Official Report: Monday 02 February 2026

Mr McGuigan: On Wednesday 4 February, people across the globe will mark World Cancer Day, taking the opportunity to raise awareness of cancer and to promote its prevention, early detection and treatment. World Cancer Day offers an important day on which to reflect on the impact of cancer on individuals, families and communities across the North. It is an opportunity to remember our family members or friends whom we have lost as a result of that terrible disease. I recognise the courage of those living with cancer and the resilience of all our cancer survivors. This year, the World Cancer Day campaign will seek to highlight the emotional and social realities of cancer: aspects that are too often overlooked but that deeply impact on and shape people's lives.

It is important that I recognise and pay tribute to the contributions of the many individuals and organisations that provide fundraising, research, support, care and treatment for members of our cancer community and their families. As Health Committee Chair, I have had the privilege of engaging with the staff of groups such as Cancer Focus, Cancer Research, Macmillan Cancer Support, Young Lives vs Cancer and all the hospices and their many local support groups, as well as the groups campaigning across the North on behalf of people with the various types of cancer, so I see at first hand the enormity of their work and the impact that it has.

Cancer affects thousands of families in the North every year. We know from recent debates in the Chamber that there are many gaps and challenges in cancer care here. I have previously highlighted concerns about early diagnosis, unacceptable waiting times for red-flag referrals, workforce pressures, outdated imaging equipment and access to specialist treatments such as CAR T-cell therapy. In the Chamber, we have heard many individuals' stories, and MLAs have often helped bring into sharp focus the very real human impact of the illness and the shortcomings in our health system. On World Cancer Day, I urge the Assembly to unite around those unique experiences and turn them into meaningful change.

Ms Forsythe: This day last week, I stood here to speak on Reval2026, details of which had broken over the previous weekend. I said that it was "ludicrous" and that it could have "catastrophic" consequences for our local economy. Last Monday afternoon, my colleague Phillip Brett brought a question for urgent oral answer to the House on the issue, and the Minister responded in what can only be described as a bullish manner. He told Members that nobody understood what they were talking about and —.

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind the Member that the Minister has indicated that he is going to make a statement on the issue, this afternoon. Generally, we do not have Members making commentary on issues that are in the Order Paper for later.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Mr Speaker; I appreciate that.

We started out that way, last week, and then the Finance Committee took evidence. We respected the professionalism of the valuers. The point that I want to make is this: throughout the Civil Service, we have professionals who make academic recommendations in their professional field, be that as accountants or valuers, and they bring those forward to Ministers. Ministers and their advisers need to take stock, listen to wider society and assess any economic impact before they push forward with decisions. The Minister said that he was in listening mode, and we have seen a U-turn on Reval2026.

To that point, I hope that the Minister makes the same considerations on the multi-year Budget. I am concerned that he has taken forward the numbers, as he appears to have done on Reval2026, and rolled out his draft multi-year Budget without listening to others. We need to take a perspective of the wider public services and what it will mean for education and the health service. When numbers are presented to our Ministers, they are right to challenge, and they are right to take account of what they will mean for individuals and businesses across Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that the Minister appeared to be in listening mode on Reval2026, but, as we look to the multi-year Budget, we must consider that we owe more to the people of Northern Ireland. Our voluntary and community sector needs security in its contracts, and our people are looking for better public services across education and the health service. We owe it to them to deliver on a multi-year Budget that means something for them. Therefore, I hope that the Minister is in listening mode to all those who have fed back: our school-leaders, who have come together to highlight those points; and our businesses that have highlighted what it means to them. The Minister has shown that he can make a U-turn, but is he in listening mode when it comes to the Budget?

Mrs Guy: Last week, storm Chandra wreaked havoc across Northern Ireland, and I was happy to go out to support many residents across Lagan Valley who were impacted on. I want to raise an issue related to Dromara; one that impacted on a number of elderly residents. On Friday, I spoke with Isobel, and I met Robert and Jock. They told me about devastating floods that have impacted on their properties twice in the past. Therefore, as the storm raged and the rain fell, last week, they lay awake, fearing the worst. Despite previous incidents, which cost tens of thousands of pounds of damage, no meaningful or preventative work has happened or been carried out to prevent that from happening again in the future.

I am the newest rep to the area, and I know that reps across Lagan Valley have been advocating for those residents for a number of years, but I add my voice to theirs to ask the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, Rivers Agency and any other Department that has a responsibility to those elderly residents to come together to find fixes and to make sure that the next time there is a storm — they happen every year now — those residents will not be lying awake, fearing the worst.

Ms McLaughlin: At last week's meeting of the Executive Office Committee, members heard directly from our overseas representatives who are based in Brussels, China and Washington. What struck me most was not just the breadth of engagement but the consistency of the message that they brought back: the global economic landscape is shifting, and Governments across the world are responding in real time. We see that in the European Union's pursuing trade engagement with India; Canada recalibrating its relations with China; and the UK and Ireland mounting renewed trade missions, broadening partnerships, diversifying markets and spreading risk.

That is not accidental but a rational response to a world in transition. For decades, global growth was shaped by an assumption that stability, investor confidence and political reliability would always be anchored in one dominant power, the United States. That assumption no longer holds. Investor confidence has been shaken by the unpredictability, institutional weakening and retreat from multilateralism under the Trump Administration. What we are now witnessing is a deliberate shift away from over-concentration towards balance. That matters to us on this island, because a rebalancing of the global economy presents a real opportunity for Ireland, North and South. A world where capital and innovation are more evenly distributed is one where smaller regions can thrive, but only if we are prepared to seize the moment.

That is why the SDLP believes that the British Government must move with urgency to rebuild closer alliances with Europe. Leaving the European Union was a major misstep, and one that has cost us economically and socially. It is a decision that can be reversed, however. As the global landscape shifts, the case for rejoining the European Union is clearer now than ever before, and social democracy must sit at the heart of how we respond, because diversification is not just an economic strategy but a political one. It means building growth that is shared and sustainable and that is rooted in strong public institutions. Global investors are seeking stability, certainty and long-term value. Northern Ireland can offer that, but only if the Assembly provides coherence, ambition and confidence. Trade missions and overseas offices matter, but they must be matched by delivery at home, a planning system that works, infrastructure that enables growth and an Executive who understand that resilience comes from balance, not dependency.

A new global order is emerging. The question is this: will we recognise that shift early enough to benefit from it or will hesitation and short-term thinking leave us behind?

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms McLaughlin: This is not only a change that is happening to us; it is a change that we must be ready to meet.

Ms Reilly: Tagann "Ní thig leat bheith ciníoch agus Gaelach" chugam nuair a smaoiním ar Fáilte 26. Togra atá ar siúl an tseachtain seo mar chuid de sheachtain frithchiníochais na nGael atá á eagrú ag m’iar-scoil agus m’iar-fhostóir, Coláiste Feirste, agus ag Spórtlann na hÉireann. Mar Ghael, rinneadh leithcheal orm. Is minic a bhí ga orm agus ar phobal na Gaeilge máirseáil ar na sráideanna ar son ár gceart. Ag máirseáil le haitheantas a fháil, agus ag máirseáil ar son an chomhionannais agus le meas agus urraim a fháil. Is cóir agus is ceart dúinn an meas céanna a thabhairt do na daoine sin inár sochaí a bhfuil leithcheal á dhéanamh orthu. Is iad an t-oideachas, an chomhbhá agus an tuiscint na huirlisí is fearr atá againn le dúshlán an chiníochais a thabhairt agus le tacú leis na mionlaigh a bhfuil leithcheal á dhéanamh orthu.

Sin go díreach an rud a dhéanfar leis an chlár d’imeachtaí a chruthaigh Fáilte 26. Réimse leathan imeachtaí, díospóireachtaí agus imeachtaí ealaíne agus spóirt i rith na seachtaine le hargointí na heite deise a bhréagnú agus le fáilte a chur roimh mhionlaigh inár bpobal. Tá "Is Gael mise" i gcroílár ár bhféiniúlachta. Tá fearadh na fáilte ag gach aon duine a bheith ina Ghael. Ní bhaineann sé leis an eitneacht. Mar a deir muid, "Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine." Sheol an Chéad-Aire, Fáilte 26 an tseachtain seo caite. Mar a dúirt sí féin, tá tógáil croí ann daltaí Choláiste Feirste a fheiceáil i gcroílár thogra na seachtaine seo. Is iad ár ndaoine óga ailtirí ár dtodhchaí, mar sin molaim go mór iad as ról gníomhach a ghlacadh i gcoinne an chiníochais. Is mór an clú siad dóibh féin agus dár bpobal.

Tá mé ag dúil le freastal ar chuid de na himeachtaí, agus molaim do Chomhaltaí a bheith ag freastal orthu fosta. Guím gach rath oraibh go léir.

Mr Buckley: Sinn Féin-led Departments are in chaos. There are pothole pandemics. We have a Minister for the Economy who seems more intent on losing than creating jobs for the Northern Ireland economy and a Minister of Finance who has had to do a reverse ferret on a rates increase that would have decimated the hospitality sector. As sure as day follows night, however, once again, the Sinn Féin First Minister is calling for an Irish unity referendum. Once again, people right across Northern Ireland are asking the same question: why this and why now?

Half a million people are on a waiting list for a consultant's appointment, while families are driving on roads that are so riddled with potholes that they resemble those of the Third World.

Communities in every county are seeing their services being stretched beyond breaking point. They see no urgency, no delivery and a Finance Minister who seems to have lost his grasp of the financial realities. Yet, the First Minister is telling those people — our constituents — that a divisive border poll is now the priority. How about the Sinn Féin First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, tells her Ministers in Infrastructure, the Economy and Finance to get their acts together and deal with people's priorities or she appoints competent Ministers who can do just that?

We have heard those promises before. Sinn Féin told its supporters that the border poll would be delivered by 2016. Mind you, it said that in 1974, when it said that it would be a year of victory. Then, it was promised again in 2025. As each deadline passes, more promises fade. Each time they are wheeled out, more scrutiny arises as to Sinn Féin's failures. It is the politics of distraction, with Sinn Féin constantly putting its own narrow ideological drive before the interests of ordinary people. When the pressures mount, the failures become impossible to ignore. The people are calling for action. They are calling for the Assembly to get on and deal with the real issues that are affecting them in education, health and infrastructure. Those are the issues that unite the people of Northern Ireland.

My call to the Sinn Féin Front Bench and to its Back-Benchers is this: no more division and no more distraction. Get on with delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. We are all sick of the sideshow. We want to see real delivery. Are you up to it?

Ms Kimmins: I send my congratulations to Jonesborough Primary School, in my constituency of Newry and Armagh, which has celebrated its 180th birthday over the past year. The school was founded during the great hunger here in Ireland in 1845. The building that the children attend today is the same building that was established almost two centuries ago. Steeped in history, the school has shown superb resilience and endurance, given what it has come through over that period. It remains a very strong, positive environment for children, and indeed the community, in rural Jonesborough.

Last Friday night in the Carrickdale Hotel, the school community came together with past pupils, supporters, family and friends to celebrate and reminisce about everything that the school has achieved. They heard all the different memories from people who have attended the school, and it was a very successful night celebrating everything about Jonesborough Primary School.

I congratulate the Friends of Jonesborough Primary School, the school and the entire community for their fantastic recognition of an incredible milestone. I really look forward to what the future holds for Jonesborough Primary School.

Mr Clarke: Quite often, people look back at past events. I am glad that the Infrastructure Minister is in the Chamber, because I want to talk about past events for the people of Massereene Street and the Riverside area in Antrim who had their houses flooded last week.

Since I came to office in 2007, those houses have been flooded on numerous occasions. What did the residents get? Hollow words and hollow promises. Indeed, they were promised that once the rivers rose to a certain level, DFI Rivers, in conjunction with DFI Roads, would bring in pumps to prevent flooding. However, that did not happen last week. On one day last week, one of the residents rang the helpline several times after 9.00 am, requesting that the pump be put into action. However, the pump did not arrive until 4.00 pm, by which time the water had entered their house. It was too little, too late.

Of course, we then had the ministerial visit after the flood waters had dissipated. I am sure that there were hollow words, promises and tea and sympathy, but the people in Antrim are fed up with tea and sympathy. They want solutions. They have been promised solutions for years. Every time that there is rain, those people are on rain watch: watching the river levels to see whether their homes will be flooded again. Some of those people face extraordinarily high insurance premiums, and some cannot even get insurance for their properties.

I follow on from my colleague's comments about failure: the Infrastructure Minister has failed to take action and get her Department to do what it should be doing to allow those people to look forward and have confidence. When the next rain event happens — one thing that we can be sure of in this country is that there will be plenty of rain — those people do not want to look out and see rising river levels and water entering their property. I will tell you what else they do not want to see: the Minister coming for tea and sympathy after they have mopped up. They want action.

Mr McGrath: Castlewellan peace maze is a jewel in our tourism offering. It was the brainchild of Michael and Beverley Lear, who approached Eamonn ONeill, formerly of this place, in Castlewellan Regeneration Ltd to make it a reality. I am delighted that they have secured a small pot of funding from the Pathways to Peace project to celebrate the peace maze 25 years on and place on record just how important it is not only for Castlewellan but for our peace process. In the early days after the Good Friday Agreement, people were searching for something tangible to hold on to that said, "Things can be different" and, quite literally, "We can choose a better way", and the peace maze was one of those things. It was planted by children and families from Castlewellan and the surrounding area, was funded by the EU and was shaped by hope rather than certainty in those days. It has become a quiet but powerful symbol of what many people believe peace is: something that grows slowly, is rooted in the community and is shaped over time.

What strikes me most today is that those who planted the trees still talk about their involvement in the process. They remember where they stood and what it meant, and they feel connected to it. That tells us something important: peace is not an agreement or an institution; it is all about people. The current project matters because it recognises that truth. It preserves the original artwork, captures oral histories and invites a new generation to reflect on what peace means to them today. Part of that work will involve an art competition for schools in the district about what peace means to them, followed by an art exhibition, so Newry, Mourne and Down schools, and maybe even those further afield, need to be ready.

At a time when politics too often feels defined by constant fighting for fighting's sake and point-scoring, as we have seen even today, such projects remind us of our responsibility as a political institution. People need something to hope for, as they did in 1998. They need to see that cooperation is possible, that progress can be made and that peace is something that we tend, not something that we take for granted.

I recognise the work of the people on the ground, assisted by the County Down Rural Community Network, to try to take the 25-year-old peace maze to the next stage so that it can be there for future generations — children, young people and communities — to learn about the importance of peace and to maintain the tourism speciality in Castlewellan that puts it on the map.

Ms Sheerin: Thosaigh an t-earrach inné ar Lá Fhéile Bríde. Thug ár sinsir Imbolg ar an am sin, sin é tús nua na bliana. Sheas Naomh Bríd ar son chearta na mbocht, agus bhí sí cineálta le cách.

Whether you subscribe to the notion of St Brigid the Christian missionary or Briege the Celtic goddess, we can all agree that she was a woman ahead of her time. I was heartened that, at the weekend, in homes and around hearths across the country, we saw the old Irish traditions to honour her live on. I particularly commend the people in my community who came together, at the Shepherd's Rest in Sixtowns and An Ráth Dubh in Moneyneena, to offer people the opportunity to make St Brigid's crosses. It is hard to believe that anybody in Ballinascreen would be short of rushes: that took some of the work out of it. Today, we can all learn from the tradition of making something for you or a neighbour to hang over the door in order to bring health and happiness for the coming year.

We have had conversations in the Chamber in recent weeks about the dangers of social media and AI and all of the problems that they pose for our young people. We can see that the old community spirit could be the solution to a lot of those worries. We can all learn a lot from that influential woman.

Mr Brooks: I see that the Infrastructure Minister has now left the Chamber, I hope, to get a grip on the issue of potholes across Northern Ireland. On Saturday night, my phone lit up with constituents getting in touch with urgent reports that 12 cars with their hazard lights flashing were blocking the country-bound lane on the Ballygowan Road after a widening pothole had severely damaged or burst their tyres, one after the other. The damage was so severe that I had to contact the PSNI to ask them to attend the road, which had been brought to a standstill.

That was not an isolated incident in that location. Just days earlier, the same pothole was headline news when a funeral cortege suffered two burst tyres, forcing a grieving family to walk the remaining distance to Roselawn cemetery. Despite that media attention and that warning, 12 road users found themselves stranded on the side of the road on Saturday night at the same location for the same reasons.

Potholes are, unfortunately, a fact of life but, increasingly, they have become symptomatic of systemic failure, rather than isolated wear and tear. I cannot recall a situation in which so many vehicles were damaged in such a short time by the same defect. That does not happen by accident. That particular pothole was, reportedly, made safe. A direction was issued by the Department for Infrastructure to contractors that, typically, involves filling the defect with loose stones until a permanent repair can be carried out. I must simply ask this: how many times can a road defect be, allegedly, made safe before it is acknowledged that that approach no longer works?

In recent years, road maintenance in Northern Ireland has shifted to what the Department for Infrastructure describes as a "safety-only approach". Defects are left untreated until they meet higher intervention thresholds. Even when those thresholds are met, repairs are much smaller, more limited and far more likely to fail, reopening in the same location and creating repeat hazards. When the Department changed that policy in 2021, it was presented as an emergency response to funding pressures. That emergency position has now become the default operating model, overseen by the Minister for Infrastructure. The consequences are now playing out on our roads: repeat failures, repeat damage and ordinary people left stranded, out of pocket and waiting for compensation from the Department that decided that the road was safe enough and met the intervention criteria.

This is not about bad weather or bad luck; it is the predictable outcome of policy choice. When the cost of those choices is borne not by the Department but by hard-working road users, deferred maintenance simply converts maintenance costs into compensation payouts. Twelve road users are now bearing the cost of that failure from their own pockets. I dread to think what the consequences would have been had a motorcyclist encountered that situation. The Minister needs to come to the Assembly and give an honest account as to why defects are repeatedly made safe, allowed to fail —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Brooks: — and acted on only after the damage has occurred.

Mr Gaston: I have previously raised in the Chamber the challenges that I have faced in relation to transparency when it comes to the Executive Office's refusal to answer questions for written answer. Thankfully, that situation has improved somewhat since I last raised it in this place. What has remained a problem, however, are challenges in relation to freedom of information requests. I particularly think of the one lodged in the aftermath of the private meeting between the First Minister and the Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, Paula Bradshaw. That meeting took place after giving the Committee 10 minutes' notice and without seeking the consent of its members.

Since then, I am pleased to say that everyone on the Committee has agreed that there should be no repeat of such meetings. However, there are many questions about that meeting that still go unanswered. The only minute of that meeting between Ms Bradshaw and the First Minister was written up by the staff working to Mrs O'Neill's office. Furthermore, once released, it became obvious that the minute was drawn up after the absence of a Committee minute only because it became contentious. Finally, the minute was sent to Ms Bradshaw in draft form before it was produced. It is now somewhat a year since I submitted a freedom of information request, seeking the notes of that meeting that were taken in the room. I am told that a decision by the Information Commissioner's Office on the release of that information is imminent. Making judgements on what transpired that day in the absence of such information is, I suggest, unwise.

While I have not yet seen the notes, over the weekend I received a copy of a letter from the PSNI confirming that police inquiries are ongoing into the meeting between the Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, Ms Bradshaw, and Mrs O'Neill. It is time that the Executive Office came clean on the issue and published all documents related to it. Making judgements while those inquiries are ongoing is also, I suggest, unwise.

I trust also that all Members will reflect on Máiría Cahill's comments. This morning she raised serious concerns about the propriety of the Assembly debate on the report that deals with her case and the fact that she was never asked about its contents. That reflects very badly on the Assembly and its lack of concern for victims.

Mr Speaker: Mr Butler, you have two minutes.

Mr Butler: I appreciate your indulgence, Mr Speaker. Mental health disability and learning disability community and voluntary organisations are not facing a funding gap: they face a funding cliff edge, and it is people's mental health and workplace inclusion that will bear the cost. The transition from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund to the new local growth fund, if implemented in its current form, risks creating a profound and totally avoidable funding crisis for our communities and for the services that support them.

Under the existing arrangements, funding to tackle economic inactivity in Northern Ireland has been about £25 million a year. From April 2026, it is set to fall sharply to £9·2 million, which is a reduction of around 64%, due to the shift to the local growth fund and its proposed 70:30 split. That is what people are calling it. That will drastically reduce the amount available for the very services that help people into work and protect their well-being. For example, on Friday, I visited Stepping Stones in Lisburn, which is an amazing charity that empowers people with learning disabilities and employment barriers through skills training. Sadly for organisations such as Stepping Stones, the cuts come against the backdrop of Northern Ireland's labour market, which is already under strain. Our economic inactivity rate, at 26·5%, stands as the highest in the UK, and we have the lowest employment rate for disabled people. As the chair of the all-party group on disability, I declare an interest with regard to that.

Those figures are not abstract statistics. The community and voluntary sector supports around 11,000 people each year, many living with learning disabilities, other disabilities, long-term health conditions and significant mental health challenges. They also assist people to gain skills, to secure employment and to access essential intervention services, with up to 650 staff roles funded through the Shared Prosperity Fund, 403 of which are full-time posts. I urge the Chamber to unite and to lobby the United Kingdom Government to change their funding model.

Mr McGuigan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Members' statements, you interrupted a Member because the subject matter under discussion related to a matter scheduled for debate and rightly pointed out that Members should not do that. That is, I think, in Standing Order 24A(6)(b). In my view, the Member continued to make her Member's statement on the subject under imminent discussion, so I think that it is worth asking your office to make a ruling on that.

Mr Speaker: Thank you.

Ms Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, under Standing Order 24A(6)(b) and (d) Members' statements must not:

and must not:

I believe that the Member for North Antrim Mr Gaston did both during his Member's statement, and I ask that you make a ruling on that.

Mr Speaker: We were listening fairly closely to what Mr Gaston was saying. He had a context of speaking, in the first instance, about transparency. He then raised an issue around Máiría Cahill. Both of those were borderline, in my opinion. That is why he was allowed to continue: it appeared to be borderline as opposed to crossing the line. He got the benefit of the doubt. It was more about transparency than it was about what we will discuss later on. He spoke about the context of it, and that is why I did not intervene.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I wish to provide Members with a statement in relation to my decision to stop the publication of the new valuation list, the process known as "Reval2026".

Small and medium-sized businesses across all sectors are the backbone of our economy. The sustainable growth of our local economy is crucial for all our people. As the Minister of Finance, I am absolutely committed to supporting business growth and development.

Stopping the process allows space for sectors to provide the much-needed evidence to allow for a full examination of the issues raised. I am in listening mode and will take time to consider the next steps. My focus is on supporting our public services, our local businesses and workers and families and on growing the economy for the betterment of all. I have listened carefully to the concerns of the hospitality sector about the implications of implementing the revised values in April. I value our businesses and their contribution to the local economy and civil society.

My decision to halt has not been taken lightly. That decision reflected the clear need to take stock and to allow for constructive dialogue and engagement to ensure that any changes are implemented in a way that is fair, evidence-based, transparent and sensitive to the economic realities — positive and negative — currently facing non-domestic ratepayers. The conversation has started. I met hospitality representatives on Thursday. I will look at any alternative methodology proposals that people want to offer. Those need to be transparent and fair to every ratepayer and to meet the need to support public services and the wider economy.

Since becoming Finance Minister, I have been unequivocal in my support for businesses. I have extended the Back in Business scheme to support entrepreneurship by encouraging businesses to set up in long-term vacant properties. I have extended the rural ATM scheme to help people to access cash easily, something that is especially important in rural communities, given bank closures, and I have extended the small business rate relief scheme, which provided around 30,000 businesses with reductions of between 20% and 50% on their rates bill. I am on record in setting out my ambition to go further, including to enhance support for small businesses through that scheme.

I want to see extra help going to businesses that provide vital employment, supporting workers, families and communities. That is why my Department launched a consultation on the small business rate relief scheme in early December. The consultation closed last Thursday. My officials are analysing the responses to the proposals, with early indications showing broad support for the approach being taken to try to help businesses, despite the pressure on Executive finances. I have already set aside additional funding of £10 million in the draft Budget to support those efforts. My officials are working at pace to allow those support measures, if approved by the Executive, to take effect from April 2026.

Members will be aware that, on foot of intensive engagement with businesses throughout the summer, I have committed to bringing forward proposals for a business growth accelerator policy. It will seek views on the policy options for using the rating system to aid business expansion while unlocking future increased rates income for local and central government. That unlocking of future tax-based growth would operate alongside existing initiatives brought in since the restoration of the Executive last year, such as the Back in Business scheme. It would support businesses, including those in hospitality, that wish to expand their premises. That proposal was put to my office in the engagement with hospitality businesses and demonstrates that my officials have been listening through the proactive engagement.

I reiterate how important it is for me as Minister of Finance that our businesses thrive. Stopping the process allows space for sectors to provide the much-needed evidence to allow for a full examination of the issues. My focus remains on supporting our our public services, our local businesses and workers and families and on growing our economy for the betterment of all.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, because of the unfilled potholes on our roads — your colleague the Infrastructure Minister will, hopefully, be filling those in — lots of motorists in Northern Ireland are having to swerve. You have had to perform a full-blown U-turn, Minister, despite last week coming to the Chamber and arrogantly dismissing concerns from across the House.

Your officials have worked hard and with professionalism and competence, so no blame attaches to them, but you and your advisers are paid to apply a degree of political judgement as to whether the package was ever going to be achievable.

