Official Report: Tuesday 23 June 2026

Mr Speaker: Emma Sheerin has been given leave to make a statement on Jeffrey Donaldson's conviction for rape and child sexual abuse, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24.

Members should be aware that because a sentence has not yet been handed down, the sub judice rules apply. However, I am satisfied that this is clearly a matter of public importance, and I am therefore content for the matter to be discussed this morning by Members. In doing so, Members should note that there are strict reporting restrictions with regard to the identity of the victims. Any discussion of their identities would be in obvious contempt of court. Members must not, therefore, say anything that might have the effect of identifying the victims. If Members wish to be called to speak, they should rise in their place.

Ms Sheerin: Yesterday, we saw former Member of this House Jeffrey Donaldson found guilty of child sexual abuse charges, including rape. Our thoughts are with his victims, who have suffered more than any of us could ever comprehend. I want to commend them for the strength and dignity that they have shown, both in coming forward to report the abuse in the first instance and over the course of recent weeks during a trial that saw every element of their lives pulled apart and examined. Their resilience throughout that process has been nothing short of admirable, and I hope beyond hope that it gives other survivors the courage to come forward.

How someone capable of such depravity could rise through the ranks of political office and retain the trust and confidence of so many for so long is hard to comprehend. He used his position to ensure the silence of his victims and attempted to gaslight them upon being confronted. His attitude and his audacity compounded the harm that he inflicted through his actions. No one is above the law, and I hope that all victims watching this unfold will take strength from that. Justice in this case was hard fought for and so deserved. I hope that the survivors receive the support that they should have had all those years ago.

To all those who are triggered by this news, we send our solidarity. Please come forward; reach out for help. There are organisations out there, such as Nexus, that do incredible work and are there for you. No one deserves to be abused. It is never your fault.

Miss McIlveen: A jury has concluded that Jeffrey Donaldson is guilty of some of the most heinous and despicable crimes imaginable. We welcome the fact that justice has been done and the rule of law has prevailed. Our thoughts are, first and foremost, with the innocent victims whose lives were profoundly impacted on by his vile and filthy behaviour. What they endured was wicked. The abuse itself was appalling, but so too was the burden placed upon them in having to relive that trauma through a lengthy criminal process. It is right that he will face the full force of the law in sentencing. Today, we stand with those victims. We salute their courage, resilience and determination to speak the truth. Their bravery in coming forward should serve as an encouragement to others who have suffered abuse that they will be heard and believed.

No one is above the law. It does not matter how prominent a person may be, what position they hold or how much influence they possess. Everyone is equal before the law and equally subject to it. The evidence presented in this case was shocking. It is now clear beyond doubt that Jeffrey Donaldson abused positions of trust and power over many years while concealing vile and manipulative behaviour. It is now clear that Jeffrey Donaldson led a double and duplicitous life. His lies and cover-ups have been exposed. The spotlight of justice has shone upon them. That should serve as a reminder that perpetrators cannot outrun justice. We are writing to the Forfeiture Committee, through the Cabinet Office, asking that Jeffrey Donaldson be stripped off his knighthood and Privy Council titles. Today, however, our thoughts remain with the victims. We pray that the verdict brings comfort as they move forward with their lives.

Ms Nicholl: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I recognise the extraordinary and remarkable bravery and courage of the two victims. Yesterday's verdict will not undo the harm that was done to them, but, hopefully, it sends a clear recognition that what happened was wrong and that Jeffrey Donaldson will feel the full weight of the law. It is a clear message that no one, regardless of what position they hold in society, is above the law.

We are conscious that there are two victims who have been at the centre of this and who have shouldered so much, but there are many other people watching who are reliving things that happened to them in their childhood — people who maybe have information that they have not passed on. The message is clear: if you come forward, justice can be done. The Nexus helpline is 0808 802 1414. It is a local number, and it has a chat function that people can use if they do not feel comfortable speaking directly. There is also an amazing charity called the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC). I have been working with a number of constituents who were abused as children, and the impact of that abuse cannot be downplayed. It has stayed with them for their whole lives, and the silence compounds the trauma. As a society, and as an Assembly, we have to do everything that we can to allow people to come forward, and to make sure that they are supported when they come forward with that story, because so often, when you share what you have been through but are not supported in the way that is necessary, it can make it much worse. We have so much work to do.

The two survivors are remarkable. They have done so much for so many people in Northern Ireland, and we wish them well. They have gone through a difficult period. We hope that there is healing from this as they go forward. To everyone else who has been impacted on and who is reliving awful things that have happened to them, please know that there is support and that we are here to support you.

Mr Burrows: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I praise the courage and tenacity of the victims of Jeffrey Donaldson. They showed remarkable courage in giving the evidence that they did and in taking the case to court. While we are all equal under the law — that is an important lesson — they knew full well that they were not giving evidence against a private citizen. They knew the level of public and media scrutiny and attention that the case would invoke, yet they gave evidence.

They got justice, and there is a powerful lesson in that for everyone across the United Kingdom and across these islands: no matter the accuser, the power that the accused has or how long ago the crime occurred, there is a justice system in which we are all equal; the Police Service will follow the evidence without fear or favour; the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) will do its job without fear or favour; and the judge and jury will do their job impartially and professionally. If any good comes from this, I hope that it is that more victims come forward against anyone in our country who is a predator or sexual abuser.

The victims have anonymity, and that should absolutely be protected. We should always remember, however, as they will have known, that anonymity does not spare you the ordeal of reliving an incident and giving evidence to the police and in court about the most invasive, vile abuse of your body by the perpetrator. It does not spare you cross-examination and being called a liar, as Jeffrey Donaldson accused them of being.

The sentencing will be a matter for the judge independently, but only the most severe sentence is appropriate. Not only were they vile crimes against the most vulnerable children but Donaldson showed no remorse. He turned the tables on the victims and said that they were the liars. They had to watch him walk around leading a double life, even having the audacity to wear a Christian symbol on his lapel as he walked into court. He stands in disgrace. I have, as is right, written to the Forfeiture Committee in the hope that he will be stripped of his knighthood. As far as I am aware, there is no way of removing the lavish, taxpayer-funded pension that will go into his bank account every month when he is in prison. In cases such as this, that is appalling.

This country owes the victims a huge debt of gratitude. They did the most difficult thing imaginable, and, in doing so, they have sent a signal to everyone that we are all equal under the law. If you are a victim of crime, come forward. You can get justice.

Mr O'Toole: Jeffrey Donaldson was convicted yesterday of the most grave and depraved crimes that it is possible to imagine. He stands not just shamed but convicted in the eyes of the law by a jury of his peers.

Like others, on behalf of my party, I stand with his victims and acknowledge their extraordinary courage and resilience — the survivors of his abuse, who showed remarkable courage in making their report and then having the resilience to sit through a trial in which their abuser sought to depict them as liars and to deflect from his culpability for the abuse with lies and deflection. The courage and resilience that they demonstrated will, I hope, be an inspiration to all in our society. Those who watch the debate tonight and hear the remarks made in the Chamber will include those who have themselves suffered abuse over many years and decades but have not yet felt able to make a report. I hope that the courage of Donaldson's victims — survivors — will give them the inspiration and heart to feel that they can report their abuse and that the criminal justice system will respond to them, hear them and find accountability for them.

It is important to acknowledge the work of the police officers and prosecutors who took the case forward and got justice and accountability for his victims. I echo the words of Members who highlighted the important work of organisations such as Nexus, which offers support and signposting for people who have suffered abuse.

A word about Jeffrey Donaldson. I will call him "Jeffrey Donaldson", not "Sir Jeffrey Donaldson", and I will not apply to him any of the honours to which he is clearly not entitled, which should be stripped from him forthwith. He stands in abject disgrace.

When sentencing an individual, a judge will look not just at the impact of the crime on the victims but at the culpability of the perpetrator. "Culpability" means responsibility. Those of us who hold public office, particularly those who have held high office for many decades, have high levels of responsibility. That means that Mr Donaldson has the highest level of culpability. He has brought himself into abject disgrace. He has used his power and his profile to continue the suffering of innocent victims. He should feel the full force of the law. I stand with those victims today.

Mr Gaston: Like all Members who have spoken, I pay tribute to victim A and victim B and to the courage that they have shown to ensure that justice was delivered. The two women had the courage to come forward to tell their stories and to seek justice after years of the most wicked and depraved abuse. We all need to acknowledge their courage and fortitude. That is the one bright spot in the darkness and evil that has been exposed in past weeks and that rightly ended in yesterday's damning verdicts.

The light arising in the darkness is that the justice system delivered for victims. Donaldson was not just one of the most powerful people in Northern Ireland; he rose to the top of UK politics. He was an MP, a knight and a privy counsellor. He was held accountable for the evil crimes that he committed against children. I trust that the victims will find some form of closure on the back of yesterday's verdict. These are difficult times for them — who knows who else will come forward in the coming days? — but I trust that they know that justice has been delivered. I trust that other victims will take courage from what they have witnessed in the past weeks and from what happened yesterday, with the delivery of those damning verdicts.

The coming days will raise profound questions about the impact that the scandal has had on politics and, indeed, on the very existence of this place. I will not be behind the door in raising those issues when the time comes, but, for now, I simply salute victim A and victim B for the courage that they have shown in coming forward and seeing this through to the end, ensuring that justice has been delivered and that the predator will no longer walk the streets but do the time that he deserves. He will not hurt — he cannot hurt — anyone. He is in the place where he should be, where he should have been years ago.

Mr Buckley: Our collective thoughts today are with the victims of Jeffrey Donaldson. It is only because of their tremendous courage and bravery that an evil sexual predator is no longer free or the holder of high office. Jeffrey Donaldson: a fraudulent monster, a wicked deceiver and a convicted child abuser and rapist. There is nothing more despicable. A verdict has been delivered, justice has been done and a lengthy sentence should follow. We owe that to the victims in the case and, indeed, to the victims of sexual crime across this land. Justice must be served. To the many victims, let the case prove conclusively that no one, regardless of status, is ever above the law.

Mr Speaker: If Members wish to make a statement, they should indicate that they wish to do so by rising in their place.

Ms Reilly: Today, the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister for the Economy, alongside our ardmhéara

and others, will be at the formal media launch of the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann in Belfast. That marks another significant step as we enter the final stretch of preparations for what will be one of the biggest cultural events ever hosted in our city. The countdown is well and truly on, and a real buzz is building across Belfast.

Over the past number of years, communities, volunteers, musicians, businesses, Belfast City Council and organisations have worked closely together, and their commitment and enthusiasm have laid the foundations for what promises to be a truly memorable Fleadh Cheoil. Belfast is ready to welcome visitors from every corner of Ireland and much further afield. We are ready to showcase the very best of our city and the people who make it so special. Whether visitors find themselves in north, south, east or west Belfast, they will experience the warmth, creativity and hospitality for which our city is renowned. Beidh fáilte mhór roimh gach uile dhuine.

The fleadh is a celebration of our musical traditions and our cultural heritage. It is about bringing people together through music, language, dance and community spirit. It is also about the opportunities. It is an opportunity to showcase Belfast on the international stage. It will support local businesses, boost our hospitality and tourism sectors and bring benefits to communities across the city. From local traders and family-run businesses to cultural venues and visitor attractions, the positive impact will be felt throughout the entirety of Belfast. Most important, the fleadh will give us the chance to tell a positive story about our city: a city that is confident, welcoming and proud of its heritage. There is still a lot of work to be done, and the finishing touches need to be worked through, but I look forward to seeing Belfast welcome musicians, performers, families and visitors from near and far for a celebration of music, culture and community in our city of Béal Feirste

.

Mrs Erskine: Last Wednesday, at the Executive Office Committee, we heard evidence from the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR). Today, many innocent victims across Northern Ireland will have woken up at the beginning of yet another day on which they will not receive justice for the murder of their loved one and hear the truth about what happened to them. Vital evidence relating to their case is sitting there, but, shamefully, the Irish Government are sitting on their hands. They continue to lecture others, yet they fail to provide innocent victims with the chance to see perpetrators of violence brought to account for their heinous actions.

That was laid bare last Wednesday when representatives from the ICRIR said that they had written to the Irish Government 11 or 12 times without receiving any form of reply from them. That is shameful. The Irish Government's failure to cooperate has been highlighted by my party leader repeatedly, but it was stark to hear the figures directly from Peter Sheridan.

The Irish Government have continually sought to lecture the UK on legacy issues whilst doing nothing to help victims and survivors find out the truth about what happened to them. During the Troubles, there were over 500 murders along the border. In many cases, the attacks were launched from the Republic of Ireland, with the perpetrators also finding refuge in the South. What are the Irish Government hiding?

It is interesting that, for years, Sinn Féin has called on the UK Government to provide information, yet its silence on the Irish Government is deafening. There are people who sit in the Chamber who know exactly the truth about what happened, yet they are prepared to lie about their involvement in the IRA. They heap trauma and hurt on innocent families as they continue to laud and celebrate the victim makers: the perpetrators of violence. The Irish Government are no better.

Recently, in a letter to the Executive Office, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade indicated that it would do all that it could to assist legacy investigations.

However, that amounts to nothing more than gaslighting of the worst kind of those who have had to live with needless pain and grief at the hands of terrorists. The Irish Government's position is indefensible, in the same way as those who sit on the Benches opposite continue to glorify and laud the bomb maker and those who pulled the trigger.

Ms K Armstrong: Mr Speaker, I do not know whether you have noticed, but the cost-of-living crisis no longer seems to dominate our headlines in the way that it once did, but, for many households in Northern Ireland, it is a daily reality. Families continue to pay rising food costs; energy bills remain significantly higher than pre-crisis levels, thanks to the activities of war; and increasing rents in the private and social rented sectors are hammering lots of families.

For many people, wages and benefits are simply not keeping pace with the cost of living. That is why the local housing allowance is so important. The local housing allowance determines the maximum amount of housing support available to people renting in the private sector through housing benefit or universal credit. While rates were reset in April 2024 to reflect the lowest 30% of local market rates, the Westminster Government subsequently froze those rates for 2025-26 and confirmed in January that they would remain frozen for 2026 and 2027. The Resolution Foundation has highlighted the consequences of that approach. As rents continue to rise, housing support is falling further behind actual housing costs, and its analysis shows that rent increases have already significantly outpaced household incomes.

Across the UK, nearly half of private renters receiving universal credit no longer have their full costs recovered. For Northern Ireland, where private rents have risen sharply in recent years and too many households already struggle with fuel, food and childcare costs, that freeze places additional pressure on families who have the least room in their budgets to absorb it. Every pound spent covering a rent shortfall is a pound that cannot be spent on heating a home, feeding a family or supporting children's opportunities.

If we are serious about tackling poverty, reducing homelessness and helping working families through the continuing cost-of-living pressures, housing support must keep pace with housing costs. The Westminster Government's decision to freeze the local housing allowance risks pushing more households in Northern Ireland into hardship.

The bookies' favourite for Prime Minister is Andy Burnham, and I draw the House's attention to the fact that, as mayor, he called for local housing allowance rates to be unfrozen and to be increased. If he becomes Prime Minister, perhaps he can change something that Westminster imposed on all of our families who are in poverty. At a time when so many families are already stretched to breaking point, the Government made a bad choice, and I hope that they will rectify that.

Mr Butler: I rise today to highlight the urgent need for a new outdoor recreation strategy for Northern Ireland. The latest People in the Outdoors Monitor provides compelling evidence of the value that people place on our natural environment. Some 70% of adults spend time outdoors in natural places at least once a week, generating an estimated 134 million visits each year. Four in five people would like to spend more of their free time outdoors. The great majority of visits deliver benefits for physical health, mental well-being and nature connection, with many people joining me for a run every week.

Access to those benefits is not equal. Only 17% of adults — around one in six — say that they have local green space within a five-minute walk of their home. That contrasts with mapping that indicates that 48% of households are within 400 metres of accessible green space or off-road trail. The difference between what exists on a map and what people experience in daily life should concern us all. A place may be nearby, but it is of limited value if it is inaccessible, unsafe, poorly connected, inadequately maintained or does not feel welcoming.

The rural figures are particularly stark, and that should surprise most of us. While 63% of urban households are within 400 metres of green space or a trail, the figure is just under 20% for rural households. That falls to under 13% in open countryside and small villages.

Being surrounded by countryside does not necessarily mean having safe, legal or practical access to it. Too many rural residents must travel by car or walk on roads that were never designed for recreation. Outdoor recreation is not a marginal leisure issue; it contributes to preventive health, mental well-being, social connection, rural development, active travel, sustainable tourism and care for our environment. It supports priorities across several Departments, yet, as with many things here, responsibility for it remains fragmented.

Northern Ireland's most recent outdoor recreational action plan was published in 2014, which predates most of us here — not you, Mr Speaker — but much has changed since then, and many of its actions are now outdated, incomplete and no longer equal to the challenge before us. In December 2024, the Minister confirmed that there was a commitment in the environmental improvement plan to publish an outdoor recreation strategy, and that was to be progressed as resources permitted. Will the AERA Minister work with his Executive colleagues to initiate a new, ambitious and properly resourced outdoor recreation strategy for Northern Ireland? It should provide clear cross-governmental leadership, address inequalities in local access and set out practical progress. Like, I am sure, everybody else here, I understand that the practical outcome of that would be better physical health, better mental health and connectivity for our communities.

Mr O'Toole: It is hard to believe that a decade ago today, on another baking hot day in London, a referendum took place in which the UK voted tragically to leave the European Union. Of course, it bears repeating that Northern Ireland did not vote to leave the European Union; it voted to remain in the European Union but was removed against our will. At that time, the warnings were clear that Northern Ireland would be a victim of Brexit and the complex relations on the island of Ireland and between the islands of Britain and Ireland would be jeopardised. There were warnings that Britain would be a poorer country and less relevant on the world stage. All of those warnings have proved to be true in spades, and I do not think that anybody in the Chamber could dispute that.

Brexit is personal for me because, had it not happened, I would not be a politician here today. I am sure that there are probably some in the Chamber who regret Brexit for that reason. I was in 10 Downing Street on 23 June, and, overnight, I became somebody who held an Irish passport and believed in the ultimate bringing together of the two parts of this island. I was working as a UK civil servant, and, in a sense, I represented the complexity of relationships that had been created after 1998 and were underpinned by the common British and Irish membership of the European Union: the idea that we could overcome our tragic, awful history through interdependence and a common purpose through the extraordinary project that was and is the European Union, which provided and underpinned peace on the island of Ireland, although, amazingly, many are still in denial about that. It was the local manifestation of what our former leader John Hume rightly called the greatest peace project in human history: the European Union.

Flawed, bureaucratic, legalistic and frustrating as the European Union often is, that extraordinary peace project helped to underpin stability and trust on these islands, and it was lost on 23 June 2016, along with lots of other things, such as a sense that we could work together, rather than operate a zero-sum game of the UK versus Ireland. Gone are the hundreds of billions of pounds in tax revenue and economic growth, and we feel that every day in the squeeze on our public services. Gone is any sense of stability, as we see, again, a new Prime Minister in the UK.

We have a choice to make in the future. The SDLP will have a conference on Thursday about change on these islands. The SDLP believes that the best future for the UK would be to rejoin the European Union. That is not likely, but the best choice for Northern Ireland is to rebuild that common purpose and build a new Ireland back inside the European Union. It is why I am in politics; it is an inspiring vision 10 years on, and I look forward to talking to people about it.

Mr Kearney: Catastrophic, kamikaze economics, politically toxic — there is no other way to describe the Brexit debacle. Yet, 10 years on, those in the Chamber who continue to cheerlead are burying their heads in the sand. They tell us that they have not yet got the Brexit they wanted: I can only assume that means that it is not enough of an unmitigated disaster for them.

Last week, the London School of Economics was emphatic. It said that there is now conclusive evidence that Brexit has been an economic failure. I and others predicted in 2015 that that would be the case, and the greater number of citizens agreed with us. Now there is even greater opposition to our exclusion from the European Union. The fallout from Brexit is a reality that is being felt hard by workers and families across the North daily, and that is illustrated in evidence sessions that we have received in the Economy Committee. In one, we learned that our electricity bills here are now higher as a result of Brexit. In another, we heard that one skills programme had lost £40 million of investment in a year due to the loss of European funding.

Brexit has also poisoned our political process. It has destabilised power-sharing and created a deep political fault line. However, Brexit has also been a political game changer. More and more citizens are now looking beyond the catastrophe of Brexit and the chaotic Westminster politics that brought it about. The fact is that Brexit has brought a positive focus to the democratic logic of self-determination and constitutional change in Ireland. There is a way to remove the negative and enduring legacy of Brexit. Irish unity provides that option. Therefore, it is time to widen participation in the debate. The term of Ireland's presidency of the European Council provides an important opportunity to do so. The Irish and British Governments should begin planning for the constitutional change that will reunite this country and create a pathway back into the European Union for us all.

Mr K Buchanan: It is always a privilege to celebrate sporting success in mid-Ulster. Today, we congratulate Nigel Davidson, a proud Cookstown businessman, on his outstanding achievement at the Hyrox world championships in Stockholm. To see him compete and succeed on the world stage is an achievement that makes all of us in Cookstown incredibly proud. From balancing the demands of running a thriving business to committing himself fully to elite-level training, Nigel has demonstrated what can be achieved through hard work, focus and an unwavering belief in what is possible. His story is an inspiration to many and a reminder that great things can grow from small beginnings.

Nigel, we are immensely proud of you. Congratulations on everything that you have achieved, and we wish you every success as you continue your Hyrox journey. Whatever comes next, you carry with you the support and admiration of your friends, family and customers and the wider community. Well done, Nigel. We wish you well in the future.

Mr Blair: I rise as chair of the all-party group on climate action to address the extreme heatwave that is forecast to hit mainland UK, including a rare red weather warning, with temperatures forecast to be as high as 40°C. It is yet another reminder that climate change is not a distant future risk that we can brush under the carpet. Extreme weather is becoming more frequent, more intense and more disruptive. Heatwaves, flooding, storms, droughts and wildfires are increasingly becoming part of our new normal.

While we may, of course, be glad to see a bit of extra sunshine once in a while, the consequences of repeated and intensifying heat are serious. Heatwaves affect public health, particularly for older people, young children and those with underlying conditions. They place pressure on our health service, disrupt transport and infrastructure, reduce productivity and threaten food production, water supplies and biodiversity. If such events continue to grow in severity and frequency, the cost to our communities, our local economy and our natural environment will only rise.

Only two weeks ago, the Met Office hosted an event in the Building to discuss climate change impacts. It delivered a clear message that the UK's climate is considerably warmer now than in past decades, with extreme heat becoming more likely as global temperatures rise. That is why climate action cannot continue to be treated as optional or as a side issue. It must be central to everything that we do and all policy that we make.

I recognise the work of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Andrew Muir, who is using the powers within his remit to help mitigate climate change. That includes supporting policies to reduce emissions from agriculture and land use, as well as wider work to protect and restore our natural environment. He is also engaging across sectors, including at the Met Office event that I have just referenced. Alliance will continue to support ambitious, evidence-based climate action, but meeting that challenge will require the support of all parties. I therefore call on all parties in the House to support Minister Muir in his efforts to back meaningful climate action and to recognise that the extreme heat that we will witness in the coming days is part of a much bigger and more urgent challenge.

Mr McHugh: Tháinig deireadh le Seachtain Shláinte na bhFear ag deireadh na seachtaine seo a chuaigh thart, ar Lá na nAithreacha. Is cuí gur le linn Sheachtain Shláinte na bhFear a thit Lá na nAithreacha, nó is minic a shíleann na fir nach bhfuil an dara rogha acu ach saighdiúireacht a dhéanamh. Ach, le fírinne, nuair atáimid ag tabhairt aire dúinn féin, táimid ag tabhairt aire do na daoine sin atá thart orainn, do na daoine sin atá ag brath orainn agus do na daoine sin atá i dtuilleamaí orainn.

Ba é téama Sheachtain Shláinte na bhFear i mbliana ná "Céim ar Chéim – Forbairt, Ní Foirfeacht". Tá céimeanna beaga ann is féidir linn uilig a ghlacadh lenár sláinte a fheabhsú: scrúdú sláinte a chur in áirithe leis an dochtúir; bheith ag labhairt go hoscailte faoin mheabhairshláinte; páirt a ghlacadh i mbothán na bhfear nó i ngrúpa siúlóide; nó bheith páirteach in aclaíocht eile. Cuireann siad uilig feabhas ar an tsláinte. Má ghlacann muid an t-am le haire a thabhairt dúinn féin anois, tabharfaidh sé níos mó ama dúinn sa todhchaí.

