions to these matters.

Whilst the Department for Infrastructure has the main responsibility for road safety, enforcement of the related offences and penalties is often undertaken by police. In addition, telecommunications legislation, including the regulation of social media platforms, is reserved to Westminster, and, therefore, the responsibility lies with the UK Government. Indeed, it may be beneficial and even expeditious, following a more detailed consideration, for the Executive to agree collectively to write to the UK Government to determine whether it may be possible to legislate on a UK-wide basis on this issue given that it engages a reserved matter. I agree with the proposer of the motion that cross-border cooperation is important in this, and I am, therefore, happy to raise the matter with my Irish counterpart.

As a first step, however, it is incumbent on us all as stakeholders, including DFI, the PSNI and social media organisations, to take a key role in the development of proposals. I am committed to ensuring that my Department engages on a cross-departmental basis, led by the Department for Infrastructure, to consider how best we might provide that support. Therefore, I have agreed to participate in a proposed round-table discussion, convened by Road Victim Support Northern Ireland-Donegal, with the Infrastructure and Health Ministers and other organisations, to consider appropriate measures to prevent the unauthorised recording and sharing of photos of road traffic collisions.

It is my hope that, through discussions between all the interested parties, we will be able to identify an approach and a vehicle that will adequately respond to this most serious issue in a timely way, not least because, as John Blair and Stephen Dunne mentioned in their contributions, the videoing of such incidents is not just distressing but often accompanied by speculation that could undermine a police investigation and, where offences are detected, future prosecutions.

In the meantime, I want to use the opportunity that we have been given today to appeal directly to the public to refrain from photographing or recording at the scene of road traffic collisions and to refrain from sharing such images without consent in order to avoid further trauma for victims and their families. I will restate what others have said: the only legitimate use of a phone at the site of a road traffic collision is to call the emergency services.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Mark Durkan to wind up the debate on the motion. Mark, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Durkan: Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. In closing today's debate, I thank every Member who has contributed. The seriousness of the issue has been made clear by the tone of the debate and the compassion shown in it. It is about coming together to protect families and to provide them with dignity, a modicum of humanity and the right to grieve in peace. It is good and refreshing that parties are unanimous in their support of action and of the families. The SDLP does not own the issue; it has been brought to councils by different parties and by independents.

For me, however, the topic is deeply personal. When my sister Deirdre was killed in a car crash at just 18 years of age, our world stopped. It is a devastation that you do not overcome. You simply learn to live with the weight of that profound grief. Ms Dillon spoke earlier of her personal experience. Even now, two and a half decades later, I can recall every single detail of those hours in the immediate aftermath: the phone call from my daddy, who was driving, asking us to pray; the cries of my mother and my sisters; the hopelessness that we felt as we huddled in hope and in prayer; and then the second call to say that Deirdre was dead. What I cannot imagine is the added cruelty of having that horror filmed or shared by strangers, whether out of curiosity, for clicks or for social media likes. I cannot imagine my family learning of that tragedy from a post online or a message pinging into a public WhatsApp group, yet that is exactly what so many families here in the North have had to endure.

The testimonies from the families involved in the campaign have been nothing short of heartbreaking. They are the experiences of people whom we know — our constituents; our neighbours — and I commend and offer condolences to those courageous families, some of whom are in the Public Gallery.

Sixteen-year-old Lisa O'Donnell and her boyfriend were killed in a road traffic accident. Her mother did not hear that news from the police or a family member; it was broken on Facebook. As she stood in her kitchen, unpacking shopping, strangers online were already posting their condolences.

The Bradley family spoke of their brother's motorbike accident. Strangers filmed his final moments, his attempted resuscitation and even his passing, uploading that to Snapchat before his children had even been told.

The campaign carries the name of a young woman loved by her family and her community: Caoimhe O'Brien. Her mother, Marie, has described racing against the internet to reach her son before the rumours and posts did. Her words are worth repeating:

Those are the real-life consequences of the absence of legislation. That is what happens when the law lags behind technology and the new norms that should not be normal anywhere.

In the age of Snapchat, WhatsApp groups, Instagram stories and TikTok, news travels faster than compassion and faster than the speed at which police can knock at a door. For what? It is so that a random stranger can have their morbid curiosity satiated for a moment or two. Meanwhile, it is the families who are left to pick up the pieces. They are not only traumatised by the tragic loss of their loved one but haunted by the invasion that follows and the disturbing images that no one wants to see.

I am not judging all those who may have shared such content. Many of us will have done it. We will have been the first with the big news, even when it is really bad news. The campaign has worked already in some respects — at least, I hope that it has — by helping all of us to re-evaluate our response to incidents. As we have heard, Germany has taken decisive action on the issue, concluding that freedom of expression does not extend to capturing the final moments of someone's life for entertainment or intrusion. We owe it to our constituents to protect them from that violation of privacy and dignity.

Mr Blair correctly identified that this is not just about social media, and he commended campaigners for their work with media outlets to redraw responsible reporting guidelines. Every day that we delay, we run the risk of another family going through what these families have endured. This is not something to be kicked into the long grass. The harm is happening now, and the protection is needed now. That is why we want to see the introduction of the protections before the end of the mandate. I welcome Mr Frew's suggestion that we explore what legislative vehicles are already in transit to which we may be able to tie this in a sensible and sensitive manner.

I pay tribute to those who have carried the campaign on their shoulders while dealing with their grief and trauma: the O'Donnells, the Bradleys, the O'Briens and so many others. I thank Road Victim Support Northern Ireland-Donegal for its relentless advocacy. Ms Ferguson also rightly lauded the work that Life After has done primarily but not exclusively in our constituency. I can think of so many bereaved families who have channelled their enormous loss and insufferable grief into reducing not just the numbers of tragedies on our roads but the suffering of others.

Many of those tragedies have happened on roads that we know well, such as the A5, where far too many families have received life-altering news. One life lost on any road is one too many. Caoimhe's law is just one part of our duty of care. We owe it to bereaved families to work together to make our roads safer, progress long-awaited projects such as the A5, improve road safety and invest more in education and information rather than just more enforcement. That said, today we have a chance to do something meaningful. Caoimhe's law is not just about censorship. It is not even about censorship: it is about decency and preventing further cruelty. It is about giving families the space to grieve without intrusion and ensuring that no parent has to compete with a social media feed to tell their child that their sibling has died.

I wrote to the Infrastructure and Justice Ministers in the summer to ask that they implement Caoimhe's law. Minister Kimmins, whilst stating that the legislation would fall outside her policy remit, committed to supporting its introduction. In the South, the Department of Transport is bringing forward similar measures. Responding last month, Minister Long recognised the importance of the campaign and committed to engaging on the issue by agreeing to take part in a round-table discussion. I thank her for continuing to engage here today. All Members would be keen to get an update following that round-table discussion, as well as an update on how Ministers' commitment to support and engage can become a commitment to act.

The Ministers of Justice and Infrastructure need to work together and with others, and we all need to work quickly to pass the much-needed legislation. Behind every accident, there is a family waiting for that devastating knock on the door. Nobody wants to get that knock, but let us make sure that that knock, if it is coming, comes before the notification on Facebook or elsewhere. In the words of the families who know the pain better than any of us, "It is not your story to tell", but it is our duty to speak out and do something about it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before we call the vote, I thank Members for the respectful debate that we have had in the Assembly today. I express my condolences, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly, to the families who are sitting in the Gallery.