First, why did you not suggest months ago that the revaluation for the hospitality sector be phased in or introduced with transitional reliefs in order to avoid what is now a chaotic situation, in which the revaluation has had to be parked entirely? Secondly, do you regret at all the dismissive attitude with which you treated Members this time last week when we raised concerns from our constituents and from business owners, and will you apologise for it?

Mr O'Dowd: A U-turn that is carried out in a safe manner is part of the Highway Code: the political highway code and the Roads Order. I am sure that the former police officer across the Chamber has examined it more closely.

What is important is where we are at now. I listened to the concerns of elected representatives and the hospitality sector and have stopped the revaluation process. I met the sector last Thursday. Its representatives said that they will bring proposals to me. I have offered them the services of my officials. If we have constructive engagement, I believe that we will be able to move forward. Any future method that we use to evaluate rates, however, must be open, fair and transparent, and it must meet the needs of our public sector and the wider economy.

Miss Hargey: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Following the halting of Reval2026, will you outline the next steps? As you said, there are many sectors involved. How important is it that they engage with you and provide further evidence?

Mr O'Dowd: Following my engagement with the hospitality sector last Thursday, it is going to produce proposals for a way forward. I have said that my officials will engage with the sector in a constructive way. If we continue to engage with each other constructively, we will be able to find a landing zone in which everyone accepts that they are being treated fairly and in an open and transparent manner. The objective is to ensure that we have a rates base that supports not only our businesses but our public services and the wider economy.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, I welcome the change in policy. Last Monday in the House, you accused Members who had raised legitimate concerns from businesses of not knowing what they were talking about. You said that you had the evidence for how you were right and how we were all wrong. In your statement today, however, you said that stopping the process allows for the evidence to be provided in order for a full examination of the issues to be undertaken. Why did you not make sure that you had that evidence before the list was published? Do you consider your comments last Monday about your evidence to have misled the House?

Mr O'Dowd: Hansard will speak for itself. I know that a week is a long time in politics, but it is a long time in history as well, because history is being rewritten as we stand here today.

My comments, and those of Members, are clearly recorded in Hansard. I said last week that the methodology that my officials used was correct. It was correctly used. The outcome of that methodology's usage has caused deep concern in the hospitality sector. I have reacted to that concern, as I should, but the evidence base is firm, solid, open and transparent. If it is to be replaced, what replaces it must also be firm, solid, open and transparent.

Mr Honeyford: I welcome the fact that the Minister said that he is listening and that the process has been paused. I worry, however, that it is only a short-term sticking plaster. As we move forward, we need to support our businesses and grow our economy. Will the Minister commit to undertaking an independent, root-and-branch review of the entire business rating system, which includes the hospitality sector, that looks at the methodology and then tries to deliver a progressive and fair system?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, I met representatives of the hospitality sector last week. It is going to produce proposals. I will consider them with an open mind to see what the best way forward is for what is a very important policy area for the entire Executive and our economy. I am open-minded about any proposals that come forward, but, at the risk of repeating myself, the method used to evaluate rates will have to be open and fair to all sectors of our economy. If we can work on that basis, I have no doubt that we will make progress.

Mr Speaker: Before I call Mr Burrows, I congratulate him, if that is the appropriate word, on becoming leader of the Ulster Unionist Party.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The U-turn might have been safe, but in the run-up to this you were asleep at the wheel, Minister. You talk about the rates having to be evidence-based. What evidence did you have to justify the original decision to support Reval2026?

Mr O'Dowd: At the start of the Reval process in April 2024, all businesses were contacted with area-specific questionnaires, which they were asked to return. For a variety of reasons, unfortunately only 30% of those were returned by the hospitality sector . When you do not get a return from a specific business, valuers then look at returns to Companies House, evidence of the premises around the individual property and the trading relationships and market values in the area. They look at a wide range of factors, which are evidence-based, and then determine the rateable value of the property. That is a firm basis upon which to operate, but, ideally, if each business returns its evaluation, it will be allowed to tell its own story. That was the bone of contention in the Chamber last week. In the absence of those evaluations, there are sound sources of evidence upon which to make your decisions.

Miss Dolan: I commend your swift action, Minister, in stopping this process. In your opening remarks, you outlined your support for businesses. Will you say a wee bit more about that support, including the support for small businesses?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will have heard my opening remarks on the small business rate relief consultation that we have just conducted. My officials are analysing the results of that. A factor that has been lost in the noise is that, in acknowledgement of the Reval that was taking place and of the information that I had to hand, I set aside £10 million in the draft Budget to support small and medium-sized business. My vision for that £10 million was that it would assist those businesses that are the most challenged by the economic circumstances in which they operate.

As part of an ongoing programme of work, around a quarter of a billion pounds of rate relief is offered to businesses here in recognition of the value that they bring to our society and economy and the challenges that they face. I will continue to analyse how I, in my role as Finance Minister, can support our small and medium-sized businesses.

Mr Kingston: Minister, we were told at the Finance Committee last week that the average NAV increase for retailers was around 7%, yet I have been lobbied by a series of small retailers that are located close to my office in North Belfast at Ballysillan that have had NAV increases of 60% in the Reval. I ask that, as part of your review, you look at some of those seemingly large increases for retailers in Belfast?

Mr O'Dowd: There is a sector average, and there is a variety of different sectors in the valuation list. Some properties will be above that sector average and some will be below it. That will be for a variety of reasons, but it will be down to the characteristics of each business. Now that the Reval has stopped, there is little opportunity at this initial stage to query what individual businesses have been facing. However, I am sure that LPS will be open to a discussion with you, if those businesses are content for you to represent them, to help you understand the varying characteristics and why those businesses in your locality are so far above the average. However, it will be about the characteristics of the individual business.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for coming to the Chamber. In your statement, you referenced the business growth accelerator policy, which was discussed last summer during my conversations with businesses in North Antrim on the Reval process. They talked a little bit about the business growth accelerator programme that is happening in other parts of the UK. Will we see that soon? Do you have a timeline for bringing forward any of that policy?

Mr O'Dowd: It will require consultation. I am keen to get out to consultation, but I suspect that it will be the spring before we can go out to consultation on that matter. However, it is an important policy direction for us to go in, because we obviously want to see our businesses expand, both in turnover and in physical capacity and size. One factor as to why some businesses see a dramatic increase in their rates, be it 100%, 200% or 300%, is that they have increased in size. In many cases, it is down to the fact that a business has put on a major physical expansion. As part of the proposals that I want to consult on, such businesses would be given a grace period on their rates for those expansions to allow them to absorb the cost of the building as they move forward with their business plans. I will consult on it in the spring.

Mr Delargy: Go raibh maith agat,

Minister, for your statement. You talked about £10 million that can be unlocked to support small businesses. Members can do that by supporting the draft Budget that you have introduced. Will you update Members on your plans for and in that draft Budget and on how we, as Members, can support you to continue to support small businesses?

Mr O'Dowd: I noted last week that many Members were pictured with pints in hand in pubs and hospitality businesses across the North. [Interruption.]

First, I hope that they bought them out of their own pocket; and secondly, I hope that they bought the other people in the bar a drink as well and left a few pounds behind the till for the staff

There is an old adage that there are no answers to be found in the bottom of a pint glass. I enjoy a pint or two myself, so I will not criticise anybody for having a pint. There are no answers in the bottom of a pint glass, but there are answers in delivering a three-year Budget. As part of the first year of the Budget, I have set aside £10 million to support small and medium enterprises, including those in the hospitality sector, in recognition of the challenges and opportunities that they face. Advocacy is important, supporting our local businesses as MLAs is important and speaking up is important, but the practical measure is to get a three-year Budget over the line and to make sure that, as part of that three-year Budget, there is a package to support our small and medium enterprises.

Mrs Cameron: I welcome the statement. I am sure that all in the hospitality sector in South Antrim will, equally, welcome it. When the valuation numbers were presented to you, as Finance Minister, did you complete any economic impact assessment at all?

Mr O'Dowd: The figures were first presented to me in October 2025. There were a number of meetings between officials and me following that, right up until the publication of the figures. Reval is a stand-alone process, so an economic assessment going side by side with it would not be part of the role of the Department of Finance nor, indeed, LPS. I knew the first time that I saw the figures that there would be a challenge, but I also believe in openness and transparency in government. I thought that it was only right and proper that the process was completed and that the figures were published. In addition, as part of my preparations for the draft Budget, I set aside £10 million to help businesses with the challenges that they face, not only from Reval but from other pressures. I was aware of the figures; I knew the challenges that they would bring; and, in my own way, I took action in the draft Budget.

Ms D Armstrong: I welcome the Minister's coming to the Chamber this afternoon. Minister, as you said, your Department had access to the draft valuation figures from LPS and the economic projections in advance. On that basis, was it not a presumption to proceed without addressing the foreseeable impact on the hospitality sector, pausing the process only after significant public and sectoral backlash?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said to the previous questioner, I was aware of the figures in October 2025. I was aware of the challenges that they would bring to the hospitality sector and other sectors, and the opportunities that they would bring for some in those sectors. The conversation, perhaps understandably, has been solely around hospitality.

Many other sectors were revalued as part of the process. Members may have received correspondence from some that feel that their voices have not been heard in the debate. Let us talk about the reval in its totality, rather than about individual sectors in it.

I believe in openness and transparency in government. LPS carried out the service. It was published, and we have seen the reaction to it. It was not published in a vacuum. I published it in the knowledge that I had money set aside in the draft Budget to help and support business. I do not suggest that that would have completely alleviated the pressures that businesses were under, but I had already taken action in that regard. The response to the publication meant that we would not have been able to have the cool, level-headed debate and discussion that we required, so I have taken the decision to stop it. We will now engage more with the hospitality sector; indeed, I suspect that other sectors will want to — and should — have their voices heard in this as well.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, I am interested in your assertion that you were aware of the figures and knew the challenges that they would bring, yet you said in the House last week that the people who were bringing the issues to you did not know what they were talking about. Did you mislead the House?

Mr O'Dowd: As I have said to other MLAs in the Chamber, Hansard has been printed. There is a video of the debate. Everybody is aware of what was and was not said. I can understand Members' desire to rewrite history, but you cannot rewrite it — [Interruption.]

You cannot rewrite it that quickly. Did I mislead the House? No, I did not, on any occasion. I gave you information to assist your constituents, and the challenge that I put to you was this: I said that the best advice that you could give your constituents at that stage was to engage with LPS if they believed that their revaluation was not based on the correct figures.

The process that was followed leading up to Reval2026 was sound. The challenge for us was the removal of the COVID support grants for businesses, which dated back to 2021. There was such a dramatic rise for some businesses that it was a challenge. However, I had already taken action and had put money aside in the draft Budget to help businesses. I had been going through reviews of small business rate relief schemes and other ways to support our businesses. The decision was not taken in a vacuum; it was taken in the knowledge that a challenge existed and that Ministers have to take action in those circumstances.

I believe in open and transparent government. The report was finalised, and I believed that it deserved to be published.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister. Reverting to the property valuations of 2023 is not a solution: they, too, were unfair. They were particularly unfair for our city centres and the retail sector. The NAV system is antiquated, is not fit for purpose and needs a complete overhaul. Can you address that? It is not fair, it is not transparent and the methodology is so out of date that it is not fit for purpose any more.

Mr O'Dowd: Reviews are taking place in Scotland and England, and, back in November, I said in the Chamber that I would take cognisance of those in deciding how we would move forward with future revals. As I have said, I met the hospitality sector on Thursday, and I am committed to having further engagement and working on any proposals that it is prepared to bring forward. My officials are happy to engage on that, but, if Members are going to make such definitive statements in the Chamber, there is a responsibility on them to bring forward proposals as well. If you are strongly of that view, there is a responsibility on the official Opposition to bring forward a counterproposal.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister. It is clear from the backtracking that your economic strategy is in free fall. You have withdrawn the increase for hospitality. You talk about supporting workers and families, but your proposals in the Budget will see households paying 15% extra on their rates. When will you withdraw that proposal? You talked about being transparent about ideas. The top 100 businesses here have seen their pre-tax profits rise by 26% to £1·86 billion: why can you not increase those companies' rates?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be that aware that I am going through a review of all rating policies, including for manufacturing. When we reach the stage at which I am doing a review of manufacturing, there will be an opportunity for you and others to respond to a consultation on how we should move forward with rating all businesses. At some stage over the next number of months, leading up to the end of the mandate, there will be an opportunity for everyone to have their say on a wide range of rating policies that will affect non-domestic ratepayers.

I firmly believe in having a fair, open and transparent rates policy that supports our public services and the wider economy. Those are the principles on which engagement with the hospitality sector will take place in relation on Reval2026 and on which I will engage with every other sector. It has to be fair, open, transparent and capable of supporting our public services and the wider economy.

Mr Brett: Minister, I am not an individual who holds grudges. Last Monday, however, you told me that I did not know what I was talking about, I did not have any evidence and I could not stand over my claims. They say that a week is a long time in politics, but for you, Minister, three days is clearly a long time in politics, because you echoed my exact remarks on Thursday. However, I will not be churlish and bask in your U-turn.

There will be some Barnett consequentials for the Northern Ireland Executive as a result of the Labour Government's U-turn. Have you had any discussions with the Treasury about what the value of those may be and what you might use the funding for?

Mr O'Dowd: Mr Brett, I have in front of me the Hansard report of our conversation in the Chamber last week. I am scanning through it, so you are at risk of being corrected. I see none of those terms used against you. We had a robust exchange of views, and your tone at the start was matched by my tone at the end. You are a bit like me: you are used to the rough and tumble of politics.

Treasury will inform us on around 3 March what the Barnett consequentials of their latest announcement will be. That announcement has been made on the back of its giving support to businesses there on the basis that the reval there is continuing. All that will have to be taken into account, but the final decision on what will be done with that money and other Barnett consequentials is for the Executive.

Mr Buckley: This is one of the last questions, and it is fair to say that the smell of burning rubber is still fresh in the air following the Minister's handbrake turn. We, as Members, will forgive him not for the dangerous driving in the run-up to this but for the direction in which he has ended up.

Anybody with a titter of wit realised that an 80%-plus average increase for hotels and a 50%-plus average increase for pubs was totally unsustainable. Does the Minister now accept that basing rateable value for pubs and hotels on turnover rather than profitability and not including debts incurred is not a sustainable model for our hospitality sector, which is now largely propping up our high street?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, I conducted a safe U-turn, checking my rear-view mirror and looking across the road, paying attention to the environment around me at all times.

This is how the process of fair maintainable trade (FMT) turnover operates. Fair maintainable trade turnover is the turnover that an efficient operator could achieve running a business. The rental value is a small percentage of the FMT after operating costs are deducted. At every revaluation, LPS has engaged with the hospitality sector to help to review and update the percentages used. I suspect that the conversation that we will have with the hospitality sector in the time ahead will be about a number of areas, including the percentage used to evaluate the rentable value of a property after taking into account all the overheads that it faces.

I am more than happy to equip Members with information on the system, because there has been a lot of debate on it, some of which has been informed and some of which has not been so informed. I accept that it is complicated. I have the assistance of my officials to steer me through it. I am more than happy to place in the Library information on exactly how the system works. I suspect that the issue about the percentage etc will be the focus of our discussions with the hospitality sector.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I know that humility is not a virtue abundant in the Sinn Féin war chest. Last week, I raised with you the concerns of hotel owners, coffee chains, publicans and business owners who said that your proposed rates hikes were shutdown increases. Businesses and I welcome your U-turn, but will you now clarify which one of us did not know what they were talking about, and will you take the opportunity to apologise to business owners and to me?

Mr O'Dowd: My reference to you not knowing what you were talking about was a general comment. [Laughter.]

Mr McNulty, I approach people as I find them. If those who speak to me treat me with common courtesy, I will treat them with common courtesy. You have an awful habit of standing in the Chamber and demeaning representatives of my party and other parties. Were you to adopt a slightly different tone, you would be surprised at how well you and I would get on.

Mr Speaker: I wish to advise the Minister. Earlier, I talked about Mr Gaston's comments being borderline; you are certainly on the borderline in your references to Mr McNulty. Later, we will discuss a report from the commissioner on how to treat other Members. Perhaps you should reflect on that.

Mr McGrath: Business rates can cripple a business. Businesses in Downpatrick are aware of that, as their high rates have not been matched by footfall due to the hangover from the floods in 2023. Will those businesses be protected and assisted as part of the paused process?

Mr O'Dowd: I sense that the Member is largely talking about retail. Each business will now go back to its 2023 valuation. As I said in my answer to a previous question, the debate has been around the hospitality sector, perhaps understandably, but, if we are to move forward with a fair, open and transparent rating system, we have to hear the voices of all sectors. The retail sector has seen significant changes in shoppers' patterns as a result of the growth of online shopping etc. When Members debate the issues, it is important that they are mindful of the fact that it was a reval of all non-domestic properties, not simply one sector.

Mr Gaston: On this day last week, the Minister condescendingly told me:

Last Monday, the problem was that it was the Minister who was not listening, not Members. I am told that Reval2026 had an additional net annual value of £16 million across the board. That red flag exposes the fact that the process was flawed, unless it was the underhand intention of Sinn Féin to raise rates. Minister, will you commit to the House that, in making any future changes to the methodology for the hospitality sector, you will give businesses more than eight weeks' notice? Part of the problem this time was the eight weeks' notice —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mr Gaston: — as well as the massive increase that you tried to impose on those businesses.

Mr O'Dowd: For the record, businesses were first engaged with in April 2024. Representatives of the hospitality sector met the then Finance Minister in May 2024. Further letters were sent out to the hospitality sector representative bodies later that summer, alerting them to the fact that the COVID discount was to be removed and that, as a result, there would be significant uplifts in the net value of properties.

If I have understood the Member correctly, it was not about increasing the monetary uplift in rates but about having a fair distribution of the rates burden across all sectors in recognition of their trading figures in April 2024. The exercise is not about collecting additional money. Rather, it is neutral, because it is spread across the sector. It is therefore not an underhanded way in which for me or anybody else to collect additional rates money.

Mr Durkan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

Minister, will any wider review include consideration of the inequalities that exist across the region and of the unfair impact that an ever-reducing rates support grant has on businesses and, indeed, on all rate payers in less affluent council areas?

Mr O'Dowd: I am open to ideas for how we can support our businesses across all sectors with all matters. If that proposal is viable, I am open to hearing about it further.

Mr Speaker: That bring to a conclusion questions to the Minister on the statement.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order about the remarks that the Minister made to my colleague, Justin McNulty. I am the last person to run to the teacher. I ask for no quarter and give no quarter in my role as leader of the Opposition, but that relates strictly to the political and the professional. As public representatives, however, we need to be mindful not to stray into the personal. I endeavour to do that. Mr Speaker, will you reflect on whether the Minister's remarks strayed a little too far into the personal?

Mr Speaker: That is why I made the comment to Mr O'Dowd, who, like me, has been around for a while. He has the grey hairs, as I do, to show for it, and he could generally be regarded as being a wily old fox. He knows that there is a lot of rough and tumble in here, and there are plenty of issues on which we can get stuck into one another. I will not hold back Members from doing so, but they should stick to playing the ball and not the man. The Minister's remarks were therefore a tad unfair. Mr McNulty is quite forceful himself, so he is fit for a fair bit, but they went a wee bit far.

Mr O'Dowd: If I caused Mr McNulty any offence, I apologise.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Minister. We will leave the matter there. I ask Members to take their ease as we move on to the next item of business.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. Minister, your amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List.

Mrs Long: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): By convention, when a Member or a Minister seeks to amend their own motion, they are invited to address the motion and the amendment at the same time. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion and the amendment.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Crime and Policing Bill was introduced to Westminster on 25 February 2025. The provisions in the Bill that extend to Northern Ireland deal with tackling serious crime, economic crime, sexual-related crime and with increasing public safety across Northern Ireland. The provisions are primarily in the justice sphere, creating new offences and ways of more effectively dealing with serious and organised crime and the protection of victims.

Members will be familiar with the contents of the Bill and will recall that I tabled an earlier legislative consent motion (LCM) that received the agreement of the Assembly on 23 June 2025. The contents of this LCM relate to amendments that were tabled at Commons Report Stage and Lords Committee Stage. The Department has engaged with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on the amendments. The commission advised that the European Convention on Human Rights analysis provided by the UK Government appears to be broadly sound and that the provisions in the Bill that will extend to Northern Ireland are compliant with article 2(1) of the Windsor framework.

There are 12 provisions for which I seek the consent of the Assembly to extend to Northern Ireland; I will briefly elaborate on each of them. First is clause 36, a provision on the bulk and suspicious sale of knives. A new clause for Northern Ireland, "Duty to report remote sales of knives etc in bulk: Northern Ireland", would be inserted, replicating clause 36 for England and Wales. The clause would insert a new article 54B in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 that would introduce a duty on sellers to report any reportable sales of bladed articles made remotely.

A "reportable sale" of bladed articles means six or more knives sold in a single transaction or to the same buyer or residential premises in two or more transactions within a 30-day period. There would be a limited exception for a qualifying set of knives. A "qualifying set" means a set of at least three knives that differ in size or shape and are packaged for sale as a single item, such as a typical kitchen knife block. The purchase of one qualifying set would be treated as the purchase of a single knife. The purchase of two or more qualifying sets in a single transaction or in a 30-day period would be treated as a bulk sale. Sales in which the buyer informs the seller that they are carrying on a business and that they are registered for VAT or as a company are not reportable. The maximum penalty for the offence of failure to comply with the reporting requirement is a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

The clause would confer on the Department a power, subject to the negative resolution procedure, to prescribe by order the details of the reports and the reporting process regarding to whom reports must be made. That may include requirements about how reports are to be made — the method of submission and to whom they are to be submitted — when they are to be made and the information that they must include. The clause would also confer a power on the Department of Justice to amend by order, subject to the draft affirmative procedure, what constitutes a reportable sale, by varying the number of bladed articles or qualifying sets specified.

I draw to Members' attention the possibility of a third LCM in the area. The Home Office was required to withdraw amendments that it had tabled to clauses 31 to 35 of the Bill as introduced, relating to strengthened age verification requirements for the online sale and delivery of knives and crossbows in England and Wales. The amendments, which would have extended the amended provisions to Scotland and Northern Ireland, were withdrawn due to a convention that prevents the UK Government from making contested amendments to the Bill at Lords Committee Stage. The UK Government intend to reintroduce the amendments at Lords Report Stage. Should there be an opportunity between the beginning and end of the Lords Report Stage, it would be my intention to table for Assembly debate a third LCM, dealing in particular with age verification.

The second item that this LCM deals with relates to clauses 40 to 55 and schedule 5: the child criminal exploitation (CCE) offence and CCE prevention orders.

I am extending a new offence of child criminal exploitation, and the power to make CCE prevention orders, to Northern Ireland at clauses 40 to 55 and schedule 5. The new offence of CCE will seek to increase prosecutions by driving behavioural change and addressing evidential challenges with existing offences; act as a deterrent to gangs from eliciting children by charging them as child exploiters, with penalties to match; and improve the identification of victims. CCE prevention orders are designed to disrupt harmful and exploitative behaviour and protect children at risk. They are based on similar legal tools, such as slavery and trafficking prevention orders and sexual offences protection orders.

The third element is a new clause to be inserted after clause 63 to provide for a new child sexual abuse image generator offence. That seeks to criminalise those who:

anything —

child sexual abuse images. It will close a legislative gap to criminalise those who make available a generating tool to be used for the sole purpose of creating child sexual abuse images. Under current legislation, it is only an offence to produce, possess or distribute the images. The new provision will criminalise those who make the generating tools available. It seeks to reduce the alarming demand for, and possession of, digitised child sexual abuse materials, which have grown exponentially in recent years, as we debated at length last week.

The fourth item is a new clause to be inserted after clause 84 around the AI testing defence. A new clause to be inserted would create statutory defences for authorised bodies or individuals testing AI models to investigate whether they have been:

child sexual abuse material, extreme pornography and non-consensual intimate images. Specifically, it would provide for an enabling power for the Secretary of State (SOS) for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) to make regulations with UK-wide extent to ensure that persons are enabled to carry out authorised technology testing without committing a criminal offence. One set of UK-wide regulations ensures consistency of approach in that delicate area. Before making such regulations, the DSIT SOS must consult my Department and Scottish Ministers. Testing the AI models will allow feedback to be provided to responsible technology companies, or enable them to directly test, to help them understand how their AI models may be misused so that those companies can take active steps to improve AI model safeguards, pre- and post-deployment, with the aim of preventing crime.

The fifth element is a new clause to be inserted after clause 84 and deals with the issue of pornography depicting strangulation or suffocation. It will create two new offences of possessing or publishing pornographic images portraying, in an explicit and realistic way, a person strangling or suffocating another person. This clause implements a recommendation that was made in Baroness Bertin's independent review of pornography, which found that strangulation and suffocation pornographic content is rife on mainstream platforms, normalising that behaviour and having real-world impacts on how people are having sex, especially young people. Extension of the provision to Northern Ireland would send a clear message that that is not behaviour that should be normalised, that it is high risk and that it is, potentially, fatal. Again, we had a lengthy and helpful discussion about that last week. This is one of the positive things that we can do to try to challenge the growth in the number of those pornographic images.