Is le linn gnáthscrúdú sláinte a d’fhoghlaim mé féin go raibh an leibhéal iarainn i mo chuid fola ard. Deimhníodh gur haemacrómatóis a bhí ann. Is galar oidhreachta í haemacrómatóis, agus cé go gcuirfeadh fuaim an fhocail scanradh ar dhuine, is féidir í a chóireáil trí fhuil a tharraingt go rialta - cosúil le deonú fola. Is le linn cuairt chuig an dochtúir a d’fhoghlaim mé go raibh galar orm a rachadh go mór faoi mo shláinte dá bhfágfaí gan cóireáil é. Ba é sin an chéad chéim. Ná fanaimis go Seachtain Shláinte na bhFear leis an chéad chéim a ghlacadh. Ach is lena linn ba chóir dúinn na céimeanna breise a ghlacadh le feabhas a chur ar ár sláinte.

Mr Brett: Last evening, Conrad Kirkwood ended his remarkable tenure as president of the Irish Football Association (IFA) after five years of exemplary service and dedication to our game. It is right that we, as a House, thank Conrad for the work that he has done over the past five years. He ensured that at the heart of all of his dedicated work were volunteers and the growth of the women's game. His many wonderful achievements include securing Michael O'Neill as international manager for the next seven years, overseeing the unprecedented growth of women's football and helping to secure the Women's World Cup for Northern Ireland in 2035.

Conrad's leadership at the helm of the IFA has been characterised by integrity, humility and an unwavering commitment to the sport that he loves. Whether visiting grassroots football clubs across the country or representing Northern Ireland on the international stage, Conrad treated everyone equally. Even while facing personal health challenges, he continued to serve with courage and determination, earning the admiration and affection of the entire football community. As a proud member of the green and white army, I pay tribute to his presidency.

As one chapter closes, another one opens. I am absolutely delighted that Mr Raymond Kennedy was elected last evening as the new president of the Irish Football Association. We stand in remarkable times for Northern Ireland.

When I was in France just two weeks ago, we witnessed the youngest-ever team play an international game for Northern Ireland. People of all backgrounds, traditions and none came together to represent their country on the world stage. Let this be the last World Cup during which I am in the House and not supporting Northern Ireland.

Ms D Armstrong: I mark a truly remarkable milestone in my home town of Enniskillen: the 350th anniversary of Enniskillen Presbyterian Church, one of the oldest Presbyterian communities in Ireland, with roots stretching back to the 1640s and the arrival of the Scottish settlers in Fermanagh during the plantation of Ulster. So beloved has that heritage been that the church has carried the affectionate nickname, "the Scots church", ever since.

A history spanning 350 years is extraordinary. What strikes me most about the congregation's story is that it is, at its heart, a story about people. It is a story of people who stood firm in the face of controversy, including, famously, in the great harmonium dispute of 1861, when a group of ladies introduced the first such instrument into any Irish Presbyterian church. The uproar that followed shook the General Assembly for a generation. The congregation was reproved, petitioned and visited by commission after commission, but they refused to move. It took until 1896 for the matter to be settled, and, now, music is accepted in all churches. That shows something rather wonderful about the spirit of quiet determination.

Theirs is also the story of people marked by deep commitment, including the seven members of that congregation lost in the Enniskillen bomb in 1987. Their memory is carried in the church's beautiful memorial window, and they remain part of the fabric of the community. One of those lost, Nessie Mullan, was described by the church's own speaker as the reason for her first feeling at home in Enniskillen. Nessie's warmth, shown towards a young teacher who had arrived knowing nobody, made all the difference. That is what community means. It is a story of continuity for generations of families, whose generosity and faith have shaped the church that we see today. It has always been my church. I have fond memories of attending with my parents, and it is the special place where I was married. The Gamble family name also runs through the story like a thread. Rev Josiah Gamble became minister there at just 21 years old, in 1799. His nephew James went on to co-found one of the world's most recognisable companies, Procter and Gamble. Recently, a blue plaque was unveiled on the Enniskillen street where that connection is proudly marked. It is a reminder that the roots of global stories can often be traced right back to a small community in Fermanagh.

Three hundred-and-fifty years is a long time, but what endures is not bricks and mortar: it is the warmth, the welcome and the service to others that has defined that congregation across the centuries. I wish them every blessing as they step forward to the next chapter.

Mr Honeyford: Ten years ago, the UK voted to leave the EU, and Northern Ireland was removed from the EU against its will. People will have voted for many reasons, but people were lied to. They were lied to in that referendum, and, no matter what way people voted, everybody can agree that the decade that followed has been an absolute disaster: a complete act of self-harm; a decade of a failing UK economy; £90 billion of tax revenues that have not been collected and that have come straight off health and education; and ordinary people being hit in their pockets with higher taxation. There has been next-to-no economic growth on a UK scale, so ordinary people are poorer, and we have seen the rise — a real, worrying rise— of the far right and populism in our communities, dividing our communities.

The biggest cost of Brexit has been instability, which scares off investment. Since the Brexit referendum, the UK has had seven Prime Ministers, and we have had the Assembly collapse twice. Political uncertainty has become normal. However, when politics becomes unstable, ordinary people pay the price. Ordinary people are paying the price for the Brexit parties' decisions in the House, and those parties have been willing to let ordinary people pay ever since. Every decision that has come to the House that has involved any form of collaboration or the benefits that we can gain from having dual market access has been voted down by the DUP, the Ulster Unionists and the TUV. Many families have spent the past decade worse off, and the loudest supporters of Brexit have punished them, while we have the likes of Farage appearing to be prospering personally.

Ten years on, the question is not whether Brexit was right or wrong, because the evidence is clear for everyone to see. Rather, the question is how we move forward, because we find ourselves in a unique position, with dual market access, to both the UK and EU markets, and the opportunity to sell the region that we all enjoy. We need to maximise that opportunity as best we can for our people.

Members, do not tell me that you want Northern Ireland to work and then do everything that you can to stop that from being the case. We need more North/South collaboration. We need to see more happening, because east-west collaboration is already happening. We need more collaboration to grow our economy further, but talk is cheap. People say such lines on the news but then come to the Chamber and vote against collaboration. The lesson must be that we need less division, more stability and more collaboration. We need to grow our economy, create opportunities for ordinary people and put more money back into their pockets. We need to focus on them, not on ideology.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call the Minister for Communities to open the debate on the Bill.

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Charities are vital to our communities. They provide essential support, strengthen social bonds and enrich daily life for thousands of people across Northern Ireland. Throughout periods of uncertainty and challenge, the community and voluntary sector has stepped forward consistently and compassionately to support those who are most in need. Across the Chamber, many of us will have direct experience of that contribution, be it through volunteering, governance or simply witnessing the difference that charities make to people's lives. Many more of us and those whom we represent are beneficiaries of their work, be it support for health, children and young people, animal welfare, sport, human rights, environmental protection or much more. That reach is profound, but so too is the responsibility that we carry to ensure that the environment in which charities operate enables them to thrive. Public trust and confidence are essential to that. Without that public trust and confidence, charitable giving is reduced, participation declines and the sector's ability to deliver vital services is undermined.

The Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 established the foundations for that confidence. It created the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland as the independent regulator, set out a registration framework and provided powers to protect charitable assets and ensure accountability. As with any legislative framework, however, it must evolve in order to remain effective. The Bill is about ensuring that our regulatory system is robust, proportionate and fit for purpose in a modern context. It takes forward key recommendations from the independent review of charity regulation, the report of which was published in January 2022 and identified a number of areas in which the legislation could be strengthened, clarified and modernised. The Bill will implement a focused package of its recommendations, alongside addressing practical issues that have arisen in operation.

At its core, the Bill has three clear aims. The first is to strengthen the Charity Commission's regulatory powers to ensure that it can act effectively and proportionately where concerns arise. The second is to enable the simplification and modernisation of accounting and reporting requirements, particularly for smaller charities. The third is to provide clarity in areas of legislative uncertainty, including on the position of organisations that operate across jurisdictions. In doing so, the Bill reflects the broader principle that regulations should support and protect the public interest without placing unnecessary burdens on the sector. Charities, particularly smaller, volunteer-led organisations, often operate with limited administrative capacity. Where we can simplify requirements without compromising transparency or accountability, it is right that we do so. That will allow organisations to focus their time, energy and resources on what matters most: delivering services and supporting communities.

The measures in the Bill are therefore practical and targeted. They will enhance the Charity Commission's ability to share information and intervene appropriately, including through proportionate tools such as official warnings. The measures close gaps that currently allow individuals to evade accountability, and they strengthen protections for charities and their beneficiaries. They also introduce greater flexibility in financial reporting, allowing requirements to be tailored more appropriately, reducing burdens on smaller organisations and ensuring that the system can adapt over time through secondary legislation.

Finally, the Bill removes provisions that have been found to be unworkable, providing clarity and certainty for organisations that are operating across borders and avoiding unnecessary duplication of regulation. This is a modest Bill in size, but a significant one in impact. It will reinforce public trust, modernise our regulatory framework and support a vibrant, confident and effective charity sector — a sector that will continue to deliver enormous social value across Northern Ireland. The Bill is something that we should all support, and I commend it to the Assembly.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I welcome the Second Stage of the Charities (Amendment) Bill. At the outset, it is important to place my remarks in context. The Second Stage is concerned with the general principles of the Bill. The Committee received an initial briefing from departmental officials and has been provided with the Bill and accompanying material. However, the Committee has not yet undertaken its formal evidence-taking, stakeholder engagement or clause-by-clause scrutiny. For that reason, I will not offer any settled Committee view on the detail of individual clauses today. Those matters will be examined properly during the Bill's Committee Stage. My comments are therefore directed towards the broad policy intent, the issues that the Committee is likely to want to test and the importance of ensuring that the final legislation is proportionate, workable and clear.

We recognise the importance of the charity sector across the North. It is absolutely vital in maintaining services across a range of sectors that we all know the value of. Charities, including community organisations, faith-based organisations, voluntary groups and social-purpose bodies, provide practical support to individuals and families, often in areas where need is greatest. Many are small, volunteer-led and deeply rooted in their local communities. It is, therefore, essential that charity law provides a framework that protects charitable assets, supports public confidence and enables good governance, while also avoiding unnecessary administrative burdens. A regulatory system that is too weak risks undermining public trust, while a system that is too heavy can divert scarce time and money away from front-line delivery.

In broad terms, the Bill seeks to modernise aspects of the Charities Act 2008. The Department has indicated that the Bill gives effect to recommendations from the independent review of charity regulation and is intended to strengthen proportionate regulatory powers, streamline accounting and reporting requirements and remove provisions that have proved to be difficult or unworkable. The Committee welcomes the opportunity to consider legislation that seeks to update and improve the regulatory framework. We also note that the Department carried out a further public consultation, which closed on 24 April 2026, having attracted 38 responses. A number of amendments to the Bill were tabled before its introduction in response to issues that were raised.

One of the broad themes of the Bill is the strengthening and clarification of the Charity Commission's regulatory powers. The Committee recognises that an effective regulator needs to have a range of proportionate tools. In many circumstances, a graduated regulatory response may be more appropriate than moving immediately to the most formal or intrusive intervention available. However, the Committee will want to examine carefully how any new or amended powers would operate in practice. Powers relating to information sharing, official warnings, directions, removal from office and disqualification can have significant, long-standing consequences for charities, trustees, staff, volunteers and, indeed, public confidence in the sector.

The Committee will therefore wish to test whether the proposed safeguards are sufficient. That will include issues such as prior notice, the opportunity to make representations, publication decisions, rights of appeal, data protection safeguards, review mechanisms, consistency of decision-making and the practical guidance that will be available to charities and trustees. That is not to suggest opposition to the broad aim of strengthening effective regulation. Rather, it reflects the Committee's role in ensuring that the balance is right: robust enough to protect charitable assets and the public interest, but fair, transparent and proportionate in its application.

A second important theme is the intention to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy for smaller charities. The Committee has already heard that many small organisations face real pressures in meeting administrative accounting and reporting requirements. For volunteer-led organisations, compliance effort often falls on a small number of people who already deliver services, raise funds and support their communities. The Bill appears to create scope for a more flexible and tiered approach to accounting, reporting and independent examination requirements. The Committee welcomes the general policy aim of making regulation more proportionate to the size, complexity and risk profile of charities. That said, the Committee will need to examine the detail of how that would be achieved. In particular, members will want to understand the proposed use of regulations, the level of Assembly oversight, the timing of secondary legislation and how charities will be supported through any transition to the new arrangements. The Committee will also want to ensure that simplification does not unintentionally reduce transparency or weaken public confidence. The key issue will be whether the Bill can reduce avoidable administrative drag while retaining the level of financial assurance that the public, donors, beneficiaries and, indeed, funders are entitled to expect.

A further theme is clarity. The Bill proposes to remove provisions that, according to the Department, have not proved workable in practice. The Committee will wish to explore the implications of those changes, including for organisations operating across jurisdictions or delivering charitable activity in or from the North. Our charity sector includes a diverse range of bodies. Some are small and local; others operate on a regional, cross-border or England/Scotland/Wales/Six Counties-wide basis. The Committee will, therefore, want to be satisfied that the final legislative framework is clear, avoids unnecessary duplication and does not create unintended regulatory gaps or consequences. Clarity matters not only for the regulator but for trustees, staff, volunteers, funders, professional advisers and members of the public. If the law is difficult to understand or apply, compliance becomes more difficult, and confidence can be weakened.

The Committee will also need to consider implementation. Legislative modernisation will be effective only if it can be delivered in practice. That means clear guidance, suitable systems, proportionate processes and sufficient capacity in the Charity Commission and the Department. The Department's material indicates that implementation may involve one-off capital and resource costs for the commission. The Committee will want to examine whether those estimates are realistic; whether the proposed timetable is deliverable; and whether charities will receive timely and accessible guidance before substantive changes take effect. In particular, smaller organisations should not be left to interpret complex changes without practical support. A modern framework should be understandable, accessible and capable of being implemented consistently.

The Committee welcomes the broad intent of the Charities (Amendment) Bill. The Bill presents an opportunity to modernise charity regulation, support public trust, strengthen oversight and reduce unnecessary burden on smaller charities. However, the Committee has not yet completed its scrutiny of the Bill, and we therefore reserve judgement on the detail of specific clauses until Committee Stage, when members will take evidence from the Department, the Charity Commission, umbrella bodies, professional advisers and the wider sector. The Committee's focus will be on whether the Bill strikes the right balance between effective regulation and practical proportionality; whether the safeguards are sufficient; whether delegated powers are appropriately framed; and whether implementation will be realistic for the regulator and the sector. On that basis, I welcome the Bill's progression to Committee Stage and look forward to detailed, evidence-based scrutiny of its provisions.

I will now make some brief remarks as Sinn Féin spokesperson. Former Communities Minister Deirdre Hargey commissioned an independent review of charity regulation from 2021 to 2022. The findings of that review set out 93 recommendations for the Department, the Charity Commission and the charity sector. In response to those findings, Minister Hargey introduced the Charities Bill, which was enacted in 2022. The legislation put in place many of the review's priority recommendations in the limited time remaining in that mandate. The Charities (Amendment) Bill represents the next stage of that reform programme. It seeks to give effect to a further 18 recommendations from the independent review. The Bill's 14 clauses collectively aim to strengthen the statutory framework, enhance regulatory clarity and ensure that the Charity Commission can operate with the transparency expected of a regulator. Reduced bureaucracy is welcome, but that cannot come at the cost of undermining regulation. The legislation must help ensure that there is transparency around funding, income and overall financial accountability. It is important that the Minister engage directly with counterparts in the South to ensure that the provisions in clauses 8 and 9 are aligned and strengthened.

As the Bill moves into Committee Stage, I will look specifically at the repeal of section 167 of the Charities Act. Although the provision was never enacted, its repeal will mean that a charity registered and regulated in the South, Britain or another jurisdiction will not have to re-register with the local Charities Commission. Although I would be supportive of the smooth operation of charities across jurisdictions, I want clarity on whether that might give larger charities operating across jurisdictions any unfair advantage, compared with small local charities that have to compete with those larger charities for funding and also have to register with our local Charities Commission.

Although many of the proposals are positive, the decision to subject the proposals to a consultation of only four weeks is not an ideal way to do business, particularly as it limits the time in which those small local charities with fewer resources can engage and contribute. That is something that we will look at in the time ahead. Sinn Féin will work with all parties on the Communities Committee to scrutinise the legislation and ensure that we deliver a Bill that truly supports charities right across the North.

Mr Durkan: I welcome the opportunity to speak today. Before turning to the detail of the legislation — there will not even be that much detail in the debate today at Second Stage — I pay tribute to our charity sector. Across every constituency, charities provide support that changes and saves lives every single day. They help families through poverty, support people living with disability, help to tackle loneliness, improve mental health and provide countless other services and supports that strengthen our communities. Too often, they are the safety net when every other safety net has failed.

As the Chair outlined, today's Bill is the product of a process that began back in early 2021, when the then Minister commissioned an independent review of charity regulation. That review involved an extensive engagement exercise with charities, regulators and funders, aimed at creating a more modern and proportionate regulatory system. Although the Bill that we are talking about today addresses 18 of the 92 recommendations, I would like some clarity from the Minister, perhaps when he is winding up, on where we are with the 92 recommendations and where addressing the 18 will take us. We have been promised that there will be further legislation in a future mandate, but we need to know where we are in the process. I would also like to hear from him what progress has been made on speeding up the registration process. I know that that is something that the review was very critical of, and it is something that we will all have heard about from charities, or prospective charities, in our constituencies.

The broad principles behind the Bill are sensible. The changes will modernise charity regulation, strengthen the Charity Commission's ability to intervene where misconduct or mismanagement occurs, improve information sharing and, importantly, reduce unnecessary red tape, particularly for smaller charities with limited administrative capacity. Many volunteer-led organisations simply do not have the capacity that larger organisations enjoy or employ. Every hour spent filling out paperwork is an hour that is not being spent delivering services and support to those who rely on them. We should also be honest about where the greatest pressures facing the charity sector now lie. The greatest challenge confronting charities today is not regulation; it is sustainability. When the review was commenced in 2021, many organisations were still in the midst of responding to the pandemic. Since then, they have faced a succession of new and evolving challenges. The ending of European funding programmes, on which so many in our communities relied for decades, has left a significant gap. The local growth fund has failed to match the scale and certainty of what has been lost. For many charities, funding has become short-term and unreliable. The consequences of that are visible across every constituency: organisations have had to strip back staffing to the bare minimum, experienced staff have been lost from the sector altogether, and community projects that had become embedded in neighbourhoods have, sadly, disappeared — some have had to close their doors entirely.

Whilst the SDLP supports legislation that removes unnecessary bureaucracy, we should not kid ourselves that administrative reform alone will secure the future of charities and organisations in the voluntary and community sector. The measures in the Bill are certainly worthwhile, but proportionate regulation must be matched by proportionate investment and support. The Executive need to recognise charities as trusted partners that deliver services that lead to improvements and that, as I said, often save the public purse money in the long run.

The Bill is a positive step that should make life easier, particularly for many smaller organisations. The SDLP has no hesitation in supporting its progress to Committee Stage, at which time I look forward to working with my Committee colleagues to ensure careful scrutiny of its provisions. The Chair outlined a few areas that we will need to explore and a few assurances that we will certainly seek. We look forward to doing that, but we must not lose sight of the bigger picture.

Mrs Cameron: I welcome the opportunity to speak as a member of the Communities Committee at Second Stage of the Charities (Amendment) Bill. I thank the Minister and the Chair of the Committee for outlining the details of the Bill.

I recognise the enormous contribution made by charities, churches, community groups, sports clubs, youth organisations, older people's groups and volunteers throughout Northern Ireland. They do incredible work. I see that contribution every week in South Antrim. Many such groups are run by local volunteers, trustees and committee members who give of their time to help others, support vulnerable people and keep community life going.

Charity regulation matters very much. The public must have confidence that charitable funds are being used properly, that trustees understand their responsibilities and that there is effective oversight when misconduct or mismanagement occurs. However, regulation must be proportionate and not overwhelm small charities with bureaucracy, discourage people from becoming trustees or make it harder for volunteers to carry out work that benefits local communities. The Bill seeks to strike that balance. Any action to reduce the administrative burden on charities is, of course, very welcome.

The Bill makes targeted amendments to the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 to ensure that the framework is modern, proportionate and effective. It progresses 18 recommendations from the independent review of charity regulation, with a focus on a more risk-based approach that promotes trust and accountability without placing undue burdens on charities. A key part of the Bill is the strengthening of the Charity Commission's ability to intervene proportionately in cases of misconduct or mismanagement. The vast majority of charities operate in good faith and with integrity, but, when serious issues arise, the regulator must have the tools needed to protect charitable assets and uphold public trust. I welcome the inclusion of safeguards where powers affect individuals or organisations. There are provisions around prior notice, representations, review mechanisms and appeal routes. Stronger powers must always be matched by fairness and proportionality.

I welcome the streamlining of accounting and reporting requirements. For small charities, administration can be a real challenge and burden. Trustees often balance employment, family responsibilities and voluntary service, so they need systems that are clear, manageable and proportionate to the size and complexity of the organisation.

It is worth noting that the Bill repeals section 167 of the 2008 Act, providing clarity for institutions established elsewhere but operating, for charitable purposes, in or from Northern Ireland.

The Department did, of course, consult on key issues, including template reporting and section 167, and carried out a four-week consultation on the Bill. I recognise that that sought to balance engagement with the time left in the mandate, and responses were broadly supportive of the amendments made to improve proportionality and safeguards.

The Bill is not about regulation for regulation's sake. It is about protecting public confidence, supporting good governance and ensuring that the framework works better for charities, trustees, volunteers and the public. For those reasons, I support the general principles of the Bill at Second Stage, and I look forward to the Committee's scrutinising the Bill further.

Ms K Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Second Stage of the Charities (Amendment) Bill on behalf of the Alliance Party and to reflect on the important progress that has been made since the consultation phase by the Department.

At its heart, the Bill is about getting the balance right. It recognises the vital contribution that charities and voluntary organisations make across Northern Ireland, often stepping in where statutory services cannot. It seeks to ensure that the regulatory framework supporting them is both robust and proportionate. I am pleased that the Department has taken account of the consultation responses that it received on the Bill. The outcome of the consultation recognised that, while transparency and accountability are essential, the existing system can at times place unnecessary administrative burdens on charities, particularly the smaller, volunteer-led organisations. Those burdens can divert time, energy and resources away from front-line services that the community and the Assembly depend on.

As I said, the Bill responds constructively to the concerns raised by consultees. It introduces sensible amendments to improve the functioning of the Charity Commission, to provide greater clarity in decision-making and to ensure that charitable organisations are treated fairly and consistently. Importantly, it also aims to rebuild confidence in the regulatory system, both for charities themselves and for the public who support them. The Bill will provide a system where charities are supported to thrive, innovate and respond to need while still operating within a framework that guarantees appropriate oversight. We must remember that the strength of Northern Ireland's voluntary and community sector lies in its diversity, from large regional organisations to small local groups rooted deeply in their communities. Any legislative framework must be flexible enough to reflect that diversity, and the Bill certainly moves us closer to that goal. However, legislation alone is not enough. Effective implementation and ongoing engagement with the sector will be key, and it is vital that the Charity Commission operates with transparency, proportionality and responsiveness going forward.

I have a few questions that, I hope, the Minister may be able to address during his winding-up speech, and those will highlight the types of things that I will be bringing forward when, as I expect it will, the Bill goes to Committee Stage. Page 2, line 14, relating to official warnings by the commission, updates the Charities Act 2008 by confirming that warnings can be issued by post. I am confused about just "by post". Surely, to future-proof the legislation, it should be considered that warnings be able to be issued digitally.

I move on to page 3, lines 8 and 9, where clause 4 is set out, and page 4, line 11, where clause 6 is set out. The Bill contains a reference to the Charity Commission having the power to remove a person from their employment. I appreciate that, if anyone has been involved in wrongdoing, they should not be permitted to continue in that role, however it would be helpful to understand how the Charity Commission can sack an employee when it is not the employer. The contract of employment will be between the employee and the charity that they are employed by. What powers does the Charity Commission have that negate pre-existing employment laws?

I am also surprised — I know that it was not in the recommendations — that the Bill does not take the opportunity to clarify, when the Charity Commission vests property, who then owns the property. Does it become the property of the Charity Commission? During the previous mandate, the then Committee for Communities, which I sat on, heard allegations — I have to say that they were allegations because we as a Committee could not investigate them — that property vested by the Charity Commission that was reportedly worth a significant amount of money was not accounted for. It would have been useful to set out how vested property is handled by the Charity Commission.

It would be useful to hear from the Minister about what happens when clause 11 takes effect and the Charities Act is amended to repeal section 167. Does that mean that charities that operate in Northern Ireland but that have their headquarters elsewhere will now have to register in Northern Ireland or will their charity registration from elsewhere in the UK be accepted? Prior to coming to the Assembly, I worked, for many years, for a section 167 charity, the Community Transport Association (CTA). It would be useful to that organisation, and others like it, to know whether the Department will inform funding bodies that the organisation can apply for grants in Northern Ireland if it is not required to re-register here.