The sixth change is around clause 92(2), sex offender notification requirements and restrictions on driving licences in a new name. It is the last of a number of proposed measures of the Bill that I have sought to strengthen the sex offender notification requirements. It specifically supports the provision at clause 94(1), which was agreed as part of LCM 1. However, further engagement was needed with the Department for Infrastructure before I could bring the measure forward. Clause 94(2) will allow the Department for Infrastructure to make supporting regulations to provide a legal ability for the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) to refuse a registered sex offender a replacement driving licence in a new name as part of the risk management requirements. Clause 94(2) will complete the overall clause and ensure that Northern Ireland remains aligned with other UK jurisdictions. The regulations would be subject to affirmative procedure.

The seventh change is about stalking protection orders (SPOs) on acquittal and conviction. That is clauses 97 and 98 of the Bill. Part 6 of the Bill aims to tackle violence against women and girls by giving victims of stalking the right to know the identity of the perpetrator, alongside strengthening stalking protection orders. Clauses 97 and 98 will specifically give courts the power to impose stalking protection orders directly at conviction, or even on acquittal, if there is enough evidence to suggest that the defendant is still a risk to the victim. That will help to stop, for example, offenders contacting their victims from prison. Currently, applications for SPOs are made by police prior to conviction to provide early intervention and protection at the earliest opportunity. The intention is to ensure that SPOs can also be made at the conclusion of criminal proceedings as, since their introduction, it has become apparent that restraining orders are not the most appropriate tool in stalking cases, particularly as the courts cannot impose positive requirements on a defendant via a restraining order — such as, for example, attending a mental health assessment or handing in their mobile device to police.

The eighth change is clause 100, which relates to stalking and is "Guidance about the disclosure of information by police forces". That provides a new measure to introduce a-right-to-know statutory guidance that aims to tell victims of stalking the identity of their abuser at the earliest opportunity and will empower and encourage police to release identifying information about anonymous stalking perpetrators to victims. The guidance will set out a clear process for police to follow so that victims can know who is threatening them.

The ninth element is clause 104, which is "Child abduction". It is to protect children by closing a current gap in the law relating to child abduction to make it an offence for a parent, other guardian or carer who has lawfully taken a child out of the UK to detain that child abroad for longer than the permitted period without obtaining the appropriate consent or the authority of a court order.

The tenth change, clause 105, is about the removal of the supervision exemption from the definition of "regulated activity". That is a Department of Health measure that has been included at the request of the Minister of Health. Clause 105 will remove the existing supervision exemption in the definition of "regulated activity" in Northern Ireland, which means that those who are currently in supervised roles are not eligible for an enhanced-with-barred-list check. Therefore, schools and other employers are not able to find out whether somebody who is working or volunteering closely and frequently with children on a supervised basis is barred from working in regulated activity with children by the Disclosure and Barring Service. The amendment means that everyone in such roles will be eligible for the highest level of criminal record check carried out by AccessNI and an enhanced check against the children's barred list, regardless of whether they are working under supervision or not.

The eleventh element is clauses 130 to 137, clause 190 and schedule 19, which deal with access to remotely stored electronic data (RSED). Members will be aware that the use of technology plays an increasing role in tackling crime. It is important that legislation keeps pace with technological developments. We all increasingly use devices and store our data in the cloud or remotely rather than on the device itself. These new powers will take account of that development. The provisions aim to provide a clear legal basis for search and seizure of RSED and respond to recommendations from the Law Commission in England and Wales and the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. The provisions will create a dedicated power for police and law enforcement agencies to extract information from one or multiple online accounts in criminal investigations, including counterterrorism and national security investigations. The provisions will ensure that, where police and other law enforcement agencies are already entitled to search and extract information from an electronic device, they can also access and extract remotely stored information connected to that device. The provisions include a number of safeguards to ensure that any interference with article 8 rights is necessary and proportionate and in the interests of national security, public safety and for the prevention of disorder or crime.

The twelfth element is clause 138, which is "Access to driver licensing information". Clause 138 will enable the police to access Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) data automatically at the point of operational need for policing and law enforcement purposes beyond road traffic enforcement.

It is important to be clear with Members that the DVLA is responsible for driver licensing in GB only. Accordingly, the clause applies solely to GB driving licence records and has no impact on Northern Ireland licence holders. While the enhanced DVLA data is limited to GB driving licences, it will nonetheless deliver operational benefits for policing where it can be lawfully applied. In particular, it will support faster and more reliable identity verification, support for serious and organised crime investigations, safeguarding activity and the location of missing or vulnerable persons.

Access to DVLA data will be strictly governed by regulations and a statutory code of practice. The regulations will have the force of law and will set binding requirements covering who can access the data, lawful use, mandatory training, data handling and security. All organisations, including the PSNI, will be required to sign up to and comply with that code of practice before they are permitted to access DVLA data. Crucially, I have secured additional safeguards in respect of Northern Ireland. They include a requirement for my formal consent before the regulations can be commenced in Northern Ireland and a commitment that the code of practice will include a dedicated Northern Ireland section developed collaboratively with my Department. The regulations and code of practice will be shared in due course with the Justice Committee. In addition, the Secretary of State for the Home Department will be required to publish an annual report detailing how the enhanced powers have operated in practice, the benefits realised for public protection and public safety, how compliance with the code of practice has been supported and assured and whether the use of data has raised any concerns in relation to specific organisations.

I fully appreciate that the Assembly's preference is to legislate on Northern Ireland matters where possible, and, indeed, that is my preference. The Bill is in its final stages in Parliament, and, with the legislative constraints in the current mandate, it would not be possible to bring equivalent provision via an Assembly Bill in the near future. I believe that, on this occasion, therefore, it is appropriate that the amendments be made in a Westminster Bill, and I again ask for the support of the House in passing the motion.

Before I conclude, I thank the Justice Committee for its report. I welcome its support for the LCM. I also thank Executive colleagues for their consideration of the issues. It has been something of a long and winding road — I will not break into song, you will be glad to hear — but it has been quite complex with the changes that are happening in Westminster and keeping abreast of that, so I appreciate people's patience while we navigated to where we are today. Thank you for your consideration of the motion. I look forward to your contributions to the debate.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. The Minister has outlined the purpose of the second LCM for the Crime and Policing Bill and the provisions that will extend to Northern Ireland, so I will focus my remarks on the Committee's consideration.

The House will be aware that, on 29 May 2025, the Committee for Justice agreed that it was content with the Department's proposal to extend the number of provisions in the Bill by way of an earlier legislative consent motion. During the Committee's considerations of that first LCM, the Department had indicated that it was likely that a second LCM would be required for provisions for which policy development was ongoing or that were expected to be added as the Bill progressed through its stages at Westminster. At its meeting on 3 July, the Committee considered a briefing from the Department on the provisions that, it thought, were likely to be included in the second LCM. At that stage, along with most of the other provisions that we are discussing today, those included measures relating to policing barred and advisory lists and strengthening age verification requirements on the online sale and delivery of knives and crossbows. Departmental officials in attendance at that meeting indicated that, while the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission had advised that provisions relating to access to remotely stored electronic data could interfere with article 8 rights, that could be permissible for a particular purpose with legitimate aims and that a code of practice to include necessary safeguards would be put in place before the powers were commenced.

The Committee drew the second LCM to the attention of the Committee for Health, given that the provision for the removal of the supervision exemption from the definition of regulated activity falls within the policy responsibility of the Department of Health.

On 11 September 2025, departmental officials provided oral evidence on the second LCM. In response to members' questions, officials advised that guidance would be developed and awareness-raising taken into account as part of the implementation plans for the new offences created by the provisions relating to child criminal exploitation, the use of AI models to produce child sexual abuse materials and child abduction. The Committee was also advised at that stage that the Home Office would take the lead in drafting the necessary code of practice on access to remotely stored electronic data. We were told that the code of practice would not be in place before the LCM was required to be agreed by the Assembly but that the powers would not be commenced until the code was agreed.

In the discussions on barred and advisory lists, members heard that the lists would be made only for the PSNI and not for other relevant bodies such as the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the Police Ombudsman, the airport police and the Belfast harbour police, which had indicated their desire to be included. Members expressed concerns about the potential gap that could be exploited in not extending those provisions more extensively.

At its meeting on 9 October, the Committee considered an update that included notice of the Minister's intention to extend two further measures to Northern Ireland that related to creating a statutory defence for persons testing AI for CSA material, extreme pornography and non-consensual intimate image abuse and criminalising the possession, distribution or publication of pornography depicting strangulation and suffocation. The Committee was disappointed and concerned to also be informed in that update that, given the volume of amendments that needed to be drafted for the Lords Committee Stage, it was now not possible to draft clauses to create a barred and advisory list for the PSNI.

In response, the Committee wrote to ask whether the Department had considered including the necessary provisions in the Justice Bill or any other primary legislation that it intends to bring forward within the Assembly mandate. Members welcomed the response advising of the Minister's intention to propose an amendment to make provisions for Northern Ireland policing barred and advisory lists for all law enforcement bodies in Northern Ireland. I know that concerns have been voiced about the number of planned amendments to the Justice Bill. However, that is a serious matter and, depending on the circumstances, could be a safeguarding risk. The Committee therefore felt it sufficiently important to suggest the inclusion of barred and advisory lists in the Justice Bill by way of amendment in order to close that gap.

More recently, at its meeting on 20 November, the Committee noted two further updates from the Department on the second LCM. In the first of those, the Committee was informed that the measures to strengthen age-verification requirements for the online sale and delivery of knives and crossbows would not now be included, as the Opposition at Westminster had indicated that they would oppose the amendments, as they link the power to specify other methods of age verification with the Government's plan for a digital ID scheme. The other update was to advise that the measure to expand the lawful purposes for which the police can access the DVLA driving licence database, which had been removed from the first LCM, would now be included in the second LCM, following a revised approach by the Home Office.

At its meeting on 15 January 2026, the Committee noted that the legislative consent memorandum and draft LCM had been laid two days earlier. Having considered all the written and oral evidence received, the Committee agreed on 22 January 2026 that it was content with the proposal to extend the further provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill to Northern Ireland by way of the second legislative consent motion.

Ms Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of today's legislative consent motion. From the outset, I want to be clear that we broadly welcome the extension of the provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill to Northern Ireland. The measures will strengthen our criminal justice framework, improve public protection and ensure that people here benefit from legislative advances being made elsewhere. In that sense, the LCM is sensible and proportionate. I also acknowledge the principle underpinning legislative consent motions more generally that legislation should, wherever possible, be delivered as close to home as is practical. Devolution matters, and the Assembly should always be mindful of protecting and exercising its legislative competence.

Minister, you will be mindful that I have never been on the Justice Committee. Given our debate last week, I would like to use the opportunity today to ask for some clarity on the issues of AI, online harms and deepfakes. I ask the Minister, when she makes her winding-up speech, to help us understand what the next steps will look like. It is my understanding, Minister, that the Crime and Policing Bill contains provisions to tackle the filming and distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery, including the growing and deeply concerning use of AI-generated deepfakes. As was discussed last week, that is an area in which rapidly evolving technology is causing clear and evident harm, so there is a need for robust legal protections.

It is my understanding that those protections are not being taken forward through this legislative consent motion. The Minister may correct me in her winding-up speech, but, instead, the Executive propose to address the issue through amendments to her Justice Bill. While we understand and support the objective of legislating locally, there are several elements of the LCM that equally could be delivered through the Justice Bill but are being introduced via legislative consent. Any clarification from the Minister as to why, in this case, proposed amendments on non-consensual deepfake imagery are better placed in the Justice Bill, rather than by way of the legislative consent motion, would be helpful. I ask her to clarify in her winding-up speech whether it is quicker to do it in that way. What is the rationale for treating the issue differently from other criminal justice provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill that we are content to extend to Northern Ireland?

Finally, I would also welcome any clarification from the Minister on what engagement she has had with the Justice Secretary on the extension of the deepfake-related provisions to Northern Ireland and whether other options were discussed. Was the question of whether it was possible to include them by way of legislative consent explored?

This is not about opposing the approach that is being taken; it is more about understanding it and ensuring that we act with clarity for the public and, most important, with urgency when it comes to protecting victims of that emerging abuse.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for bringing this important LCM to the House. As she rightly points out, we are dealing with the devolved elements, including enhancing safeguards for people and communities here, particularly on child criminal exploitation, and looking at issues such as restrictions on the driving licences of registered sex offenders, enhanced stalking protection orders and advice to the PSNI on the important issue of disclosure.

I know that there has been good engagement with the Infrastructure Minister on the second LCM. I am glad to see that those provisions have been included. There has also been good engagement with the Human Rights Commission, and that has been important work, as we have moved through the iterations of the LCM, particularly where it pertains to the code of practice. We raised that issue in our Committee engagements with the Minister and the Human Rights Commission. I am glad that we have assurances that safeguards need to be in place. In particular, the code of practice needs to be in place before the powers are commenced. That will be important for ensuring that we have those safeguards. I commend the LCM.

Ms Egan: The Alliance Party supports the legislative consent motion on the relevant provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill. The legislation covers a vast number of offences, all of which will help improve public safety and deter crime across the region. I will briefly note a few specific examples in order to highlight the work that Minister Long and the Department of Justice have been progressing over the past months.

The legislative consent motion will bring new restrictions on bulk-buying knives. PSNI statistics show that, last year, over 500 violent or sexual crimes in Northern Ireland involved the use of knives. The new law will help stamp out knife crime and keep communities safe. The motion will also bring in new offences relating to pornography that portrays strangulation and suffocation. Troublingly, strangulation and choking during sex has become normalised among young people, particularly young men, and puts people's lives at risk. The policy will provide a further tool in our efforts to protect women and eradicate violence against women and girls.

There is also, of course, the criminalisation of the creation or possession of child sexual abuse image generators. The rapid development of AI means that we are fighting child abuse on more fronts than ever. That measure will put in place an additional protection to help keep children safe. It will also complement a wider package of measures being delivered by Alliance, which will include the Minister's work on deepfakes and Kate Nicholl's amendment to the Justice Bill on nudification apps. I urge everyone in the House to support the passage of the motion and the protections contained in it.

Mr Beattie: Not wanting to fall into the zone in which everything has been said but not everyone has said it, I fully support what the Chair of the Justice Committee has laid out. I support the LCM, but I want to add value to it. I have been thinking about the Bill over the past number of days, and I want to raise an area in which there could be a gap.

Clause 94(2) rightly aims to prevent registered sex offenders from getting a driving licence in a new name, but we must consider the dangerous window before registration. There are often lengthy periods between arrest, charge and trial. We know that there are major delays, sometimes lasting years, in sexual offence cases coming before the courts, and we know that the vast majority of sex offenders enter a late guilty plea. What is there to stop an individual who is arrested or charged with a sexual offence but not yet convicted from legally changing their name and obtaining a new driving licence during the delay? The answer is, potentially, very little. They could exploit that gap by confusing and intimidating a victim who knows them by another name. They could begin to construct a new identity in anticipation of a potential conviction, getting ahead of future restrictions. They could undermine the administration of justice by creating confusion around their identity in court and before a jury. Perversely, this legislation could incentivise a late guilty plea. That is not a hypothetical scenario: the well-documented backlog in our courts makes that delay a real operational vulnerability that manipulative defendants could use.

Therefore, although I support clause 94(2), I genuinely urge the Minister to consider whether enabling powers or amendments are needed to allow the implementation of interim measures. For example, could a condition of bail for those charged with sexual offences include a prohibition on them legally changing their names? Could a flagging system be established at DVLA and HM Passport Office that operates from the moment at which someone is charged, not just when they are convicted? Closing the door after conviction is essential, but to protect victims and the integrity of the judicial process during that vulnerable period of time, we must also lock the door from the moment that a serious allegation is formally made.

I do not want to go through the rest of the LCM: it is pretty sound and other people have looked at it. We can all look at things hypothetically and say, "Maybe this will happen or maybe that could happen". However, the possibility that I have outlined is a real one. There are people out there who are manipulative and can use the gap. If you are charged with a sexual offence and you know that a conviction could be two or three years down the road, you might decide to put in a not guilty plea even though you know you are guilty. In that interim period, you could set up a new life for yourself, including a new driving licence. We really have a bit of a gap that I think that we need to address. I hope that the Minister can look at that for us and see whether there is any way of dealing with it.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for detailing the provisions that are included in the legislative consent motion, and I thank the Chair of the Assembly Committee for covering the Committee's scrutiny of it. It is, of course, Westminster legislation. Some of the provisions were changed at Westminster while the Committee was deliberating on them, which is less than ideal. I note that there may yet be a third LCM on the Bill.

We would, of course, prefer to be dealing with primary legislation in the Assembly. That having been said, the SDLP is broadly content with extending to the North the provisions of the Crime and Policing Bill that are set out in the legislative consent motion. Those provisions include important measures that provide greater protections for everyone in our society, particularly women and children. The provisions will make it an offence for any adult to attempt to involve a child in criminal activity. The criminalisation of the possession or publication of pornography that portrays strangulation or suffocation is a step forward in addressing the harm that extreme pornography can cause, and we welcome the protection for victims of stalking, including new guidance for the PSNI on disclosing information about the identity of the abusers in those cases.

Those are welcome measures that will have long-term benefits for society. We have concerns, however, about the implementation of some of them. The new provisions to enable the Department for Infrastructure to introduce legislation to restrict access to replacement driving licences for registered sex offenders are reasonable, but we expect the Infrastructure Minister to introduce the required legislation promptly when that power is enabled, and to address the issues raised by Mr Beattie.

We hope that the new offence of child abduction, where a child is kept abroad without appropriate consent, will act as a deterrent. However, it is less clear how useful it will be when a parent or guardian is attempting to have a child returned from abroad. There has been much publicity around at least two such cases in the North and, indeed, in the rest of the island. In the absence of an extradition treaty, the resolution of those cases may ultimately depend on diplomatic pressure, as is the case now. Similarly, the provisions regarding the suspicious sales of knives may sound reasonable, but it remains to be seen how those will operate in practice and whether they will actually reduce knife crime.

We are disappointed that there is no new offence to criminalise the creation of deepfake sexualised images. I am sure that the Minister will address that. I would be interested to find out, too, Minister, what representations the Department made to the Home Office on that specific issue to see whether amendments can be introduced to the Bill at Westminster. My colleague Cara Hunter, as we heard, has been campaigning on that issue for some time, and we and she will continue to do so.

We welcome the provisions in general. We have concerns, as I outlined, about how some of the measures will operate in practice. As with all powers, their effectiveness will depend on their implementation and the allocation of resources by the relevant Ministers.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I call the Minister to make a winding-up speech, I remind Members that a Member or Minister seeking to amend their motion is invited to address the motion and the amendment together when moving and making a winding-up speech. I call the Minister to make a winding-up speech on the motion and the amendment.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. The LCM is wide-ranging. It is the second LCM on this piece of legislation, and, as I indicated, there is the potential for a third LCM. Unfortunately, whilst that is complicated and often frustrating, it is completely outwith the control of the Department. We just have to respond, as and when we get the opportunity, to changes made to the legislation as it journeys through the House of Commons and House of Lords. I hope that Members understand, therefore, that I intend no discourtesy to the Committee or to the House regarding the frequency of the changes.

Questions were asked about non-consensual deepfakes, and I want to make Members aware of a couple of things. Provision for the creation of deepfake images was originally intended to be included in the Crime and Policing Bill. At short notice, however, it was moved and is, instead, included in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. The timing of that change, which was by amendment, meant that we were not able to proceed with an LCM as originally intended. As deepfakes is a really important matter that has been on my radar and that we have been concerned about for quite some time, we held a public consultation on it last year. Given the importance of the matter and the fact that the underlying legislative base on which we are building is different in Northern Ireland than that in England and Wales and, indeed, Scotland, we believed that it was preferable to legislate locally, taking account of local issues. It is clear that when we can land those changes will depend on when the Justice Bill arrives in the Chamber and passes through the normal Assembly processes. However, we are working hard. The draft amendment for deepfakes is being processed, and we are hopeful that, when the Bill comes to the House at Consideration Stage, we will be able to make that amendment. Overall, we will get a better and more accurate suite of offences by taking it forward locally, which we would not have been able to through an LCM.

The point that Mr Beattie made is somewhat moot. If you were to legally change your name during a court case, the conviction would attach itself to your new name, but a record would also be kept of any previous names that you have held. It is theoretically possible for someone to, as a sideline, create a new identity, which would then be handled differently, but it would bring very little benefit to the offender, given that they would then be found guilty in their new legal name. It is about ensuring that people are not able to change their name with impunity once they are convicted of sexual offences. That is the scenario that we are trying to avoid.

Of course, we in the Department keep any law under review, and we are always looking at where may be any gaps. If there are issues of concern, we are more than happy to take evidence about those. However, it is not in our gift to change the primary legislation for which we are accepting a legislative consent motion. That has already been drafted and is before the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It is really about whether we want to bring these specific provisions to Northern Ireland, and, so far, the Department and the Committee agree that that would be beneficial.

On child abduction, it would obviously be preferable for disputes between parents to be resolved through civil proceedings. That is intended to complement the Hague convention process for return. It is not a panacea; there will always be practical challenges in enforcement, and it will, of course, depend on relationships between law enforcement and the various agencies. However, it will provide an enhanced opportunity to ensure that, where one parent takes a child abroad and detains them without seeking the permission of the other carer, guardian or parent, that matter is brought before the courts and the child is returned to their regular place of abode. That is quite a powerful addition to the suite of measures that we have.

Finally, with reflection on the issue of whether the number of knives owned by a person is an indicator of their propensity to commit knife crime, most of the evidence indicates that, sadly, it is. People who collect large numbers of weapons, knives and other bladed objects tend to have a propensity for violence and are therefore more likely to use them than those who have a smaller number of knives. I am not talking about the kind of stuff that involves an impulsive crime; I am talking about somebody who is committed to gathering and collecting knives and then using them, particularly some of the more specialist bladed items for which we have an amnesty for destruction. We are trying to improve public safety and limit people's opportunity to hoard large numbers of potentially deadly weapons without at least some intervention, consideration and supervision.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members should take their ease before Question Time, for which there will be a change at the Table.

Mr Speaker: Question 1 was withdrawn after the deadline.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): We operate within a constrained financial environment, shaped by inflation, growing demand on public services and a sustained period of underfunding of our services. We welcome the £372·3 million of additional Barnett consequentials announced in the autumn Budget. While that may sound like a substantial allocation, the reality is that, when taken over a five-year period, it falls far short of what is needed, and we believe that the Chancellor could and should have gone further.

The delivery ambitions of Departments substantially exceed the funding available. There remains a significant and unsustainable gap between our ambitions and the resources at our disposal. Addressing this disparity will require adequate funding from Westminster for public services as well as substantive reform and meaningful transformation in how we design and deliver our public services. Each Minister and their departmental permanent secretary must strive to improve efficiency in how our public services are delivered. We welcome the publication in April 2025 of the five-year people strategy, which sets out a five-year plan for developing the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) workforce, improving skills and strengthening leadership. Transformation across all Departments will be a key driver to allow the Northern Ireland Civil Service to act as a single, coherent system, sharing data, skills and resources to deliver better outcomes, reduce duplication and modernise public services in a way that is consistent, efficient and sustainable.

Ms Murphy: I thank the deputy First Minister for her substantial response. Notwithstanding the damage of years of underfunding and austerity by the British Government, the Executive now have an opportunity to set their first multi-year Budget in over a decade. Does the Minister agree that agreement on a multi-year Budget is key to providing Departments with long-term surety in spending, and will she commit to delivering that outcome?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. I want to see a three-year Budget. That would give the most certainty possible to each of the Departments. That is the challenge and task of the Executive: to get around the table and try to find consensus. It is the primary responsibility of the Finance Minister to put forward proposals but, of course, he should do so in a way that he feels best meets the needs in each Department and will best achieve that consensus. That is the challenge that we have at hand. I look forward to constructive engagement with the Finance Minister. In the meantime, we will also continue to engage with Treasury to make sure that we have the tools available to us to ensure that we can meet the needs of so many people who need those vital public services.

Ms Forsythe: Does the deputy First Minister agree that Treasury should not only fund Northern Ireland to its level of need but work alongside the Executive to ensure delivery of reform of the Civil Service to drive the efficiencies that are required?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her very important question. This is not just about going to His Majesty's Treasury and asking for more money. It must be about a combined approach that looks not just at sustainable funding. I do believe that Northern Ireland has been underfunded. That has been the analysis of the Department of Finance for some years. We are suffering from it, and our public services have suffered from that. We want adequate funding, but we must rise to the challenge. It is important that it is not just about how much money we have; it is about how we spend that money. We must spend that money in the most efficient way, driving productivity across our public services, trying to eliminate waste where that occurs and making sure that we have the right people with the right skills delivering on time. That is the best use of public money, and we will work with the Northern Ireland Senior Civil Service leadership team to try to make sure that that happens.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, I strongly support Civil Service reform, and it is remarkable that you talk about Civil Service reform when you and your party cannot even confirm that you will agree a multi-year Budget. I stand up and criticise the Finance Minister regularly; I did it earlier today. Surely, you and your party have to accept that, if you block a multi-year Budget, it will be the final nail in the coffin for the credibility of the Executive.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Unfortunately, in this place, we see it too often: people focusing on whether or not something is moving instead of focusing on what it is actually about.

This Budget must be the right Budget. It must be a Budget that, for example, supplies the Department of Education with enough funds to provide the education provision that the children throughout Northern Ireland deserve. It must be the right Budget to ensure that the health service can reduce waiting lists and can drive transformation. We have an opportunity to get that right: to build the foundations for growth; to build the foundations to tackle, for example, the waste water and sewerage issues that are holding back economic development; and to get the foundations for our infrastructure plan correct. Essentially, however, it must be a Budget that delivers the public services that the people whom we serve not only demand but, indeed, need.