The Minister may be able to clarify the next issue quite quickly. Why is clause 12(2), which is at page 6, line 25 of the Bill, amending the Charities Act to remove a reference to the Department for Communities by omitting the words "for Communities"? Does that mean that any Department can make regulations on which charities are exempt from regulation? It is a simple change, but I would like to know how that will work.

Finally, will the Minister confirm that the commencement provision in clause 13(2), which is at page 6, lines 33 and 34, will happen well in advance of a financial year in order to enable charities to be ready for change?

I expect the Bill to pass its Second Stage easily today and go to the Committee for Communities for scrutiny. I look forward to working with the Department, the Minister and my colleagues on the Committee to support the legislation's timely delivery in this mandate.

Mr Allen: Before I begin, I declare an interest as a trustee of a charity. Through that role, I have seen at first hand the valuable work that charities carry out and the responsibilities that fall on trustees to ensure that organisations are properly governed.

Every day, as Members have mentioned, Northern Ireland's charitable sector makes an enormous contribution to our society. Charities strengthen communities, provide opportunities and deliver services on which many individuals and families rely. Much of that work is carried out by dedicated volunteers and trustees, who give of their time freely and often without recognition. Any regulatory framework must protect beneficiaries and charitable assets, maintain public confidence in the sector and encourage people to continue to step forward to serve their communities.

The Bill seeks to implement recommendations arising from the independent review of charity regulation. Overall, we believe that those are worthwhile objectives. As Members will know, the review made 93 recommendations, 18 of which are being taken forward through the Bill. Many of the recommendations sought to create a more proportionate and risk-based approach to regulation, whilst improving the relationship between the regulator and the sector. The Department has stated that the Bill seeks to make charity law clearer, fairer and more fit for purpose. In doing so, it aims to strengthen the Charity Commission's regulatory powers, streamline accounting and reporting requirements and remove legislative provisions that either have created uncertainty or are no longer required. Those are sensible objectives, and, in broad terms, they are objectives that we can support. Many of the proposals will bring Northern Ireland more closely into line with developments elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Public trust is one of the charitable sector's most important assets. Where there is misconduct or mismanagement, regulators must have appropriate powers available to them to intervene in order to protect beneficiaries and public confidence. We therefore understand the rationale behind the measures in the Bill. We also recognise the logic behind having provisions that are intended to prevent individuals from avoiding regulatory action simply by resigning before a decision can be made.

Although we support the principles underpinning the legislation, several areas warrant careful scrutiny as the Bill progresses. One such area is the proposed official warning regime. We can see the value in having a proportionate tool available in cases in which having a full statutory inquiry may not be necessary or appropriate. Similar powers exist elsewhere in the UK. An official warning has the potential, however, to have significant reputational consequences for a charity and its trustees and to affect trust in the wider sector. Publication of a warning could affect public confidence, fundraising activity and relationships with funders and stakeholders. We note that stakeholders, including the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), have expressed support in principle for the introduction of an official warning regime, whilst also highlighting the potential significant reputational consequences that the publication of a warning could have for a charity. That concern is understandable and further underlines the importance of ensuring that the power is exercised proportionately and with appropriate safeguards.

Whilst the Bill contains safeguards, including prior notice and an opportunity to make representations, it is important that it is clearly understood how the powers will be used in practice. In particular, we would like to understand the circumstances in which the commission would normally publish a warning, and how it intends to distinguish between serious misconduct and matters that may be addressed more appropriately through guidance, advice, support or regulatory engagement.

We note the expansion of the commission's powers to share information with bodies that exercise public or regulatory functions. Effective cooperation between regulators is important and can help to protect charitable assets and prevent wrongdoing. It will be important to understand how those powers will operate, which organisations may fall within their scope and what safeguards will be in place to ensure that information-sharing remains proportionate.

Perhaps the most significant issue for scrutiny is the extent to which important operational detail is being transferred from primary legislation into regulations. The Bill gives the Department and, in some cases, the commission greater flexibility in relation to the accounting requirements, annual reporting arrangements, and the definition of "gross income". There are obvious advantages to having flexibility and allowing requirements to evolve. However, flexibility must be balanced with accountability. It was noted during pre-legislative Committee briefings by officials that regulations flowing from the provisions would be subject to draft affirmative procedure, and I ask the Minister to reaffirm that. That is a welcome safeguard, and it will ensure Assembly scrutiny of future changes. It will remain important, however, that charities are properly consulted before significant changes are introduced.

The Bill seeks to reduce administrative burdens on smaller charities. Many organisations operate with limited resources, and depend heavily on volunteers. Measures that reduce unnecessary bureaucracy are welcome where they allow charities to focus more time and resources on supporting beneficiaries. The proposal to remove the requirement for an independent examination of accounts for charities with a gross annual income below £20,000 is one example of that. We note the broad support for that proposal across the sector, particularly given the difficulties that some smaller charities experience in securing independent examination and the cost that can arise from that. We understand the intentions behind the changes, particularly for charities with limited resources. Again, however, it is important that they strike the correct balance between reducing administrative burden and maintaining public confidence in the stewardship of charitable funds.

We welcome the proposal to repeal section 167 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 relating to institutions that are established outside Northern Ireland. That matter was raised repeatedly by a number of affected charities during Committee engagement in the previous mandate. We understand that section 167 was never commenced, and such organisations will continue to be regulated in their home jurisdictions. Nevertheless, it would be useful to know how concerns relating to such organisations, should they arise, would be addressed and how cooperation between regulators would operate should issues arise.

We note the extension of automatic disqualification provisions, which seems to intend to bring Northern Ireland into line with arrangements that are operating elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The proposed protection powers available during a statutory inquiry are understandable in principle where there is evidence of misconduct or mismanagement. I have no doubt, however, that the Committee will wish to satisfy itself that appropriate safeguards and oversight accompany the use of those powers.

Overall, the Bill contains a number of sensible and potentially beneficial reforms. It seeks to strengthen public confidence in charity regulation, provide the Charity Commission with proportionate enforcement tools and reduce unnecessary burdens on smaller charities. The challenge for the Assembly will be to ensure that we strike the right balance between effective regulation and proportionality, between accountability and fairness and between protecting public confidence and supporting the thousands of volunteers, trustees and charities that serve communities across Northern Ireland every day.

I look forward to further examining the detail of the Bill in Committee. On that basis, we are content to support the Bill's progressing to Committee Stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Bradley, who was due to speak next, has just walked out the door, so, Minister, over to you.

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions to today's debate and for the constructive tone in which it has been conducted. I look forward to seeing the Bill progress. We have set a high bar, though. The legislation that the House passed most recently was the Sign Language Bill. After we passed that, there was unbridled joy in the Great Hall and great celebration. I do not know whether the Charities (Amendment) Bill will generate the same interest and levels of excitement out there, but let us try, anyway, to work together to make sure that we get the best legislation that we can.

I will address Members' comments. Mr Gildernew, as Chair of the Committee, was right to say that the debate is about the general principles of the Bill. On those, it seems, we have clear agreement or at least enough agreement to get it to the next stage so that it can go into Committee. I assure him that I agree with many of the comments that have been made. I certainly welcome and want to see scrutiny. A number of changes made by the legislation will help improve the regulatory framework for our charities in Northern Ireland, but it is right that the Committee takes time to examine them properly, and I welcome scrutiny of the issues, including how the Committee and the Assembly will oversee some of the issues that will arise from the legislative changes that we hope to make; how we can ensure that the legislation, especially the secondary legislation, is enacted in the right and proper way; and how we can make sure that the legislation does what we want it to do, which means making sure that there is no unnecessary duplication and that it is implemented in a clear and easily understandable way. I agree with the Chairman's comments, and I assure him and the Committee that I will engage in good faith to ensure that we have the answers that we need to those questions.

I will respond to a few other queries that were raised. Mr Durkan asked a couple of questions, the first of which was about the processes around registration thresholds. I assure him that those matters are being taken forward and that we will have the regulations after the summer recess. They will come in two parts that we hope to put in place so that those who do not have to avail themselves of registration can apply for that from autumn 2026 and that we have deregistration from April 2027. The independent review made 93 recommendations of which, as Mr Durkan rightly points out, 18 are taken forward in the Bill. Implementing other recommendations will require further legislation that, I trust, will come in the next mandate, but I can confirm that 60 of the recommendations have already been separately addressed by either the Department or the commission. I hope that that answers his questions.

I move on to Kellie Armstrong's contribution. As I said, this is about the general principles of the Bill. What does Kellie Armstrong do? She takes us straight to clause 3, and paragraph 4 of a proposed new section of the Charities Act to raise an issue about whether information will be provided by post. I assure the Member that all those issues will be properly addressed at Committee Stage, but I draw to her attention the fact that the legislation states that the information "may" be given by post rather than that it shall be given by post. That gives us enough flexibility to look at the provisions. I have no doubt, however, that, as an assiduous member of the Committee, Ms Armstrong will raise the issues at Committee Stage as well.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, your assiduousness and that of Ms Armstrong is duly noted.

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; that is much appreciated. I will address some of her other points. She raised concern about removal from employment. That is provided for in the 2008 Act, which enables that action to be taken. I draw Members' attention to the amendment that we propose to make at clause 4 on page 3:

— that is already in the legislation —

That is similar to what we are trying to do with trustees. Even though you leave your position as a trustee or your position as someone who holds an office in a charity or who has employment in the office, the commissioner will still be able to make a determination that says, "Even though you have left, we are still making this order to try to bring in some form of additional accountability". It will level that up with what is being done for trustees. Again, that is something that can be discussed further through the proper Committee process.

The Member talked about a reference in the legislation to removing "for Communities". This is to tidy up the 2008 Act. It already refers to Communities, so it is essentially a tidying-up action. Hopefully, that has addressed most of the points that she made. However, we will come back on some of the other ones.

There was a question about section 167. I simply make the point that that was never enacted in the first place. From many of our consultee responses, there was an understanding that, if section 167 was ever brought in, it would be ambiguous legally and create duplication, and it was strongly opposed. People felt that it would require major new infrastructure in return for a relatively insignificant benefit and that it could not deliver some of the perceived tax or funding benefits. Repeal was considered to be preferable, but, of course, those charities can continue operating as they do now, because the section in the legislation was never enacted. They can therefore continue to do what they are doing now. If they want to constitute as a Northern Ireland-only charity, they are able to do that, if they believe that that will bring certain benefits. However, repeal of section 167 will mean that such institutions can continue to operate in or from Northern Ireland as they currently do, but they may choose to separately constitute as a Northern Ireland charity, should they judge that to be beneficial for them. It was very clear from the consultation responses that we received that that was the right way forward.

I also agree with what Andy Allen said about ensuring that we are appropriate and proportionate in the actions that we take. There is a battle, if you like, between flexibility and accountability, and it is right and proper that we do the work around that. I am happy to assist the Committee in that. The Member also spoke about the official warning. I am more than happy for the Committee to properly examine and investigate what that would look like. However, we have the benefit of seeing what that is like and what it has done already in England and Wales. Over the course of a year, they have to issue around 40 such letters. That is 40 letters for in the region of 180,000 charities. We have about 7,500 charities in Northern Ireland, so you would expect to issue a very small number of letters. Oftentimes, as or before those are issued, some of the issues that caused those letters to be issued get tackled and sorted out. This is about giving us another step before you go to that full-on next phase of an inquiry or whatever else might come after it. It is an additional step, but we are right to take our time to consider it and make sure that it is proportionate.

I confirm to the Member that the regulations that he talked about on accounting and reports will not be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. They will be subject to negative resolution, as they are technical in nature, but if he wants to explore that further during the Committee process, I will be happy to do that.

Mr Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to give way.

Mr Allen: Minister, unfortunately, I was not at the Committee briefing on that, so I watched it back. Unless my memory fails me, I picked up from the officials that the regulations would be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. Perhaps Committee colleagues can either confirm or deny that. On that basis, can the Minister advise whether that was changed?

Mr Lyons: I do not believe that it was. That was maybe picked up wrong. We are happy to look at and explore that, but that is the information that I have on it. Again, we will have the Committee Stage of the legislation, so we can look into that then. I will be happy to ensure that, before the Committee Stage begins, we provide that information to the Committee and that that is clarified. Apologies if anything from our end caused a misunderstanding on that point.

Lots of issues have been raised, but I am aware that this is the Second Stage. It is about the general principles. As we progress to the next stage, there is clear agreement across the Chamber on the importance of a strong, trusted charity sector and the need for regulation that protects the public and supports charities to do their work.

The Bill, I believe, strikes that balance. It strengthens oversight where needed, while reducing unnecessary burdens, particularly for smaller organisations. That is worth noting. Often, we think that what we do in this place just adds more bureaucracy, more form-filling and more regulation and makes it more difficult for charities to do what they want to do. However, today, we are reducing that administrative burden, which does not happen often. It has to be balanced with accountability, but it is very positive and will be welcomed by many charities.

Mr Allen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to give way again.

Mr Allen: The Minister referenced the administrative burden, and he may come back and say that we are getting ahead of ourselves, but does he have any thoughts at this stage on audit thresholds? The Bill seeks to keep the powers around that flexibility, but has he any thoughts on where they should be?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I do and am happy to share those. The issue has been raised in the Chamber and through Assembly questions. My position is that we want to make it simple and straightforward for people. We need to have accountability, but, at the same time, we cannot have burdensome regulations on people that make it more difficult for them to do what they are doing. I certainly do not want to be in a position where we are putting people off. What we have in the legislation and in the regulations that we are bringing forward will be a massive help for people who are under a certain threshold in deciding whether to register at all. If they do register and want the benefits of being registered, there will be far fewer reporting requirements on them. Audit is another stage further, but I understand the concerns that have been raised around that.

I want to be clear that the Bill is good legislation that will benefit charities across Northern Ireland, but I fully respect and value the importance of Committee scrutiny. If we can improve the Bill, let us do that. I am happy to work with others.

I hope that I have dealt with the issues that have been raised by Members today. If there is anything that I have not picked up, l commit to writing to individual Members, and I will copy the Committee into that as well. I look forward to seeing the legislation move through the legislative process.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the Second Stage of the Charities (Amendment) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Communities. I ask Members to take their ease while we change the personnel at the top Table.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limit to the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the Bill.

Ms Kimmins: Go raibh maith agat.

The Harbours Bill represents a significant and necessary reform of the legislative framework that governs our trust ports and harbour authorities. The Bill is the first step in implementing updates arising from a comprehensive review of trust ports. The review identified a number of challenges faced by my Department, trust ports and harbour authorities. The measures before Members today are designed to enable those bodies to operate more efficiently, strengthen their contribution to the regional economy and ensure that they can compete effectively with other ports. I am grateful for the opportunity to put the Bill before the House today.

In December 2024, my Department launched a 12-week consultation on a range of policy proposals aimed at modernising the existing legislative framework. The proposals focused on the powers, status and governance of the trust ports, including whether trust port status remains appropriate for major commercial ports here, whether ports should be granted enhanced commercial powers, whether trust ports require powers to ensure the proper discharge of the marine safety obligations and whether the processes for preparing and approving harbour orders should be updated.

The consultation, which closed on 10 March 2025, generated 60 responses. I take the opportunity to publicly acknowledge the organisations and individuals who contributed their views and helped to inform our policy development. Following that process, I agreed policy recommendations that were also agreed by my ministerial colleagues in the Executive on 6 November 2025. They included retaining the trust port model, pursuing legislative change to address the current Office for National Statistics (ONS) classification and introducing enhanced commercial powers. They also included provisions for the power of harbour direction for ports, as well as updated purposes for which harbour orders may be made. I emphasise that the Bill is firmly grounded in the agreed policy proposals. It represents a measured and balanced package of reforms designed to modernise our ports and unlock the full commercial potential, whilst retaining appropriate safeguards in the public interest.

Our ports play a vital role in the regional economy and for the wider community, and the trust port model, which operates for the benefit of stakeholders, has served the North of Ireland well. The Bill does not seek to replace that model but rather to update and modernise it for the future. In doing so, the Bill addresses a number of long-standing issues that relate to governance, control and their ONS accounting status. All those issues are central to their ability to operate as effective operation ports.

Specifically, the Bill removes my Department's power to compel the sale of a trust port, which is an important step in protecting the independence and long-term stability of our ports, and it signals clearly that they are not subject to undue governance intervention. In addition, the Bill repeals the Department's power to issue directions to trust ports in the exercise of their statutory functions. That ensures that responsibility for day-to-day operations and strategic decision-making rests firmly with the ports.

Alongside those measures, supporting secondary legislation will amend governance arrangements, including reducing the Department's role in appointing board members from a majority to a minority position, which will maintain an appropriate level of public accountability. In addition, it is my intention, as Minister, to retain ministerial councillor appointments.

Taken together, the measures strike an important balance. They reduce indicators of public-sector control, while preserving appropriate oversight, which is an essential step in seeking ONS reclassification so that trust ports are no longer treated as public corporations where such classification is no longer appropriate. While the ONS classification has no legal impact on the statutory powers, functions or ownership of trust ports in the North, it has significant practical implications. Currently, port borrowing requires capital budget cover from the Department, which places port investment in direct competition with departmental spending priorities. Reclassification breaks the link between port borrowing and departmental budgets, enabling greater financial autonomy for the ports, which is more appropriate to the commercial environment in which they operate.

I turn to the commercial aspects of the Bill. Our ports operate in an increasingly competitive environment. It is essential that they have the flexibility and tools required to succeed. The Bill will therefore amend the Harbours Act (NI) 1970 to better align our legislation with that of our counterparts in Britain. Changes include allowing harbour authorities to delegate certain functions while safeguarding key powers; expanding the purposes for which harbour orders may be made; and broadening the scope of commercial and investment-related harbour activities, including removing the requirement for ministerial approval. Importantly, the Bill also provides ports with a general power of harbour direction for their own operations, reinforcing the principle that boards should be empowered to manage their affairs effectively and independently.

Taken as a whole, the Bill delivers on three key objectives. First, it enhances the independence of trust ports by removing outdated controls that are no longer appropriate. Secondly, it supports ONS reclassification, ensuring that the governance framework reflects the true nature of the ports. Thirdly, it empowers our ports commercially, equipping them with the tools that they need to compete, grow and contribute to the regional economy.

The Bill will be supported in part by subordinate legislation, specifically four harbour orders covering the ports of Belfast, Coleraine, Foyle and Warrenpoint. Those orders will provide ports with further enhanced commercial powers, whilst ensuring that activities remain aligned with port-related objectives and protect the long-term financial sustainability of each port. It is a carefully considered and balanced package that reflects the realities of the modern maritime sector and the strategic importance of our ports to trade, investment and regional development.

I will be happy to address any questions that Members may have.

Mr Martin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): As the Minister has indicated, the Bill seeks to modernise the legislative governance framework for Northern Ireland's trust ports to enable them to operate more efficiently and to strengthen their contribution to our important regional economy.

The Committee received oral evidence from the Department and from the Belfast Harbour Commissioners in order to greater understand the underlying issues that impact on the operations of our harbours and to examine the Department's plans to introduce reforms. In the course of that evidence, the Committee noted that, historically, the issue has been on the Department's radar for quite a while: all the way back to 2006. In 2014, it was flagged in the Department's public consultation. The Committee also noted the Department's publication of its recent consultation, which closed on 10 March 2025. At its meeting on 10 September 2025, the Committee received oral evidence from departmental officials on the consultation's key findings and on whether the case for reform remains. During my time chairing the Committee, there have been a number of discussions about the need for reform. I therefore warmly welcome the Bill's introduction and the opportunities that the legislation should unlock if it passes Second Stage today.

As the Minister said, the central tenet of the Bill is to reclassify the ONS statistics to allow trust ports greater financial autonomy by removing the current link between borrowing and departmental budgets. During previous oral evidence sessions, the Committee noted that, currently, any borrowing by trust ports, regardless of the source of funds, is counted against the Department for Infrastructure's capital departmental expenditure limit (CDEL). As a consequence, as the Minister probably knows only too well, that requires budget cover by the Department that, in essence, means that it competes with other capital projects that are delivered through either the Department or its arm's-length bodies (ALBs).

The Bill will retain the trust port model, so there will be no changes to ownership or status and the relevant ports will remain independent statutory bodies operating for the benefit of stakeholders with profits reinvested locally. It also seeks to rebalance a level of government control by removing certain powers that the Department currently holds, including direction and control over appointments to board positions. That supports the case for reclassification by ONS. Additionally, the Bill provides for enhanced commercial powers to allow ports to operate on a more competitive footing with ports in the rest of the UK and Ireland and introduces powers for harbour directions to enable harbour authorities to issue enforceable directions to vessels for maritime safety purposes. Lastly, it includes reforms for harbour orders that aim to streamline processes to afford ports greater flexibility in initiating and progressing changes.

I will now speak as — no, not yet. I see my red lines here. I am not quite there yet. I know that people are getting excited.

Understandably, through its provisions, the Bill seeks to unlock a number of benefits that will provide greater investment capacity, enable greater flexibility and enhance the contribution of our ports to long-term economic growth and some decarbonisation goals. From the evidence that the Committee has received to date, we note the strong case for reform. When we undertake scrutiny, however, the Committee will undoubtedly wish to examine the impact of departmental oversight whilst ensuring that there is transparency and accountability and to examine relationships and how the interests of ports are balanced with those of the people who live in the local community. That is the job of the Infrastructure Committee.

I am confident that the Committee will be able to engage positively and work collaboratively with the Department to ensure that the Bill reflects the current areas where reform is required. I hope that, through the Committee's scrutiny, it will be keen to provide helpful suggestions or enhancements to ensure that the Bill reflects and delivers greater long-term benefits for Northern Ireland.

Right, I will make some comments as DUP infrastructure lead. Certainly, my party welcomes the Bill. I was at the launch of the Belfast harbour master plan. The Minister was there along with the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I also met the chief executive of Belfast harbour. I have to say that I had never been in the offices previously. I was stunned by the size of Belfast harbour. It is absolutely massive. The amount of shipping that comes in, the amount of foodstuffs that arrive in Belfast and the sheer level of trade are absolutely incredible. We absolutely rely on Belfast harbour to provide us with so much of what we eat and, perhaps, even buy daily.

When I attended that launch, I was particularly impressed by the drive and ambition of the master plan. As I listened to the Minister, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, it was clear to me that so much of what the harbour seeks to do is concurrent with the draft legislation. Hopefully, through the Bill, we will see the unlocking of that ambition and potential that the Minister and I have mentioned. One of the key issues in it is unlocking that CDEL expenditure so that the harbour will be able to develop significantly and no longer be hamstrung by its impact on DFI capital budgets.

I want to be clear that my DUP Committee colleagues and I take our responsibility incredibly seriously, as, I know, do members from other parties on the Committee. We will take evidence on the Bill to ensure — I will use a Ronseal reference — that it:

and that it will deliver the conditions that will ensure greater economic development for Northern Ireland. I encourage the Department and the Minister to work collaboratively with the Committee. Certainly, I would welcome more engagement with the Department and Minister as the Committee, perhaps, flags up ways in which the Bill could be improved or enhanced. I would like to see faster and deeper problem-solving. The Committee cannot do that in isolation; we have to do it concurrently with the Department.

Second Stage is about policy intent, and the drivers behind the Bill are sound. It should unlock investment and jobs for Northern Ireland. That is certainly what my party wants to see for our wee country. We are not content with average and, sometimes, even poor legislation, and we have seen that other Bills that have come before the Assembly can have negative unintended consequences.

I want to be clear: we will do our best to ensure that the Bill gets priority — it is Executive legislation — and receives the scrutiny that it deserves from the Infrastructure Committee. If it passes Second Stage, I will welcome it coming to that Committee, and we will start scrutinising it, hopefully, in September. My party supports the Bill at Second Stage.

Mr McNulty: I rise to speak on the Harbours Bill as the SDLP member of the Committee for Infrastructure. The four trust ports in the North play a vital role in freight and cargo handling, commodity imports and passenger and cruise travel. Those services are vital for our island economy. Ports ensure that consumers have the goods that they need, that construction materials are available and that we have sufficient import of fuels. Ports also play an important role in our tourism sector by facilitating visitors coming into this part of our islands. Whilst operating in a commercially viable manner, any profits that trust ports make are reinvested into the ports for the development of their business activities and are also used for the benefit of stakeholders. This legislation will not change that model.

The trust port model has stood the test of time and has worked well for the North. We can see the economic and social benefits in the local communities around the ports. In 2025, the DFI completed a review of the trust ports in the North to explore how the Department's policy on trust ports could be updated. The consultation recognised that our ports operate in a competitive environment and that it is therefore important that they can compete effectively with ports in the rest of Ireland and in the UK. The consultation exercise showed that there was significant support for modernising policy on our trust ports, particularly around the Office of National Statistics' reclassification. Trust ports are currently classified by the ONS as a public corporation for accounting purposes only. However, that affects their ability to borrow, as any debt taken on would essentially have an impact on the Department for Infrastructure's balance sheet.

The ONS classification was changed to its current status in April 2005 with no consultation or scrutiny role for the Assembly to challenge that decision. The reclassification of NI trust ports from private non-financial corporations to public non-financial corporations is a technical fix to that accounting classification. The Harbours Bill allows for that by removing indicators of control, including the power to compel the sale of a port and the power to direct. The power to direct has never been used.

Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way?

Mr McNulty: Of course.

Mr McGrath: While I welcome the Bill, it should be noted that greater autonomy could come with greater accountability, and economic development and community well-being should go hand in hand. As an MLA for South Down, I have had significant engagement with the residents of Warrenpoint, who have been raising ongoing concerns about odours and environmental nuisance that are associated with activities that are taking place in the harbour nearby. Does the Member agree that consideration should be given in the Bill to stronger departmental powers to ensure accountability of ports, should their commercial work impact on local communities, as we have seen in Warrenpoint?

Mr McNulty: Absolutely. The Minister and the Department can never relinquish the reins of proper scrutiny.

The reclassification by ONS will mean that all trust ports can borrow, which will allow them the commercial flexibility to invest more in their infrastructure. That will result in improved port facilities and the ability to grow trade in each port. A change of accounting classification by ONS would also bring us in line with the Scottish trust ports and several trust ports in England and Wales that have already been reclassified. Importantly, the trust port model will not change. The model has worked well for us in the North and its protection should be welcomed.

We look forward to the legislation coming to Committee to allow us to do a deep dive into each of the clauses. We support the Bill at Second Stage.

Ms Ennis: First, I thank the Minister for her work in progressing the legislation and bringing it to the Chamber today. From what she has said and what we know about the Bill, it is clear that doing nothing about trust ports would severely impact their future operability.

When we look at what the narrow Bill proposes to change, we see that, essentially, it will ensure that trust ports can compete with other ports across these islands and better contribute to the regional economy. Also, the fact that the Bill seeks to improve marine safety through updates similar to those that have been made in other jurisdictions cannot be lost.

At present, we know that ports are restricted by the borrowing arrangements by which they must abide. That reality sees them borrowing from the Department, which is already in a very constrained capital budget position, as the Minister outlined. The provisions in the Bill will ensure that the accountability and oversight mechanisms provided by commissioners on the boards of ports or harbours will continue. That is an important scrutiny function in relation to the operation and management of ports. To be clear, Sinn Féin does not support free ports, but we support the measures in the Bill, which will ensure that the legislative and governance frameworks of commercial trust ports across the North are modernised and fit for purpose.

The requirement on ports to reinvest their profits in the operation of their port and for the port's benefit has a positive impact on the economy. We only have to look at Belfast Harbour's master plan, which sets out the possible significant economic impact that that can have. That includes enabling a quarter of all island-wide seaborne trade, which, in turn, creates £8·8 billion in gross value added and equates to 15·7% of the North's total annual output. Significant job creation is also evident, with an estimated 155,000 jobs supported across the region and 20,000 people employed in the harbour estate. With the plan's prospect of additional housing, renewable energy and a boost to island-wide trade, we must ensure that we support trust ports to be more sustainable in the future.

As an MLA whose constituency office is mere metres from Warrenpoint port, I recognise that ports can have benefits mainly for imports and exports but also for the all-island economy. Therefore, we must ensure that we support them in becoming able to compete with other ports across these islands. However, I cannot speak about the Harbours Bill without referencing the odour issue that affects my constituents in Warrenpoint. As the Minister will be acutely aware, the community in Warrenpoint has been, and continues to be, badly impacted by the commercial decisions taken by Warrenpoint Harbour Authority and ReGen to store putrid household waste at the port. That is entirely unacceptable for those who live nearby, and I am committed to resolving it. The people in Warrenpoint are right to expect to be able to live in their homes without being subjected to persistent and unpleasant smells. Their concerns are genuine, and they deserve action.

If I thought for one second that the Bill could be used as a vehicle for ending the misery that is being inflicted on my community by ReGen and Warrenpoint Harbour Authority, the Minister and I would be the first to ensure that it was. The people whom I represent want real solutions, and they want the agencies and Departments that are responsible to do their jobs. They want an end to the misery. Minister, you and I have been lobbied in recent days on that. We need to be honest in the Chamber about where responsibility and authority sit and what the Bill can and, perhaps more importantly, cannot do. We have been dealing with this issue for three years. Warrenpoint Harbour Authority operates as a commercial entity, and the Department for Infrastructure currently does not have the power to direct or control its day-to-day commercial operations. That fundamental point needs to be understood, and it cannot simply be wished away.

Minister, you and I have been lobbied on the possibility of amending the Bill, so it is fair to ask you to address, in your response to the debate, the competency of those suggested amendments. We need clarity on the suggestion that the Infrastructure Minister either has, or should now take on, powers that do not currently exist. We should be very cautious about creating a misleading narrative, particularly when it risks raising false expectations among residents in Warrenpoint. Instead, the focus must be on whether the agencies that have responsibility, including the environmental regulators and enforcement bodies such as the NIEA and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, are doing enough and whether they have sufficient powers to tackle such issues effectively.
My hope is that the Bill may open up more and greater economic and commercial opportunities for Warrenpoint port and allow the port to attract better tenants who do not cause a nuisance to the communities in which they are situated.

I ask the Minister to clarify a number of important points. I ask her to set out clearly, for the record, what powers the Department has in relation to ports such as Warrenpoint. Can she confirm that those powers do not extend to directing commercial operations? Will she also spell out clearly what, if any, scope there is in the Bill to stop the storage of waste at Warrenpoint port? Can she outline which bodies are responsible for regulating issues such as odour and environmental nuisance, and what coordination is taking place to ensure that residents' complaints are acted on?

We need the agencies that are responsible for protecting communities from odour and nuisance to do their job. As MLAs, we need to hold them to account, but we do not do that by misplacing responsibility. That issue needs to be resolved, and it must be done on the basis of fact and proper accountability. That said, Minister, Sinn Féin will support the Bill at Second Stage.

Mr McMurray: I will speak first in my role as the Alliance Party's infrastructure spokesperson and then as MLA for South Down. I echo what the Committee Chairperson said about the approach to the Bill. From the outset, it should be said that we support the ports. We are an island nation, and there is only one way that trade will come in, which is through the ports. That is why this is an important Bill to support.

I support the principle of the Bill and the goals that it aims to achieve. As has been mentioned, the Bill covers maritime orders and financial regulations, but I will concentrate on the regional economy, as has already been noted, and on accountability, which has also been touched on. Fundamentally, the Bill is about allowing trust ports to invest in key areas of growth. That will drive the Northern Ireland economy, and it has the potential to aid and drive the economy in South Down. Belfast Harbour would, through its master plan, like to make large-scale investments in renewable energy infrastructure but is currently severely hampered in that regard. We should be in a position to support investment in renewables, but there is no hope of achieving our net zero objectives and obligations, as well as securing our future energy needs, without that kind of investment. We need to put the right regulatory conditions in place in order to remove those unnecessary barriers.

Investment in renewable energy by Belfast Harbour could have a trickle-down effect on the ports in my constituency. Kilkeel and Ardglass ports have great potential for ancillary industries, such as the maintenance and security of offshore energy production. I am on the record as repeatedly calling for more investment in those areas and championing the great benefits that the blue-green economy can bring to the fishing ports in my constituency. The current classification of trust ports as public corporations dampens economic development, and, as a result, Northern Ireland is at risk of falling further behind in important areas of growth. That is the reality. Reclassification would remove those constraints and open up new opportunities to support the Executive's wider policy objectives with regard to economic growth, tourism and decarbonisation. Reclassification requires limiting some of the Department's powers, particularly the power to issue directions to trust ports. Several of my constituents have raised that with me as a major concern, and Ms Ennis also referred to it.

The Minister will be aware of the contentious situation at Warrenpoint harbour and the questions that have been asked about her Department's ability to intervene. I have tabled questions for written answer to the Minister in relation to those powers and their implications for Warrenpoint. My constituents are concerned that the Bill removes the Department's power to issue directions to the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority while adding no new duties on the port in respect of transparency, community engagement or environmental planning and compliance.

I hope that the Minister can respond to some of those concerns directly. As I said, Alliance supports the reclassification of trust ports in principle, and we understand that that requires a limiting of the Department's powers. However, I am convinced that we need to have stronger safeguards. Other regions handle these matters better than we do currently, and we want to see the strengthening of accountability to the local community. Alliance called for that and other supports in its response to the Department's review of trust ports last year. The Bill is an opportunity to strengthen oversight and accountability. That opportunity must not be missed.

In the consultation, the Department acknowledged that there were areas where it may be possible to strengthen the transparency and accountability of the trust ports. The consultation referred to the example of Dover, where two members of the board must have special knowledge or experience of the harbour's position in the local community.

Dover also has a port users group, an important community forum that must be consulted on all significant developments in the port, and the appointment of two community representatives on the board.

The consultation also made reference to a draft code of practice that was developed in 2008 but has not yet been implemented. The code of practice states that trust ports are to be run for the benefit of their stakeholders, and that explicitly includes secondary stakeholders such as local community groups and specific interest groups covering environmental and other matters. Additional transparency measures were included in the draft code of conduct.

None of those potential oversight and accountability mechanisms has been included in the Bill. I will be keen to explore that with the Committee during Committee Stage to see what more can be done in that regard. As Alliance spokesperson on infrastructure, I look forward to scrutinising the Bill in Committee in the coming weeks and months, when the interests of Warrenpoint will be foremost in my mind. However, as has been stated or surmised, the Bill is about looking at outdated controls, not at the complete removal of controls; about Office for National Statistics reclassification; and about being commercially supportive to our ports in order to achieve our renewable energy objectives.

Mr Stewart: As the Ulster Unionist Party's infrastructure spokesperson, I am happy to support the Second Stage of the Harbours Bill today. I thank the Minister and her departmental colleagues for introducing it; all those who took part in the consultation; and our ports, particularly Belfast harbour, which have been helpful in engaging with us so far. I echo the comments made by the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, the Member for North Down. Obviously I agree with everything that he said on behalf of the Committee. As a Committee, we look forward to scrutinising the Bill.

While the Bill contains only six clauses, its potential significance must not be underestimated. As we have heard, it seeks to modernise the legislative framework governing Northern Ireland's trust ports, remove outdated restrictions and support future investment and growth. Although I welcome the Bill, as other Members have done, it is disappointing that it has taken so long to introduce it. We have heard it being talked about for nearly 20 years now. For too long, our ports have operated within a framework that, everyone accepts, requires modernisation. That has limited opportunities for investment and left our ports competing with unnecessary constraints. Thankfully, we are here today, and we look forward to the Bill progressing, with the proper scrutiny, as quickly as possible.

Our ports are among Northern Ireland's most important strategic assets. They facilitate trade, support employment, attract investment, enable tourism and connect our economy to the international markets. The purpose of the Bill is clear: to ensure that our ports are better placed to contribute to economic growth and to respond to future opportunities. Our trust ports — Belfast harbour, Foyle port, Coleraine harbour and Warrenpoint harbour — occupy a unique position. They are independent statutory bodies that are not owned by shareholders and not operated for private profit. Their profits are reinvested into infrastructure, operations and the communities that they serve. That model has served Northern Ireland well and is worth preserving, although I take the points that have been made about Warrenpoint and the need to see community engagement and community accountability. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister where, she thinks, the Bill could go with regard to that and what other measures could be brought in. The Member for South Down made an important and valid point about Dover and the community engagement that takes place there. There may be models of best practice across these islands that we want to tap into in order for the ports to have the freedom to trade while protecting the local economies that they purport to serve.

Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way?

Mr Stewart: I am happy to give way.

Mr McGrath: The Member makes a crucial point, but it is about getting the balance right. Local communities will be concerned when they see clause 2, which is:

The explanatory and financial memorandum states:

to, among others, Warrenpoint Harbour Authority. That measure can be seen as removing departmental oversight. It is critical that we get the balance right. Hopefully, the Minister will show how we can get it right so that, if things go wrong, this place can still intervene.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Member for his intervention. The point is well made. It is about balance. It is about removing the shackles that will limit the economic development and growth opportunities that the ports require but also about protecting, as I said, the communities that they purport to serve. That is a delicate balancing act, but it can be done by looking at how others do it successfully elsewhere.

I acknowledge Larne port in my constituency. The legislation does not apply to Larne, because of its ownership structure, but the port remains a vital part of Northern Ireland's transport and trade infrastructure. I pay tribute to the work that it does and look forward to seeing the exciting opportunities coming forward for economic growth, particularly for East Antrim as well as for Northern Ireland plc.

Much of the discussion on the Bill has focused on the Office for National Statistics classification issue, and understandably so. The legislation is about more than accounting classifications, however. It is also about modernisation, flexibility and giving our ports the tools that they need to compete in a rapidly changing global economy.

Clauses 1 and 2 are particularly important. They will remove the Department's powers to initiate privatisation schemes and direct the activities of trust ports. Some may question the significance of removing powers that are rarely exercised, but if we regard the organisations as independent bodies, they should be treated as such. The existence of those powers creates the perception of government control that sits uneasily alongside their independent status. The Bill sends an important message that demonstrates confidence in the governance arrangements that are already in place and in the boards and management teams that have successfully led the organisations for many years.

Clause 3 will provide greater commercial flexibility by removing the requirement for ministerial consent before harbour authorities acquire harbour businesses or shares in such businesses. In a modern commercial environment, organisations need the ability to make timely decisions. The provision will support that objective while remaining consistent with the trust ports model.

Clause 4 will introduce a power for harbour authorities to issue harbour directions. Although technical in nature, that practical reform will improve the management, safety and efficiency of our port operations. The Bill will allow harbour authorities, once authorised, to issue directions relating to vessel movements, mooring arrangements, equipment and crewing matters. Incredibly importantly, that power will be accompanied by safeguards, including consultation requirements and transparency measures. That will strike an appropriate balance between operational effectiveness and accountability, which is a point that we discussed previously.

Clauses 5 and 6 will further support the overall objective of modernisation by expanding the powers for which harbour orders may be made and providing greater flexibility for future operational arrangements.

We must recognise the wider economic significance of the legislation. At present, Northern Ireland's trust ports are classified by the Office for National Statistics as public non-financial corporations, because government is deemed to exercise a degree of control over them, about which we have heard already. As a result, borrowing by trust ports counts against the Department for Infrastructure's capital budget, which is not an ideal arrangement at any time, never mind in the current financial situation. The purpose of the Bill is to remove those remaining levers of control and facilitate a review of that classification.

It is important to be clear that that is not privatisation. Some Members have speculated, although not necessarily in the Chamber today, that it is a back door to privatisation. It is important to put on the record that that is not wanted by any of the ports or by the Minister and the Department. Ownership will not change, assets will not change hands, and trust ports will remain trust ports. What may change is their accounting classification and, with it, their ability to access finance and invest in the future.

Perhaps the clearest example of the opportunity before us is at Belfast harbour. Under the leadership of its chief executive and the excellent board and management team, Belfast harbour has become one of the most successful trust ports across these islands, to which the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee referred. The expanse at the port and the intent for the future is incredible to see. Its impact extends far beyond the docks, supporting regeneration, infrastructure and economic development across Northern Ireland. Its recently published 2025-2050 master plan identifies a programme of around £1·3 billion of potential investment over the coming decades. That is a staggering amount and must be praised. That investment will strengthen port infrastructure, support economic growth, improve connectivity, enhance tourism and help Northern Ireland's future prosperity, all of which is to be welcomed. After all, Belfast harbour handles around 70% of Northern Ireland's seaborne trade. Its success benefits the entirety of Northern Ireland.

Opportunities extend beyond Belfast, however. Foyle port plays a critical role in the north-west's economy, Warrenpoint is a key economic asset for the south-east and Coleraine harbour continues to support important commercial and fishing interests. Collectively, our ports support thousands of jobs and facilitate billions of pounds of economic activity. Their success is not simply a transport issue but an economic and prosperity issue for Northern Ireland as a whole. Through the legislation, I believe that they will see significant growth.

The importance of ports is only likely to increase. Offshore renewable energy, which the member from South Down referred to, as well as green technologies, cruise tourism, resilient supply chains and modern logistic infrastructure will place ports in Northern Ireland at the centre of economic development opportunity. Regions that invest and modernise now will be best placed to benefit from the opportunities, and I believe that the Bill will provide those opportunities.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that, when looking at how to bring FDI or other investment into Northern Ireland, infrastructure is critical? Our ports, which we are talking about today, are part of that infrastructure, which delivers jobs and investment. Does the Member agree that, if we get the Bill right and get it through, it will be a key enabler and driver for getting more jobs and investment into Northern Ireland?

Mr Stewart: I thank the Member for his intervention. I absolutely agree. Our ports and airports have recognised that for a long time and are playing their role in doing that. I believe that, as I said earlier, the Bill will remove the shackles that have limited the growth that they have wanted to achieve and open that up. I recognise the fact that businesses across the world want to have key economic assets in places such as Northern Ireland where they can trade easily and make bases. I believe that our ports are willing and waiting to do that and that that will come forward with the legislation.

Ultimately, the Bill asks whether we are prepared to modernise outdated legislation, trust our ports and create conditions for future investment and growth. I believe that the answer to that should be yes. The Bill modernises governance, removes unnecessary controls, increases operational flexibility, supports future investment and helps to position Northern Ireland ports for the opportunities that lie ahead. For those reasons, Mr Deputy Speaker, my party and I are happy to support the Bill at Second Stage. I look forward to the Minister's response to the debate and to working with the Minister and her departmental colleagues on the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend —.

Mr McGrath: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is, I hope, a point of good order. I have a genuine appointment for which I will have to leave at 3.15 pm, so I will not be in my place for the Minister's response. I just wanted to say that that is not intended as a slight on the Minister's response; it is just that I have to leave and will not be here.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr McGrath. That courtesy has been noted.

The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the first Member to be called to speak will be Maolíosa McHugh.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I intend to answer questions 1, 5, 7 and 12 together, and I request an additional minute.

My priority remains securing a sustainable multi-year Budget that provides certainty for Departments and enables long-term planning, investment and transformation of public services. However, that is dependent on having sufficient and stable funding from the Government to implement those plans.

I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 June, and I have had ongoing engagements with the Secretary of State on the matter. I have made it clear to both that the Executive are not funded on a comparable basis to Scotland and Wales; indeed, the Fiscal Council report of 16 June supports the work carried out by my Department, indicating that, if we were to be funded on a comparable basis to Scotland and Wales, we would receive between £1 billion and £3 billion in additional funding annually. Addressing that disparity remains central to achieving a sustainable financial footing, and I will continue to press for progress, including on a full fiscal framework to support long-term stability.

I have also been clear that the current financial pressures facing the Executive stem from structural underfunding and reliance on one-off allocations that are neither sustainable nor equitable. In the absence of an agreed Budget, Departments are operating under Vote on Account provisions and have been issued with contingency planning envelopes to guide spending decisions and help to maintain control of expenditure. Those arrangements ensure the continued delivery of public services. While those measures provide short-term cover, they are not a substitute for a Budget, limiting Departments' ability to plan effectively and increasing the risk of short-term decision-making.

My officials will use forecast out-turn returns from Departments to continue to monitor total departmental forecast resources and capital expenditure. That position will be monitored closely. Ultimately, agreeing a Budget and securing fairer funding are inseparable. I remain committed to working with Executive colleagues and the British Government to deliver both as a matter of urgency.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer. As the Minister outlined, we all want a Budget that provides long-term stability and gives certainty to Departments. We all want a fairer financial settlement from London not just for now but in the future. The SDLP supports the efforts of the Minister and, indeed, the Executive to secure that. However, if a Budget is not passed by the end of next month, we face the prospect of a 5% cut. Has the Minister instructed Departments to make contingency plans in the event of it coming to that, although we all hope that it does not?

Mr O'Dowd: I welcome the Member's support for me and my Executive colleagues in engaging with the Government on a proper and fairer funding settlement for this place. On the next steps, he will be aware of the changes that are occurring in London in relation to the leadership of the Labour Party and therefore changes in relation to who will be Prime Minister and who will be sitting around the Cabinet table. I want to ensure that the talks with the Government continue at pace. I hope to see further development in those engagements this week. However, I suspect that, with the changes that are happening in London, there may be some delay to that. Engagement continues, and I want to see progress as quickly as possible. Therefore, we should remain focused on where we are and what we are doing rather than speculating on the future.

Of course, my officials and I are engaging on all potential outcomes in regard to the Budget, lack of a Budget, funding packages and sustainable funding packages from the Government going forward. I keep my Executive colleagues informed, and my officials will keep their counterparts in other Departments informed of steps that we are taking. We are not at that point yet.

Mr McGlone: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí.

Minister, I am sure that you are looking ahead to the change of leadership and premier in the UK. I hope that our hopes are not going to be dashed and that substance will prevail over PR, but that remains to be seen. Meantime, if the Budget cannot be agreed, there will, in effect, be a budget cut of over £1·5 billion across Departments. I hope that it does not come to this, as my colleague said, but, if it does, it could have a catastrophic impact on public-sector pay, housebuilding and other matters relating to that, such as investment in our infrastructure. You have been in that Department, so you know the pressures there. What meaningful action are you, your Department and Executive colleagues taking, in the interim, to ensure that people's livelihoods are not being put at risk due to the dysfunction in the Executive and at Westminster?

Mr O'Dowd: I too want to see substance over a PR exercise, as the Member referenced. There needs to be a complete change of direction from the British Government in relation to their economic strategy and economic policies. There needs to be funding of public services, investment in infrastructure and investment in the economy to sustain and create jobs into the future and to tackle the cost-of-living pressure and crisis that is bearing down on so many of the families whom we represent.

What are we doing? We are engaging with the British Government on a fairer funding package for this place. The reality is that taxpayers here are not getting a fair return on the taxes that they send to the Treasury. A taxpayer in Scotland gets a much higher return than we get here. A taxpayer in Wales gets a much higher return than we get here. We are seeking a fair and proper funding settlement for taxpayers here that, in turn, will allow us to invest in public services and grow our economy. Those are the measures that we are taking.

It is understandable that "What if?" discussions are taking place with Members. I am planning for all scenarios, as I said in my previous answer. I am engaging with my officials, and I have fully briefed my Executive colleagues on the matter. Let us maintain unity of purpose and ensure that taxpayers here — the families and workers who contribute to our society and to the economy — get a fair return on the taxes that are being sent to the Treasury.

Mr Clarke: Minister, we have heard from two Members that the 5% Budget cut could mean a loss of £1·5 billion, and we heard your words about the shortage in the overall package. The Budget would, therefore, be circa £3 billion short, if that were to happen. I also heard your comments about the change of leadership at Westminster. It might still be in the early stages, but, given the dire consequences that the situation might have for Northern Ireland, have you reached out to some of the prospective runners and riders in the competition that might take place in Westminster? There is no point in waiting for weeks until that is resolved. This is a dire situation that needs to be resolved now.

Mr O'Dowd: We are dealing with the Administration who are in place at this time and setting out our position robustly to them. Those engagements continue. It is not the role of the sitting Finance Minister to reach out to potential incumbents. There may well be others who reach out politically — that is perfectly understandable and fine — but I, as Finance Minister, have protocols and measures to follow that I will continue to follow. The engagements with the British Government continue. They need to intensify and reach conclusions as quickly as possible.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, in your previous answers you talked about the pressures and the difficulties. You said that you were looking for a fair funding model, and you spoke of the need for taxpayers here to be treated equitably. Expanding on the need for taxpayers to be treated in fairness to the level of need, is our current level-of-need estimate a fair estimate?

Mr O'Dowd: The most recent works carried out by Professor Holtham investigated our level of need. The British Government have come down on a figure of around 124% in relation to that report. There is an argument to be made that it should be around 128% when you include agriculture in the calculation. However, I am looking at other devolved institutions that receive funding well above their level of need, something that has been confirmed again by the Fiscal Council report that was published last week.

This is about fairness, equality and respect — treating people here with all of those things and ensuring that the Executive are able to properly fund public services, invest in the economy and put this place on a stable footing. For far too long, the British Government have relied on packages or support packages for this place — whatever term you want to put on it — but the reality always comes back to this: if we are not being funded fairly, it is impossible for the Executive to put the finances for this place on a sustainable footing and carry out the transformation work that is required across a wide range of public services to transform them into models that deliver high-quality public services. Let us get it sorted once and for all. Let us have funding that is fair, equitable and on a sustainable footing.