Mr Allen: On the theme of the draft multi-year Budget, I ask the deputy First Minister for her assessment of that multi-year Budget when it comes to delivering for those in housing need. There is a Programme for Government (PFG) commitment and a housing supply strategy, but the funding does not seem to be there to deliver the amount of housing that is needed for our people.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. He raises a really important issue. The Executive's prioritisation took place through our Programme for Government, which we published last year. It is important that we look at what we are doing in each and every Department, with the support of the Finance Department, to see that we are adequately funding that particular Minister to be able to achieve the targets that are set out. The targets for housing in the Programme for Government cannot be reached with the proposed draft Budget that is given in relation to the consultation. That needs to be addressed.

If I put on more of a political hat to discuss the issue, I notice that the Finance Minister's party in the South is jumping up and down in relation to the inadequate funding being given to social housing, yet our Minister with responsibility for housing is asking Finance Minister John O'Dowd to make sure that he gets what he needs to be able to meet the targets as set out, and he is open and transparent about that. It is important that the Finance Minister gives Ministers what they need to hit the agreed Executive Programme for Government targets.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The establishment of the Office of AI and Digital was a key commitment in our Programme for Government, providing strategic leadership and coordination on the responsible adoption of artificial intelligence across the Northern Ireland Civil Service. AI and advanced digital technologies have the potential to improve how public services are designed and delivered. The Office of AI and Digital will support Departments to identify and safely adopt technologies that can deliver efficiencies and improved outcomes. That will be underpinned by strong governance, transparency and ethical oversight. Our draft AI strategy sets out the overarching direction, with a strong focus on developing skills and promoting collaboration across Departments and with academia and industry.

Transforming public service delivery through AI and digital technologies cannot be achieved by a single office or a Department acting in isolation. The success of the Office of AI and Digital will depend on cross-Executive support, with Departments working collaboratively. A collective approach, sharing best practice, is essential to ensure consistency, maximise impact and deliver sustainable improvements to public services across Northern Ireland.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Will she tell the House more about how AI can drive efficiency across the Northern Ireland Civil Service?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: There is huge potential for AI and digital to drive transformation. In the Department of Heath, for example, we have had the roll-out of Encompass. Northern Ireland is unique in integrating social care and health, and that system, using digital technology, should be able to give us useful data for planning, for looking at where issues arise and for rolling out even more transformation. That can be replicated across our system, but, of course, it has to be done ethically. I am pleased to say that the upskilling of civil servants in AI in particular and in digital skills more generally is well under way. In the Executive Office alone, by this time next week, just over 300 people should have gone through additional training on AI. We are trying to push through that training across the service.

Mr Gildernew: Does the deputy First Minister agree that the recent situation with Grok was disgraceful, that X has a responsibility to address concerns and that the whole episode speaks to the need to put in place robust safeguards to ensure the ethical and responsible use of AI? With that in mind, deputy First Minister, what safeguards are being put in place to ensure the responsible use of AI across the Civil Service?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We have seen many abuses of some technological advancements. Some aspects are positive, but the technology brings with it a darker side, and we need to be careful about all that. It is also important that the framework ensure consistency in how and when we use AI. We should not be afraid of AI and digital transformation, because it has huge potential, but that is why we have embedded core principles and governance in the draft strategy that will go out to consultation shortly. In effect, the ethical framework will be part and parcel of that key strategy, which will be consulted on. That will then set the tone for and direction of the entire public sector.

Mr Carroll: Deputy First Minister, we have heard a lot about the benefits of AI, but I do not know how aware Ministers are of its dangers and those of artificial superintelligence, which, people who have worked in the sector say, could threaten the whole of humanity. The use of AI will have an impact on energy supplies and on job losses. Data shows that, in Britain, AI has led to a huge loss of jobs in the past year. At the very least, the sector needs to be regulated and brought under control. Will you indicate how that is being done?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As the Member will be aware, a number of places are looking at the issue. I was disappointed to hear that Northern Ireland would not be included in the Westminster legislation on monitoring AI's generation of particular images. We have just heard from the Minister of Justice about introducing our own legislation. I continue, however, to pursue our inclusion in the Westminster legislation, which will be introduced much quicker.

The Member is absolutely correct to say that we need to take an ethical approach to AI. Legislation will be required to catch up and deal with the dark side of potential technological advancements, including AI. From a public-sector perspective, however, having an ethical framework embedded in the strategy from the outset and collaborating with other jurisdictions across these islands to make sure that there is consistency will mean that, when we use AI, should that be data, for triage or whatever, it is used in a way that best gives us confidence that its use is correct and abides by the ethical framework.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Mr Speaker, with your permission, junior Minister Joanne Bunting will answer this question and will group questions 4 and 14.

Ms Bunting (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Ending violence against women and girls is one of the most pressing challenges facing society today. We have invested over £5 million in communities, working with partners across society to raise awareness and to equip everyone to be able to take action to prevent it. Early results from regional programmes are positive, with 98% of participants surveyed reporting an increased knowledge of violence against women and girls and 96% reporting a better understanding of what a healthy relationship is.

In addition, the projects supported by the change fund reflect what communities need to respond to the crisis. Sports clubs, community groups, faith groups and children and young people and people from urban and rural areas, among others, are all engaged.

Budget planning for the period beyond March 2026 will, of course, depend on the outcome of the Executive's Budget process. To support the delivery of the strategic framework, future-year bids have been submitted that reflect the level of investment required to maintain momentum and deliver the programme's ambitions over the long term. The next plan will be brought to the Executive shortly and will continue to deliver the strategic framework objectives.

While we are at the start of a long journey, we are laying strong foundations and will continue to assess the longer-term impact of specific interventions.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the junior Minister for her answer. Will she provide an update on the new campaign on coercive control?

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Member for her question. We recently conducted a pilot campaign on coercive control that addresses how it makes people feel, using the memorable framework of "Head, Shoulders, Knees, and Toes", which enables women and girls to check in with themselves to identify what coercive control is, understand whether it is impacting on or happening to them or other people whom they know and, from that, understand how to take action.

The campaign was developed in partnership with Ulster University and engaged stakeholders, those with lived experience, importantly, and the youth sector, drawing on evidence-based research in its development. In September, a training toolkit for front-line services was delivered by our partners in Ulster University to 43 workers from 20 organisations across a range of sectors. They trialled that training in their own settings for a three-month pilot phase that ended in December 2025. An evaluation of the pilot is under way, and it is anticipated that there will be a region-wide campaign launch in the spring.

Ms Egan: Thank you, junior Minister. Given that progress on ending violence against women and girls needs to be sustained over the long term, how will Ministers in the Executive Office ensure that the outcomes of the programmes under the framework are embedded across Departments and continue beyond individual funding cycles?

Ms Bunting: I thank the Member for her question. The Member will be aware that there is considerable collaboration across Departments. It is a priority in the Programme for Government and has so far involved many, if not all, Departments. It is clearly embedded. We know that such cultural change does not happen overnight. From seat belt campaigns and so on, we have seen that such things take time, so we are laying the groundwork. There are regular updates to the Executive on the work.

I emphasise to the Member the extent of the collaboration across the Executive and how seriously the Executive take the issue. Key work areas in the delivery plan involve other Departments: for example, the Department for the Economy is looking at safer socialising, the workplace and tertiary education; the Department of Education is leading on an action plan to coordinate interventions that focus on healthy relationships and are targeted at children and young people; and the Education Authority (EA), along with a group of young people and stakeholders, developed a board game called "Raise Your Game", the launch of which junior Minister Reilly and I attended. The Member will be aware that there is a collaborative funding model for the extended late-night transport pilot. That is being delivered through the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for the Economy. Many Departments are involved, and we will continue to work together, because everybody in the Executive and in the House recognises that this is a serious issue that must be challenged and faced down.

Mr Dunne: Given the ever-growing concerns about new forms of abuse, which often include online abuse, will the junior Minister outline what measures are being taken to address violence against women and girls in the online world?

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Member for his question. We see that type of online behaviour all too frequently. Whether it is intimidation, harassment, bullying, humiliation, embarrassment or name-calling, it is meant to silence women and shut them down, and it is unacceptable. We are committed to ensuring that women and girls are safe and feel safe everywhere. Recent media headlines are a timely reminder of just how important the work is.

We are actively engaged with Ofcom on the implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023. Junior Minister Reilly and I recently attended an event to discuss Ofcom's new guidance on a safer online life for women and girls that highlights the growing risks in digital spaces. I attended a similar event on cyber safety for young people, at which similar themes were raised.

I assure the Member that we continue to work with Executive colleagues, the PSNI and Ofcom on the online safety of women and girls to ensure that they have a safer life and presence there. Online safety is also a feature of the change fund, which is part of the EVAWG work.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Executive working group on mental well-being, resilience and suicide prevention is chaired by the Minister of Health, who sets the agenda and organises the meetings. In the past two years, there was a meeting on 3 April 2025, and a further meeting is scheduled for 12 March 2026. We welcome the opportunity for the annual update, although we know that officials across Departments continue to work collaboratively to address the factors that contribute to poor mental well-being and suicide.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for that response. Over the past couple of years, we have seen disinvestment in our mental health strategy and our suicide prevention strategy. In my constituency, vital support services have been stripped of funding, and yet more cuts loom for the sector in the shape of the local growth fund. Last year, the number of registered suicides rose to a record 290 — 290 lives lost and families devastated — yet a so-called working group of Ministers has met only once in two years. Does the Minister think that that is good enough? What will she and the Executive do to prioritise mental health?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for raising that important issue. We completely understand the devastating effect that a suicide can have on a family, on friends and on a community. It is important to say that the Executive have already agreed a number of strategies. The policy direction is there, but there are significant funding challenges. We know that from the Health Minister's confirmation on the mental health strategy and on the important work on suicide prevention. The all-party group (APG) on suicide prevention is looking at a recent report to see what more can be done. I assure the Member that we talk about the issue regularly at substantive Executive meetings. It has been talked about in relation to a number of issues.

It is difficult. The figures in Northern Ireland are appalling — it is absolutely dismaying — but it is not that the figures are too high or low: we want to eliminate suicide completely. We are at the higher end of suicide levels across these isles. We want to work on that. Importantly, we want to mainstream the work across a number of funds. While the Department of Health's budget for such strategies is challenging, we can mainstream the work in ending violence against women and girls programmes, in Together: Building a United Community, in our racial equality funded schemes, in Communities in Transition (CIT) and in so many others. That will be really important if we are to make a real and tangible difference.

Ms Flynn: The deputy First Minister referred to the inquiry that was launched by the APG, which will look at the potential for cross-departmental funding for suicide prevention from all Departments, because the issue cuts across all Departments. Does the Minister think that the APG's work and recommendations might assist the Executive subgroup in seeing what each Minister can bring to the table to try to save more lives?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. It is important and timely work. While the group meets only annually at the moment as a checkpoint to get an update on what is happening, there is huge collaboration between departmental officials to drive forward the key objectives and actions in those strategies. We can always do more. One of the big issues that we can look at is how, at a time when funding is very tight, we can embed and mainstream best practice across the range of community intervention projects that we already have. That includes projects in the Department of Justice, the Department for Communities and the Executive Office. I see huge potential. We are already rolling out interventions. I think that well in excess of 130 interventions that relate to mental health are delivered through CIT, for example. There are so many other opportunities, and we will actively look at those. I look forward to seeing the outcome of the all-party group's work.

Mrs Dodds: The Craigavon part of my constituency, unfortunately, has a high rate of male suicide. It is very distressing. I spoke to those who came to the last all-party group on suicide prevention: it is devastating for families. What can be done specifically about the phenomenon of young, male suicide? How can we get all the Departments across the Executive to think about that issue as they produce their policies?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member is absolutely right: we know that suicide is devastating for the family and friends but also for the community. We often see a number of suicides in a particular area, and that can compound the impact. We can do more work collaboratively. There are factors that are indicators of suicide. Those who live in deprivation and young men who live alone are categories that, unfortunately, have a much higher rate of suicide. We can target that because we have a wide range of interventions across the Department of Justice and the Department for Communities, and, importantly, we have the data to identify those who are the most vulnerable. It is a key area for cross-departmental working, and it needs to be embedded across the Executive. I will raise the matter again with the Minister of Health, who takes the lead on the issue. However, the Member is absolutely right: all Departments can do more to work together.

Mr Donnelly: Given the urgency of the need to improve mental health and suicide prevention, how is the Minister ensuring that the Executive working group drives coordinated action across Departments rather than just functioning as an advisory group?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As I indicated, the Executive have previously agreed on a number of strategies, and there are a number of existing strategies. It is not the case that the group is necessarily developing policy or pushing forward new actions. We know that the actions that have already been agreed are underfunded, and some of those actions have not progressed. It is a good opportunity to get a sense of what is happening and identify what more can be done. The opportunity lies in embedding and mainstreaming our policies in a number of areas.

There is no doubt that there is a huge opportunity to break down silo working in the Departments, not just on this issue but on many issues, such as the anti-poverty strategy, promoting good relations, raising mental health or educational aspirations. None of those things happens in a vacuum; we know that they are interlinked and intertwined with poverty and, perhaps, poverty of ambition. We know that certain areas are more likely to have particular challenges. There are many different programmes that we can use that are all designed to put a multi-objective policy in place in communities. We need to do much more of that because it is more efficient but also because it makes sense to ensure that the projects have a number of policy objectives.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 6, 9 and 11 together.

The US is the largest economy in the world. As our second-largest export market and our third-largest source of imports, it is a critical market for our economic development. Our relationship with the US is a long-standing one reflected in our ties to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, strengthened through the peace process and continuing today with major investments, such as Bank of America’s commitment to create up to 1,000 jobs.

The Northern Ireland Bureau will host its annual St Patrick’s Day breakfast in partnership with Invest NI, Tourism Ireland, Queen’s University Belfast and the Ulster University to showcase the Executive’s priorities. We will decide our plans for St Patrick’s Day once we have confirmation of the full range of events — and, indeed, invitations — scheduled to take place in Washington DC.

Mr Clarke: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Will she agree that, as America is the largest economy in the world, as she has indicated, it is most important to amplify Northern Ireland at every opportunity, regardless of who presides in the White House?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I absolutely agree with the Member: it is incredibly important for us to engage. A number of people in the Chamber attended the St Patrick's Day celebrations in the US last year. There are so many events offering so much access not just to the key policymakers and the president himself but to a range of businesses and other key influencers.

Of all jurisdictions, we are probably unique in our opportunity to have that level of access, and of course we should take it.

It is also important to say that, at the moment, a range of key decisions are being made by the president of the United States that can and will have a direct impact on our businesses and the people of Northern Ireland. As leaders across the globe are taking the opportunity to try to talk to and engage with President Trump to influence his decisions towards certain beneficial things and, of course, to urge him away from things that may be detrimental, it is incredibly important — more so than ever — that we engage, regardless of our personal views as to the politics of the holder of the office of president of the United States.

Mr Brooks: Does the deputy First Minister agree that the 250th anniversary of the US gives Northern Ireland a prime opportunity to showcase itself stateside?

Mr Speaker: Briefly, Minister.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely, it is a unique opportunity. It celebrates and marks the US leaving the United Kingdom, but of course the Ulster Scots, or the Scots Irish, as they are known in the US, played such a pivotal role in that. I note that, last year, the Taoiseach made reference to a number of the Ulster-Scots/Scots-Irish people who were involved in the preparations for and signing of the Declaration of Independence. It is incredibly important that Northern Ireland firmly takes control of that process, and I am pleased to see my colleague Gordon Lyons doing so.

The Ulster Scots were unique in having such a significant role in the US, not just in relation to the politics of the day but in growing America through its economy, business, industry and cultural life. That is unique to this part of the world — what is now Northern Ireland — and, indeed, this very small place has the most links to US presidents since the beginning of the USA. We should use that platform and take every opportunity to draw attention to Northern Ireland and, indeed, to opportunities for investment and further collaboration.

Mr Speaker: I am really glad that I said "briefly" there. We will move on to topical questions.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, you mentioned the Scots Irish; I am going to speak some plain Ulster Scots now.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. This week marks two years since restoration, and I stand over the fact that I have worked tirelessly to drive progress. There is no doubt that our system of government is a challenging one. I do not believe that there is a more difficult form of government than a four-party mandatory coalition with parties from across the political spectrum.

Do I want more delivery? Absolutely. Will I continue to drive that? Absolutely. However, as I said last week, let us take a short look at what we have been able to achieve: over 200,000 additional appointments and procedures, driving down health waiting lists; the ending violence against women and girls strategy out, its framework out and the funding out and on the ground; public-sector pay settlements made; childcare scheme and enhancements to that scheme out, with the funding out and in the pockets of parents; full-time preschool increased; Lough Neagh plan agreed, with the actions under way; transformation fund phase 1 out; the cultural commissioners appointed and operating; the growth deals — secured by the DUP, by the way — already out and making a real difference, with Studio Ulster to be launched shortly and the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Centre to be opened; and the PFG out. Many things have been delivered by Ministers in this Executive. While people may not always see the benefit to themselves, all those things collectively make a significant impact.

In relation to legislation, there is a process. The Minister looks at the policy; it goes out to consultation; it goes to the Executive; and then it goes to the Committee. The Member is well aware that the vast majority of legislation is currently undergoing scrutiny at Committee Stage, which is why it is not in the Chamber.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, I appreciate your effort in trying to defend the record of the Executive, but the truth is that your party and Sinn Féin spend most of your time at one another's throats. You are shaking your head, but it is true. Do you want to go out on to the Newtownards Road, the Falls Road, the Shankill Road, the Lisburn Road or any other road in Northern Ireland and ask the public? They do not buy it, deputy First Minister. Two years ago, I asked you and the First Minister whether you would promise not to resign your office before the end of the mandate. That promise has still not been given to me. Will you at least accept that, for the public to take this place seriously again, we need a genuine, serious process of Assembly and Executive reform to improve how this place works, because it cannot go on like this?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I know how I spend the majority of my time; I do not need to ask anybody about how I spend it. I spend it trying to drive forward delivery from a very difficult system. I remind the Member that there has been a significant amount of delivery thus far, but we are not done. There is much more to do. I am not standing here and pretending that everything is perfect and that delivery is where I want it to be. It is a frustrating system through which to try to drive delivery. A critical piece of that will be Civil Service reform and making sure that we have a system of delivery. When we look at some of the key things that have not been delivered, we see that a lack of political agreement is not the reason for them not being delivered. There has been political agreement, a budget has been attached to that, and it is over to a system that, too often, has a focus on process instead of progress. We need to drive efficiency and reform; we need to rightsize the Civil Service; and we need to get the right people with the right skills to help us to drive forward delivery in every Department. That will be critical. It is not just about how much we have. It is about how we are using that money and how we are driving delivery in every Department.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Certainly, I am enthusiastic about the proposals. There is, of course, a significant cost attached to that. As the Member will know, there are huge pressures on the system, and that is something that we need to feed into our wider infrastructure plans. On infrastructure, we need to do not only what needs to be done today; we must plan for the future. However, I am sure that the Member has been contacted by many constituents from across Lagan Valley, as I have been — I am sure that every Member has received such contact — about the state of our roads. It is disgraceful. People are frustrated; cars are being damaged. It is time for the Infrastructure Minister to get on with dealing with the everyday issues, such as potholes and the state of our roads. The Member is right: I want to work with the Infrastructure Minister and the rest of the Executive on planning for those types of initiatives for the future.

Mr Butler: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. I am not sure whether that was a yes, you have done some work with the Infrastructure Minister on that. It would be a capital project.

Deputy First Minister, if you travel to the US for St Patrick's Day, will you give a commitment to engage the US president on pre-clearance for Belfast International Airport? I see that as a real boon to Northern Ireland's prosperity and a means of opening up valuable transatlantic routes for travellers.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As the Member will know, I am hugely enthusiastic about trying to re-establish transatlantic flights from the US to Northern Ireland and, indeed, other transatlantic flights if we can secure them. I can confirm that we have been working constructively with the airport on looking at the opportunities around that. I will be doing everything that I can to try to get that route re-established. The Member is right: pre-clearance would be a good thing to have. However, it is important to say that there needs to be a realistic prospect of re-establishing a transatlantic flight before the US will consider that. As I said, we are actively working on getting a transatlantic flight. Hopefully, that will progress over the course of the next number of weeks.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. As he knows, I have worked very closely with victims and survivors right across Northern Ireland for many years, and I always believe in taking a very sympathetic and empathetic approach to them. Legacy is one of the big issues that was not resolved in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. Far too many victims and survivors, including the 90% who were victims and survivors of terrorist atrocities, have never seen justice. There are many people who know truth. There are people in the Chamber who know truth but have not come forward to the authorities to tell the truth that they know and about what they perhaps did. I appeal to all in the Chamber and, indeed, across Northern Ireland that, if they have knowledge about a crime that was carried out — a terrorist act or atrocity — they should come forward, speak to the police and give families closure. All families deserve closure and truth.

Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an leasChéad Aire as a freagra.

Does she accept — she did not answer the question — that the families of those killed and injured on Bloody Sunday are, like all other victims, fully entitled to truth and justice? Will she answer my question about what her party leader said last week?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am not sure that I can be any clearer. I said very clearly that all families deserve truth and justice. Too many families have been denied truth and justice, and that includes the 90% who were victims of terrorist acts and atrocities. People across Northern Ireland are appalled by the hypocrisy of some, who demand truth from others but are not prepared to give truth themselves, when they know that they hold truth that could give great comfort to those families whom they made victims. I have been absolutely clear that I believe that all terrorism was wrong and that all victims deserve truth and justice. Can the Member say the same?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for raising what is an important and timely issue. When I saw the Northern Ireland Audit Office report last week, I was dismayed, because reform is a key issue that I have been raising with the head of the Civil Service for some considerable time. It is absolutely clear that we need reform and transformation, and that must start with our Civil Service. We have more civil servants and public-sector workers per head of population than anywhere else across these isles. Many of them do a fantastic job, but it is also critical, at a time of fiscal constraint, that we look at ensuring efficiency and productivity across the system.

What does that mean? It means that we must rightsize the Civil Service and get the right skills. It is about moving away from being generalist to having specialist skills to help the system deliver on time and on budget, because people want us to remove bureaucracy and inefficiency. Indeed, it is commonly referred to across the system, not just here but across the globe, as sludge: processes and procedures. That is holding back progress, and people are deeply frustrated. We need more progress instead of all the process. That is a critical issue to be addressed in order to deliver efficiency, effectiveness and delivery across our system.

Mr Frew: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. While she is fighting to reform the Civil Service and government, will she come down to North Antrim to see at first hand how community and voluntary groups work to assist people in the community? Perhaps government could take a leaf out of their book.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am more than happy to go with the Member to Ballymena to talk to people. In all that we do, it is incredibly important that we listen to people on the ground, see what their needs are and see how we can help and support them. As I indicated, there are some examples of really good best practice in the system, and it is important that we try to share those where we can and that we work hand in hand with communities so that they have the right support, the right tools and the right funding to enable them to tackle the big issues. They know most about the issues, and they know what the solutions to them are.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons, is one of the most empathetic and compassionate people who I know, and he brings that into his politics day in and day out. I see the people whom he helps, and I see the way that he speaks to people. It is absolutely wrong that, on the basis of one tweet, anybody can hold that somebody does not have empathy or compassion or try to suggest the meaning or intention behind it. We all need to be very careful about a third person being able to do that, and for people to blindly follow that opinion.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): The Education Authority (EA) is implementing its new term service contracts for maintenance and minor works. Sixteen of the 18 lots have been awarded, with 10 lots already implemented across Northern Ireland. It is anticipated that all 16 lots awarded will be fully implemented by 1 April 2026.

The new contracts have been designed to strengthen value for money, through a combination of improved commercial controls, clearer performance management and greater cost certainty. Contract pricing has been benchmarked through competitive procurement, with clear schedules of rates and fixed pricing addendums. Stronger contract management arrangements, including enhanced reporting and governance, provide earlier visibility of emerging issues and reduce the risk of cost escalation over the contract term. The contracts also include a local management of schools addendum for cost certainty. That means that the most requested maintenance activities have set prices fixed for the duration of the contract, ensuring assurance and transparency for school leaders. In addition, improved data and reporting requirements support better forward planning and more informed decisions for capital investments.

In addition to the new contracts, a pilot project is currently being agreed by the EA to test the delegation of low-value tenant maintenance, such as painting and carpeting, to schools in the 2026-27 financial year.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Minister, for that response. In the midst of the financial crisis in education, it is vital that we have confidence that procurement is achieving value for money. A school leader in our constituency recently vented his frustration to me that the EA procurement frameworks were not delivering on that. He was forced to pay an annual fee of over £600 for one supplier, yet he still had to pay that supplier a further £500 in fees to deliver pretty much nothing. Yet, in another sector, he used the same supplier who charged him considerably less. Minister, can you provide an assurance that the new systems will achieve value for money for schools and ensure that the taxpayer and our schools are not being ripped off by those contracts?