Mr O'Dowd: The General Register Office (GRO) must abide by the legislative positions outlined in article 3 of the Marriage (NI) Order 2003 and schedule 1 to the Marriage Regulations (NI) 2003. The Order sets out the legal requirements for parties wishing to get married here to supply details of both parents. The details should be those that appear on each party's full birth or adoption certificate. That means that the name of the step-parent cannot currently be included on a marriage notice form or registration. I understand that that is very disappointing for people who wish to get married and include a step-parent, and I am keen to seek a way forward. I have asked my officials in the General Register Office to consider the matter and examine what legislative change might address the position to enable a step-parent's details to be included on a marriage notice registration. The Member will appreciate that any necessary legislative change would take time to progress.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. I asked the question because of a constituent who came to me. It was clear that the young lady did not want her biological father to be on her marriage licence; she wanted her stepfather to be on it because that was the relationship that she had and enjoyed.

I take it from your answer that it would require legislative rather than policy change in GRO.

Mr O'Dowd: I have asked officials in GRO to investigate the matter. At this initial stage, we suspect that it would require legislative change. However, I am supportive of exploring what we can do, given the variety of reasons why someone may not want either parent named on their marriage certificate. In the case that the Member outlined, the person wanted to recognise the role of their step-parent. I am fully supportive of trying to do something about that. As I said, GRO is investigating the issue. If legislative change is required, whether primary legislation or regulations, that will take time, but I will keep the Member updated.

Miss Dolan: Minister, how long would it take to change legislation to include a step-parent?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said in answer to the previous question, it would depend on whether primary or secondary legislation required changing. GRO has been contacted on the issue approximately five times in the past year, usually by couples seeking clarification that the information provided by the registrar is correct. Legislation takes time to go through the House, depending on what category it falls into. I suspect that it may be the next mandate before this can be finalised. As I said, GRO is investigating, and I have no doubt that there would be a willingness in the Chamber and in Committees to move the matter forward as quickly as possible, as long as we can be assured that we are making the correct changes.

Mr O'Dowd: Agency staff provide an important and flexible resource in supporting Departments to manage time-bound work pressures and meet specific business needs. Their use helps to ensure continuity in public service delivery and minimises disruption to critical Civil Service operations. For some workers, agency contracts are a suitable and positive choice, offering flexibility to balance personal commitments while gaining skills, experience and employment opportunities. Over 70% of agency workers — approximately 3,720 — are currently on assignment in the Department for Communities, demonstrating the significant reliance on that flexible workforce to support ongoing service delivery.

A substantial proportion of the roles support the Department for Work and Pensions contract. Over 45% of all agency workers — approximately 2,426 workers — are engaged in DWP roles.

However, the strategic priority remains to reduce reliance on agency workers by building a resilient and sustainable permanent workforce. That is being advanced through effective workforce planning and our extensive programme of recruitment. Approximately 260 recruitment competitions are under way across a range of grades. As those competitions conclude and successful candidates take up post, agency usage is expected to decrease on a phased and managed basis.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you will be aware that your Department's figures show a 76% increase in agency staff across the Northern Ireland Civil Service in the three years from 2023 to 2026, reaching a total of over 5,250 such staff in January of this year. I know that just under half of those staff work under the DWP contract in the Department for Communities, but, at the Finance Committee, we have heard of agency staff working under such contracts for seven years or more. I heard what you said, Minister, but is there an active policy to enable long-term agency workers to become directly employed, with the Northern Ireland Civil Service having the flexibility to deploy them as needed?

Mr O'Dowd: As the Member said, a significant proportion of the increase in agency staff is a direct result of the Department for Work and Pensions contract with the Department for Communities.

Mr Kingston: It is less than half.

Mr O'Dowd: Less than half is a significant number in this case. That is an agency contract with DFC. It is set out in the DWP contract, as I understand it, it meets the needs of DWP and, in some instances, it meets the needs of staff, although I accept that that is not always the case. I want us to move to having a more sustainable workforce.

On the question of guaranteeing current agency staff full-time employment, my understanding is that all posts must be applied for and filled on merit and that agency staff cannot be automatically transferred to permanent roles; that is not possible under current employment law and other laws. However, as I said in my original answer, we are looking at a variety of ways of ensuring that we have a sustainable workforce in which the rights and entitlements of the workforce are protected and that it increasingly draws in more of those who wish to move away from agency work, enabling them to do so.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for mentioning the fact that there will be recruitment processes for permanent posts. Minister, you said, in relation to the increases, that DFC has a significant number of agency workers. Have you had conversations with Ministers about setting targets for the recruitment of permanent staff, particularly in areas such as the ones that we have talked about where staff have been employed through an agency for a significant period?

Mr O'Dowd: There is an ongoing programme of work across the Civil Service to move, as I said, to having a sustainable workforce that minimises the use of agency staff. It is about ensuring that we fill posts and have fewer agency workers, although there will always be a market for such workers. For a variety of reasons, it suits some staff to work through the agency process, so it is an option for the Civil Service. It is an option also in filling short-term contracts or where there is a significant increase in work in the short term.

I want to see permanent recruitment being progressed at pace. As a number of campaigns conclude and staff take up post, agency usage should continue to reduce. That reflects a clear commitment to building a sustainable permanent workforce. It should be acknowledged that, as I said, agency workers make an important contribution as valued members of the teams within which they work.

Mr McNulty: Minister, overdependence on agency staff shows a total lack of workforce planning. financial irresponsibility and a failure to properly recruit for the roles that need to be filled to keep this place running. Will your failure to set a multi-year Budget set workforce planning back even further?

Mr O'Dowd: I do not necessarily agree with a number of the Member's points. As I have said, agency working suits some staff. That has to be acknowledged, and we have to keep that option open if we are to continue to react to increases in work programmes in certain areas. Over half our agency staff are recruited through the Department for Work and Pensions' contract with the Department for Communities. Agency working is set out in the DWP contract. It is not costing the Executive or public services here any money. It is being paid for directly from Whitehall. It is therefore not a cost to the Executive. Those staff are delivering important Civil Service duties and enhancing the lives of the people whom they serve.

As for not fulfilling the Budget, in my response to question 1, I clearly set out what the strategy is and how we are moving forward with it. I therefore have nothing further to add.

Mr O'Dowd: The Civil Service is committed to being an inclusive employer and providing a positive, supportive and diverse workplace that reflects the society that we serve. As one of the largest employers here, with over 24,000 staff, and as a public service provider, it is important that the Civil Service recognise and respect the diversity of people's identities, experiences and backgrounds. Having diversity and inclusion at the heart of everything that we do will help us attract and retain the best, most diverse talent, create diversity of thought to support better policymaking and deliver better services to the people here.

Supporting diversity and inclusion is a strategic priority in the people strategy 2025-2030. That is supported by visible senior leadership across the Civil Service through the diversity champions networks and the four thematic diversity leads, covering gender, race and ethnicity, LGBTQ+ and disability. Seven staff networks provide peer support, advocacy and a collective voice for employees. Progress is strengthened through external benchmarking and recognised through accreditation, including the silver diversity mark, the Onus platinum accreditation and the disability positive accreditation.

Miss Hargey: On the back of the recent disgraceful racist attacks in Belfast, what work is your Department doing to support staff across the Civil Service who were impacted on in order to ensure that they feel safe and supported at this time?

Mr O'Dowd: First, I put on record my condemnation of the recent racist rioting, disorder and attacks in our communities. I send my solidarity to our ethnic minority workforce, be they in the Civil Service or any other sector, public or private. They make a massive contribution to this society and create real and positive change. Many of our public services would simply fail without them. When racist thugs are burning nurses, doctors, civil servants and others out of their homes, they are not only creating terror and fear among those people but damaging their own communities. I doubt that they give a jot about any of that, however.

On our diverse workforce, I met the ethnic minority champions this morning. I had a very good conversation with them. They told me about their experiences over recent times, their concerns, their fears, their aspirations and their hopes. Line managers have been asked to check in with affected staff and to signpost them to resources to help and support them, including ongoing peer support through the Civil Service race and ethnicity network. We are therefore reaching out and supporting our ethnic minority workforce as best we can. I asked to be kept in contact with the ethnic minority champions and have offered whatever assistance and support we can provide going forward. Everyone should be sending a very clear message that our ethnic minority communities here are welcome and valued and that they give this place value.

Ms Hunter: Minister, compared with other employment sectors, people aged 16 to 34 are under-represented in our Civil Service. Our young people can bring new energy and new ideas to the ongoing challenges in the North. What actions are you taking to promote a career in the Civil Service for our young people, and why do you think that they are currently under-represented?

Mr O'Dowd: I agree with the sentiment of the Member's question and her point about encouraging more young people into our Civil Service for all the reasons that she outlined. The student placement programme that we run is one of the most successful in the Civil Service. When I go into a room full of young students who are coming into the Civil Service for a year, I can feel the energy and the enthusiasm that they bring. The reports back from the various Departments and branches that they go into reflect that energy and enthusiasm for the service.

We are constantly reviewing how we recruit and retain our staff, how we promote the opportunities to underrepresented groups in our Civil Service and how we ensure that they are aware of and can access our applications in a fair and equitable way, and I will continue to do that.

Mr O'Dowd: I have already said in the Chamber and at the Finance Committee that I want to increase the level of liability for non-domestic vacant rating. It is my firm view that we need to challenge the blight of vacant properties in our villages, towns and city centres. My officials are providing me with advice in relation to that, and I plan to launch a 12-week consultation next week on the matter. Stakeholders will be invited to give their views on a phased increase to the current 50% rate, rising to 75% and then to 100%. The current 50% rate is lower than in other jurisdictions and is seen as weakening the incentive to bring vacant properties back into use. The consultation proposes a change that is intended to encourage occupation, reduce long-term vacancy, bring the policy closer to arrangements in other jurisdictions and raise additional revenue.

Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo.

You announced that the matter will go out for consultation. Do you have a view on the impact that raising vacant property rates would have?

Mr O'Dowd: I want to see it having the impact of reducing the prevalence of vacant units in our high streets, villages and town centres. It is a way of motivating investment. If fully implemented, it is estimated that the changes would have the potential to unlock a further £20 million of revenue to fund central and local government spending. That is a significant amount of funding to release.

The objective of the policy is to see vacant buildings brought back into use. That is a priority on its own, and raising further revenue is also a priority. Significant change to our public services can be generated through an additional £20 million of revenue.

Mr McMurray: Do you intend to review any other rate relief policies in the remainder of the mandate?

Mr O'Dowd: I have a number of rate relief policies currently with the Executive, and I would like to see decisions made on those. There are other areas that I would be prepared to look at, but we need to see movement on the policies that we have already reviewed and an indication from others that they are willing to create the change necessary to stimulate activity in various areas of our economy and to raise the necessary revenue.

Mr McGrath: Dereliction has been a blight on many of our town centres, and there is a concern that the rate relief for vacant properties encourages landbanking and incentivises those properties to remain vacant. The review has been more lethargic than strategic. Will there be any definitive moves and meaningful change to try to help our town centres with that blight before the end of the mandate?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, I will come to the Chamber next week to make further announcements. The matter will go out to consultation, and I intend to put energy behind it. I want to see it happen. I believe that it is a meaningful policy change that would create real change in our towns and villages. It is up to others how they react to it.

Mr O'Dowd: It is clear to me that the transformation fund is having a positive impact on the delivery of public services here. In March 2025, I announced the first tranche of projects that will be supported under the fund. While it is relatively early days in the implementation of the projects, they are already starting to have an impact. For example, in the health service, the provision of transformation funding has enabled more than 350,000 additional consultations to be delivered to patients in multidisciplinary teams in GP practices.

It has enabled more people to get the treatment that they need quickly and reduced the pressure on hospitals.

Mr McHugh: Minister, will there be a further round of funding?

Mr O'Dowd: I have set aside £135 million in my draft Budget because transformation is having a significant impact on the delivery of public services. It has also allowed our civil servants and others to come together to think about transformation in a meaningful way and look at the outputs. One of the challenges of austerity has been the day-to-day struggle to do what we can do, whereas transformation has given some space for lateral thinking to bring ideas forward and implement them. The monetary value is important, but the opportunity to change mindsets and ways of thinking is also invaluable.

Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions.

Mr O'Dowd: I welcome the fact that the Member has confirmed that he has not published anything. It is now on the public record that the leader of the Opposition has not published an alternative Budget or any documents to create the momentum behind the changes that are required for our public services moving forward. It is on the record that the Opposition have no alternative Budget.

I published a draft Budget for a number of reasons. The most important reason was that we needed to move the process on from political engagement behind closed doors, which has its place and is useful, but I published a draft Budget to allow the public — the people out there — to have their say in a consultation and to put figures and facts on paper for analysis. I engaged with my Executive colleagues, and it was quite clear that none of my Executive colleagues could deliver the front-line public services with the quantum of funding that we had. I then moved to further engagement with the British Government, and we have had intensive discussions that now need to come to an end with an offer being made.

As I said in answer to the first question today, I am looking at all potential outcomes that could happen in the next four to six weeks. I have informed my Executive colleagues about those matters, and we will continue to plan for different scenarios. However, plan A, plan B, plan C, plan D and plan E — where do you want to go to? — are to ensure that the British Government provide a fair return for taxpayers here from the Treasury because we are currently not getting that.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, we are not on holiday yet, but you appear to be in almost horizontal mode when it comes to the crisis. I am aware of public services that will be at risk this summer, including councils, community and voluntary sector organisations that operate holiday hunger services, community integration services and social supermarkets. A vast number of public services are at risk, and some will not run at all. You have just, at 2.30 pm, published a document in the absence of the June monitoring round, which makes it clear that we are not able to draw down on Westminster's Main Estimates funding. Will you accept that there are public services in crisis now that cannot proceed this summer to help vulnerable people because you and the Executive have not passed a Budget? Please, be honest about that.

Mr O'Dowd: Our public services have been in various states of crisis for well over a decade. Have you not noticed?

Mr O'Toole: You are making it worse.

Mr O'Dowd: Austerity has been biting and consuming our public services for well over a decade. While other institutions are being funded above their level of need, the British Government have treated this place with utter contempt and disrespect. I have engaged with, and continue to engage with, the British Government about a proper funding package. I know that the Member is looking for a different angle to the story and is trying to get his name in the media. He is trying to do all those sorts of things. However, if he is serious about all those projects that he has concerns about, he will present a united front to the Government and insist that this place is fairly funded, that taxpayers get a fair return on their taxes and that we are treated in an equitable, respectful manner in the same way that the Government are doing with other devolved institutions.

Mr O'Dowd: That matter has been raised at practically every meeting, if not every meeting, that I have ever had with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and my officials raise it regularly with their counterparts in the Treasury. I know that it has been raised at the highest levels of government by the First Minister and deputy First Minister as well. Unfortunately, the British Government are not listening. They make decisions largely based on what needs are in the south of England and have little, if any, reflection on the needs of businesses here, which are operating in an all-island economy, seeing reductions in VAT for hospitality businesses just metres down the road from them and having to deal with the challenges that that brings.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Minister, you will have noted that the Government recently announced a VAT cut for some family expenses for a range of activities over the summer. That is perhaps a change. Can you continue to press for a similar trial for VAT in the hospitality sector and offer Northern Ireland as the place to do that?

Mr O'Dowd: I note the recent announcement about summer activities and some of the measures that were taken in relation to the cost-of-living crisis that people are feeling. I think that the Government should have gone much further. They had the ability to go much further, and, if they had done that, perhaps they would not be in the state that they are currently in. I will continue to press the British Government on the matter. It is only right and proper that our businesses here can operate in a way that allows them to compete with businesses that are basically only across the hedge from them, so I will continue to raise it.

Mr O'Dowd: That is a HR matter for the Civil Service, and I do not intervene in HR matters. Any advice that will be shared with civil servants will come from my permanent secretary in consultation with other permanent secretaries and the head of the Civil Service.

Mr Clarke: Minister, you may cite an HR matter, but it is also a legal matter, and you are the Minister for the Department responsible for that workforce. Are you saying that you are going to ignore the legal advice and not pass that on to discourage anyone from participating in those parades when they are easily identifiable as being part of your Department?

Mr O'Dowd: First, I send my solidarity to the LGBTQ+ community, which is regularly victimised, targeted and abused in the Chamber. I find that disgraceful.

Mr Clarke: I am talking about the law.

Mr O'Dowd: Well, I find it disgraceful. People try to find angles and do everything that they can think of to target and point at that community. They are our workers, they are civil servants, and they carry out duties on behalf of everyone every day. I commend them for that. My answer remains the same: HR is law, and anybody who has had to deal with HR issues will know that HR is law.

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, I will follow that up with the Member. By way of an update, in the past 24 hours, there have been 1,800 applications. That demonstrates how many parents out there want to access the scheme and enter the process. I will certainly follow that up and see why that was the case with Antrim Area Hospital.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that answer and acknowledge the success of the baby loss certificate scheme so far. The numbers show that the scheme was warranted and needed in the first place. That is welcome news.

Has the Minister put in place some sort of review of the certificate scheme and applications to it so that we will know in a week's time, a month's time or six months' time whether it is working as it should be?

Mr O'Dowd: I have asked my colleagues in the General Register Office to keep me updated on its progress. Given the scale of the numbers that will apply to the scheme, I suspect that there may be a number of glitches. In fairness to the GRO team, it put the system up very quickly, with support from across the Civil Service and elsewhere to get it up and going. As I say, there have been 1,800 applications thus far, and I have asked for updates. I suspect that we will run into challenges because, as it becomes more known, more people will apply. There is a determination within the team to make this work. Thus far, that has proven to be the case. I have no doubt that, if we run into glitches, that determination will resolve matters quickly.

Mr O'Dowd: At yesterday evening's launch, we had a number of charitable organisations with us that have been to the forefront of the project and have been crucial in ensuring that we engaged not only with them but with many parents on the make-up and delivery of the scheme. That engagement will continue with them because they have proven to be invaluable partners in the project.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. In his answer to my colleague, he mentioned the GRO and that there have been, I believe, 1,800 applications over the past 24 hours. Does he have the confidence and assurance that GRO will be able to process that volume of applications? If he has any concerns, will he put in place additional staff to service the demand?

Mr O'Dowd: GRO has been expecting a significant initial demand for the service and has been preparing for it. I suspect that, as days go on, that demand will increase. We will continue to monitor the situation. Where necessary, we will bring in staff to ensure that demand is met.

Mr O'Dowd: It is down to each Department to report those costs. I do not have those figures in front of me. I suspect that it would require information to come from each Department. Measured against those, however, I suspect that we would also have to look at the cost of doing nothing. Whatever your views on why climate is changing, climate is most certainly changing, and you see the consequences of that across Europe at the moment.

Mr T Buchanan: Minister, do you agree that those costs are having a huge impact on major capital projects in, for example, Health and Education, which are being starved of capital funding? Is it down to the amount that they have to spend on climate change?

Mr O'Dowd: Well, at least one court case is ongoing, and I am conscious of that when I comment. However, I believe that infrastructure work can continue in conjunction with the Climate Change Act 2022. Let us await the outcome of the current judicial review and assess the situation after that.

Mr O'Dowd: In my opinion, engaging with those parents and advocacy groups on the scheme, the design of the scheme, the certificate and what would be on the certificate has been vital to the success of the scheme. At the end of the day, we were delivering it on their behalf, with full support for the scheme from across the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes questions to the Minister of Finance.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission last reviewed its environmental and sustainability policies, which relate to energy efficiency, as part of its annual environmental management review. That review, which forms part of the Assembly's ISO 14001:2015 accredited environmental management system, is presented to and considered by the senior management team each year.

The most recent review included consideration of energy efficiency in the context of value for money and improved environmental outcomes. As part of that process, a continuous improvement plan was agreed, setting out actions for the coming year to enhance environmental performance. While many actions focus on improving energy efficiency and reducing costs, the Commission recognises that not all sustainability initiatives are driven solely by financial savings.

While opportunities to improve energy efficiency are actively pursued, it is recognised that fluctuating energy prices can make it challenging to consistently demonstrate cost savings. Energy-specific measures, such as the replacement of fluorescent lighting with LED technology, are expected to deliver reduced energy consumption and longer-term financial efficiencies, although the full benefits will take time to materialise, as savings accrue over time and are influenced by factors such as energy price fluctuations and operational usage.

Mr Blair: I thank the member of the Commission for that reply. It is good to hear that those reviews take place, of course. However, further to the information that was presented, will there be an ongoing review of the continuous improvement plan, and will that information be available to Members?

Ms Ennis: Yes, there will be an ongoing review. As and when we have that information, I am sure that the Commission will be happy to share it with Members. I know that the Member has a specific interest in that. I can take the Member's query on the agreed continuous improvement plan back to the Assembly Commission and will happily write to him to provide updates on that as well.

Mr Clarke: Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I may need an extra minute to answer the question, and I thank the Member for it.

The Assembly Commission's public engagement strategy 2025-27 aims to increase awareness, improve understanding and enable participation in the work of the Assembly. A wide range of programmes and activities support that aim.

Our visitor experience team plays a central role in welcoming visitors to Parliament Buildings, providing guided tours, sharing information and signposting facilities. Their visible presence and approachable manner offer a warm welcome for all visitors, and the team takes pride in highlighting the facilities available for everyone who comes to Parliament Buildings. In 2025, 770 tours were delivered and the number of events hosted in Parliament Buildings almost doubled to 583.

Our Education Service promotes its programmes to schools and colleges through an annual September mail-out, outlining provision for the relevant Key Stages, including a focus on inclusive engagement for children with special educational needs. The Education Service website also offers detailed programme information and classroom resources.

The participation and outreach team promotes its work through community events such as the Balmoral show, outreach sessions, newsletters and social media content that is developed with the communications team. It delivers to all 18 constituencies and welcomes groups to Parliament Buildings regularly.

The Youth Assembly regularly uses social media to promote its work, and, when preparing for a new mandate, targeted multimedia recruitment campaigns are used to engage young people and encourage participation.

The visit and learning section of the Assembly’s website offers a full suite of information on Parliament Buildings, including how to arrange a visit and book a tour, the facilities available, including dining, and accessibility information.

The Assembly Commission aims to engage with broad and diverse audiences through a range of social media channels. Staff create videos and visual content to illustrate the work of the Assembly, while also covering key events such as Committee proceedings, public engagement activities and Speaker engagements. They produce a regular "This Week at the Northern Ireland Assembly" update, which outlines the business diary and explains an Assembly term. In addition, a monthly "Did You Know?" series shares insights into the history of the Assembly and Parliament Buildings whilst encouraging the public to visit and take part.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his lengthy and detailed answer. I pay tribute to the Education Service, Usher Services and the events team, all of which provide an exemplary service here. It is with pride that we share this Building with them. Does the Member agree that, by making people aware that they can come into the Public Gallery whilst the Assembly is sitting and attend Committee meetings, there is further opportunity to have a more participatory Assembly to try to increase public confidence in politics in Northern Ireland?

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for those words and associate myself with them. Indeed, all Members will probably want to be associated with them. As I said in my original answer, staff are keen to point people in the direction of the Public Gallery and Committee meetings to encourage participation and to help others join in. It is a case of our continuing to encourage that.

Mr O'Toole: I have a very specific question to ask, and I genuinely ask it in good faith. The Speaker's Corner shop is staffed by wonderful Assembly staff, but, to be perfectly honest, the shop's offering is not very good. If one goes to other public facilities, such as the Ulster Museum, which is in my constituency, or, indeed, to other Parliaments and Assemblies, one sees that they offer much more interesting stuff for sale. The shop generates some revenue for the Assembly. Lots of people who visit this place are probably interested in politics and in our peace process. Will the Assembly Commission therefore look at improving the quality of the shop's offering? That might include stocking books about the peace process, Irish history — our complicated history — and other forms of memorabilia. I am sure that we could do that in a way that is sensitive and inclusive, but it is also about earning us some revenue. It could also include lots of local crafts. At the minute, I think that we are missing a trick and that, frankly, we could earn some extra revenue.

Mr Clarke: I do not want to disagree with the Member, but some of us who have been here for longer than he has may have noticed that the offering is much larger than what we had previously. The room is much larger, but its size is fairly restrictive for doing what he suggests while acting as a coffee shop at the same time. I will take his comments to the Commission for it to consider and reflect on.

Miss McAllister: In providing catering services throughout Parliament Buildings, the Assembly Commission strives to meet the differing demands of the special dietary needs of our wide customer base. The service provider is required to provide various dietary options, such as diabetic and low-salt options, options relating to allergies and food intolerances and options for ethnic, religious and other diets, including vegetarian and vegan diets, that may be requested from time to time. The Assembly Commission's current service provider's meat suppliers have confirmed that, as standard, all chicken fillets are certified as halal. All other meat products that are currently supplied are not halal-certified. It has also advised that halal-certified products in its supply chain are pre-stunned prior to slaughter, which is common industry practice in the UK and the EU, rather than slaughtered using non-stun methods. In short, the answer is no.

Mr Burrows: I have full respect for our diverse communities across the United Kingdom. It is important that, in Northern Ireland, we have only halal meat products from animals that have been stunned. I am grateful for the reassurance from the Member representing the Assembly Commission that that is the case in our Blue Flax restaurant. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): OK.

Mr Burrows: Can the Member offer a reassurance that that will continue so that we know the difference and know that only clearly identified pre-stun halal meat will be available?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We do not do supplementary questions to supplementary questions, Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows: Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is the heat.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): None of that. Mr Robinson.

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission installed a Changing Places facility in Parliament Buildings in 2011. Standard accessible toilets do not meet the needs of many people, including those with profound and multiple learning disabilities. Our Changing Places facility is designed to address such needs and includes a height-adjustable changing bench, a ceiling-mounted hoist, an adjustable sink and ample floor space for carers and equipment. The facility is located on the ground floor, near the rear entrance to the Senate Chamber. No key or pass is required for access, but users are asked to ensure that the facility remains available for those who require its full specialist features.

A new changing bench was procured and installed in the facility in May 2026. In response to feedback received, an additional padded area is planned to be installed behind that bench. Beyond those works, there are no further plans to upgrade the room.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Member for that response. I very much welcome the addition of a padded protective area, which is something that I had lobbied for. I am keen to know whether there are any plans to increase the number of Changing Places facilities in Parliament Buildings in order to improve accessibility for staff and visitors.

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for his follow-up question and, indeed, for raising that important matter. It is important that all Members, when they become aware of disability access issues, raise them so that the Assembly Commission can consider them. The Assembly Commission has no plans to install additional Changing Places facilities. However, that will be kept under review.

Ms Hunter: Can the Assembly Commission outline whether users from disability organisations have been consulted on any proposed upgrades in order to ensure that the facilities here meet a practical need?

Mr Allen: The Assembly Commission engages regularly with disability organisations and has a forum in place, which dates back over a decade. It engages regularly with outside stakeholders and, as I have already said, the Assembly Commission is keen to receive feedback from stakeholders, disabled people or, indeed, Members.

Mr McGrath: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I may need an extra minute to answer this question.

While the Assembly Commission is not a delivery body for the Executive’s strategic framework to end violence against women and girls, it supports its objectives, both as a democratic institution and as an employer. In its democratic role, the Assembly Commission contributes through awareness-raising, supporting Members through briefing, training and awareness sessions, and support for key initiatives including the Women’s Caucus, the Women’s Parliament and the Youth Assembly. It also undertakes work to address abuse and intimidation of MLAs.

Since March 2025, the parliamentary excellence programme has delivered dedicated sessions with the Executive Office on the strategic framework and its delivery plan, enhancing Members’ understanding of the cross-government approach and their role in scrutiny, legislation and constituency engagement. The Women’s Parliament has focused on ending violence against women and girls, highlighting the importance of listening to survivors, strengthening legal protections and ensuring sustainable support for services. In parallel, the Youth Assembly is examining the role of young people, including young men, in challenging the attitudes and behaviours that contribute to violence against women and girls.

More broadly, the Assembly Commission supports Members and Committees in carrying out their scrutiny functions, including in relation to the Executive Office’s work on that framework. As an employer, the Assembly Commission also has a clear responsibility to support the wider aims of the framework by fostering a safe, respectful and supportive workplace. That includes promoting dignity at work, taking action to prevent and address bullying and harassment, supporting staff who may be experiencing domestic abuse and providing well-being support through initiatives such as the employee support programme, mental health champions and staff health networks. Finally, Members may also be aware that the Speaker held an event last November to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women and Girls and to recognise the work of Women’s Aid and its many volunteers.

Mr O'Toole: I thank my colleague for that answer. As he said, it is extremely important that, as a facilitator of democratic debate and government here and as an employer, the Assembly is an exemplar. What are the formal or informal means whereby information or best practice, as has been gathered by, for example, the Youth Assembly, the Women's Parliament or the Women's Caucus, can be filtered back to, for example, the Executive Office-led working group on violence against women and girls, in order to ensure that, as a corporate body, we are contributing to that work?

Mr McGrath: As the Member mentioned, one example is the Assembly's Women's Caucus, which has a particular focus on supporting women in public life and highlighting the increasing challenges that women face in the digital sphere, including online abuse. This year, the caucus is undertaking a gender-sensitive audit and is working with the Assembly's Research and Information Services (RaISe) and other partners to develop a constituency service guide on online safety. That will comprise a set of resources to help Members to support constituents who are seeking information, advice and practical assistance and to report and respond to instances of online abuse and digital harms.

That provides an example of an initiative that is delivered through the Commission that scopes out an issue, gathers learning and then flexes its muscle within its organisational structures to push out that learning and assist people. That takes place across various areas in which the Commission operates.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for her question. The Sign Language Bill makes provision for the recognition and promotion of British Sign Language (BSL) and Irish Sign Language (ISL). Once enacted and commenced, it is expected to place duties on prescribed organisations, including duties to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information and services that they provide are as accessible to people in the deaf community as they are to others. Further detail on those duties is expected to be set out in statutory guidance in due course.

Sign language interpretation services are currently provided to the Assembly Commission through the sign language interpretation services contract. The contract provides for the interpretation of one Question Time each week in BSL and ISL and for sign language interpretation to meet other ad hoc business needs. During the passage of the Sign Language Bill, the contract was used to support accessibility at each stage of the legislative process. That included interpretation of the call for evidence, enabling BSL and ISL users to submit responses in video format, and interpretation of amendments to the Bill, which were then made available on the Assembly website. Feedback received from members of the deaf community was positive.

On publication of the statutory guidance, the Assembly Commission will consider its responsibilities and determine whether any related policy or procedural changes are required. The Assembly Commission will ensure that future contractual arrangements support the Commission's statutory responsibilities and enable the continued delivery of plenary and Committee business in a way that is responsive to the needs of the deaf community.

Ms Ferguson: I thank you for your detailed answer. Is the Commission's sign language interpretation services contract available to Members, for instance, if they need to book interpreters?

Ms Ennis: The current contract is for use by Assembly Commission business areas and does not, at present, extend to Members' individual constituency or party political requirements. As the contract is due to expire in April 2027, the scope of future provision can be considered as part of planning for the next contractual arrangements. However, the Assembly Commission makes funding available to Members for their constituency office operating costs to cover the expenditure incurred to provide constituency services, including sign language and interpretation support.

Mr Clarke: Mr Speaker, I may require an extra minute to answer the question.

I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission's school work experience programme is facilitated through a partnership between our internal education services team and an organisation called Futures For All, a social mobility charity. The programme aims to be as inclusive as possible for all young people, including those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) or additional support needs (ASN). All schools who are registered with Futures For All are eligible to put forward pupils for participation in the programme, including pupils with SEND. Any additional needs of participants are then considered and provided for during online and in-person sessions.

The Assembly Commission also has an apprenticeship and placement framework that provides the opportunity for people with a disability to avail themselves of short-term supported placements. Such placements are arranged by the Commission's human resources office, working in partnership with an external umbrella body that supports a range of organisations that work with individuals who have a disability. Implementing supported placements for people with a disability is an action in the Assembly Commission's disability action plan.

The Assembly Commission has also sought to ensure that young people with disabilities are represented in the Youth Assembly and have an opportunity to share their views and directly influence decisions taken by the Assembly. For recruitment to the current Youth Assembly and on the basis of research on the youth demographic in Northern Ireland, a minimum of 10 young people with disabilities were sought in order to be representative of the data. Of the 90 young people appointed to the Youth Assembly, 18 have a disability.

The commitment to inclusive recruitment is also reflected in the Assembly Commission's wider contract arrangements. Over recent years, the support services contractor, which provides catering, cleaning, porterage and related help desk services, has developed links with social enterprises, leading to the permanent employment of five team members. Building on that approach, the Assembly Commission will explore further opportunities to embed social value in the delivery of those services during the next contract term.

The Assembly Commission will continue to identify further actions that could help people with special educational needs and disabilities to access meaningful work experience opportunities at the Assembly.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Member for the answer. All the members of the Education Committee were rightly encouraged recently by Alma from Caleb's Cause to bring in kids with SEND or disabilities for work experience. It is encouraging to hear about the facilities that are there already. How many supported placements have taken place?

Mr Clarke: Following the apprenticeship and placement framework in June 2019, the implementation of supported placements was initially delayed by COVID-19. Three supported placements have now been completed, and the feedback from the business areas and individuals involved has all been positive.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission is progressing a programme of remedial works to address defects identified in the roof of Parliament Buildings and to protect the long-term integrity of this grade A listed building. The works have been structured in two phases. Phase 1 focuses on priority health and safety works, including repairs to the rear parapet and internal courtyards, where scaffolding is currently in place. A contractor has been appointed and works are under way, with completion expected by the end of August 2026. Phase 2 will address wider water ingress issues across the remainder of the roof. That phase will include detailed investigations, the development of options and the appointment of an integrated consultancy team to inform the full scope of works. Subject to the outcome of those investigations, a full programme of works will be developed to address the remaining issues.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Member for the answer. Has any additional damage been identified during the current works?

Miss McAllister: The Assembly Commission recognises that the issue has been a long and protracted one. Thankfully, the extent of the deterioration in courtyards 1, 2 and 3 is less significant than initially anticipated. However, early investigations have identified some additional complexities, including localised stone deterioration and issues in courtyard 8. Those are being carefully managed, and, where necessary, interim works may be brought forward to address any emerging risks. We recognise that the issue is long-standing and ongoing, but we are processing it and ensuring that the works are being done as quickly as possible.

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for her question. There are two accessible toilet cubicles available to visitors on the ground floor, one designated for male use and one for female use. On the first floor, there is an additional accessible toilet facility that is available for use by all visitors. In addition, as I mentioned in my response to Mr Robinson, the Building provides a Changing Places facility designed to meet the needs of individuals with complex requirements, including those with profound and multiple learning disabilities. As I referenced in my previous answer, that facility includes a height-adjustable changing bench, a ceiling-mounted hoist, an adjustable sink and sufficient space for carers and specialist equipment. The Changing Places facility is located on the ground floor, near the rear entrance to the Senate Chamber. It is also registered on the Changing Places website to help ensure that those who may benefit from that provision are aware of its availability.

Mrs Dillon: Thank you for that answer. Has the Commission made any assessment of whether the current facilities deter people with disabilities from attending Parliament Buildings? We have accessible bathrooms, but it would be a struggle for me, as an able-bodied person, to reach the toilet roll dispenser in the disabled bathroom on the third floor, so I do not know how anybody with a disability would. I just think that there are some things that need to be looked at again.

Mr Allen: I thank the Member for her follow-up question. While no formal assessment has been undertaken to establish a direct correlation between facilities and attendance by people with disabilities, we regularly engage with and welcome to Parliament Buildings people with disabilities through a range of forums, including involvement with the Youth Assembly, the Disabled People's Parliament and targeted engagement activities. We also welcome regular visitors with disabilities. Feedback from such forums and visitors continues to play a key role in shaping our approach to improving accessibility and inclusion, and the Assembly Commission endeavours to cater for specific individual requirements.

An external disability advisory group consisting of representatives from disability groups was established in 2009. Any issues raised by the group are considered. A recently completed disability access audit provided some further recommendations that are being actively progressed.

I am sure that the officials will have picked up on the comments made by the Member, and, if she wishes to correspond directly with the Commission, I am sure that we will consider that as well. It is important that we make the Building as accessible as possible within the confines of its grade A listed status to everybody who wants to come to it.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission currently has five defibrillators, which are located at the front reception, the basement control room, the Blue Flax restaurant, the Long Gallery and on the fourth floor. All five devices were registered on The Circuit in September 2025. The most recent status check was completed on 25 May 2026. To date, none of the defibrillators have been required for use, but they remain fully operational and ready in case they are needed.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his answer. The British Heart Foundation has been keen to ensure that that registration went ahead, so that will be welcome news. Are there any plans to share information on where those defibrillators are with all users of the Building so that they can be easily accessed in an emergency?

Mr McGrath: Yes, thank you for that question. The Commission is committed to ensuring that all Building users, even those who are just visiting, are aware of the locations of the devices so that they can be quickly accessed in an emergency. To support that, the defibrillator locations are listed on AssISt and the Members' portal and are covered in first aid training. To further raise awareness, the health and safety team will begin distributing postmasters to all Building users to highlight the locations so that, if the defibrillators are needed, people can access them as quickly as possible.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission is mindful of the different needs of individual users of and visitors to Parliament Buildings. The Assembly Commission requires its service provider to deliver comprehensive cleaning services that maintain the highest levels of health, safety and hygiene in accordance with the British Institute of Cleaning Science's cleaning standards. While providing catering services throughout Parliament Buildings, the service provider is required to comply with all relevant legislation and best practice guidance.

In addition, the Assembly Commission strives to meet the differing needs and dietary requirements of our wide customer base. The service provider is required to provide various dietary options based on, for example, diabetic and low-salt requirements, allergies, intolerances and other things, such as vegetarian and vegan diets, on request. Specifically, the service provider operates an allergen management system based on statutory and established food safety procedures. That includes key control points such as the provision of clear allergen information, appropriate food display and labelling, staff training and safe food preparation practices.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for that answer. Recently, we held the national allergy strategy launch in the Long Gallery. I thank the catering team, led by Alan, for how well they dealt with that.

Working with people who have serious allergies is often viewed as being just about catering and food, but it is up to all of us to know how we can support people as best we can. Would the Commission be open to looking at how more staff could be enabled to administer EpiPens and maybe at having EpiPens on-site so that we can support anyone who might need one?

Ms Ennis: The Member raises a very important point. While the Assembly Commission has set out everything that it is required to do in legislation, staff need that hands-on, in-person experience so that, if something were to happen, they would know what to do and what the procedure is. As a Commission member, I know that the Assembly complies with its statutory requirements around food preparation, which you talked about — more commonly known as "Natasha's law". I will certainly bring that back to the Commission, and we can discuss whether we can do more about that hands-on, first-responder response and about whether, if something happened, staff would be equipped to deliver the necessary first response. We will absolutely take that back and discuss it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes questions to the Commission. We will take our ease for a few moments for the handover at the top Table.

Ms Forsythe: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today, on this sitting day, the Finance Minister issued a written ministerial statement at 12.03 pm, embargoed until 2.30 pm, on the 2025-26 provisional out-turn and available funding for 2026-27. That statement was embargoed until the end of listed questions for oral answer, with that embargo ending at the beginning of topical questions, which did not give me and other Members the opportunity to question the Minister on statement. Given the serious financial circumstances that we find ourselves in, on which a debate took place yesterday, there are at least half a dozen questions that I and other Members would have hoped to have the opportunity to ask. Can you advise whether it was in order for the statement to come in that way without Members having the chance to ask questions in the House?

Mr Speaker: Members know my views on these matters. Particularly on sitting days, these matters should be brought to the House and then Members can ask questions. Normally, I say that, if that happens, Members can submit a question for urgent oral answer. Questions for urgent oral answer normally need to be in for 10.30 am, and, consequently, I was not able to accept the question for urgent oral answer that you requested today. There is nothing stopping me from accepting that question for urgent oral answer on Monday, and I probably plan to do that, because I will not have Ministers treating the House with contempt. That is what has happened here, and I will not allow that to happen while I am Speaker.

Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as Bille na gCuanta a mholadh.

I welcome the introduction of the Harbours Bill, and I commend Minister Liz Kimmins for introducing legislation that seeks to modernise the framework within which ports operate.

Our ports are critical pieces of economic infrastructure. From Belfast to Larne, Derry, Warrenpoint and Coleraine, they serve as gateways through which much of our trade flows, supporting jobs, businesses and communities right across the North. Ensuring that they are equipped to respond to modern commercial challenges is, therefore, an important objective. For many years, trust ports have highlighted constraints in the existing legislative arrangements, particularly around access to finance and their ability to invest strategically for the future. At present, they are largely dependent on borrowing through the Department's capital arrangements, which can limit their flexibility and their capacity to compete with ports elsewhere across these islands. The Bill represents an opportunity to address those issues. By updating governance arrangements and providing ports with greater commercial agility, we can help to ensure that they remain competitive, continue to attract investment and strengthen their contribution to economic growth.

Some have expressed concerns that the proposals may be a step towards privatisation. I do not believe that that is the case. They will continue to operate for the benefit of the public interest rather than private shareholders, and any profits generated will still have to be reinvested back into the port and its operations. Importantly, there will continue to be accountability and oversight through board structures, including representation from locally elected council members, as is already the case at Belfast harbour. That public connection and democratic input is an important safeguard, and one that should provide reassurance. As a party, Sinn Féin has been clear that it does not support the free port model. The legislation is not about creating free ports, nor is it about transferring publicly held assets into private hands. Rather, it is about ensuring that our existing trust ports have the tools that they need to operate effectively in an increasingly competitive environment, while retaining their unique status and public purpose.

Ultimately, strong and successful ports benefit all of us. They support employment, facilitate trade, enhance connectivity and contribute significantly to our local and regional economies. My party therefore welcomes the introduction of the Harbours Bill and looks forward to engaging constructively as it is progressed through the Assembly to ensure that it delivers for our ports, our economy and the communities that rely on them.

Mr Dunne: I am pleased to speak in the Second Stage debate on the Harbours Bill. As a member of the Committee for Infrastructure, I support the Bill's general intention, which, ultimately, is to provide all the trust ports in Northern Ireland with greater commercial flexibility. The trust ports are a key part of our local economy.

There are also some important provisions in the Bill on maritime safety, which is also a critical issue, and one that is worthy of consideration. The reclassification of trust ports by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) will mean that they can borrow without there being any impact on public-sector accounts. Importantly, that will unlock investment by the trust ports, which will further help stimulate economic growth and create jobs across Northern Ireland. That should be the focus for all of us, and something that we can support and get behind. There is no doubt that all our trust ports already deliver significant economic and social benefits, but they are telling us that they can do more, want to do more and are willing to do more. We should therefore be agile enough to consider what they are saying and always be in listening mode. The legislation paves the way for the borrowing capabilities that they need in order to invest properly in the critical infrastructure that is under their stewardship, and it will help safeguard their important assets today and for future generations.

There is clear consensus on, and general support for, the direction of travel. All the trust ports support the legislation, as was reflected in the responses to the consultation carried out last year on this important issue. It is also worth noting that trust ports in the rest of the United Kingdom — in Scotland, England and Wales — have been reclassified with no issues. The Harbours Bill will therefore better equip our ports to compete effectively with other ports in GB and the Republic of Ireland.

The Infrastructure Committee visited Belfast harbour just over a year ago to hear directly from its representatives and, importantly, to see for ourselves the current facilities and the potential for further development. It was a very interesting visit. The Committee membership has changed a bit since then, but it was an important visit. Our harbours are very much a key driver of our economy. More than 20,000 people are employed in the harbour estates alone, and the harbours support over 15% of our country's total annual output. We can see the developments taking place at the D3 cruise terminal at Belfast harbour through the work that is going on there. That £90 million project borders my constituency and is significant, as it further supports the Northern Ireland tourism growth sector that is cruise liners. We can see that day and daily, particularly at this time of the year. Cruise ship visits have a positive impact on our country and on our economy.

Belfast harbour has invested over £370 million in the past 10 years and has plans to spend another £313 million by the end of 2029 as part of its advance regional prosperity strategy. That, combined with the ambitious projects in its 2025-2050 master plan, has significant potential to unlock further economic activity for our country. It is important that we now proceed with Committee Stage, particularly given the Bill's arrival to us at this late stage of the mandate. We know that we are operating within time constraints in a shortened mandate. We therefore have to make the most of the time that we have left in order to improve conditions for the trust ports.

For the reasons I have outlined, and those of my colleagues, I am happy to support the Bill at this stage, and I look forward to its continued progress.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I thank the Chairperson of the Infrastructure Committee, Committee members and MLAs for their comments on the Bill.

I will start by addressing some general issues and points that were raised. I thank everyone for their support for the Bill. You are right in doing so in that this is a significant opportunity to ensure that our ports can realise their potential. A number of Members mentioned the Belfast harbour master plan, and I attended its recent launch. I have worked with Belfast harbour since coming into the post, and it is an exciting plan that will transform the harbour.

I want to address the issues with Warrenpoint harbour, which were raised by my colleague Sinéad Ennis, and South Down MLAs Andy McMurray and Colin McGrath. Being in a neighbouring constituency, it is an issue that I am very aware of and concerned about. I want to put that on the record as a local MLA but also as someone who visits Warrenpoint and has worked in the town. It is a beautiful place and is somewhere that I like to take my children, so anything that impacts on the community there absolutely needs to be addressed.

However, I have to be clear about my responsibilities. I want to ensure that Members leave the House with no ambiguity about who has responsibility for the issues that have arisen, and what powers I have, specifically the article 4 directions that many Members mentioned. Even though the four trust ports will no longer be subject to article 4 directions, they will remain subject to a range of legal, statutory, regulatory and accountability checks. The power of direction enables the Department to issue directions to designated harbour authorities but only in relation to the exercise of their statutory functions.

That power was introduced in 2002, and as one Member said, it has never been used. My Department's powers in respect of Warrenpoint specifically are limited to the port's statutory functions. Those concern the operation, improvement, maintenance and management of the harbour as set out in the Harbours Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 and the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority Order (Northern Ireland) 2002. The powers do not extend to managing third-party operational practices, directing tenants, regulating environmental issues or addressing issues such as odour or air quality. It is important to state that in relation to that issue, which is impacting fundamentally on the lives of people in Warrenpoint.

Ports are required to comply with environmental law, which is enforced by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). I met the chairperson of Warrenpoint harbour and made known my concerns as a local constituency representative close to South Down but also as Minister, and the relationship that we have with Warrenpoint harbour. I know that it is a massive issue and needs to be addressed. To make sure that I had no role in that, we sought legal advice as to whether that power could be applied in the way that Members have asked me to do, and that was raised by the community. The legal advice reinforced the position that the power can be used only in relation to the harbour's statutory functions. It is not appropriate, therefore, to use it in those circumstances.

That is an important piece of information that I really wanted to get on the record. If there was more that I could do, I absolutely would. I would never shirk my responsibility in relation to that matter, but I can work only within the legislative framework. Others, including the NIEA, need to look at the legislative framework and the responsibility that they have under current legislation.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for giving way. I accept entirely the explanation that she gave, and the roles, remit and responsibility that different Departments, Ministers and agencies have regarding that particular issue. Minister, you said that you can do only what is in the legislative framework. You can change the legislative framework, and that is what we are doing.

Are you concerned that, even where DFI has a degree of control over ports, you have not been able to exercise that to address such an issue and that the passage of the Bill could lead to there being even less central control?

Ms Kimmins: The point that we need to be clear on here is that legislation is in place — environment orders — that ports are required to comply with. That is the best route to deal with the issue. We have talked today about getting the balance right. The legislation is about giving ports autonomy to borrow more, which will benefit not just the port but the wider community, our local economy and tourism, while keeping them under the control of a Department. There has been a lot of talk about relinquishing power that could be used to deal with the issue. I cannot relinquish a power that I do not have; that is the key point.

The Bill will go to the Committee for scrutiny, and there will be opportunities — officials will attend the Committee tomorrow — to look at that in more detail, but the powers are there to be implemented if the AERA Minister wants to do so. That is very clear. NIEA has a clear role in this. I know that it has said that, to date, there have been no breaches that it is aware of. I do not want to veer into an area that is not mine. There is a clear framework. That should be applied, and people should listen to the community in Warrenpoint and heed the real impact that this has had for the past three years.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for taking an intervention. Minister, I am glad that you talked about DAERA. I am not particularly aware of the context of the situation in Warrenpoint, but the explanatory and financial memorandum makes it pretty clear under its explanation of clause 4 that it is DAERA in the case of fishery harbours and the Department for Infrastructure for any other harbour. In the context of our discussion of environmental concerns, have you had any conversations with the AERA Minister about the matter itself or the Bill that relate to some of the concerns that Members have raised in today's debate?

Ms Kimmins: I spoke to the AERA Minister ahead of the Bill's introduction to highlight the concerns. Last year, I met the chair of Warrenpoint harbour, who, in fairness, raised his concerns. I emphasise, however, that the matter needs to be addressed. We need to ensure that everyone who has a role plays their part. I can do that as far as my remit allows. The issue has been on the record long enough for us to know that it is significant. My understanding is that it has neither improved nor gone away. We have to listen to the people of Warrenpoint and ensure that it is dealt with appropriately, efficiently and effectively for the future.

Mr McMurray: Will the Minister give way?