Mr Givan: I share exactly the same sentiments that the Member has articulated. It is a frustration of mine when principals outline that they would be able to achieve greater value for money by going into a direct contract award instead of having to go through the EA. When I engage with the EA on that, it outlines that, when it comes to the economy of scale of being a large purchaser and being able to secure contracts, it can deliver greater value for money than allowing schools to be able to procure things individually. That is an open question for people to interrogate. I have engaged with the EA on that to try to identify lower-value spend, which should be at the discretion of the school. Understandably, there needs to be a procurement framework for significant capital works, but, where there is low-value spend, there should be greater levels of autonomy for schools, and I outlined in my initial response some of the work that is being taken forward to provide for that.

Mrs Cameron: Will the Minister outline the work that is being done to allow schools greater flexibility in procurement within the existing frameworks?

Mr Givan: I touched on that in my earlier response. The EA is looking at options through a pilot scheme to give schools greater autonomy in purchasing low-value consumables through their delegated budget and choosing whether to use EA frameworks or alternative suppliers. The main objective of the project will be to assess the potential benefits and impact of removing the mandate to use framework arrangements. In addition, the pilot will assess the level of risk attached to schools undertaking procurement below the £10,000 threshold in the absence of the EA's centre of procurement expertise support and knowledge, and that will be part of the outworkings of the pilot that the EA wishes to take forward.

Mr Givan: The Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill was recently passed by the Scottish Government and is awaiting Royal Assent before becoming law. The Bill mandates a minimum of four nights and five days of residential education for every pupil across the period of their school career. That may be fulfilled by way of one five-day-long school trip or through several shorter trips that add up to four nights and five days of residential education. Detailed costs have not yet been calculated, but the cost estimate for year 1 runs from £21 million to £35 million, which is to be met by the Scottish Executive. Whilst I am supportive of the important work of outdoor education providers, given the contribution that outdoor education makes to the school life of our children, I have no intention of introducing a similar Bill in Northern Ireland at this time.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. You will be aware that the Assembly legislated for a licensing authority for outdoor activity providers nearly 20 years ago but that that has never been implemented. Tollymore National Outdoor Centre, which provided training for many who look after children and young people in the outdoor environment, has been closed for a year. Do you agree that the benefits of outdoor residential education have been treated as an afterthought and that legislation similar to the Scottish Bill is required to ensure that all children can access such transformative experiences?

Mr Givan: I do not disagree with the Member. Outdoor residential activity is very beneficial. Some schools are in a position to provide that, but — he is right — there is no universal provision in order for every child to avail themselves of such an opportunity. My family and I were in Tollymore yesterday, enjoying the benefits of the great outdoors. I certainly encourage schools to make that provision, but it comes with a financial resource pressure. Whilst I have every sympathy and wish that there was greater access that was paid for by the taxpayer, I cannot introduce a Bill that would add to the financial pressures that the Department of Education faces. However, I absolutely support outdoor education and encourage schools to provide it where they can.

Mr Dunne: Will the Minister outline the cost of introducing in Northern Ireland residential education provision similar to the Scottish model?

Mr Givan: Having looked at the Scottish Bill to try to identify what it would mean for Northern Ireland, we believe that such provision would cost between £11 million and £18 million per year. I repeat: whist I support outdoor education, I have to be cognisant of the financial pressures that face the education system, and I am not able to bring forward provision in that area in the current climate.

Mr Givan: The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), as the planning and managing authority for Catholic maintained schools, has indicated that it will seek to increase the admissions and enrolment numbers at Dean Maguirc College via the development proposal process, as outlined under article 14 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. CCMS has confirmed that it began the consultation process for the development proposal with governors, staff and parents on 17 December last year. The proposal being consulted on is to increase the admissions and enrolment numbers of the school from 80/440 to 100/600 from 1 September 2027 or as soon as possible thereafter. That phase of the consultation process finished on 24 January 2026. Should CCMS decide to proceed with the proposal, it would then progress to the Education Authority and, on receipt of a development proposal, there is a statutory requirement for the EA to consult with all schools that are affected by it, including the school that is the subject of the proposal. While the development proposal is being progressed, the school remains able to apply for temporary variations in order to request an increased intake when there is over-subscription in the area.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. I should declare an interest as a parent of children at the school and having taken part in the CCMS case-for-change consultation. Minister, I understand that the final phase of any development proposal plan involves the Department carrying out an eight-week consultation, the result of which would, ultimately, arrive on your desk. Are you able to assure the House that when that reaches your desk, you will process it as expeditiously as possible?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his supplementary. I know that he has long campaigned on this issue. He has met me on numerous occasions, he has presented petitions and he has certainly been a strong advocate for the school in question. I have outlined a process that we need to follow. Now, having had the consultation, it is for CCMS, if it wishes to take forward a formal development proposal, to go to the EA. The EA will carry out its process and, ultimately, that will come to the Department. I assure the Member that I will in no way delay taking a decision on a development proposal once it has been assessed by my Department and presented to me. Ultimately, however, as the final decision-maker, whilst I have every sympathy with the Member's case and commend him for it, it would not be appropriate for me to give a view on that. Needless to say, however, I assure the Member that I will not delay reaching a decision in that regard.

Mr Givan: Several areas of support are available for schools that have undertaken transformation. Those are detailed in the departmental circular 2018/15, which was issued in October 2018. That circular offered guidance in the following areas: area planning and development proposals; amalgamation implementation plans; establishing an interim board of governors; the school reorganisation agreement on teaching staff arrangements for non-teaching staff; financial support; accommodation; transport; special educational needs; and school meals and catering services. If a school has a specific query of any of those areas, I encourage the school to contact my Department in the first instance.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Minister for his answer. I asked the question on the basis that those schools come together and amalgamate and take the leap as we try to reduce the capital footprint of schools across the North in order to save money and redirect it to the classroom. Many of those schools, including Lecale Trinity Grammar School in Downpatrick, need a small amount of capital investment in order to make them more sustainable. In this instance, there are two buildings where a small connecting corridor would link them together as one building, which would save children having to walk in the rain, snow, across ice or whatever from one class to the next. I ask the Minister to revisit that decision in order to determine whether there is some way of helping that school.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. At a higher level, when it comes to amalgamation, I absolutely understand the need and desire to have a single-site solution. We have just opened St Ronan's College in Lurgan, which had operated on various different sites. Undoubtedly, single sites have clear benefits. Similarly, three schools are trying to come together in the Causeway area, but that is fraught with challenges because we are unable to arrive at a single-site solution.

The Member has referenced one example in his constituency, which I have been able to visit, and I am aware of the issues. Ultimately, I want to be able to take forward single-site solutions for schools that amalgamate, but, given the financial challenges that we face, that is proving to be difficult. He has highlighted one specific aspect of capital works that would aid and facilitate schools being able to operate more effectively. I will certainly take that away and ask for some further advice in respect of that particular school.

Mr Mathison: Considering the notion of mergers and amalgamations, is the Minister able to outline any work that the Department is doing to take forward the independent review of education's recommendations around establishing an independent area planning commission, in order to take proactive steps towards building a school estate that will be sustainable into the future?

Mr Givan: The Member makes an important point about the approach to area-based planning. It is for managing authorities to bring that forward: I have just highlighted how one development proposal needs to go from CCMS to the EA before it gets to me.

There is not a sufficient pipeline of those development proposals being taken forward currently. I can take decisions only on what is actually being presented to me, and that is a challenge. The Member raises an important issue that has merit, and I intend to say something further on that in due course.

Ms Brownlee: The Minister will be aware of the plight of Carrickfergus Academy, which has been operating on a split site for over 10 years. Can the Minister provide an update on that much sought-after project?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question and her ongoing advocacy for Carrickfergus Academy. It was one of 28 major capital works that were announced in March 2022. However, it was subsequently put on hold due to budget pressures. The project was restarted in February 2024. I moved it forward, along with a number of other schools, as part of the first tranche. Edmond Shipway was appointed as the integrated consultant team in March of last year. The technical feasibility report, which explored options for the provision of suitable accommodation and outside space for a school with an approved enrolment of 1,250 pupils and five specialist provision classes was submitted to the Department for consideration on 18 July last year. The options explored in the report were the refurbishment and extension of existing school buildings as well as a new-build school option on each of the school sites. The education advisory branch concluded its review of the report on 6 November, and a business case is being prepared by departmental economists. I assure the Member that, once the business case has been approved, the preferred option will be progressed to the design stage.

Mr Givan: I am delighted to confirm that work is progressing positively to address the independent review of education's findings that the complex management arrangements were, in particular, suboptimal for the controlled school sector. Later this week, the Education Authority will officially launch the new controlled schools unit. The immediate establishment of that dedicated unit marks the completion of the first interim phase of two recommendations made by the task force that I commissioned to make recommendations for improvement. The second phase involves the establishment of a new organisation with statutory powers to provide the full remit of a managing authority for controlled schools. My Department recently completed a public consultation on that proposal, attracting 744 responses, including from almost half of all controlled school principals in Northern Ireland. There was overwhelming support for the proposed change: 91% of respondents agreed that support for controlled schools must improve, and 84% backed the creation of a new, dedicated organisation. Such a response provides a strong mandate for change and commands prompt action. I intend to present my proposal again, bolstered by the unequivocal consultation findings, to the Executive for agreement, with the intention of beginning work on the necessary primary legislation.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. Can he detail to the House what evidence there is that current support arrangements are inadequate for the controlled sector specifically?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the supplementary question. In respect of the evidence, the task force extensively consulted a range of stakeholders. They expressed a need for clearer sectoral vision, proactive leadership and improved support for school improvement focused on raising outcomes for learners. The feedback received through my Department's recent public consultation echoes the findings of the independent panel and the task force. Ninety-one per cent of respondents agreed that there was a need for improved support for controlled schools. Further themes in the commentary highlighted the need for improved advocacy and equity with other sectors. A large number of respondents commented that the EA is overstretched and conflicted by its dual role and expressed a desire for a dedicated body to represent controlled schools to promote their ethos and challenge misconceptions around the sector. Respondents also strongly emphasised the need for leadership support for principals and governors. Three quarters of respondents supported the immediate step of establishing the controlled schools unit in EA, and 94% agreed with the proposal to establish a new body that would provide a managing authority for the controlled sector that mirrors the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools.

That is a powerful mandate for action, and I call on my Executive colleagues to agree to the introduction of the necessary legislation in order to respond with clear intent to the overwhelming call for action from school leaders and key stakeholders, which include CCMS. This is not about elevating one sector above another. A dedicated body is a step towards ensuring that support for controlled schools is equitable, and it is one part of my wider commitment to high-quality support for all schools.

Mr Sheehan: A new managing authority for the controlled sector will cost a significant amount of money to set up and to resource in the time ahead. Will the Minister tell us what research he has had carried out and what evidence he has that the educational outcomes of children and young people in the controlled sector will improve as a result of the initiative?

Mr Givan: The Member is wrong, because there is already expenditure when it comes to controlled schools. We have the Controlled Schools' Support Council (CSSC). That would no longer be necessary because it would have a managing authority and, therefore, we would roll that into the new body. Furthermore, it would create a more efficient and effective managing authority for controlled schools, which, ultimately, would save the taxpayer money. The Member presents a red herring on the issue.

The challenge for Sinn Féin and for other parties in the Assembly is this: do you believe in equality or not? In its response, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools — I encourage the Members opposite and others to read it — stated that it believed that it should be created because it was an equality issue. If it was the other way round and there was a dedicated managing authority only for controlled schools and the Catholic maintained sector did not have that, the Members opposite and others in the Chamber would be demanding equality. Yet, here we have excuses being presented as to why they should not have it.

The test is for others. The test is for the First Minister for all. The controlled schools have asked for a meeting with the First Minister, and we will see whether Sinn Féin actually supports equality. This is its opportunity to demonstrate, so we will wait to see if it passes the test.

Mr Dickson: Minister, do you not agree that, instead of advancing bureaucracy, we should strip it away and that we do not need another body? On the question of equality, should you not, in fact, create a single managing authority for education that includes all the current sectoral bodies?

Mr Givan: The Member points to the independent review of education, which references the creation of a single authority, but leaves out the recommendations. Each member of the panel said that this would be a necessary step towards the creation of a single education authority. Those independent members recognise that the controlled sector is treated in a suboptimal fashion. They support the creation of the managing authority for controlled schools, and they say that it will create an opportunity to move towards a single authority.

The Member is right: there is the integrated sector, the Irish-medium sector and other sectors, and having a single authority, if that could be achieved, is something that we should all aspire to. What we should not do, however, is keep down the only sector that does not have its own management authority. You should support them and listen to the advice of the school principals in your constituency, who are crying out for this support. They have been failed. We will wait to see how Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party treat controlled schools. At the moment, the signs are that they want to continue their acts of discrimination towards them. As Education Minister, I support all schools, and I will champion the rights of the controlled sector for equality.

Mr Burrows: Does the Minister agree that it is important to recognise that many controlled schools are de facto integrated, that they are a welcome space for everybody, that that should be acknowledged and that we should not lose sight of that? They are not Protestant schools; they are controlled schools, and many are very integrated as it is.

Mr Givan: The Member is right: indeed, many controlled schools are more integrated than those that have the integrated name on their school building. A diversity exists in the controlled sector that has not been reflected properly, even when it comes to Fresh Start funding, when a considerable amount was allocated to integrated schools. Shared education is an area that I actively promote and support. I agree entirely with the Member that we have great diversity in the controlled sector. Those who do not see that need to engage. They will soon recognise that.

We hear arguments from others about why they want the controlled sector to be treated as second-class citizens. There was once a movement that called for civil rights because of discrimination: we wait to see how those people will respond to the controlled sector's call for it to be heard and treated equally.

Mr Givan: I am unable to disclose the precise costs incurred at this stage, as not all costs have been invoiced yet and the matter is now subject to an appeal. I can, however, confirm that, to date, the Department has incurred costs of £26,715, inclusive of VAT, for counsel fees arising from the successful defence of the judicial review proceedings relating to two development proposals (DPs): DP 727 for Bangor Academy and Sixth Form College, and DP 728 for Rathmore Primary School. Appeals have been lodged in both cases and are due to be heard in March. Costs will therefore increase further.

Mr Chambers: Minister, I appreciate that you do not yet have the final figures. I am sure that you also do not have the figures for the Supreme Court case. Will you confirm that whatever amount of money has been spent on those legal cases will put a major dent in your Department's budget to spend on our children's education?

Mr Givan: I referred to the issue last week in response to other Members. People are entitled to have recourse to the courts to challenge decisions, but, when they submit those challenges, they need to be clear about what they are trying to achieve and why. That case is now subject to an appeal, but the Department comprehensively won it. We will wait to see how the appeal goes, but this is what Mr Justice McAlinden said in his judgement on the integrated school challenges:

I appreciate that not everyone will agree with my decisions, but they were found to be entirely rational and legal. The challenge has already cost the taxpayer money from my Department and from the Legal Services Agency (LSA), because the challenge was legally aided. Costs continue to accrue, as do those for the challenges to the RAISE programme, which, again, my Department has successfully defended. That case has cost my Department almost £100,000 out of its budget that should have been spent in our schools.

Mr Bradley: Minister, what other legal costs has your Department recently incurred ?

Mr Givan: To date, the cost of the judicial reviews (JRs) of the RAISE programme is £91,719·75, but not all costs in that case have yet been incurred. The case is also now subject to an appeal. It was also funded through legal aid that came out the Department of Justice's Legal Services Agency's budget.

I say this to Members and to the wider public: those policy decisions were found to be rational and legal. People may not always agree with them, but, ultimately, that is what democracy is about, unless a Minister is found to have acted illegally. In this case, that is not what happened. There will be an election in 14 months. The public will have their say then, and I will be held to account for the decisions that I have taken. Both cases, however, have incurred significant legal costs, and that is expenditure that my Department could be using better.

Mr Givan: I am pleased to advise that the new special educational needs (SEN) regulations 2026 have been finalised. Following my consideration, they will shortly be issued to the Education Committee for scrutiny, in advance of their laying at the Northern Ireland Assembly, as they are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Officials from the Department of Education and the Education Authority are scheduled to brief the Education Committee jointly on the new SEN regulations on 25 February.

Taking into account the various dependencies across other Departments, it has been agreed that provisions within the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 and the SEN regulations will commence on 1 September 2026. Schools continue to receive targeted training from EA to prepare them for the new duties that the SEND Act and the regulations place on them. Since 2021, my Department has allocated £92·5 million directly to schools in recognition of the new statutory duties that are being introduced and the additional work that they may bring.

The new SEN regulations are in close alignment with the changes that are being delivered through my SEN reform agenda delivery plan. As the SEN reform agenda progresses, all relevant legislation will be considered to ensure that it continues to support the best outcomes for children and young people with special educational needs.

Mr Baker: Minister, I welcome that. What has been the cause of the delay? Back in March 2024, you told me that the regulations were in the final stages of drafting, and then officials told me back in the autumn that we would have them before Christmas.

Mr Givan: The delay certainly has not been on my part. The submission came to me only very recently, and I intend to make progress on it so that we can have the regulations introduced. The Committee will then have the opportunity to look at them in more detail. It is important that we make sure that the regulations are effective and, ultimately, achieve better support for children with special educational needs, which is what we all want them to achieve. There certainly has been not been any delay on my part, and I will seek to expedite the regulations as soon as possible.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Givan: I sense that the Member wants to get into the debate that we are going to have tomorrow on that issue. I will be able to say more on it then.

Tomorrow, it will be two years since I took up office. I could have spent time focusing on trying to reach a consensus on what we do for the transfer from P7 to year 8, and I do not believe that we would have reached a consensus on it. The sectors and the wider public cannot reach a consensus, and, therefore, I decided that my focus would be on improving every school so that every child can get the best possible support, irrespective of the sector their school is in and whether they pass the transfer test and gain access to a school based upon their score. My focus is on driving school improvement everywhere.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister. Even for parents and pupils who participate in the system for understandable reasons, the process is unacceptably opaque, especially for those who wish to resit the exam but cannot. You have said that you are happy enough for this exam to continue, but will you explore the potential for children who are unhappy with their grades to resit the exam?

Mr Givan: It is not that I am happy for the test to continue. I recognise that there is an inability to reach consensus on what would replace it and that that matter is open to debate.

The law allows for schools to select based on academic selection. That has facilitated schools to develop the test, which is currently done through the Schools' Entrance Assessment Group. In the past, two examinations took place. It is welcome that that has been reduced to one test, which you take in order to gain access to whichever school you seek to apply to, irrespective of its sector.

There are other questions that Members could discuss: sitting the test in an environment that you are not used to, rather than in the primary school that you have been going to for many years, adds to the stress of the occasion. That is obviously a discussion that many people who are opposed to the test do not want to engage in, as a point of principle. However, there should be space for that conversation to take place.

I will have more to say about academic selection in response to the motion tomorrow.

Mr Givan: I do agree with that. That is why I outlined what a 10-year capital programme for special educational needs provision would look like, not least in establishing new schools but in enhancing provision in mainstream settings. Where children are able to avail themselves of their local school that will inevitably reduce the requirement for long-distance transport and the associated costs. The EA has looked at the current provision through its contracts with taxi drivers. It has identified means by which it has been able to reduce the costs by almost £1 million. I understand that, for some taxi firms, that reduction in payment is a challenge. However, my responsibility and that of the EA is to transport children and young people to their school setting at the best possible cost.

Mr Dickson: Minister, thank you for your answer. Will you tell the House what practical steps you intend to take to ensure that specialist placements for pupils and students are available in the areas in which they require them in order to keep children and young people in their local communities and as close to home as possible?

Mr Givan: We have engaged with a number of organisations, not least the National Association of Head Teachers. We have facilitated engagement with principals. We continue to identify specific localities where there is a need, and we seek to engage with school principals there, but, ultimately, not enough schools are making themselves available. Whatever their concerns may be, they need to work with the EA to identify the challenges. I intend to strengthen the Education Authority's provision so that schools have to engage with it. We cannot have only 26% of schools meeting the current need. We need many more schools to do that. Some may have legitimate reasons why they are not able to, but it is not acceptable just to say, "No, we will not engage". Therefore, I intend to strengthen the EA's powers to force that conversation and then work proactively to find solutions so that we can address those issues in local areas.

Mr Givan: I am not aware that I will be introducing legislation on homeschooling.

Miss Dolan: Thank you for that concise answer. Given the absence of a clear statutory framework, do you have any plans to introduce legislation on homeschooling in the future?

Mr Givan: Any parent can choose to deregister their child and then engage in homeschooling. Ultimately, it is important that those who choose to do so are given the appropriate support for that homeschooling to be effective. We need be able to assure ourselves that it is effective and that the child is getting the necessary support. That should be able to take place without legislation's being in place.

Mr Givan: Let me acknowledge in good faith that the Member has said he is agnostic on the issue. I hope to move his position from agnostic to one of positive advancement. The evidence is very much there: it is well documented in the consultation exercise. Do not take my word for it if you struggle to believe it; take the word of the principals who provided their response as part of the consultation exercise. There certainly is evidence around academic attainment in controlled schools, particularly those in working-class areas. When you contrast that to attainment in Catholic-maintained schools, you find that those Catholic-maintained schools outperform controlled schools, despite their having a very similar demographic. I am happy to furnish the Member with more empirical evidence that sustains that argument.

Mr Sheehan: I am happy to look at any evidence that the Minister can provide. He certainly has not provided any there. A consultation is not research, and it is not evidence. The fact that the Catholic sector outperforms the controlled sector is not evidence that the managing authority of one provides those outcomes in its own sector. I welcome the fact that the Minister said that he would provide evidence, and I look forward to seeing it, but I will remain agnostic until I see it. I look forward to the Minister trying to convince me otherwise.

Mr Givan: I am happy to do that. The question for the Member is this: does he want to listen to the evidence, which is documented and which the principals identified, or will his agnostic position be a brake and an obstacle to the legislation's progress through the Executive to the Assembly, where members of the Committee, of which he is one, can interrogate it and go through the scrutiny process before reaching a decision by voting on it? That is the challenge. We have had the discussion for months in the Executive. We have not been able to progress towards legislation. I trust that the agnostic position will no longer be an impediment that blocks it from coming to the appropriate scrutiny of the Committee and, ultimately, to the Assembly for a vote.

Mr Givan: I suspect that that issue will crystallise further as allocations are made using the pupil allocation number that many will be aware of. The EA manages that process carefully to ensure that there is no overprovision, because there is obviously a cost if places are funded but not utilised. That is an ongoing process. If there is sufficient demand, EA will look at making provision available by allocating additional numbers to providers. However, at the early stages of the process, the demand needs to crystallise. We will then engage with that information and make further capacity available, if that is necessary, to meet the need.

Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for that response. I can certainly tell him that there is no overprovision in North Antrim; as I said, demand far outstrips supply. Will the Minister encourage the EA to engage in good faith with the preschool settings in my constituency to try to resolve the issue and see whether further capacity can be provided?

Mr Givan: Yes. In the past, when there have been specific issues and the information has got into the wider public discourse, Members have brought me examples of those settings. I will happily engage with the Education Authority to address those matters. Ultimately, that is an operational decision and not one over which I have ministerial discretion, but I am happy to facilitate any dialogue that is necessary between the EA and those providers.

Mr Givan: I am more than happy to look at that example, if the Member wants to correspond with me about the nursery that he named. I will look into it. If a school or a nursery setting has stepped forward to offer specialist provision that has been conditional on receiving additional finance, that should be provided. I am happy to look into the matter for the Member.

Mr Mathison: My understanding is that the issue lies with the common funding formula and nurseries' status as stand-alone nursery schools. That should not be an impediment to receiving funding to deliver education. Will you commit, on the record, that you will correct the seemingly administrative and bureaucratic error that is resulting in funding being withheld?

Mr Givan: I assure the Member that I certainly have sympathy with the sentiment that he has expressed. I am happy to look at the issue, and, if there is an anomaly or if unfair treatment has somehow taken place, I will certainly consider changing that.

Mr Givan: It is progressing well. I intend to be in Omagh in a number of weeks' time, when I will visit the site again. I was there for the official sod-cutting. It is an iconic development of five schools and 4,000 pupils from across our community coming together on one site. I was pleased that the Executive supported my recommendation to take the project forward. It will be transformational for the Omagh community.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. Is the project on track? What is the indicative timing for the completion of phase 2?

Mr Givan: It is. I have been assured that the official start date is the same as it was when we started the construction process. There will always be a degree of movement, but I have been told that, as of today, it is still on target to meet the official completion date.

Mr Speaker: Before we move on to the motion from the Committee on Standards and Privileges recommending a sanction on a Member, I will address the issue of the commentary that there has been on the report that we are about to debate. As is the case with any Committee report that is to be debated in the Chamber, the report was embargoed until the commencement of the debate, at which point it was to be published. That approach respects the role of the Assembly by ensuring that the first place in which a Committee's recommendations are publicly discussed and considered is the House. Assembly scrutiny needs to take precedence over any public commentary, and embargoes are therefore used to protect the procedural integrity of debates.

An embargoed Committee report may, however, be shared in advance with journalists on the basis that its content is treated in confidence prior to its publication. That is a courtesy intended to support the media in the timely and accurate reporting of Assembly business and is done on the basis of long-established conventions that responsible journalists can be trusted to respect the embargo. It is hugely disappointing, therefore, to note that, this morning, that embargo was breached by one journalist and one media outlet. That journalist was provided with a copy of the report last week. It was received by the Assembly last week and was received by him, along with other outlets. I consider that to be a very serious matter. The reasons for the embargo are well established. It is a significant discourtesy to the Assembly and a breach of the trust and good faith demonstrated by the Assembly towards the media to receive an embargoed report and then disclose its contents before it has been published. Further to that, it demonstrates blatant disrespect for other media outlets and media colleagues who followed the long-established good practice.