Ms Kimmins: For the last time.

Mr McMurray: I appreciate that you are trying to make progress. I want to clarify what you said about not being aware of any breaches having been raised with the NIEA. Do you agree that, in a sense, the issue is a wider one about how we deal with our waste and about the export of our waste being the solution? I do not want to segue too much, but since it has been raised, is the way that we deal with our waste being exported the way to deal with the Warrenpoint issue?

Ms Kimmins: What I said was that, according to NIEA, it was not aware of any breaches, but what I am asking is how robust that investigation has been. The people of Warrenpoint are not making it up; that is the bottom line. They live through it when it occurs. I make it clear that, to my knowledge, that is the feedback that has been provided. I would be happy to take an intervention from any Member who knows something different.

The planning process is another way of addressing issues when organisations or businesses move into port property. Different processes are in place to address all that. The storage of waste is not a natural responsibility of the Department for Infrastructure, and, yes, planning is under our control, but that goes through councils as well. There are a number of ways of looking at this.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Minister for giving way. The contact that we have had from members of the public in Warrenpoint and their attempts to understand what the Bill does and to amend it show the level of desperation. Anything related to the harbour that constitutes a change to how it runs will be latched on to and seen as a vehicle to rectify the horrendous situation that constituents in Warrenpoint face.

I am not suggesting that the Member wants to get into this now, because now is not the appropriate time. However, when we talk about breaches of environmental regulations or environmental nuisance, we need to look at enforcement. It is not working for people and is not doing the job that it is supposed to do. The NIEA, rather than punishing offenders, is helping them to become compliant again so that they can break the rules again. That needs to end. I am very open, as I am sure others are, to having that conversation with the Minister, because — I know that the Member will agree with this — the situation is intolerable for our constituents in Warrenpoint.

Does the Minister agree that the provisions in the Bill that allow ports to widen their horizons and attract more commercial opportunities will help them, because they will not be restricted to companies such as ReGen, whose operation is a nuisance to the people in Warrenpoint? They will not be restricted to those rogue enterprises, and they can therefore look for more sustainable investment in the port that does not impact adversely on local communities?

Ms Kimmins: Yes, absolutely. The experience of Warrenpoint is one that many will look to in the future when taking on new tenants.

Just to finish on that aspect of this, the removal of the power of direction in relation to trust ports does not mean that all control will be removed from the ports. That has to be made absolutely clear. The Department will continue to maintain responsibility for oversight of the legislative and policy framework. We will also retain a role in appointing board members. In the debate, someone mentioned the community as stakeholders, and that is why we will appoint councillors to the board. They will play a very important role in oversight and in ensuring that there is proper accountability. I hope that, going forward, we can see that strengthened. I know that, at this time, there are issues specific to Warrenpoint in respect of that. We need to ensure that the community voice is represented, and that is the purpose of that measure.

We also plan to bring forward secondary legislation for each trust port and introduce governance guidance that will help trust ports to deliver their aim of managing, maintaining and improving their harbours in the broad public interest. As my colleague said, this is an opportunity to look at that and ensure that ports do that in a way that has everybody's interests at heart. We need to remember that this applies to all four ports. They are key aspects of our economy and key tourism drivers, and we have seen that in Belfast. Warrenpoint also benefits hugely from the cruise ships that come in. Having worked in the Point for many years, I see — Members from the area will see this all the time — the benefit of that for local business and hospitality, and why not, given that it is an absolutely beautiful place. As I said, it is about getting the balance right. We are loosening the shackles to allow them to thrive while continuing to have oversight and management, as far as we need to. I am happy to continue to work with all Members to ensure that what is delivered is robust.

I hope that this has provided Members with an overview of the policy intention behind the Bill. If there are any points that I have not covered, I am happy to address them in correspondence, if required. It has been a valuable opportunity to get Members' views at this stage of the legislation's passage, and I am pleased that the general consensus on the Bill and its principles is positive and supportive.

Finally, I believe that this Bill will play a significant role in empowering my Department and our trust ports to operate more effectively and to strengthen their contribution to the economy. I thank Members for their support. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Second Stage of the Harbours Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Infrastructure.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I beg to move

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

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

The regulations before us today will amend the Motor Vehicles (Specified Restrictions) Regulations (NI) 1998. These amending regulations are required to facilitate the introduction of graduated driver licensing (GDL). I believe that the GDL has the potential to deliver significant road safety benefits, not least for our young drivers, but particularly for our young male drivers, who, unfortunately, are significantly over-represented in road traffic collision statistics.

In 2024, which is the most recent year for which we have published figures, 164 people were killed or seriously injured in collisions where a car driver aged 17 to 23 was responsible. Also in 2024, 12 people were killed or seriously injured in collisions where a motorcyclist aged 17 to 23 was responsible.

So far this year, we have lost six young people aged between 16 and 24. Members will agree that every single death is an immeasurable loss, and we must do all that we can to prevent more of our young people dying on the roads.

Road safety remains a key priority for me. One death on our roads is always one too many. So far in 2026, 33 people have lost their lives, and I pay tribute to young Kourtney McCormick from my constituency, a wee six-year-old girl who, sadly, lost her life yesterday. The family has been plunged into grief at this horrendous time. That is one person every five days since the start of the year. My thoughts are with the McCormick family and all families affected by the death of a loved one.

The GDL is only one of the road safety interventions that I am introducing in this mandate to help to address those unacceptable casualty statistics. Other key actions that I am taking forward include the introduction of a lower legal alcohol limit; legislation to further address the use of mobile phones while driving; a safer journeys to school programme and related legislation; an examination of options for increasing speeding fines; and the development of new engineering-based solutions to target and mitigate risks on routes with the highest collision rates.

My Department also continues to deliver targeted and relevant road safety campaigns in educational programmes, the latest being the Roadwise Up campaign to address driver inattention and carelessness, speeding and drug-driving.

Once the four vital pieces of GDL-enabling legislation that I have proposed are made and in place, including the regulations before us today, I will launch a dedicated public information campaign in advance of GDL going live. The campaign will communicate the core road safety messages underpinning the policy. It will also promote awareness of the rationale for the introduction of GDL and its contribution to improving road safety outcomes. As many Members will be aware, the GDL framework and its essential measures, as set out in the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act (NI) 2016, represent the will of the Assembly at the time when the Act came into force. Also, I firmly believe that it is a significant life-saving intervention that we can all support today.

I acknowledge the collective work that we all do to promote road safety. While one of my top priorities as Infrastructure Minister is to contribute, through the work of my Department, to reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads, I do not do so in isolation. I thank the Infrastructure Committee in particular for its work in scrutinising the GDL subordinate legislation that I have proposed and especially for its assistance in getting the legislation before the House for approval in advance of our summer recess.

GDL will help our new drivers to become experienced, skilled and safe. It focuses on the learning and new driver phases of our driving journey and includes post-test protections for newly qualified drivers.

Once introduced, the scheme will provide a new foundation for improving driving standards, including a six-month mandatory minimum learning period for category B learners; the requirement to complete a programme of training and logbook; removal of the 45 mph speed limit for learners and newly qualified drivers; and a 24-month new driver period, with a new two-part R plate and post-test passenger restrictions for category B drivers.

The regulations that we consider today are one of a suite of four linked and interdependent pieces of subordinate legislation that must become operational on the same date. That is required to ensure that GDL can be introduced on 1 October and that it operates as intended from the start.

The specified restrictions-amending regulations are made under powers conferred by the Road Traffic (NI) Order 1981. They reflect the introduction of revised restrictions for newly qualified drivers of category B motor vehicles and category A, A1 and A2 motorcycles. In particular, they prescribe the new distinguishing mark — the R plate — that must be displayed by newly qualified drivers and riders for a two-year new driver period.

There will be two parts to the R plate. For the initial six months, the plate will be a blue R on a white background. It will highlight the fact that the driver is a new driver and is still developing the skills needed to be a safe driver. It will also help to inform enforcement agencies that the driver is within the passenger restriction period. The second stage R-plate is a white R on a blue background, and it must be displayed for the remaining 18 months of the new driver period. It is intended to deter high-risk behaviour and to inform other road users of the driver's relative inexperience. It will also help to inform enforcement agencies that the driver is within the two-year probationary period established by the Road Traffic (New Drivers) (NI) Order 1998.

The Assembly's approval of those specified restrictions amending regulations will herald the introduction of GDL and enable me to move to make the other GDL enabling SRs that are also required. That will give certainty to this life-saving measure becoming operational as planned on 1 October 2026.

I commend the motion to the Assembly and ask that it approves the regulations.

Mr Martin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I will make some comments as the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee as we consider the delegated legislation before us for GDL. I associate myself and the Committee with the Minister's comments about the death of the young girl, Kourtney McCormick, who was killed very recently. The Minister referenced the accident in her opening comments, and it illustrates that we should invest our time and efforts in anything that we can do to improve road safety in Northern Ireland.

Today's motion concerns one of the four legislative instruments required to implement GDL, namely the Motor Vehicles (Specified Restrictions) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026, which is subject to the draft affirmative procedure. With your permission, Mr Speaker, it is important to consider the proposal in the context of the wider legislative package that is required to bring GDL into operation, and the Minister referenced that.

At the outset, I make it clear that the Committee supports the principle of GDL. As the Minister referenced in her speech, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 established the legislative framework for GDL, and its objective was to reduce deaths and serious injuries among newly qualified drivers; an objective that, I am sure, every Member supports.

I have to note that the Committee became aware of the proposals for the regulations through 'Good Morning Ulster' in January 2026, and all the Committee members were disappointed by that. I will not dwell on it, but the Committee would have liked to hear from the Minister in this place first before hearing about the proposals in the media. I hope that there has been learning on all parts regarding that. The Statutory Committees play a central and crucial scrutiny role in the Assembly and, therefore, should be afforded the respect of being informed about major policy announcements and not learn of them through the media.

Notwithstanding those concerns, the Committee approached its scrutiny of the policies constructively. Departmental officials briefed the Committee on GDL on 4 February 2026. The Committee initially considered the proposals and proposed SRs on 25 February and launched a public call for views. The consultation closed on 10 March. On 25 March, the Committee took oral evidence from the Association of British Insurers (ABI), the Driving Instructors Association (DIA), the Northern Ireland Approved Instructor Council (NIAIC) and the Youth Assembly. The Committee subsequently received further correspondence from the Department and undertook some additional scrutiny before seeking further assurances from key stakeholders.

Throughout that process, the Committee's principal concern was not the policy objective of GDL, which it supports, but the manner in which the implementation was being handled. The Committee had to assure itself not only that the implementation was proceeding according to the time frame but that proper scrutiny was being applied to it. Members recognised the Department's desire to introduce an important road safety measure, and I recognise the Minister's personal desire to treat road safety as a priority. However, the legislation underpinning GDL is 10 years old, and the policy development and consultation that informed it is older still.

Despite that, the Committee was advised that any delay in progressing the legislation could delay the implementation of GDL, potentially placing lives at risk.

While members took those points seriously, we also felt that legitimate parliamentary scrutiny should not be presented as an obstacle to delivery. The Committee has a statutory responsibility to test evidence, hear from stakeholders and satisfy itself that legislation is workable, proportionate and capable of being implemented effectively. That scrutiny role must be respected and properly factored into departmental planning. As Committee Chair, I felt that the process moved at a pace that I, at times, found awkward. A lot was asked of the Committee at the same time as taking forward Executive legislation, but I think that I reflect all Committee members' views when I say that, sometimes, we were meant to feel responsible for delays in an area that has sat in this place for 10 years and has been in development for even longer.

For that reason, the Committee was determined to hear directly from those who would be most affected by the proposals. I posted about GDL on my Facebook page, and it got, I think, 275,000 views, including views from Canada and Australia. Everyone wanted to be involved. Evidence from driving instructors and that sector was crucial, however. All Committee members accepted that. The Driving Instructors Association and the Northern Ireland Approved Instructors Council raised concerns about communication on the issue, about consultation and about the preparedness of the sector for GDL. They pointed to limited engagement from the Department with instructors, uncertainty around operational arrangements and a lack of clarity on how implementation will work in practice. The Committee heard from the Association of British Insurers, which was broadly supportive of GDL on the basis of the objective of improving road safety. It cautioned against making assumptions that GDL alone would lead to lower insurance premiums, however, and provided some clarity on concerns that had been raised about instructor liability.

Members were keen to hear directly from young people, who will probably be most affected by GDL, so we consulted the Youth Assembly. The Committee was impressed by the thoughtful and constructive nature of that engagement. The Youth Assembly, while supportive of having safer roads, raised some questions about affordability, insurance costs, enforcement, fairness, rural impacts and the practical realities facing young drivers. It also highlighted concerns about the lack of a recent consultation and the need for training and education that reflects real-world experiences.

Although the Committee's formal call for views generated only one response, members were contacted by a range of interested individuals and stakeholders, most of whom are our constituents. We therefore got, at first hand, the views of many.

Having considered all the evidence, the Committee ultimately concluded that it would not be appropriate to proceed until it was fully satisfied that the driving instructor sector believed that the proposed date of 1 October 2026, which the Minister referenced, was realistic and achievable. The Committee therefore sought further views from the DIA and the NIAIC, and, following additional engagement with the sector, the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) and other stakeholders, assurances were finally received, after which the Committee was content to support the proposals.

All members of the Committee support the policy intent of GDL and share the hope that it will have create safer roads. At the same time, the Committee has fulfilled its scrutiny responsibilities. It certainly challenged the Department and the Minister, where necessary; sought additional evidence where it saw fit; ensured that those most affected had the opportunity to be heard; and secured the assurances that it needed before supporting any implementation. That is how Assembly scrutiny should work: not against the Department but with the Department.

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will make a few brief points as DUP infrastructure lead. As I mentioned when I spoke in my role as Committee Chair, I accept that the Minister's policy intent is road safety. Every death on our roads is one too many. In her opening speech, the Minister mentioned a death that had occurred in her constituency. This place needs to do everything in its power to ensure that we decrease the number of road deaths and injuries in Northern Ireland. In 2025, there were 56 deaths on our roads. If GDL assists in reducing that number next year, we would, of course, support it.

We have been told at Committee that the Department hopes that insurance premiums will come down as a result of GDL. Obviously, all Members will be concerned about that, especially when it comes to our young drivers. We will want to keep an eye on that, in particular, to see whether GDL has the impact that has been suggested and insurance premiums come down. However, for me, the key is road safety. We will all have met a family who has lost a loved one on the roads. As I have mentioned, every loss is a world-changing event for a family, especially if that loss is of a young person. I am content with the legislation before us.

Mr McNulty: I echo the Minister's condolences to the McCormick family after the tragic death of their little angel, Kourtney. While I can offer no words that will soothe their pain, grief and sadness, I know that the Carnagat community will wrap their arms around the family and offer them support. I measc na naomh go raibh sí.

I speak as the SDLP member on the Committee for Infrastructure and firmly support the policy intent of graduated driver licensing, which is to save lives and make our roads safer. The SDLP welcomes the graduated driver licensing changes announced by the Minister. The amendment regulations comprise a series of measures designed to provide new drivers with experience and skills over time. The measures include mandatory minimum learning periods and night-time passenger restrictions to help to prepare new drivers and avoid distractions too early on. While the new measures may seem cumbersome to some new and young drivers, they are important for increasing safety on our roads and will bring us into line with other jurisdictions that have introduced similar safety measures. The SDLP broadly supports the changes to enhance safety for all road users.

Ms Ennis: I, too, associate myself with the Minister's comments on the tragic death of Kourtney McCormick. I send my condolences and sympathy to her family at this very sad time.

Road safety should be a priority for us all. I therefore welcome the motion to approve the statutory rule on graduated driver licensing that has been brought before the Assembly. While I was not on the Committee for Infrastructure throughout the entirety of its scrutiny of the SR, I believe that, as the Chair has set out, stakeholders and witnesses have supported the introduction of GDL as a means to improve road safety, particularly for young people. As the Minister has set out, it is only one link in a chain of actions that she is taking to improve road safety alongside the introduction of a lower legal alcohol limit, legislation to further address the use of mobile phones while driving and a safer journeys to school programme and related legislation. It is clear that the Minister is steadfast in her commitment to doing everything that she can to improve road safety and reduce the high number of deaths that we continue to see on our roads.

Looking at 2025 statistics and seeing that 56 people lost their lives on our roads across the North should act as a reminder to us that we all have more to do and that all of us who drive on our roads have a responsibility to make them safer. Fifty-six people being killed on our roads means that 56 families, workplaces and clubs feel the huge loss of a loved one. Things definitely have to change. I think that we all recognise and respect that.

The primary objective of the shaking up of driver licensing here in the North is to improve road safety by ensuring that young people are better equipped for driving on our roads. However, at present, many young people pass their tests and are completely priced out of driving because of the insurance rip-off that we are seeing. I take this opportunity, as Sinn Féin continues to do, to call on the insurance companies to step up, take notice of the changes that we will be making here in the autumn and reflect those changes in the prices that they quote to new drivers. Young people will play their part through the new process, but being quoted an extortionate £5,000 for insurance is not acceptable. It needs to be reduced, and insurance companies need to play their part and work with the Assembly on that issue. Profiteering on the backs of new and young drivers is wrong and, in the midst of a rising cost-of-living crisis, many of them simply cannot afford to get on the road.

I commend the Minister for her efforts on GDL, as a measure to make our roads safer, and I welcome the Minister's commitment to rolling out a major public information campaign to further raise awareness and support for GDL. I look forward to seeing the positive impact that it, as well as the other measures that I have listed that the Minister is implementing, will have on our roads and our road users.

Mr McReynolds: I start by sharing my condolences and those of my party colleagues to the family of Kourtney McCormick on her tragic passing.

I welcome the important next step in the introduction of the graduated driver licensing scheme as Alliance spokesperson for Infrastructure, a Policing Board member and chair of the all-party group on road safety. As we have already heard today, the measures for graduated driver licensing were passed in the Road Traffic Amendment (Northern Ireland) Act 2016. A decade later, we are finally seeing its introduction. It is overdue in the context of the shocking number of deaths and collisions on our roads, the impact that that has on individuals and their families and the pressures that that puts on the PSNI.

What is the present context? We have already had 33 road deaths this year alone, and more than 150 since 2024. It is clear that more needs to be done to improve road safety. Data tells us that 24% of fatal or serious collisions are caused by drivers aged 17 to 23, despite their holding only 8% of licences, so it is clear that measures need to be targeted to address risks among less-experienced drivers. With the introduction of GDL, we hope to see a significant decline in road traffic accidents over time.

The regulations will amend the Motor Vehicles (Specified Restrictions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998 to reflect the introduction of revised restrictions for newly qualified drivers, updating the distinguishing mark and exemptions. The revised restrictions will include a mandatory minimum learning period of six months; a programme of training; a logbook; passenger restrictions; new R-plates; the extension of the post-test period to 24 months; and removal of the 45 mph speed limit on motorways. Those restrictions have been discussed and debated in the Infrastructure Committee, and it is fair to say that we are satisfied with them now. The introduction of the different R-plates for the first six months and the following 18 months will assist in the identification of those who are under passenger restrictions. There was concern around how identification would work, and I welcome the clear, pragmatic approach that was found to address those concerns.

I commend those from the driving instructor industry, the DVA and those in the Northern Ireland Road Safety Partnership for all their work in preparing for the smooth introduction of the GDL measures. They have been proactive and thorough in ensuring that they understand what is expected of them to make GDL a success story.

Members will remember the news when it was first announced that we would be the first in the UK to introduce GDL practices. Being recognised in that manner, as a leader in road safety, is a great step, and I hope to see the future success of GDL to reduce the number of collisions and fatalities on our roads.

Our work on improving road safety here in Northern Ireland is not over today. However, GDL will make a significant difference, so Alliance will support the passage of the regulations, and I thank the Minister for her work to date on them and for her sincerity today.

Mr Harvey: Minister, the thrust of graduated driver licensing is to provide new and learner drivers and riders with better experiences and skills over time, doing so in low-risk environments. There was much consternation across the House and in Committee around the way in which the Minister first announced that plan. Nonetheless, it is welcomed and represents the single most radical overhaul of our learner-driver and licensing programme for many decades. I am grateful to the departmental officials who have engaged heavily with the sector and our driving instructors ahead of implementation.

Over 300 individuals have been killed on our roads over the past five years, and we think especially of those whose lives have been lost in recent days. It is no secret that the cohort of 17- to 25-year-olds proportionately remains the age group with the highest involvement in serious injury collisions on our roads. It is against that backdrop that many of the changes that have been emphasised are to be welcomed as the Department seeks to increase safety on our roads. Moves to increase the restricted period to two years and introduce a mandatory learning period of six months before a practical test can be conducted and a requirement to complete an evidenced programme of training will better standardise the learning period and enhance driver safety post test.

Further clarity will be required from the Minister and her officials on a number of proposals, particularly in relation to how the learner logbook will operate and how verification by a qualified driver will be policed in practice to ensure that there is limited opportunity for the abuse of that new element. I welcome the post-test passenger-carrying restrictions, which I believe the general public will view as a valuable and much-needed change in the restricted driving period. It is arguable that, of all the changes that are proposed in the regulations, that change will likely prove the most effective in having a direct impact on reducing the percentage of young people involved in serious injury collisions on our roads.

Minister, if you get a chance, I want you to tell us a wee bit more about the removal of the 45 mph speed limit. Maybe we could have a conversation about it at a later stage. Notwithstanding the need for further clarification on some of the detail, I am very happy to support the motion and welcome the reforms that are being advanced by the Minister.

Mr Stewart: Before I start, I send my condolences and thoughts to the family of Kourtney McCormick and the families of all those who have lost their lives on our roads this year and in recent years. It is truly tragic, and our thoughts are with them all.

We all want to see fewer road traffic collisions, fewer serious injuries, and, most importantly, fewer families having to endure the devastating loss of a loved one on our roads. If the GDL can help to improve driver behaviour, increase safety and save lives, they are to be welcomed. On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I welcome them.

It has been 10 years since the legislation came in. There has been a variety of reasons for the hiatus between then and now, but I thank the Minister and her officials for getting us to this stage. However, I have made this point before, and it is not personal in any way, but the roll-out could have been handled better. Throughout the Committee's scrutiny process, it became clear that greater engagement with key stakeholders at an earlier stage would have made for a smoother, more streamlined implementation process. In particular, concerns were raised by representatives of the driving instructor sector regarding communication, preparedness and operational clarity. Driving instructors, as we know, are at the coalface of driver education and training. They have a unique understanding of the practical realities facing learners and newly qualified drivers. Their expertise should have been valued and utilised from the outset when significant changes such as those were being proposed. The Minister will point to the fact that they were consulted in 2015, but the reality is that, like the Committee, they found out from listening to the airwaves. For full and effective implementation, it might have been better to bring them along at the earliest possible stage, so that there was not the fear that they would not be ready in time for the roll-out, but we are where we are.

I am pleased that, following Committee scrutiny and subsequent engagement with the Department, DVA and the instructor sector, many of those concerns appear to have been addressed. That demonstrates the value of constructive engagement and effective Assembly scrutiny. Like the Committee Chair, I record my thanks to all those who took the time to come to the Committee and give evidence during that consideration period. In particular, I thank representatives from the Driving Instructor Association, the Northern Ireland Approved Instructor Council, the Association of British Insurers and the Youth Assembly for their thoughtful contributions.

I thank the Members of the Youth Assembly in particular. Young drivers are among those who will be most affected by the changes, and it was vital that we got their input. Many of those who spoke to us on the day were only two or three years old when the consultation took place and the legislation was passed, so it was interesting to get their insight. While they pointed out that they would have liked further consultation, they were aware of why that did not happen.

Moving forward, I will be keen to get assurances from the Minister that every effort will be made to ensure that the introduction of the GDL is as seamless and effective as possible. Her officials have been working tirelessly behind the scenes. Over the weekend, however, when I was out and about around the constituency, driving instructors and soon-to-be first-time provisional drivers were asking me questions that I still did not know the answer to. The driving instructors were concerned about the roll-out of their GDL training. I urge the Minister to continue her ongoing engagement. Members have raised that at the Committee, but there is a fear of the unknown in how that training will be rolled out. I hope that that comes to fruition, and I will be keen to hear the Minister's opinion on that.

Other Members raised the issue of insurance costs. One of the arguments that is often advanced in support of the GDL is that it will result in safer roads and reduce risk over time, which, in turn, will lead to lower insurance premiums for newly qualified drivers. While road safety is paramount, and that is the intent of the GDL regulations, the by-product of that will, hopefully, be a reduction in insurance premiums. I do not have to tell the House just how ridiculous insurance fees are for young people here. Some are being quoted mortgage-like prices, and the Association of British Insurers has finally accepted that it needs to amend the reporting mechanism. As members of the Committee will know, until we asked for that to be changed, the ABI was not reporting by area or by demographic, which meant that we were not able to track whether young people in Northern Ireland would be positively affected by the introduction of the GDL.