Members know my view on the Assembly being given its place in the provision of information and scrutiny. It is important to record, as an Assembly, that the breaking of the embargo was unacceptable. I have therefore asked officials to consider how to deal with these concerns and what appropriate action will be taken with the relevant media outlet. It would be a pity if long-standing arrangements that respect the role of the Assembly and assist the media had to be reviewed because of the irresponsible actions of one journalist and one outlet.

Let us move on.

Mrs Mason (The Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges): I beg to move

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The debate is on a report that finds that I breached the code of conduct because of questions about IRA rape victim Máiría Cahill. This morning, Ms Cahill informed the public by way of her X account that she was not informed that the debate was to take place, contacted during the standards commissioner's investigation or considered in any way during the Committee's deliberations on the report.

The Assembly will be asked to impose a sanction on a Member for asking questions that, according to the report, were inappropriate, yet the individual whose experience the questions related to was never spoken to, consulted or afforded the opportunity to express a view. If it is procedurally sound for the Assembly to adjudicate on the propriety of questions asked in the name of a victim and to characterise them as misconduct without even notifying the victim that such deliberations were taking place or giving her the opportunity to be heard, shame on the House for the way that the matter has been conducted and for the fact that Máiría Cahill had to find out from the media that the debate was coming up today.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for bringing that to my attention. We have discussed at some length issues that might arise in the debate. The issue that he has raised was not one that we discussed. Therefore, I propose to suspend the sitting until 3.45 pm, and, at that stage, we will resume the sitting.

Mr McGuigan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is also worth considering whether a Member should have to declare an interest when raising a point of order about a debate on an issue about that Member.

Mr Speaker: The interest is quite obvious, but, nonetheless, I need to take advice on the issue that the Member raised. I will speak to my legal people over the next 10 minutes, and we will resume the sitting at 3.45pm.

Mr Burrows: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has it been considered — I imagine that it has been — that there is a potential PSNI investigation of matters that are linked to the debate? Is there any need to consider pausing the debate to allow that investigation to be exhausted?

Mr Speaker: Thank you for that. That matter was discussed this morning. That issue can run concurrently with the matters that are before the House. It does not discount us from carrying out our role. We will consider the issue that Mr Gaston has raised now.

Mr Speaker: I have considered the issues raised in the point of order and, indeed, others that were raised prior to the sitting. The commissioner can give advice, as, indeed, can the Committee, on what the Assembly's actions should be. It is for the Assembly to determine whether there is to be any sanction on any Member. We will therefore proceed with the debate.

The Member who is the subject of the sanction proposal will have the opportunity to speak for 10 minutes in the debate as will others. After we have had a fair debate — I will ensure that there is a fair debate — we will vote on the matter.

We will proceed. The motion has been moved —.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to Mr McGuigan's point of order and, indeed, in the vein of what you have just said, is it appropriate that those who sat on the Standards and Privileges Committee get to vote on the matter? They have been subject to bias throughout the investigation. I put their names on record: Jemma Dolan, Colin McGrath, Cathy Mason, Connie Egan, Stewart Dickson, Mark Durkan, Paul Frew, Brian Kingston, Declan McAleer and Emma Sheerin. I look for your guidance on whether those Members may vote on the issue after it has been debated in the Chamber.

Mr Speaker: If the Member has an issue with individuals having undeclared conflicts of interest or anything else, it can be referred to the commissioner — a new commissioner, by the way — who will come in with a clean slate on all those matters. For today, it is a matter for the House, and for every Member of the House who is able to, to make a decision on the issue.

Just for clarity, the Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, who proposed the motion, will have 10 minutes to speak and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. The complainant will have 10 minutes to speak, as will the Member who was complained against. All other Members will have five minutes.

Ms Egan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is important to correct the record after what Mr Gaston just said. I excused myself from all proceedings on the matter in the Standards and Privileges Committee because I had an interest. It is important to put that on the record; I do not want it to be misrepresented by anybody.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for that, Ms Egan.

We will proceed.

Mrs Mason: I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on the motion from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The motion calls on the Assembly to impose on Mr Timothy Gaston MLA:

If the motion is approved, Mr Gaston will be unable to participate in plenary proceedings on Tuesday 3 and Monday 9 February. He will also be unable to table any business or attend any Committee meetings if they happen to be scheduled to take place on those days.

The Committee's adjudication report details its considerations and conclusions on the complaint by Ms Paula Bradshaw against Mr Gaston regarding his conduct during proceedings of the Committee for the Executive Office during which Ms Bradshaw was in the Chair. Attached to the report are the report of the investigation of the independent Commissioner for Standards at the time, Dr Melissa McCullough, various written submissions from Mr Gaston and a copy of the statement that he made during his oral hearing with the Committee.

Before summarising the outcome of the complaint, I emphasise, at the outset, that it would have been easy for the Committee to have gone down a rabbit hole in the case and become distracted with issues relating to the wider business of the Committee for the Executive Office. Instead, on commencing its work, the Committee was clear that its focus would be on considering the facts of the case in relation to the points to prove within the applicable rules of conduct that were alleged to have been breached. Ultimately, that is what the Committee's decision-making was based upon, as explained in its report. I encourage Members to maintain the same focus during their contributions to the debate. I should also point out that the evidence in relation to the points to prove for each rule is not in dispute; it is direct evidence in the form of official video footage of the applicable TEO Committee proceedings. On commencing their adjudication of the case, the members of the Committee viewed the video footage for themselves.

I will outline the Committee's consideration and conclusions on each of the alleged breaches of the code. Allegation 1 is that Mr Gaston breached rule 15 of the code, which states:

The conduct in question was Mr Gaston's directive to Ms Bradshaw to:

The Committee noted, in particular, the commissioner's conclusions that that comment was "unreasonable and excessive" as it, first:

Ms Bradshaw's authority as TEO Committee Chairperson —

secondly —

and, thirdly —

Having assessed the evidence and the facts, the Committee agreed with the commissioner's conclusions that Mr Gaston's "Breathe" comment was an unreasonable and excessive personal attack on Ms Bradshaw that was in breach of rule 15. It was clear to the Committee that the comment, including the context in which it was made, was:

The Committee also concurred with the commissioner's conclusion that Mr Gaston's comment amounted to a "gratuitous personal" comment rather than political speech and that the finding of a breach was justified for the protection of the rights and reputation of Ms Bradshaw.

Allegation 2 is that Mr Gaston breached rule 13 of the code, which states:

The Committee examined whether Mr Gaston's conduct or behaviour improperly interfered with, or was likely to improperly interfere with the Executive Office Committee's performance of its functions or the performance by its Chairperson, Ms Bradshaw, of her duties. In particular, the Committee was clear from the evidence and its legal advice that Mr Gaston asked nine questions that did not pertain to the work —.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Mason: No, I will not. You will have your opportunity; you will have your 10 minutes.

Those questions did not pertain to the work of the Executive Office Committee and were clearly political and irrelevant. The Standards and Privilege's Committee was clear that Mr Gaston persisted, despite repeated requests from the Chairperson and advice by officials to stay on topic. It was also clear that Ms Bradshaw intervened in order to uphold the rules and to ensure the proper functioning of the Executive Office Committee.

After weighing up the various considerations, the Committee concluded that the "persistent, repetitive and excessive" nature of Mr Gaston's conduct meant that he crossed the threshold by acting in a way that improperly interfered, or was likely to improperly interfere, with the performance by the Executive Office Committee of its functions, and the performance by Ms Bradshaw of her duties as Chairperson.

Following careful assessment, the Committee upheld allegation 2 and concurred with the commissioner's finding that Mr Gaston breached rule 13. The Committee agreed with the commissioner's view that Mr Gaston's comments would not qualify for the protection afforded to freedom of speech under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I should point out that that finding means that Mr Gaston is the first Member to have breached rule 13. In addition, the Committee agreed that Mr Gaston's conduct was inconsistent with various principles of conduct.

I will now turn briefly to the commissioner's finding that Mr Gaston also breached rule 10 on the basis that he failed to observe or comply with "policy, guidance or instructions" issued by the Assembly Commission, namely the behaviour code. The Assembly Commission's behaviour code

In addition, the Executive Office Committee's own protocols emphasise the importance of courtesy and respect for each other, as well as for the authority of the Chairperson. From its review of the evidence, the Committee was clear that Mr Gaston's unprofessional behaviour and discourtesy was particularly pronounced and that the finding of a breach of rule 10 was also justified.

That said, the Committee did not factor that breach into its considerations in relation to its recommended sanction. That is because, as part of a wider package of recommended improvements to the MLA code, the Committee will be proposing to the Assembly that the behaviour code become a principle of conduct rather than a rule of conduct. Under the Committee's upcoming proposals, the recently agreed unacceptable behaviours policy will, instead, be the enforceable rule for that type of misconduct.

I shall now explain the Committee's reasoning in relation to the recommended sanction in deciding on a proportionate, appropriate and justified sanction to recommend to the Assembly. The Committee had regard to all the circumstances of the case, including, first, that Mr Gaston's conduct took place in a public Committee session and therefore his statements could reach a wide audience and have reputational consequences for Ms Bradshaw; secondly, the particular nature of the breaches of rules 15 and 13; and, thirdly, the fact that Mr Gaston had not accepted that he had breached the code. The Committee also had regard to its legal advice on the matter, the range of sanctions available and the sanctions recommended in similar precedent cases.

If the motion is approved, it will mark only the second occasion to date when the Assembly has excluded a Member from proceedings, the first being Dr Steve Aiken in 2024, when he breached rule 12 through the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information and rule 16 by failing to cooperate at all times with the commissioner's investigation. Whilst every case must be decided on its merits, with a view to maintaining a fair and consistent approach across breach cases, the Committee therefore recommends a comparable sanction in Mr Gaston's case.

The Committee reached its decisions on this case on a unanimous basis. As is appropriate with conduct cases, the Committee members left party politics aside and made their decisions objectively on the evidence and facts before them. I hope that that approach continues in this plenary debate.

Finally, the Committee is clear that the recommended sanction of excluding Mr Gaston from Assembly proceedings for a period of two sitting days is appropriate and proportionate. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Buckley: At the outset, I say that today's debate is a complete and utter waste of time for the Assembly. An hour and a half in which we could be discussing health, education or roads is being spent adjudicating on a spat between two Members — a breakdown in the relationship between Members from two different political parties.

Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees. What was the context for the Committee meeting in question? It has not been talked about at all by the Committee Chair. Michael McMonagle, a former Sinn Féin press officer, who worked for the party in media roles and at Stormont, had been charged with and later pleaded guilty to a series of child sexual offences, including an attempt to incite a child to engage in sexual activity and sexual communication with children. Those offences happened between 2020 and 2021. He was later sent to prison. The reason for the First Minister being brought to the scrutiny Committee was the outrage from Members across the House that, potentially, the First Minister had misled the House and misled the scrutiny Committee when she claimed that she had no knowledge of McMonagle's whereabouts and had had no contact with him since his arrest.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way. He touched on the issue of the First Minister. On the issue of standards and morals, we must remember that we have a First Minister who has told everyone publicly in Northern Ireland that the killing and slaughter of innocents was inevitable.

Ms Ennis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard you at the start regarding moderating the debate. This debate is not about context or about anybody else other than the alleged breach by Timothy Gaston. Are we going to stick to the matter, or are we going to allow a free-for-all?

Mr Speaker: First of all, I will not have my judgment called into question.

I have heard nothing from Mr Buckley that is not appropriate to the debate, because the context of what took place in the Committee is relevant. The context — I see you shaking your head, Mr Durkan — of what was raised in the Committee is relevant, so all the issues that have been raised thus far are relevant. I will make the call when things step out of relevance.

Mr McGuigan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not going to interject or question your ruling, Mr Speaker, but I see no context for bad manners in Committee meetings.

Mr Speaker: I think that you are questioning it, Mr McGuigan, and you would be best not to do it again.

Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Again, here we have it. We are not even allowed to debate the context of the report. Members, you are not judge, jury and executioner. Every Member, regardless of their party, has an electoral mandate to be in this place and to speak for the people whom they represent. We may not like the words that they use or the positions that they take, but they are entitled to put those points across.

As I was saying before the points of order, that was despite the First Minister being photographed several feet from Mr McMonagle in this very building. The second point — the matter is on the record — is that, potentially, the First Minister had misled the Committee as to when she learned that her party staff had provided two references. That is the context. Why was that before the TEO Committee? Because it has a responsibility for safeguarding. That is an issue that should matter to every Member in the Assembly. However, as usual, today we are told, "Say nothing. See nothing".

It will not wash that the relationship between Mr Gaston and the Committee Chair, Ms Bradshaw, has evidently fallen down. It is clear for anybody who watched the Committee that it was absolutely shambolic.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will not. I have already given way, so I will not get an extra minute.

We have not seen a case like this before. The scrutiny of the Committee was absolutely disastrous. It was a stain on the scrutiny ability of the Assembly that there was a serious issue of safeguarding; a Minister — in this case, the First Minister — was brought before the Committee; and the Committee descended into a free-for-all. What led to that is key. There was a pre-meeting of the Committee Chair and the witness, with no prior knowledge of the Committee members. I think that it took place 10 minutes before the meeting commenced. That was shambolic. That was a disaster in respect of chairing ability. It was a low point for the scrutiny of the Assembly, and it is something that all Members should reflect on when it comes to training and conducting scrutiny in Committees. Legal advice was then given. Was that legal advice provided to the First Minister beforehand? All those questions, in the context of that Committee, were important to the Committee's deliberations.

There needs to be an element of flexibility when scrutinising as serious an issue as a failure of safeguarding in this place. With respect to rule 13, which talks about improper interference with the performance of the Assembly's functions, and Mr Gaston asking questions outside the Committee remit, what about the very first question from the Chair, Ms Bradshaw? She asked for clarification of whether recent media commentary that suggested that the IRA army council influences Sinn Féin's priorities was relevant to the work of the Executive Office. I think that it is a fair question, but it is not in the remit of the Executive Committee. There was no complaint from the members.

We then look at Mr Gaston's comment in relation to rule 15. Does the comment:

constitute an "unreasonable and excessive personal attack"? Mr Gaston himself has said that it was ill judged, and he has apologised. Do I count that as an "unreasonable and excessive personal attack"? No, I do not; in fact, in the House, Ms Bradshaw is on record calling Members liars. She is on record telling a Member to:

when he expressed his personal experiences in relation to a threat on his life. Is that the same Ms Bradshaw who has taken so much issue with the term "breathe"? I argue that it is not. For those reasons and given that it is a curtailment of political free speech, the Democratic Unionist Party will vote against the motion today.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Mulholland: First, I thank the former, independent Commissioner for Standards, Dr Melissa McCullough, the Committee and all others involved in the response to the complaint. What we have is an independent, considered and expert-led outcome. I remind others that the content of the report is the only basis for today's debate. Whilst others have sought to distort and distract the narrative in and outside the Chamber, that is the issue before us today.

A summary of the allegations in the complaint is that the Member concerned repeatedly failed to follow the Chair's directions, disregarded the rules regarding the remit of the Committee and made inaccurate public statements about the Chair. The independent investigation found that the Member's comment to the Chair to "breathe" constituted an "unreasonable and excessive personal attack" under rule 15. However, contrary to media commentary, notably delivered ahead of the embargo this morning, that was only one part of a deliberate ploy to undermine the Chair's integrity.

The report notes that the comment was both "unreasonable" and "excessive" and can be "perceived as dismissive or invalidating", as well as "condescending and patronising". I want to be clear: there have been attempts to diminish that element — we have just heard it — as the rough and tumble of politics. There is a clear difference. That was not in the robust debate of issues. Given that the report identifies the broader cultural issue in which a woman's arguments are trivialised by framing them as emotional outbursts, perhaps it is about time that we all in the Chamber recognise those micro-aggressions for what they are.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: I have a lot to get through. I will come back to you.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: I have a lot to get through. I will come back to you as well, if I have time.

Most damning, in my view, is that the comment in question was used as "mechanisms to silence". There are many people in the Chamber, notably women, who have experienced that.

The independent report further found that the Member repeatedly failed to respect the authority of the Chair and engaged in:

under rule 13. Therefore, the Member's conduct was found independently to have breached two rules identified in the complaint. Notably, the commissioner even found that a further rule — rule 10 — had also been engaged and breached. It was noted that, at one meeting, the Member asked nine questions outside the remit of the Committee, despite attempts —

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: I am trying to get through this. Apologies. You will have your 10 minutes.

— by the Chair to guide him back to the scope of the work.

Here lies perhaps the most important point of all. The report notes:

That represents a complete independent vindication of the Chair's actions, as well as raising a serious issue about the conduct of the Member.

The report continues that the Member chose not to recognise that the Chair was upholding established norms and protocols of scrutiny and thus impeded Committee business. That conduct was "persistent" and "repetitive", contributing to a public perception of disorder. When we hear that the Committee looked as though it had got into a fray, that is why. Let us be clear: contrary to much of the commentary before the media embargo, the issue goes well beyond a single remark to a pattern of behaviour designed, frankly, to bully a Committee Chair. It is totally in order to engage —.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I find it awfully rich that we are debating today my comments in the Committee, when, at the same time, the Member has said that I bullied the Chair. I ask for your ruling on that, Mr Speaker, because I think that it is completely unacceptable.

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Member will have an opportunity to address the House for a full 10 minutes. If Members wish to give way, they are entitled to do so, and they will get an extra minute. They are also entitled not to give way.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is totally in order to challenge public policy — that is our job — in a fair and courteous manner, but it is not in order to engage in excessive personal attacks and improper interference with the workings of the institutions and to undermine a fellow Member's integrity intentionally. If we enable conduct that is designed to attack people excessively, interfere with proceedings and undermine one another's integrity, we will find ourselves with a weakened democratic process in which fewer people, particularly women, will be willing to take part. We should all reflect on that.

Finally, we can see that, of course, the standard deflection process has begun. I hope, however, that we can focus on the issues that are before us today. Let us be clear that only one Member of the House has been found to be in breach of a number of rules in our code of conduct. To agree that we can involve ourselves in robust challenge without the desire to derail business and certainly without the toxicity and the personalising is fundamentally what this is all about.

Mr Burrows: With so many pressing issues in our society, I wonder what the public will think as they watch us spending so much time and energy dealing with a matter that happened so long ago. I will cut to the chase, because Mr Gaston has, I think, accepted that his conduct was suboptimal and not becoming of a Member. I will focus on the issue of disproportionality, because that is the nub of the matter.

I used to run a disciplinary regime, and there are clear objective factors that can be applied to determine whether conduct is disproportionate or proportionate. The first is the seriousness of the issue that was being discussed. It was a serious issue, as Mr Buckley pointed out. It concerned issues of safeguarding right at the heart of our democracy. The second factor — the commissioner referenced it — is that this happened early in Mr Gaston's career in the Assembly. There has been no repetition of the conduct, so that is a mitigating factor when we look at the appropriateness of the sanction. The third factor is that there was a prompt apology. Again, that is something that is recognised across disciplinary regimes for all regulated professions as a mitigating factor.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Donnelly: You have noted the apology that was given: was that apology given in public?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Burrows: No, it was given in private, but I think that it was repeated afterwards.

There was a prompt apology; in fact, the apology's being prompt is about the only prompt thing in the whole incident, which has cost a lot of money and time.

There is also the much-established principle of proportionality running through all of this, which is that you are supposed to choose the least punitive sanction that achieves the purpose of imposing any sanction. The Committee has jumped to one of the most serious sanctions without fully demonstrating why the other sanctions were deemed to be inappropriate. The fact that there has not been a repetition of the behaviour would suggest that, even if we believed that the conduct had been proven, the least serious sanction would be to note that there had been bad behaviour, not to exclude someone for two days.

Members on the other side of the House often talk about human rights and equality. Article 10, which is about freedom of expression, gives the most substantial protection to — guess what? — political speech. The jurisprudence is so clear that, particularly if a Member of a legislative Assembly is talking about something of public interest, it has to be the most egregious breach to justify a sanction, let alone removing a Member for two days from representing — whom? — his constituents in North Antrim.

The other point to make is that looking at this as someone with an insight into professional misconduct, I wonder why a bonus breach was found, which was of rule 10. In many ways, that is what is called "double counting". There is nothing fresh in the breach of rule 10 that does not apply to rules 15 and 13. It is just an additional, made-up bonus breach. We have to see that in the significant context that proportionality, when it comes to fundamental rights — this is about the fundamental right of freedom of expression — includes necessity. Anyone who believes in human rights — we often get lectured on them by those on the other side of the House — would have to be convinced that the sanction is necessary and that nothing else can address the Member's conduct other than to exclude him for two days, when other sanctions are clearly available.

There is a context here. Many people will know that this is a place in which a Member said, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", hours after babies were mutilated, women were raped and people were taken hostage and killed. That was found not to be a breach. [Inaudible.]

Mr Burrows: That was the man who said it. No wonder he thinks that it is not relevant to people out there.

People will wonder what we are doing in this place today, wasting time and wasting money when someone could have said, "You know what? Don't act like that again. If you do, it will be dealt with more seriously". For all those reasons — that it is disproportionate, punitive and unnecessary — we will be voting against the sanction.

Mr Durkan: This debate deserves — deserved — to be approached calmly and seriously because what is at stake is not a single exchange or a single individual but the credibility of our standards system and the public's confidence in the Assembly.

We established an independent standards commissioner precisely to ensure that matters of conduct are assessed fairly, consistently and outside the cut and thrust of party politics. Wishful thinking, maybe, but the parking of politics at the door of the Standards and Privileges Committee room is probably reflected by the unanimous vote of its members to pursue this route of action. The members on the Committee know that we have to look at each allegation in isolation and not in a wider context, and I appreciate that that confuses and frustrates some Members.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking my intervention. Does he agree, in answer to the comments that were made by the Member who spoke previously, that it is normal practice for the commissioner to engage both human rights and legal advice when she comes to her conclusions in any report? Therefore, we can assume that human rights were engaged in the report.

Mr Speaker: The Member will have an extra minute.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for her intervention. I do not think that I will require the extra minute. As someone who is relatively new to the Committee, one of the things that struck me is that the new commissioner will not do these types of things willy-nilly. The amount of advice that is sought and got before any action is taken drags these things out, which means that they take even more time. I can understand Members being concerned about the use of Assembly time to debate a disciplinary issue, although it is a wee bit rich coming from the DUP, which collapsed this place for two years.

If we only respect these rulings when they are convenient, the system itself becomes meaningless. The commissioner found that the language used was inappropriate, patronising and unreasonable in context. Many people, particularly women, watching the debate will reasonably recognise the tone and implications of that remark as being misogynistic. That does not mean that robust scrutiny is being curtailed. It means that basic respect still matters in this Chamber and in our Committee rooms.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much to the Member for giving way. Since he has become an expert on this topic, can I ask him for his thoughts on the Chairperson telling Mr Burrows to:

and, indeed, saying to Mr Buckley across the Floor that he is a liar? Is that misandry? Have there been three instances of misandry from the Chairperson?

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his intervention. I am not sure that I profess to be an expert on these or, indeed, any matters. However, coming from an expert on all, again, I find that a bit rich. [Laughter.]

We deal with each issue as it presents itself. If the Member wishes to make a complaint, he can go ahead and do so.

Committee Chairs have a responsibility to enforce the Committee's remit and procedure. Undermining that authority through personal remarks does not strengthen accountability; it weakens the very scrutiny on which the Assembly and Mr Gaston in particular depend.

An apology is important, but it does not automatically end the matter. Standards only have value if there are consequences, otherwise they are simply words on a page. Framing the process as some sort of witch-hunt also does real damage. It undermines an independent officeholder and sends a message that accountability itself is somehow illegitimate. If there are ambiguities in the code of conduct — we have established that there are — we should and will examine them carefully and transparently in future. The decision today, though, is about whether we respect the rules as they currently stand.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: I cannot, unfortunately. Sorry. I would run out of time.

Upholding the ruling is not about silencing anyone; it is about reaffirming that the Assembly expects professionalism, respect and accountability, and that the public can trust our standards process.

Mr Givan: I was Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee once upon a time. Having been in the Assembly for 16 years, I have been the subject of many complaints from members of the public and others, which the commissioner investigated and subsequently dismissed. Those included a complaint from witnesses who appeared before the Justice Committee when I was its Chair. I note that Mr Gaston has complained that the commissioner who ruled on this matter did not deem it necessary to carry out an investigation, yet previous commissioners investigated me when I was Chair of the Justice Committee, so there is a question for the Standards and Privileges Committee to address about consistency of approach.

As Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I read many a report about the conduct of Members, some of which were never publicised, that, I have to say, made for very interesting reading. The approach taken by the Committee in this report, however, sets a new low that will tie up Committees with spurious allegations and investigations that will come to the Assembly and that we will then have to debate. It sets a precedent that the Assembly should reject.

I do not want to get into the tit for tat that took place in the Committee and the way in which that Chair conducts her Committee. I took a very different approach when I was a Committee Chair. I allowed members to speak freely. I allowed them to put forward their views, even when I fundamentally disagreed with those views and the way in which they presented them. I did not see it as my job to stifle members' ability to ask questions that I did not agree with. That has not been the case in that particular Committee.

I look at the comments — "Take a step back ... Breathe" — and I hear Sinn Féin saying that they are unacceptable. Those people have actually stopped people breathing and glorified terrorists who killed people, yet they are so offended that somebody had the temerity to tell a Committee Chair to "Breathe". The public will look on with disdain at the way in which Sinn Féin is putting forward its opinion.

I look at the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee: the same Member, only last week, accused the Communities Minister of being "sectarian". Is that appropriate language from a Member? I do not expect Gordon Lyons to put in a complaint. In fairness to Sinn Féin members, when I appear before the Education Committee, we have far more robust exchanges, both ways, than the exchange that this complaint is about. The Chair of the Education Committee has facilitated those exchanges. I have never put in a complaint; my officials have never put in a complaint; and, indeed, Sinn Féin members have never put in a complaint. I find that Sinn Féin will usually engage in robust debate without generating complaints. The Alliance Party, though, will happily, in the Chamber, tell a Member who had to move house on multiple occasions under threat to, "Grow up" — and that is acceptable. The Alliance Party will say to the Member beside me, "You're a liar", yet it gets offended and generates a complaint with the Standards and Privileges Committee. The public will look on and make a judgement on the double standards.

This is a draconian punishment, because it interferes with the fundamental democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, who elected Timothy Gaston and everybody else in this House. I do not agree with a lot of the different views that Members have, but that is the democratic wish. Timothy Gaston said what he said publicly, and he can be held to account at the next election, as I can for the decisions that I have made and for the way in which I speak. It is not about the subjective opinion of a commissioner or the subjective views of Members. We can all take offence at what other Members say and how they say it.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Givan: It is a draconian and disproportionate approach. I give way.

Mr Buckley: Does the Member also agree that there is a potential encroachment on article 10, which is the enhanced protection of political speech for Members?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Givan: I agree. We in the Assembly could — not that I encourage this — defame any individual in society because we have parliamentary privilege. We could also do it in a Committee because we have parliamentary privilege, yet, even though we have protected privilege as elected Members, we could be subject to an investigation. We have that protection because of the democratic status that we have. Yes, we should be responsible and should exercise that privilege responsibly. We have legal protection, but not towards members of a Committee, and there lies the disconnect between the way in which the commissioner has approached those issues in the Committee and the protected privilege that we have.

In my view, an "unreasonable and excessive personal attack" can be the case only where it breaches the law around either harassment or criminal intent. That test has not been passed. It is being voted on because of the subjective opinions of the commissioner and the political views of Members. The commissioner's office has been politically weaponised by those with political grievances, who do not agree with what Mr Gaston said. We are now subject to the derision of democracies internationally for seeking to stifle free speech. Even when we do not like what Members say, we should still protect their right to say it.

Mr Tennyson: As some other Members have done, I thank the Standards Commissioner, the Standards and Privileges Committee and all others who were involved in processing the complaint. Despite misleading conjecture, gaslighting and spin, only one Member was found to have been in breach of the code of conduct in that case: Timothy Gaston. Today's sanction follows a transparent and independent process, with the clear finding that the conduct amounted to an "unreasonable and excessive personal attack"; that he repeatedly and persistently failed to respect the authority of the Chair and improperly interfered with the Assembly's functions; and that he failed to uphold:

The report also clearly demonstrates that false and misleading accusations were repeatedly levelled against Paula Bradshaw that she was shielding witnesses. The commissioner determined that those claims were false, misleading and completely without basis. We cannot overlook the impact that such an insult has on the complainant. I express today my solidarity with Paula, who is a fine public servant who always acts with integrity and entirely in the public interest.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: No, I will not. You have had plenty of time.

Those gratuitous insults and allegations continued this morning in breach of the embargo, overriding due process in the Assembly and with contempt for Members. Rather than learn his lesson, it is clear that Mr Gaston has continued to impugn the integrity of the Standards Commissioner, the Committee and the Assembly.

I have heard it said that this was a witch-hunt. Of course, the Members making such claims overlook the fact that all the main parties, with the exception of the Ulster Unionist Party, are represented on the Committee. I was astounded to hear the position of Paul Givan and Jonathan Buckley today. They are hoist by their own petard, in that the DUP representatives on the Committee — Brian Kingston, Harry Harvey and Paul Frew — never objected to the sanction that was recommended. The question is this: what has changed, or is it just that the DUP is once again not being led by Gavin Robinson but being led by the nose by Jim Allister in the Chamber today?

I have observed a worrying pattern of women from across the political parties being framed as too erratic, too emotional, or too irate. Those arguments have been used to dismiss them, trivialise their position and undermine their credibility. I am proud of the strong women who represent the Alliance Party in the Chamber. As the report reflects, if we are genuinely committed to a political culture in which women are fully represented, reflected and supported, behaviour that undermines that aim cannot be excused, dismissed or allowed to pass without scrutiny.

The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party professes to be a fan of scrutiny and of the inclusion of women in politics. At the weekend, his party announced a campaign to encourage women to step forward. That is a laudable ambition, but it rings hollow now because, at the very first hurdle, his party is refusing to support even the most basic sanction for behaviour that no woman in public life should ever be expected to tolerate.

The true test of leadership is not what a party says in a press release or at a campaign launch; it comes when standards are challenged, behaviour falls short and leaders must decide whether to uphold the values that they profess to champion or turn a blind eye. Today, the Ulster Unionist Party is turning a blind eye alongside the DUP and the TUV.

Basic decency must underpin how we do our work. Public confidence rests on our ability to uphold standards and impose sanctions when rules are broken. If we cannot show respect to one another and demonstrate that breaches of the code of conduct have consequences, we erode what little public trust and confidence remain in these institutions. As for allegations that this is an attack on free speech, free speech has limits. It is no excuse for insult, personal attack or the bullying that we repeatedly see in the Chamber and at Committees. I implore all Members who believe in standards in public life, scrutiny and accountability and want to retain public trust in the institutions to support the motion. Nothing less is acceptable.

Mr Brett: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the matter. It is telling that, in all the contributions made by the Members opposite, they have not once focused on the key issue of proportionality. Mr Gaston and I disagree and argue regularly. We have different views and robust exchanges. However, I defend his right to do that, because his party has a mandate to do it. What we propose today is a two-day suspension for a Member over language that another Member found unacceptable. I hear Members say that Mr Gaston's apology is worthless. I would be interested to hear, had he not apologised, what further sanctions those people would have liked to impose on him.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. He does not have to wait to hear that: he can ask his party colleagues on the Committee who voted for the sanctions why they deemed it proportionate to do so.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Brett: I note that Mr Durkan did not answer the question, but I will come to that issue now. It is clear, without breaching the confidences of the Committee, that a different sanction was proposed by members of the DUP, because we believed that the sanction proposed of two days was a gross overstep by the Committee.

Let us be clear where the recommendations come from. They come from a commissioner who —.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brett: I will take an intervention..

Mrs Dillon: Who is this "we"? The confidence of the Committee means that the three members on the Committee should have considered that, not "we", the DUP. If that confidence was broken while the conversation was ongoing in the Committee, there is another question to be answered in the Chamber today.

Mr Brett: You can report me to the commissioner, Mrs Dillon, all you want, but we are clear that I have a mandate to be in the Chamber and cast my vote on the report that is before the House. I do not take the report seriously, because, in my view, the commissioner has not been consistent in her rulings.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that it is a gross slur from the Alliance Party to accuse Members on the DUP Benches and, indeed, the Ulster Unionists of misogyny in this instance? There is no such thing applied in this instance.

Mr Brett: It is clear in the commissioner's remarks that she says nothing in relation to misogyny. Perhaps, Mr Buckley, those who have read out their pre-scripted remarks for Mr Tennyson's TikTok videos have not read the large video that is before us here today.

From my perspective, the report was fatally flawed. The commissioner is attempting to hold Members of the House to a standard different from that to which she held others. It was referenced by Mr Burrows. The commissioner decided not to take action against a Member who glorified terrorism and not to take action against Ministers and representatives in the House who, during the COVID pandemic, put a Provo show of strength above the public health message. Forgive me and my party if we have grave reservations about the quality of investigations and reports that come from the previous commissioner.

Today, the people of Northern Ireland will notice that we had a 30-minute discussion on one of the biggest ministerial U-turns in the history of the House, when Minister O'Dowd was forced to make a U-turn on hospitality policy, yet, now, we are having a debate of an hour and a half on the personal animosity between Mr Gaston and Ms Bradshaw. I have served on the Executive Office Committee for a short period. Ms Bradshaw and I have had robust exchanges. She is no shrinking violet when it comes to shutting me down when, in her view, I overstep the mark. In this matter, it is the view of my party that the commissioner has overstepped her mark, and we will proudly vote against this nonsense today. Suspending a Member for two days because you disagreed with him sets a dangerous precedent, and it will be you and others in the House who will be next before a commissioner if Members troop in behind this disgraceful proposal.

Mr Carroll: There are many things that Timothy Gaston and many Members across the Chamber should be sanctioned for in my view and, no doubt, that of many other people. The Member for North Antrim stands up regularly and blames migrants for pressures on housing, healthcare and schools, while ignoring decades of austerity and obscene inequality; indeed, he regularly attacks trans people and talks about "transgender madness". That is a relentless undermining of trans people's right to dignity and safety, and I say that those are "unreasonable" and "excessive" comments, to use the language of the standards commissioner. Those attacks on marginalised groups deserve condemnation. MLAs and, indeed, Ministers in the House should absolutely face consequences for stoking up division and hate against oppressed people. Unfortunately, all too often, they do not.

So-called improper behaviour towards Committee Chairs and Ministers is a different matter. The comments that Mr Gaston made were condescending and patronising without a doubt. He called them "ill-judged". I agree with, I think, the Member for North Antrim that Mr Gaston should publicly apologise to the Chair of the Committee for his comments. However, when it comes to further sanctions, I have serious concerns that the standards are being weaponised to silence dissent and criticism of those in power from somebody whom I have more disagreements with than anybody else in the House.

Challenging a Committee Chair is not unreasonable or excessive. It is part of our democratic duty, especially as opposition MLAs, and kicking MLAs out of the Assembly for so-called improper conduct sets a dangerous precedent. Executive parties and even the so-called official Opposition, who are frequently aligned with the Executive on fundamental questions, may be tempted to exclude smaller parties from the Assembly for challenging powerful witnesses in the future; I could obviously be subjected to that. That will have an unacceptably chilling effect on holding the Executive to account. I have sat in Committee meetings where working-class communities' concerns about healthcare, privatisation or unethical investment have been dismissed as "out of scope" or "inappropriate". That is the wrong approach for any Chair of any Committee to take.

If we allow the sanction to stand without challenge, we are saying that the robust, persistent and maybe even annoying questioning of Ministers — the kind that makes them uncomfortable — can be punished with exclusion. That is wrong, and it is a dangerous path to take. We must defend the right to challenge power vigorously, even when we fundamentally disagree with the politics of those doing the challenging; otherwise, we are building a system where only polite, deferential scrutiny is tolerated. That serves nobody except those who benefit from the status quo. My party and I will not endorse that strategy today.

I know that the Member for North Antrim is new to the job as party leader. Maybe he should take action against his party colleagues who regularly retweet, endorse and regurgitate the lines of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) if he has any concerns about violence.

Mr Speaker: I call Timothy Gaston. You have 10 minutes, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. At the heart of the complaint and the finding against me is a political witch-hunt. The complaint is not about protecting and promoting scrutiny or holding Members accountable when they fall short. The complaint exposes the disdain of the middle class for this country, working lad rocking up to the big house on the hill and daring to challenge the process and hold the establishment accountable. The complaint is rooted in protecting those in power.

Paragraph 24 of the report lists a sample of the questions that I asked which the commissioner objected to and judged to be in breach of rule 13. There was, I am told:

A simple question that I asked the First Minister about Michael McMonagle was:

Do we know the answer? We still do not. I asked whether McMonagle had done any work or whether Sinn Féin was using the money for itself: can anybody answer me that question? I asked:

which is mentioned on page 110 of Máiría Cahill's book. Finally, I asked:

That was the direct question that I put to the First Minister that seems to have got up the nose of the Chair of the Committee. In my book, those are all good questions, yet they all remain unanswered. Let me ask the House a simple question: why did that evidence session take place? Mr Buckley articulated it well. The answer, of course, is that the public were demanding answers about the fallout from the Michael McMonagle scandal, which was that a now-convicted paedophile was on the payroll of the First Minister of no alternative, Mrs O'Neill.

The Executive Office is responsible for matters including legislation on historical abuse. Those questions not only were relevant to the First Minister personally but went to the heart of her suitability to hold office.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the primary interference from the Committee that day was the Committee Chair's private meeting with the witness, Michelle O'Neill, the First Minister?

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. I will come on to the valid point that the Member has raised.

Looking back, I ask this: if Mrs O'Neill should not have been asked questions about McMonagle in the meeting that day, when would we have had the opportunity to challenge her? She was the employer, and he was the employee. That was the opportunity to put those questions to her.

It is claimed that other questions that I asked breached the code. Everyone who votes to accept the report today believes that I deserve sanction for asking:

I say this directly to the SDLP: that is what you are voting for today. The Executive Office's flagship strategy is ending violence against women and girls, yet we cannot ask the First Minister, who is leading on that strategy, about the rape of a citizen of this Province. We have an office that has a duty in statute to look after the interests of victims, yet we cannot ask the First Minister about the links between her party and the IRA, as described in Máiría's book. Did anyone who will vote for the motion even bother to reach out and speak to Máiría after reading the report? I did, simply because she had been in contact with my office specifically on the issue of Mrs O'Neill's hypocrisy over ending violence against women and girls. If the House cannot tolerate someone asking questions on behalf of a victim of IRA sexual violence to a Minister who pontificates about violence against women and girls, I simply do not know.

Look at it: I was asking questions to a Minister who has responsibility for victims' issues and is in charge of legislation to address harm caused by historical abuse. If I cannot ask those questions in here, I fear that the House has no moral compass and no future. If Members think that voting for the sanction will stop me asking those questions, which, in the words of the commissioner's report, amounted to:

they have another thing coming. I have no apology to make for asking those questions. I would ask them again, and I will until we get answers. I will leave it to the public to draw their own conclusions about the basket case that this place has become, if asking those questions amounts to "improper interference". Some may point out that Ms Bradshaw and others on the Committee asked questions of a similar nature, but, sure, that does not fit the commissioner's narrative.

One must ask why only this Member is being sanctioned for the questions that were asked that day. Is it OK to ask one or two questions that make the establishment feel uncomfortable, but if you ask nine of them, it is a case of, "Oh no. That's a breach of the rules"? What is the limit to my article 10 rights?

I did not have the opportunity to access legal advice during the process, but I am forever grateful to my barrister, Emma McIlveen, for providing a legal opinion on the report. That legal opinion was shared with all Members in advance of the debate. The House knows, therefore, that that is one of the questions that she addresses in her opinion. Even if you accept that the questions should not have been asked — I certainly do not hold that view — nowhere in the report is that issue addressed by the commissioner. Show me the Standing Order that defines how many questions is too many. When I tried to get in during an Alliance Member's contribution, she did not take my intervention. That is the question that I was going to put to her.

Political speech cannot be punished on the basis of a rule that no Member could ever understand in advance. That was left to the discretion of the Chairperson, who could not hide her disdain for me when one of her establishment colleagues — one of her mates in Sinn Féin — had to leave the Committee when I came to this place, and she was faced with someone with principles and a backbone. That is a rare combination in politicians, I know, but unionism is finding more and more people with those as the mandate goes on.

Another finding in the report is that I breached rule 15 of the Members' code of conduct. That relates to a remark that I have conceded that I should not have made and for which I apologised on the day. I believe that that apology was accepted by Ms Bradshaw, but I will make two points about it. First, nowhere in the report does the commissioner or the Committee attempt to address the question of why that apology was accepted in that October and only became an issue three months later. Why was Ms Bradshaw never asked, by either the commissioner or the Committee, to explain that delay? To resurrect it months later is political; it is a punishment by ambush. I believe that the only reason that Ms Bradshaw ever submitted her complaint is because I lodged a complaint about her conduct after she held a private meeting, as Committee Chair, with the First Minister in October 2024.

I will leave aside Ms Bradshaw's condescending conduct to me on 23 October 2024 and in the weeks prior to that and look at how she addresses other MLAs in the House. Ms Bradshaw is recorded in Hansard as interrupting my North Antrim colleague Mr Burrows, as he spoke about how he lived behind armoured glass, under threat from terrorists. What did Ms Bradshaw say? She told him to:

Then, Ms Bradshaw is recorded in Hansard as saying to Upper Bann's Mr Buckley:

As I said in my point of order, that raises serious questions for the Chairperson of the Executive Office Committee. My goodness, Ms Bradshaw takes the same view as the commissioner, who produced the report, which is that the rules apply to everybody else but not to her. If rules are interpreted one way for Ministers, another way for Chairs and yet another way for Members, they are not standards; they are discretionary.

The debate is not really about me. It is about whether the Assembly believes that power should be questioned, that Ministers should be accountable and that victims should not be silenced because their stories are inconvenient. I have been told that asking those questions amounted to "improper interference" with the performance of the Assembly's functions. The videos of the Committee are online for all to see. I am quite clear that members of the public will make up their own minds: it does not matter what this place says today.

Mrs Mason: Before I make my remarks on the debate, I will point out some worrying commentary. I take my role on the Committee on Standards and Privileges very seriously, as do its other members. Party politics are left at the door, as they should be. Integrity and impartiality are key to the Standards and Privileges Committee. Some of the language in the debate concerns me. Mr Brett's use of "we" is really concerning.

To close the debate, I highlight the importance of the House's holding its Members to account when that is warranted. The investigatory role of the Commissioner for Standards provides an independent dimension to the Assembly's standards regime. However, the Committee's adjudication role and the Assembly's sanctioning role in plenary sittings involve self-regulation. Therefore, those elements in particular need to be robust in order to maintain and enhance public confidence in the political system.

As I pointed out when I opened the debate, in adjudicating on the case, the Committee maintained a clinical focus on the essential facts or elements that were required to find a breach of the rules cited in the complaint case. That was done to ensure that the Committee did not get distracted by irrelevant or subjective contextual issues.

I will sum up the case before us. The Committee unanimously concurred with the findings of the then commissioner, Dr Melissa McCullough.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Mason: No, I have a lot to get through in my winding-up speech.

The Committee concurred that Mr Gaston breached three rules of conduct and failed to observe several principles of conduct. Whilst it is regrettable that the sanction is necessary, the Assembly's approval of the motion will demonstrate that Members will be held accountable for misconduct.

I turn to Members' contributions to the debate. I wish to pick up on the issues that Mr Gaston raised, including those raised in correspondence to the Committee Clerk, which was received last Monday and provided to the Committee. First, Mr Gaston referred to the Committee proceedings relating to the complaint. Some Committee members declared interests in relation to the case, while others declared interests and stood aside or recused themselves from Committee proceedings that related to the case. Secondly, Mr Gaston referred to information, which he sought under the Freedom of Information Act, relating to the meeting between the Chairperson of the Executive Office Committee and the First Minister on 23 October 2024.

On the first issue, Mr Gaston will be well aware that, if he has a complaint that alleges that any Committee member failed to declare an interest or address a conflict of interest, it is open to him to make his complaint to the commissioner. As Committee Chairperson, I am assured that the Committee has taken all necessary legal and procedural advice and been scrupulous in this case and all cases that it has dealt with to date in ensuring procedural fairness during the adjudication process. I am also satisfied that Committee members have been diligent and professional in fulfilling their unique role, including by acting fairly and objectively.

There may be some confusion on the part of the Member about the requirements for Committee members to declare interests when it comes to considering whether to stand aside from proceedings, so let me explain. The requirement for members to declare relevant interests, as contained in rule 5 of the code of conduct, relates to relevant interests:

As I explained, the matters under consideration by the Committee were the points to prove that related to rules 15, 13 and 10. The Committee's consideration did not include other, irrelevant matters that related to the business of the Executive Office Committee. We should be clear that it is uncommon for members to stand aside in Committee proceedings in light of the broad principle that elected representatives cannot readily be disenfranchised. Also, a member's having an interest in a matter and declaring that interest does not necessarily create a conflict of interest that prevents them from engaging in consideration of the matter in question. That said, Committee members are reminded that, in some instances, they may consider that they need to recuse themselves from certain items of business if they have an interest that is such that it could reasonably be perceived to create a conflict of interest because of a real possibility of bias when considering a matter. It is ultimately for each member to consider and determine that, having regard to their specific circumstances. For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that each Committee member who declared an interest and stood aside or declared an interest and decided not to stand aside explained their reasoning to the Committee.

On Mr Gaston's second issue, the Committee noted his earlier correspondence about his freedom of information request when it deliberated on the complaint. As I explained, the Committee needed to keep focused on the elements required to find a breach of the rules in question. Other points raised by Mr Gaston have been addressed in the Committee's report, which was informed by legal advice, including what he described as an "inconsistent" and contradictory approach regarding the decision that his complaint against Ms Bradshaw was inadmissible, and his points about the previous case involving Dr Aiken.

I will respond to a number of comments that have been raised during the debate. First, on Mr Buckley's comment on freedom of speech, the Committee is well aware of the fundamental importance of the right to freedom of expression, particularly for elected representatives. The MLA code of conduct upholds that right. However, the Committee is well versed in applying the legal test to the factual circumstances of each case when deciding whether interference with that right is justified. In this case, it did so in relation to the alleged breach and when considering a recommended sanction, and it was supported by legal advice at every step of the way.

I will address Mr Givan's points about opening up the procedure to vexatious complaints. Mr Givan will know, because he was previously Chair of the Committee, that safeguards exist in the admissibility criteria for complaints that are vexatious or deemed to be inadmissible by the commissioner. I will pick up on Eóin Tennyson's point and reiterate that former commissioner, Dr McCullough, was an officer of the Assembly for five years, and she executed her duties with impartiality and professionalism. Her investigation of the case was thorough and objective. Moreover, to attack the office of the commissioner or the Committee is to undermine the integrity of the Assembly's standards system. Members who have been found to have breached the code may naturally feel sore, but they should be able to accept the verdict of both an independent commissioner and a dedicated Committee of their peers.

I reiterate the Committee's conclusions that the case highlights how vital it is for all Members to respect the authority of the Chairpersons of the Assembly's Committees and to uphold the rules and protocols that ensure the proper functioning of the Assembly's Committees. In opening the debate, I explained that the Committee had regard for all the circumstances of the case, as well as the legal advice, when it decided on the recommended sanction, which it considers to be proportionate, appropriate and justified. Today's motion should be a reminder that the Committee takes its role extremely seriously, and it will not hesitate to recommend a suitable sanction when it feels that it is warranted and necessary for breaches of the Assembly's code of conduct. I ask Members to support the motion.

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

Mr Speaker: There are no points of order during a vote; Members should know that by now.

Mrs Dillon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would appreciate it if you could review Hansard to establish whether Mr Brett disclosed that conversations were had by the DUP as a whole about what was being discussed in the Standards and Privileges Committee. It is confidential business. You spoke earlier about the BBC reporting while the report was embargoed, so we know how seriously Members should take the issue. It is a serious breach, if that is what happened, and I would therefore appreciate it if you could review Hansard and try to establish whether that is what happened, because that in itself is a serious breach of the standards in this place.

Mr Speaker: If it is an issue, the Member can report it to the commissioner herself. We all received an embargoed copy of the report over the weekend. Parties will have met this morning and considered their position on all debates, because that is what normally happens. I do not know what Mr Brett was referring to. He would need to clarify whether there was a general discussion among that party's Members this morning or whether it was something different. It is in the hands of the Member, however. If she thinks that there has been a breach, or she is aware of a breach, she should report it to the commissioner.

Mrs Dillon: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I appreciate what you are saying, but if you review Hansard, it will be very clear. Perhaps others were not listening to the debate in the Chamber, but I was, and the Member was very clear that the party had discussed the matter whilst the Committee was considering it. He said that the DUP discussed it, not when the report came out but whilst the Committee was still discussing what sanctions, if any, should be taken against Mr Gaston. Confidentiality is required in order to protect not only the complainant but the person who is being complained about, so Hansard should be reviewed in this case.

Mr Speaker: I am well aware of the role of the Standards and Privileges Committee, having been reported to it myself on an occasion or two, and I did not interfere with the Committee's role or intervene in any way, because it is not appropriate for any Member who is on the Committee to disclose information on any matter that the Committee is dealing with. Nonetheless, we are happy to look at Hansard and see what was said. We will do that in due course.

Members should take their ease while we make a change in the Chair before the next item of business.

Mr Chambers: I beg to move

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

Mr Chambers, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Chambers: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Over 25 years ago, I was part of a conversation with the late Mr Barney Eastwood and Dame Mary Peters in a school hall in Bangor after the broadcast of an edition of 'Talkback'. A topic that had been discussed during the broadcast was the long-running saga of the Bangor seafront redevelopment. Dame Mary talked about her passion for the establishment of a sports museum. Mr Eastwood was enthusiastic about the idea and offered to donate artefacts from his boxing gym, including the ring that Barry McGuigan had used to hone the boxing skills that resulted in him becoming a world champion. In fact, a potential site for a museum could well have formed part of the Bangor seafront project at that time. On that day, the idea of creating a sports museum in Northern Ireland became a passion of mine, and, indeed, the more I thought about it, the more I formed the opinion that, with all the positives involved, the concept was a no-brainer.

I realise that it would cost a lot of money to build a bespoke centre to house the museum and that a robust business case would be required to justify the investment. In the mid-2000s, Titanic Belfast was conceived as part of a wider strategy by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to regenerate Belfast's waterfront and rebrand the city as a global tourist destination. The total cost of the development was approximately £97 million, making it one of the biggest tourism investments ever made in Northern Ireland. The project had its detractors. The Northern Ireland Audit Office questioned whether the economic case was sufficiently robust, highlighting the need for high visitor numbers to ensure financial sustainability. Despite the doubters, construction began in May 2009, and the development opened to the public in March 2012. The attraction was projected to need about 290,000 annual visitors to break even. In 2024, it had 900,000 visitors. It features in the top 10 visitor attractions in Northern Ireland and is considered to be the number-one visitor attraction in Belfast. I am reminded of the famous line from the movie, 'Field of Dreams': build it and they will come.

Back to the sports museum. The motion highlights the economic benefits that the museum could bring to our local economy. In October last year, I asked the Minister for the Economy in a question for written answer whether her Department would consider the establishment of a Northern Ireland sports museum. I sensed that she perhaps did not grasp the economic opportunities. Instead, she suggested that I refer the idea to the Department for Communities, which had responsibility for the establishment of museums.

I asked the same question of the Communities Minister, and he replied that he had no plans to develop a sports museum. However, during a recent debate on 'The Nolan Show' about such a museum, the Minister said that he would consider any proposal that was brought to him. I hope that the motion, if supported by the House, will prompt the Minister to join the Minister for the Economy in establishing a working group, as it suggests, to explore the appetite for and feasibility of such a museum.

Why a sports museum? The motion alludes to our pride in our exceptional sporting legacy. A sports museum would be an opportunity to celebrate the success of our sportspeople and would act as a motivation for future generations to consider taking up a sport and continuing to add to our sporting legacy of success.

What would we display in the museum? The challenge would be to make the hard decisions on what to exclude, given the rich history of Northern Ireland sports competitors punching well above our weight, given the size of our competitor base. There is probably a treasure trove of memorabilia stored in lofts and garages across the country. Some sports have already created modest but popular exhibitions, but they are scattered across many locations. The museum would pull all of that together under one roof.

Individual and long-established clubs may wish to exhibit their history. Media outlets could mount exhibits about how sports reporting has advanced over the decades. I am thinking about the BBC, which pioneered sports reporting in Northern Ireland through radio and, later, TV. The print media may also want to be involved. A name that jumps out at me is the late, great Malcolm Brodie of the 'Belfast Telegraph'.

Individual items could form the backbone of the museum. We have recently seen some of our major, retired sportspeople auctioning some of their collections. It is disappointing that so much of that will leave our shores. Perhaps, if a museum had been in place, a lot of that stuff would have ended up in it. A museum can conjure up an image of perhaps being stuffy and boring, with a static, long line of exhibits. We would have to give families reasons to visit. Having said that, I have no doubt that a collection from all the sports that our competitors have excelled at over decades would be anything but boring. There is no sport played in Northern Ireland that does not have a story to share.

Artificial intelligence has opened up new possibilities. Numerous interactive challenges could be provided. You could ride a motorbike around the North West circuit in a simulator or try to put a penalty kick past Harry Gregg or Pat Jennings. Remember that it was a gentleman called William McCrum from Milford in County Armagh who invented the penalty kick. You could try to hit a golf ball further than Rory McIlroy. The ideas for interactive attractions are limited only by the creative imagination of artificial intelligence experts.

I have deliberately not rehearsed a list of our sporting icons from across every sport that we follow. If I did, we would be here all night, and there is always the potential to leave someone out. However, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the wonderful achievements of our para-athletes over a wide range of disciplines. What an example they set for others to emulate.

A sports museum dedicated to our multitude of sporting icons current and past is the least that we can do to acknowledge how they have enhanced our reputation across the world and helped reverse some of the more negative images of where we call "home" and to appreciate the pleasure that their successes have given us. We must also remember the administrators that Northern Ireland has provided to major sports ruling bodies across the world.

I commend the motion to the House. It commits to nothing more than an investigation of the "feasibility and appetite" of and for the project. In my last words on the topic, I will paraphrase a cinematic, graphic narrative: if you build it, they will come.

Mr Gildernew: I thank Alan for moving the motion. Throughout our sometimes difficult history on this island, sport has been to the fore in bringing people together in the spirit of fostering good relations and mutual respect. Last year, I attended a sports camp for young people that was organised by Cricket Ireland. It was a hugely positive event that really showed how powerful and unifying a force sport can be, especially in those crucial formative years. I commend Cricket Ireland for hosting that event. I took a photograph that day of about 12 hurls and 12 cricket bats lying on the ground, which was a really nice image.

Across a range of sports in the North and, indeed, on the island as a whole we punch way above our weight on sporting achievements, and we can all be proud of that. The story of the evolution of hurling and shinty is of unique interest here. As we debate the motion, many household names come to my mind, as, I am sure, they do for other Members, such as Rory McIlroy, George Best, Peter Canavan and Katie Taylor. They are all giant figures who will be remembered for very many years to come.

The Member mentioned that the penalty kick was invented by William McCrum from Milford. Alan may be interested to know that William came up with that device as a result of being in nets for a game against a Belfast team. Such was the extent of the fouling by the Belfast ones, William came up with the motion. When he brought that to the equivalent of FIFA, the English FA objected to it, because it was only an Irishman's motion, so there you are. Those are all stories that such a museum could tell.

If anyone has not been to the museum in Croke Park, I encourage them to go, because it has a fantastic collection of historical artefacts and tells the story of the GAA, which intertwines so much with the history of Ireland. Indeed, Alan, if you want to do further research, I hope to go down on Saturday to a summit of GAA clubs that is taking place in Croke Park. There is a good museum there, and you are welcome to come along with me for ideas.

A museum in the North that is inclusive of sports and communities would provide a significant economic boost and would, no doubt, be popular with tourists and locals alike.

Mr Bradley: I support the Ulster Unionist Party motion, which expresses pride in "Northern Ireland's exceptional sporting legacy". Sport has played a defining role in our society across towns, villages and cities and has united communities, fostered discipline and teamwork and created moments of shared pride that reach far beyond the sporting field. Those achievements belong to all of our people and deserve to be properly recognised.

The motion is right to note that those:

Too often, their achievements are remembered in isolation, rather than celebrated collectively. There is therefore a strong case for exploring the establishment of a sports museum to honour sporting excellence, inspire future generations and continue to build on our sporting legacy. The work being taken forward by the Ulster Sports Legacy community interest company (CIC) reflects that ambition. Its broad approach combines physical and digital collections, oral histories, film and memorabilia to show how our sporting story can be preserved in a modern and accessible way, while encouraging participation and aspiration.

A few years ago, I worked with the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Councils' museum services to stage an exhibition on Harry Gregg, showcasing international jerseys, memorabilia, medals and caps and giving an insight into Harry's sporting journey from joiner to one of the best goalkeepers in the world. It was one of the most successful exhibitions ever held by that council's museum service and proved to me that, if we had the facility, it would work.

I played adult football from 15 to 54, and I am still involved in the sport from grassroots to Irish Football Association (IFA) level. I appreciate fully the benefits of all sports and the passions that they generate among all kinds of people. There is also a clear economic opportunity: a sports museum and related heritage initiatives would have the potential to strengthen Northern Ireland's tourism offering, support local economies and enhance our cultural profile.

That is why it is right that the motion calls on the Minister for the Economy to work with the Minister for Communities to establish a working group. That is a sensible and measured approach, which will allow for proper scrutiny and for value for money to be assessed. The motion does not prejudge outcomes, nor does it commit funding. It simply recognises the value of our sporting legacy and supports a structured exploration of how that can be better celebrated. For those reasons, I support the motion and encourage Members to do likewise, for all sports and all sportsmen and sportswomen across Northern Ireland.

Ms Mulholland: I am not happy to go after "Mr Local Football" when talking about sporting issues. Given its Olympic and Commonwealth medals, its all-Ireland club titles and world-beating motor sport success, I will focus a little on my constituency of North Antrim, which has produced excellence across individual and team sports and across generations and communities. In motor sport, we have the Dunlop dynasty of Joey, Robert and Michael from Ballymoney, who collectively redefined global road racing. We saw the success of the event in Ballymoney to mark the anniversary of Joey's death, with memorabilia being placed in Ballymoney town hall.

South Belfast may try to claim her, but our wonderful Dame Mary Peters first moved to Ballymena when she came to Northern Ireland. She is very much a North Antrim product who delivered Olympic and Commonwealth gold. Jack McMillan has represented his country at two Olympic Games and has won one Commonwealth silver medal.

In football and rugby, we have Gareth McAuley, who captained Northern Ireland on the international stage, while Ballymena United FC and Ballymena RFC have competed and succeeded at the highest domestic and all-Ireland levels. It would be remiss of me not to mention that North Antrim is also a powerhouse of club hurling, with Dunloy Cuchullains. Loughgiel Shamrocks, Ballycastle Mc Quillans and my own Carey Faughs winning a mix of Antrim, Ulster and all-Ireland honours. In boxing, we have Neil Sinclair, who brought Commonwealth medal success home to Ballymoney.

This story is not just about North Antrim, as much as I would love to stand here and just list the sporting achievements of the constituency. It is about Northern Irish and Irish individual athletes and Paralympians and team sports played in our towns, villages and cities. From grassroots clubs to the highest levels of elite international competition, sport has been a shared source of pride and possibility. Any sports museum must reflect that. It should never elevate one sport or one community over another but recognise the full breadth of sporting excellence across codes, genders and backgrounds and ensure that those stories, particularly at the grassroots level, are not lost. Too often, success is fleetingly celebrated and then quietly archived, but a sports museum could offer something different: a shared space for recognition, learning and inspiration, particularly for young people who may never see themselves reflected in sport because of their background.

The motion, rightly, highlights the potential economic benefits, particularly through tourism. We all know somewhere that could benefit from a sports heritage attraction. However, as a member of the Communities Committee, I want to be realistic. We are having this debate at a time when many communities are under real pressure, families are feeling poorer and public services are stretched. People are worried about health, education and the cost of living. The call for a working group therefore makes sense to me. It allows the key stakeholders to explore feasibility and appetite, particularly in the climate that we are in. I think that having a working group would also allow us to look at how we can be smarter with public funds while trying to ensure that the spotlight stays on our local sporting heroes. That would include looking at the use of existing museum spaces and government-owned buildings. We saw in Ballymoney how great it was to utilise existing space. I will say that a non-Belfast-centric approach should be taken, hence why I started with my list of why North Antrim is one of the most wonderful constituencies in Northern Ireland for sport. I will not lie: at the moment, I would rather that, if there is money in the budget, it be spent on our grassroots sporting clubs and codes to ensure that we have the sporting stars of the future, if we have to make that choice. I think that a working group that could look at how we can utilise that, how we can think differently and how we can be creative in how we celebrate our sport would be good, but sport is not separate from the challenges that our communities face. I really recognise the value of celebrating who we are and what we have achieved together as one community. Thank you very much for tabling the motion.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Members who tabled the motion to honour the importance of sport in Ireland through a sports museum in the North. We have an incredibly rich history of greatness in sports on this island, and that is of a cross-border nature as well, with cross-border achievement. With Olympic athletes being able to perform under any flag, their successes are celebrated across this island in a very special and unique way, and it is so important that we honour that success and those achievements and honour the unifying nature that sport offers this island.

Sport defines communities, sports stars are celebrated for their wins and venerated as heroes, and sport is a huge source of local pride. For children, young people and adults alike, sport is an opportunity for incredible self-development and community building. The gains and the developmental opportunities from participation and involvement in sport at any level are enormous, from mental and physical health to lifelong friendships to healthy competitiveness and the culture of teamwork that is cultivated amongst players. The mental toughness that is gained through involvement in sport means that it is a really positive environment for growth.

A sports museum would be the ideal arena to honour the accomplishments of sportsmen and sportswomen across this island, and I emphasise the all-island nature of what I think a sports museum should involve. What exhibits might be included in such a museum? I am open to other suggestions from Members, but can you imagine Sonia O'Sullivan's spikes from her World Championship victory in Gothenburg alongside Pat Jennings's gloves from Spain '82? Joey Dunlop's TT bike in Barry McGuigan's boxing ring. Jimmy Barry-Murphy's hurl alongside Ciara Mageean's camogie stick. Mick O'Connell's boots alongside Mary Peters' spikes and Kate O'Connor's medals. Rhys McClenaghan's pommel horse with Michael Carruth's gloves. Katie Taylor's gumshield, Kellie Harrington's boxing shoes, Kieran McGeeney's all-Ireland medal alongside Paul and Gary O'Donovan's oars — "pull like a dog". The "Chairman of the Boards'" vest. Rory McIlroy's golf clubs alongside Caroline O’Hanlon's Armagh kit. Teddy McCarthy's dual medals, and Cora Staunton's Mayo jersey. Martin O'Neill's Nottingham Forest jersey, and Charlie Smith's ball from his first successful field goal for the New Orleans Saints.

Any other suggestions? I could go on and on. There are so many possibilities here.

Mr Gildernew: It is full already. [Laughter.]

Mr McNulty: It is full already, but there are so many. Therein lies the beauty of the suggestion. It is a wonderful suggestion. There are so many sporting achievements that can be celebrated and bring huge pride to this island — not just to the North but to this island. It could be so positively unifying, and it is very much a suggestion that we should all get behind wholeheartedly to celebrate a nation that punches way above its weight.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, as the business in the Order Paper is not expected to be disposed of by 6.00 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 10(3), I will allow business to continue until 7.00 pm or until the business is completed if earlier.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Members for tabling the motion. I welcome it, and there is definitely merit in looking at that, as other Members have said, and exploring the opportunities and seeing what works best. We all know that, right across our society, sports have a huge impact and an ability to inspire. There is obviously real economic and social value to such a museum in supporting tourism, hospitality and regeneration, as Ms Mulholland mentioned, and in creating employment opportunities, not just during the construction stage but in the design and through education, hospitality and so on. Done properly, it could be a huge and lasting benefit in preserving sporting history.

As my colleague Mr Gildernew said, there is precedence. What we need to do in any of these situations is to look at best practice and what works well. For instance, the GAA Museum at Croke Park generates €2·3 million in revenue. There are 40 members of staff, and 15 others employed in the museum's skyline tours. Those are the kinds of comparables that we need to be looking at. That needs to be done not in isolation, however, but by looking at the sport environment that we have.

That brings me to the history of sport and inclusion. As somebody with a degree in history, for me, it is most important that we look at people who have been written out of history or often overlooked. In museums, that has been the case over recent decades, and, during the past decade in particular, that issue has been looked at and reviewed. A number of Members talked about the inclusion of Paralympians and women in sport, and that is imperative in any conversation. In my constituency, Jason Smyth is a multiple Paralympic gold medalist. We also have Katie Mullan, who made her debut with the Irish national hockey team in 2012 and was appointed captain in 2017. In football, there is the Ryan McBride Stadium, which is now the Derry City Stadium in the Brandywell. From a very local point of view, I say that James McClean has now returned to our club, and hopefully we will see much more success.

It is about honouring people from right across the sporting family and ensuring that all their voices are heard. The main point is to honour what they have achieved, but it is about looking to the future as well. What I hear from sports clubs in my constituency — I am sure that other Members hear it as well — is about the need to look at the here and now and to look to the future. This conversation needs to be contextualised within all that. Clubs come to us regularly that are struggling for funding to be able to have the resources and facilities to grow and evolve in the current climate. We therefore need to contextualise the conversation, but I thank the Members who tabled this useful motion for debate.

Mr Harvey: I very much welcome the motion that Alan proposed this evening. I really appreciate it. It is great that motor sport has been mentioned. Motor sport really needs to be included in any sports museum. We have produced an array of car drivers, be they rally car drivers or racing car drivers. We have also produced an array of bike riders, be they riders of off-road bikes, scrambling bikes or road racing bikes. The people concerned are a great asset to the place. I would therefore appreciate motor sports' inclusion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for Communities to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the proposer of the motion and everybody who contributed to the debate.

Members will know that I am a very strong advocate for sport in Northern Ireland. During my time as Minister, I think that I have engaged with almost every single sport in Northern Ireland at some level and have tried to understand their development needs. We have made progress. We have advanced work on the Executive's much-stalled flagship programmes. We have secured much-needed additional investment to support grassroots sport, which has been delivered through Sport NI.

Why have I done that? I have done so because I fully recognise the positive and lasting impact that sport has on our communities. The achievements of sportsmen and sportswomen from Northern Ireland continue to inspire our young people, but they are also a source of immense pride for all of us. I was very proud to host a reception for our Olympians and Paralympians at the SSE Arena to celebrate their unprecedented haul of seven medals: four golds, a silver and two bronze. It was a fitting occasion, attended by close to 4,500 people, on which to recognise not only our six Paris Olympic medallists but all those who achieved the honour of representing Northern Ireland on the world stage. I was pleased to build on that success by establishing the Olympic medallist fund, which will allow our medallists to give back to their community by supporting grassroots projects. Last September, I was also pleased to launch the Olympic legacy fund, which will provide equipment and enhanced local supporting facilities to drive increased participation.

I have been privileged to be able to recognise achievements across a broad range of sports by hosting various receptions, including ones for Michael Dunlop, the Belfast Giants, the Special Olympics team, the World Transplant Games team and even a Northern Ireland tug of war team. I therefore recognise the role that sports play, and I do not doubt that a sports museum could play a positive role in our society. It could increase participation in sport, particularly among our young people. The merits of the proposed museum align closely with the objectives of my Department's sport and physical activity strategy for Northern Ireland, 'Active Living'. By celebrating the achievements of our athletes and presenting their powerful role-model stories, there is an opportunity to provide an accessible and inclusive space in which to inspire and motivate, as well as to foster community pride. A sports museum would emphasise participation, shared spaces and the importance of recognising excellence and achievement. A museum of that kind would complement our wider ambition to support lifelong involvement in sport and physical activity, thus helping more people to become more active more of the time.

There is no museum in the UK that brings together all sports in a single institution. That is largely because of the way in which sporting heritage has evolved through having distinct, independent sporting cultures rather than their being under a unified national framework. Instead of a single museum for all sports, the UK has a wide range of dedicated museums for major sports such as football, rugby, cricket, tennis, golf and motor sport, to mention but a few. Each focuses on its own rich history, traditions and supporter base. As a result, the UK has a highly specialised museum landscape, with many sport-specific institutions, but it has no multi-sports museum that brings all sports together under one roof.

In order to explore the proposals in the motion further, detailed engagement with governing bodies across the sports sector will be essential to ensure that the new museum concept does not displace existing facilities or undermine their established revenue models. I am aware that there are already sporting elements to a number of museums here, including the Ulster Transport Museum and the Ballymoney Museum, which has the motorcycling display. I acknowledge that the Member's motion for a sports —.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for giving way. I have been to the transport museum, which you mentioned. Stanley Woods's TT exhibit there, featuring 14 trophies, is mesmerising. Such an exhibit could be included in the sports museum.

Mr Lyons: I have had the pleasure of being there many times and seeing that for myself. It is absolutely right that those are things that could be included. I will come to that a little more in a second.

I acknowledge that a sports museum could add to our sporting legacy, encourage increased participation in sport and generate economic benefits for Northern Ireland through anticipated growth in tourism. The proposer of the motion asks that I work with the Minister for the Economy to establish a working group. However, as the expected benefits are likely to include increased sporting participation, enhanced heritage and museum value, positive health outcomes and tourism growth, it is my view that the motion spans even wider cross-departmental priorities.

The sport and physical activity strategy was developed on behalf of all Departments, and, at present, my Department does not have an allocated budget to explore or develop such a proposal. A new sports museum delivering such a broad range of outcomes may therefore be better positioned as an Executive programme, requiring collaborative design together with funding and oversight. That approach may provide a stronger opportunity to fully collaborate with multiple partners, including Departments, Sport NI, district councils, Museums NI, sporting governing bodies, UK-wide capital programmes, such as DCMS- and lottery-supported schemes, and potential partners while ring-fencing an appropriate budget.

If a group or organisation were to bring forward a project for a sports museum, it may be possible for the Northern Ireland Museums Council, as the lead body for supporting local museums on behalf of my Department, to provide advice and expertise, particularly in areas such as museum standards, accreditation, education and outreach.

I want to address some of the comments that have been made this evening and are broadly supportive of the motion. The proposer of the motion said a couple of times: build it, and they will come. Those are powerful words but perhaps not entirely in keeping with the standards and requirements of 'Managing Public Money NI', which sets out the rules and the framework for how we spend public funds. It is certainly an argument that I will put anyway. I appreciate the Member's enthusiasm. He also mentioned the Bangor development, so I hope that he can acknowledge the work that has been done on that and how it is being taken forward. Perhaps that is still a location for the museum that he has in mind.

I am grateful to Maurice Bradley for his comments. He told us that he had been playing football from age 15 to 54, so I am sure that his club is missing him since he gave that up last year. I am grateful for his insight and expertise on that.

Colm Gildernew rightly mentioned some of the stories and history that could be included. That is certainly worth exploring.

Sian Mulholland mentioned nearly every sporting club in North Antrim and every potential sports star from there. She also made an important point about grassroots sports funding. I hope that she can acknowledge that that is exactly what I am trying to deal with, particularly through the Olympic legacy fund and the grants that will soon go to those clubs. They will make a difference, and I hope that that programme continues.

Justin McNulty has, in his mind, already been scavenging and pilfering objects from all our sports stars. I do not think that there is anything left to put on his list. He might want to first ask the permission of some of those people, before he grabs all of those objects.

However, he illustrated our sporting history and what could bring people into a museum, including the displays that we currently have.

Pádraig Delargy spoke about the economic benefit. That, of course, should be part of our discussions, not just in the initial phases of the project but as regards what income can be brought in. I hope that he, too, recognises the work that is being done to support grassroots sports through the Olympic legacy fund.

I am happy to confirm that I am fully supportive of anything that promotes sport. Our superstars have indeed created memories. Any opportunity to relive those magic moments and offer the next generation the chance to learn about our proud sporting tradition is positive. Therefore, I will ask officials to engage with colleagues in the Department for the Economy and National Museums NI to explore what is possible. I thank Members for tabling the motion and for their contributions to the debate.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you. I call Diana Armstrong to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his comments. He has done quite a bit of my work in winding up by recapping on things that Members said. It has been a cordial exchange and conversation, so I thank everybody who contributed to the debate. I am pleased to rise in support of the motion and to build on the strong case that has been made in the Chamber as to why we should celebrate Northern Ireland's rich sporting heritage and why the establishment of a sports museum here would be a fitting and lasting tribute to our sporting heroes, past and present.

Northern Ireland may be small in size, but our sporting impact is anything but small. Across generations, we have produced athletes who have inspired people not just at home but across the world. As other Members recognised, icons such as Barry McGuigan, Lady Mary Peters and George Best remain household names, alongside those who continue to represent Northern Ireland with distinction on the global stage. The washing machine belonging to career grand slam winner Rory McIlroy could, perhaps, be in the museum. We could pay tribute to world champion boxer Carl Frampton; six times superbike world champion, Jonathan Rae; and so on. Various Members have paid tribute to sporting icons in their areas, and, from a Fermanagh point of view, it is opportune to pay tribute to motor rally legend Bertie Fisher, as the 25th anniversary of his death came in January just past. Bertie's legacy has certainly been carried on through the establishment of the Fisher Foundation.

Those individuals have all, rightly, been celebrated, and their stories continue to be told. However, too often, the achievements of our athletes are remembered only through media clips, old newspaper articles or small displays. A sports museum would give those stories and other artefacts a permanent home — a place in which we can all take pride and that properly preserves our sporting history. Importantly, a sports museum would also serve as a source of inspiration for young people. Encouraging young people into sport improves physical health, mental well-being, community cohesion and civic pride.

As others mentioned, there is a strong economic case for a sports museum. Northern Ireland has world-renowned attractions. Titanic Belfast, which my colleague mentioned; the Giant's Causeway, the Dark Hedges and the 'Game of Thrones' studio tour: all attractions that whet the appetite of the tourists who come here. Our sporting heroes carry just as much international recognition. If done properly, a sports museum could become a major tourist asset, complementing the existing cultural and heritage offer.

I turn now to some of the Members' contributions. Colm Gildernew mentioned that sport is to the fore in bringing people together. Maurice Bradley mentioned that sport fosters discipline. He outlined the history of Harry Gregg, a joiner, who became one of Northern Ireland's best goalkeepers. Sian Mulholland gave us a run-through of North Antrim's local legends — thank you for that — and talked about the call for the working group making sense. She said that we should explore the museum's feasibility but also be conscious of the need to support grassroots sports. Justin McNulty gave us a wish list of all the artefacts that could be included, which was very interesting, and he mentioned his huge pride in sport on this island. Pádraig Delargy mentioned the economic and social value of tourism and said that, if properly done, a sports museum could have a huge, lasting legacy. He also mentioned the history of sport and inclusion for Paralympians, Olympians and others. Harry Harvey mentioned motor sport, including, again, scrambling bikes. All those were really good contributions to the debate, mindful that the motion's focus is to "explore", at this stage, and to develop a working group to bring together "key sporting stakeholders". The Minister has given some idea of who that might include.

The motion is about feasibility and exploring the potential benefits and practicalities of delivery. I am confident that stakeholders will agree that Northern Ireland's sporting history deserves lasting recognition and preservation for future generations to enjoy and to be inspired by.