Going forward, Minister, my understanding is that the ABI will do that. I know that that strays into the remit of other Departments, particularly the Department for the Economy, but it will be interesting to see whether we can track that. Any impact, even a 10% reduction in insurance premiums, would be vastly helpful to young people, some of whom are being quoted between £3,500 and £4,500 a year — I do not need to tell you that.

Those are just some of the points that I wanted to raise. I am keen to see this going forward and look forward to the roll-out. Hopefully, the Minister and her officials will continue to engage with stakeholders to ensure that it is rolled out efficiently.

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

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

I genuinely want to thank everyone for their contributions to the debate. First, I want to acknowledge the work of the Committee to complete its scrutiny. This has been a fast-moving process, some of which has been out of my control, but we are keen to get it in place for all the reasons that Members have outlined here today. Road death figures continue to rise, which is an incentive, but that is not to say that we are rushing it through. I also pay tribute to my officials, who have worked diligently to ensure that the Committee and Members have had the information that they needed to enable us to get to this stage. I am very grateful for everyone's work in relation to that.

I will deal with some of the points raised. First, I will address some of the concerns expressed by driving instructors. I declare an interest, which is that my brother-in-law is a driving instructor. Comprehensive, step-by-step guidance and support materials will be made available to approved instructors and supervising drivers. A young person does not need an approved instructor to assist them with that aspect. The guidance will clearly set out their respective responsibilities, the standards expected during supervised practice and practical approaches to support new learner drivers effectively. The guidance will also include detailed information on the use of the learner logbook and the associated programme materials.

The Department will continue to review and enhance those resources to ensure that supervising drivers are appropriately informed and supported. I hope that it gives comfort to know that that is not set in concrete and can be updated to reflect changing needs, as well as things that may change outside of that. The guidance itself was intended to promote compliance, to reinforce road safety, which is at the core of this work, and to ensure that there is a consistent understanding of the new arrangements. I hope that that, in itself, will provide reassurance that we will do everything that we can to support people in the time ahead, particularly the approved driving instructors and supervising drivers.

Harry Harvey asked about the lifting of the 45 mph speed limit for newly qualified drivers. The rationale behind removing that is to allow learner drivers to be taught how to drive at speeds appropriate to the conditions. Even as a learner driver or a new driver, we will all have experienced trying to drive at 45 mph on a motorway or a dual carriageway, which is very challenging, particularly given the speed of other drivers. In some circumstances, it is particularly dangerous, and that was recognised. Raising the limit will help them to build confidence and experience in coping with those types of environments when they are out on the roads and build that into their ability in the longer term. The requirement is to drive safely at up to posted speed limits once they have passed the driving test and are driving independently, and the change is to reflect that that is a real situation as opposed to having to do it at a lower limit.

A lot of Members raised the insurance issue. I agree. We need to look at everything that we can do to address what are extortionate insurance premiums, particularly for new drivers who have just got a new car. My colleague here told me about his experience with his young people, where some quotes were more than £7,000. If that had been the case when I was newly driving, I definitely would not have got a car. I would not have been able to. Addressing that is in the interest of equality, to ensure that everyone has access to learning to drive. I have engaged with the Association of British Insurers and have had a number of meetings to look at what will have an impact. The evidence shows that, in other jurisdictions where the GDL model is in place, it has had an impact. Insurers assess premiums on the basis of risk, and, in essence, GDL will reduce the risk in time. Drivers' skills and confidence on the roads will improve, which will improve road safety. That has the potential to bring down insurance premiums.

Like everything, it will take some time, but we will monitor it closely while looking at what else we can do. The Member rightly said that things go across different Departments. There is also a role for DOJ in relation to claims management, and I have had discussions on the matter with the ABI. We need to recognise the real and significant challenges facing our young people in particular when they are trying to obtain car insurance. Given that we have such a large rural community, we recognise that, for some people, having access to their own car is the only option for getting out and about, whether that is to work or for other reasons. We recognise that that is a significant issue, and we need to address it. We have some pathways to ensure that we can make progress on that.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for giving way. Like other Members, I welcome the fact that we have reached this point. There seems to be consensus among Committee members and, I am sure, all Members that the introduction of these measures will save lives, which begs the question of whether the 10-year delay in introducing the measures had an opposite effect.

Does DVA anticipate an avalanche of applications for driving tests in advance of the introduction of the measures? If so, can we ensure that the agency is adequately resourced to deal with it, if it arises?

Ms Kimmins: The key point is that we recognise that not everybody will be ready for the driving test, even with the eagerness to get ahead of the new system. We have to remember that the six-month period is not for someone who already has a provisional driving licence. It takes effect from the date on which they get their provisional licence. If someone has had their provisional licence for some time, it will not affect their ability to progress. It is important to clarify those points.

When I introduced GDL, we recognised that it would be the biggest transformation of driver licensing in 70 years. It is the biggest reform, and I recognise that there are many technicalities to it. Yes, I agree with the Member that it should not have sat for 10 years, but things beyond our control restricted our ability to progress. When I came into post on the back of the work that John O'Dowd had done when he was Minister, a lot of the delay in getting to this stage was to do with progressing the digital app and moving things over. It has been a huge piece of work, but I am really pleased that we are where we are today, and I thank the Committee and Members for their support in getting it progressed. I ask the Assembly to approve the regulations today.

Mr Speaker: The next items of business are motions to approve two statutory rules (SRs), both of which relate to social security benefits. I will ask the Clerk to read the first motion and then call the Minister to move it. The Minister will then be invited to commence the debate on both motions listed in the Order Paper. When all Members who wish to speak have done so, I shall put the Question on the first motion. The second motion will then be read into the record, after which I will call the Minister to move it. The Question will then be put on that motion straight away. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

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

Mr Lyons: The uprating of our benefits in line with the consumer price index is something simple that we do every year, so I do not intend to detain the House for too long. We understand what the statutory rules do, why they are necessary, and why it is necessary for us to stay in line with the rest of the UK and ensure parity. Importantly, as a result of the uprating package, approximately £425·7 million more will be paid out by my Department to people in Northern Ireland on social security benefits and pensions. I am sure that that will be welcomed. We would not want to stay out of line with what people elsewhere in the country get. I therefore ask the Assembly to support the regulations.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I welcome the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026 and Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 2026.

The Committee considered the SL1 for each statutory rule at our meeting on 8 January 2026. Members were content for the Department to make the rule at that stage. The Department later confirmed that no changes had been made to the policy content since the SL1s were submitted. Subsequently, the final text of both rules was considered by the Committee at our meeting on 16 April 2026. Both rules came into effect on 1 April and are subject to the confirmatory resolution procedure. They will cease to have effect after six months unless approved by the Assembly.

The order is part of the regular annual social security uprating package, as the Minister outlined, and provides for revised rates of certain social security benefits, pensions and allowances. It corresponds to an equivalent Order made in Britain and maintains parity. The Department advised the Committee that benefits linked to the general level of prices were to be increased in line with the consumer price index from October 2024 to September 2025, which was 3·8%. That increase applies to a wide range of benefits, including the state pension, the additional state pension, attendance allowance, carer's allowance, disability living allowance, personal independence payment and industrial injuries benefit. The personal allowance for jobseeker's allowance, contributory employment and support allowance, income support and housing benefit have all also increased by 3·8%. Furthermore, benefits linked to the general level of earnings were increased by 4·8%, which was based on average weekly earnings in the year to July 2025. Accordingly, the basic state pension increased from £176·45 a week to £184·90 a week from April 2026. The full rate of the new state pension increased from £230 a week to over £241 a week. Additionally, the standard minimum guarantee element of pension credit for a single person increased from £227·10 a week to £238 a week, while the rate for couples increased from £346 a week to £363·25 a week. Most pension and benefit changes under the order took effect on 6 April.

The regulations are consequential to the uprating order and provide the supporting technical changes needed to ensure that the revised benefit rates operate correctly. The regulations increase the earning limit for carer's allowance from £196 a week to £204 a week. That is the amount that a person may earn in the preceding week without being treated as being gainfully employed and losing entitlement to the benefit. The Department advised that the revised amount is based on 16 times the hourly national living wage, rounded up to the nearest pound. The regulations also increase the personal expenses allowance from £32·30 a week to £33·55 a week, reflecting that 3·8% increase in CPI. That is a modest amount that goes to a person in cases in which their benefit is paid directly to an accommodation provider.

Additionally, the regulations deal with some practical issues arising from the uprating exercise. They provide that, where a question has arisen about the effect of the uprating order on a benefit that is already in payment, the altered rates will not apply until that question has been determined, avoiding incorrect payments.

A screening exercise concluded that the legislation does not have significant implications for equality of opportunity or good relations and that a regulatory impact assessment was not required, because the legislation does not impose costs on businesses or charities.

The Committee was satisfied that the Department proceeded appropriately in the case of both pieces of delegated legislation. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee for Communities, I recommend that the Assembly confirm the rules.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

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

Mr Lyons: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The regulations are part of the annual uprating package. They increase the lump sum compensation that is payable by the scheme under the Mesothelioma, etc., Act (Northern Ireland) 2008.

As with the previous motions, we do this every year. It has the same benefits as the uprating order. The benefits have been increased in line with the rate of inflation — by 3·8% for the year 2026-27 — mirroring the percentage increase to the industrial injuries benefit in the main uprating order. I do not intend to go into the detail and history of the scheme; I have done that before. If anyone is interested in that, they can read the Hansard reports from previous years.

I ask that Members support the motion.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I suspect that the Minister just does not want to have to say "mesothelioma" too many times.

As Chair of the Committee, I support the confirmation of the Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. The Committee has considered the statutory rule. It examined the SL1 during its meeting of 8 January. Members indicated that they were content for the Department for Communities to proceed with making the rule. The Department later confirmed that no changes have been made since the SL1 was submitted. The final text of the statutory rule was subsequently considered by the Committee at its meeting on 16 April.

The rule is subject to confirmatory resolution. Under section 10(2) of the parent Act — the Mesothelioma, etc., Act 2008 — the rule must receive the formal approval of the Assembly before the expiration of six months from the date of its coming into operation, otherwise it will cease to have effect. The rule took effect on 1 April, and the Committee recommends that the Assembly confirms the rule today.

The regulations are made under sections 1(3), 9(1) and 9(2) of the Mesothelioma, etc., Act. The 2008 Act provides the legal framework to enable lump sum compensation payments to be made to individuals who have been diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma, or to their surviving dependants, in circumstances in which the sufferer did not make a successful claim within their lifetime. Under the scheme, payments are made without any requirement to prove negligent exposure to asbestos or to establish that the exposure occurred during employment. That design ensures that crucial financial relief can be delivered rapidly to those who are affected by the severe condition. While there is no explicit statutory obligation to increase the payment thresholds each year, it is rightly a long-standing policy to adjust the levels annually in line with inflation. The uprating that is contained in the rule is based on the consumer price index, which was 3·8%. As the lump sum supports individuals disabled through asbestos-related disease, it operates in direct alignment with other social security disability benefits. The regulations substitute the existing tables in the 2008 regulations to apply the 3·8% uplift, with figures being rounded to the nearest pound. The specific allocations are contained in detail in the regulations.

Turning to financial and regulatory matters, the payments distributed under the scheme are funded by Westminster from amounts recovered from civil compensation through the compensation recovery mechanism, ensuring no net cost to the public purse. The Department advised that a formal screening exercise concluded that the rule does not carry significant implications for equality of opportunity or good relations under section 75 of the NI Act 1998. A regulatory impact assessment was not required as the provisions impose no financial or compliance costs on business, charities, social enterprise or voluntary bodies here.

The regulations maintain parity of timing and substance with Britain, where an identical instrument came into force on the same date.

The Committee remains satisfied that these regulations are necessary to support individuals and families across the North who face the profound implications of this severe disease. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee for Communities, I am content to recommend that the Assembly confirm the rule.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Committee for its work and the Chairman for his comments. I can assure him that, after two years in this job, I have learnt how to say "mesothelioma" as well as "pneumoconiosis" and "semiquincentennial". That is something for others who take this job after me to look forward to. The Member has set out quite clearly the impact of the changes that we are going to make and the reasons for them, so I ask the House to support them today.

Mr Speaker: There is a prize for who says "mesothelioma" best, and the Clerk has not won on this occasion.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit for the debate.

Mr Butler: On behalf of the AERA Committee, I request an extension to the Committee Stage of the Hunting with Dogs Bill to 5 February 2027. That date was agreed after discussions in Committee on 11 June 2026, and I will now outline the reasons why the Committee agreed to request that extension of the Committee Stage.

The Committee was first briefed on the proposed content of the Bill at its meeting of 30 April by the sponsor Member, John Blair, and heard that the Bill is intended to amend the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 to bring the position more closely into line with legislation in other jurisdictions. Also, we were told that the Bill will seek to prohibit the use of dogs to hunt, attack or kill wild animals and to address potential loopholes, including where trail hunting may be used to mask illegal hunting. We were told that it also provides for a number of exemptions to permit legitimate activities such as pest control and the protection of livestock, but the Bill does not extend to other forms of hunting, such as drag hunting or to those involving firearms.

This is a complex and sensitive area of policy, and the Committee considers that the Bill will require careful scrutiny. A wide range of issues were raised at Second Stage, both in support of and in opposition to aspects of the Bill. The Committee did not take a position in the Second Stage debate, and it is therefore important that sufficient time is available to examine the issues in full. Areas that the Committee will be keen to consider include scrutinising whether terms such as "hunting", "searching", "pursuing" and "participation" are clearly and precisely defined. In particular, the Committee will wish to consider the extent to which intent or knowledge must be established to ensure that individuals are not penalised for unintended or accidental actions.

The Committee will also need to examine the scope and the practical operation of exemptions to ensure that livestock protection and pest control can operate effectively in practice. In addition, the Committee will need to consider the proportionality of the proposed penalties and the practicalities of enforcement — there are a lot of "p"s in there — including the guidance available to enforcement bodies and the potential resource implications for the PSNI and other relevant Departments.

The Committee will also need to scrutinise the evidence base underpinning the Bill, including consideration of the experiences in England, Wales and Scotland and, in particular, in relation to animal welfare outcomes, enforcement and any unintended consequences.

Through engagement with farmers, landowners and other rural stakeholders, it will be important to address any impact of the Bill on rural communities and livelihoods. Indeed, the Committee consultation process via Citizen Space has been open for less than a week, and I can report that there have already been 100 responses. That shows considerable public interest. The Committee will, of course, analyse all consultation responses carefully.

Given the breadth and complexity of the issues, the Committee considers that the extension is necessary to allow for proper scrutiny while completing in time to allow for the remaining stages of the Bill before the end of the mandate. The Committee is currently managing two private Members' Bills and must also prepare for the introduction of the imminent Executive Bill — the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill. The Committee considers it preferable to examine those Bills in parallel rather than risk curtailing scrutiny of any one of them. The Committee's experience from the Agriculture Bill and the Dilapidation Bill is that significant evidence can emerge late in Committee Stage. Even with the extension provided in those cases, the Committee faced significant pressure to incorporate late evidence within reporting deadlines. The Committee also expects to receive a Research and Information Service paper following summer recess, which is likely to identify further issues for the Committee.

The Committee's public call for views is under way, and we encourage all interested individuals and organisations to contribute. The Committee is committed to ensuring that the Bill and its wider impacts are given full and appropriate consideration alongside the Committee's broader scrutiny responsibilities.

Therefore, having consulted with the Bill Office and having considered the evidence that the Committee intends to take and its wider workload, the Committee seeks the support of the House to extend the Committee Stage of the Hunting with Dogs Bill until 5 February 2027. However, the Committee will of course work at pace to report in advance of that, if at all possible.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit for the debate.

Mr Mathison: The Committee for Education decided its timeline for the Committee Stage of the Education Inspections Bill by attempting to strike a balance between the competing priorities of delivering legislation in a timely fashion and the crucial components of good scrutiny. Having considered all the relevant factors in the mix, the Committee agreed a motion to extend the Committee Stage until 9 December 2026.

The Committee took a pre-legislative briefing some time ago on the proposed legislation. The Bill has subsequently been to the Executive for consideration, and departmental officials have advised that certain aspects of the Bill have been changed since the original briefing and draft. That is particularly in relation to the inclusion of the inspection of RE, which was not previously going to be in scope, and some changes to the proposals around the sanctioning of teachers since the criminal offence has been removed. We will come to that, I am sure. Clause 3 has raised significant commentary and concern and is likely to be a feature of the Committee's deliberations. We are mindful of the concerns that were raised at Second Stage about clause 3, which was linking the inspection process to teacher conduct and introducing a definition of "unacceptable professional conduct" when a teacher does not cooperate with an inspection. That could lead to disciplinary action, although the detail of that is not clear. That is something that the Committee will need to explore in more detail. It will engage with the Department and stakeholders to examine exactly what the impact of that clause as drafted will be.

So far, the Committee has launched a Citizen Space survey on the provisions of the Bill and invited all education stakeholders to submit written submissions on the proposal. Following the conclusion of that Citizen Space survey, the further stages anticipated in our Committee deliberations are the holding of oral evidence sessions on the substance of the Bill; Committee deliberation on any evidence received; engagement as required with departmental officials to answer any queries arising from those evidence sessions and members' considerations of the Bill; the development and consideration of potential Committee amendments; informal and formal clause-by-clause scrutiny and approval of the Bill; and consideration and approval of the final Committee report to the Assembly. The Committee has set out a timeline, including all those steps, with a view to permitting adequate time to complete each of those by the 9 December deadline, if not before.

The Committee is mindful, with all the legislation that it is dealing with at the moment, of the flow of legislation through the Assembly. It takes its scrutiny role seriously as well as its responsibility to optimise the opportunity to deliver legislation in the mandate, and we hope that the timeline established will allow the passage of the Bill before the Assembly dissolves. I anticipate a lot of interest and debate at Committee Stage, particularly on clause 3, as has been referenced. On balance, however, I believe that the Committee Stage extension to 9 December is reasonable and constitutes adequate time for consideration of all relevant factors in the Bill's new legislative proposals.

I will now make a brief comment as a Member. As I said, the Bill attracted significant debate at Second Stage due to concerns about clause 3. It is important to note again at this stage, however, that it is a three-clause Bill, with each clause doing very different and separate things. I put on record that I am particularly interested in clause 2, which proposes to deliver the long overdue reform to ensure that RE is inspected by the Education and Training Inspectorate in our schools. It is important that we have the appropriate time at Committee Stage to scrutinise that proposal. I have concerns that it does not go far enough, in that, as far as I can tell, it leaves on the statute book provisions allowing the Churches to retain rights of inspection, which I can see no good reason to continue at this point.

The more controversial clause 3 proposes to sanction teachers who do not comply with inspections. We are aware of the concern that that has caused among the teaching profession, and it is important to scrutinise the clause properly to establish exactly what its effect would be, whether it could be amended and improved to the satisfaction of the teaching profession, or whether, if necessary, on the basis of its deliberations, the Committee might decide to table an amendment to remove it in its entirety. The proposed Committee Stage deadline gives us the time to do that work and do it thoroughly.

Undoubtedly, this is important legislation, and I hope that the proposed stage extension receives support so that the concerns that we have identified with the Bill can be given the attention required.

Mr Brooks: I will say a few words rather make a lengthy speech. The Justice Bill is coming up, and I am sure that my colleague Mr Frew will have that covered. I rise not to oppose the Committee Stage extension but just to place on record my party's view, which the Chair has reflected, that the deadline should not be a target but that we should work to progress the Bill efficiently and get the legislation through.

Whilst we will have differences of opinion on some aspects of the Bill, I think that all will agree that inspections are key to ensuring the quality of our education system in supporting schools, identifying key needs and having a key role in safeguarding students. Therefore, I do not want to see any undue delay to the Bill. We have seen some enthusiasm for private Members' Bills introduced by those on the Benches opposite progressing at speed, and I hope to see similar motivation for such a key issue as inspections. In the past — admittedly, when there was less time pressure — the Committee was generous with its time when hearing from stakeholders. Of course, we wanted to hear the key issues that stakeholders aired and that we reflected on. Quite often, however, the Committee heard from those who were not necessarily changing minds or bringing something new to the conversation; rather, they were reflecting what we had already heard from similar organisations.

We should always be willing to ensure that key issues are aired, but we should balance that with the time pressures and the need to get business done. In that spirit, I hope that the extension deadline is not a target and that we can progress more quickly than that.

Mr Speaker: I call the Chair, Nick Mathison, to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Mathison: I have nothing to add to my original comments other than to respond to Mr Brooks. It was clear in our Committee discussions and in my remarks that I certainly do not view the date as a target and would hope that we could move through the process more quickly, but, given the particular concerns raised by the teaching profession, it is important to build in the time to hear that evidence. There is certainly no intention of foot-dragging on my part. Other than that, I covered everything in my opening remarks and am happy to conclude.

Ms McLaughlin: The SDLP will support amendment No 96 and oppose amendment No 97.

On amendment No 96, the Chamber should ask itself a simple question: are we setting people up to succeed when they leave prison, or are we setting them up to fail? Rehabilitation begins not the week after someone is released but the moment they walk through the prison gates. For many people leaving custody, the first few hours and days are critical, often making the difference between reconnecting with support services and falling back into the crisis that took them into prison in the first place.

I have seen that first-hand on many occasions. My office on Spencer Road in Derry is next door to a bail hostel. Often, people are placed in that hostel over the weekend without support and maybe without medication. There are no doctors on call, so they can end up in A&E. Complete and utter chaos can be set upon them, which does not give them the chance that they need. People are often placed outside the area where they lived or were brought up, and they have no connections where they are placed. Those people are so vulnerable and can be preyed on in such situations. It is therefore really important that amendment No 96 be supported across the House. It can make the difference between rebuilding a life and returning to the old patterns that ultimately lead back into the justice system. Under the current arrangements, someone can be released on a Friday evening or before a bank holiday with little or no access to support. We heard some of the figures from Paul Frew last night. The number of releases on a Friday evening is incredible. No housing support, no healthcare, no addiction services, no benefits advice and no employment support or probation services until days later: that simply does not make sense.

If someone leaves prison with nowhere to stay, no access to support and no way of getting help until Monday morning, it is not surprising that things can and do go wrong. We often talk about rehabilitation as if it is something abstract, but rehabilitation is about practical things. It is about having somewhere safe to sleep. It is about being able to access healthcare in a timely fashion. Often, the people involved are vulnerable and on support medications that they need immediately. It is also about finding work and, hopefully, reconnecting with family and community support, the ground for that having been laid in advance of release.

It is about giving people a genuine opportunity to move forward, which is what the amendment seeks to support. It is important to be clear that it is not about reducing sentences or weakening accountability. It is not about being soft on crime; it is about being smart on crime. In reality, every person who successfully rebuilds their life after prison is one less victim of crime in the future. The public interest is not served when people leave custody and immediately face barriers to support.

Rather, the public interest is served when people are given the best possible chance to reintegrate and find stability and thus avoid reoffending. If we genuinely want safer communities, fewer victims and lower levels of reoffending, we should support the practical measures that will help make that happen. For those reasons, we will support amendment No 96.

I turn to amendment No 97, which the SDLP cannot support. Prison accommodation decisions are among the most sensitive and complex decisions that the prison authorities are required to make. They involve the balancing of rights, safeguarding concerns, welfare concerns and individual circumstances and require careful assessment and professional judgement. That is precisely why I am concerned by an amendment that would impose a blanket legislative approach on an area in which nuance and flexibility are essential.

Northern Ireland is operating in an evolving legal environment. The Equality Commission has acknowledged the ongoing legal uncertainty following the For Women Scotland judgement and has sought further legal clarity before issuing definitive guidance. In those circumstances, it seems premature to legislate in such a prescriptive way before the work has concluded and before the wider legal position here has been settled. It is also worth remembering that Northern Ireland's equality framework is different from that operating in Great Britain. The Equality Act 2010 does not generally apply here, and that distinction matters.

Beyond the legal arguments, there is a broader point to make, and it is that amendment No 97 appears to focus on a single scenario, when, in reality, prisons are complex places. Prison authorities deal with a much wider range of complex and challenging situations. The responsibility of prison governors is to ensure the safety, dignity and welfare of everyone in their care. Decisions should be informed by evidence, risk assessment and professional expertise. I believe that they are, so we should support the Prison Service and those who work in it in doing their job. Politicians in the Chamber are not better placed to make those decisions than the professionals in whom we put so much trust and who manage our prison system every day.

At a time when our prisons face significant challenges with rehabilitation, staffing pressures, overcrowding and safety, I am not convinced that the amendment addresses a pressing operational problem. Instead, I feel that it risks importing another culture war debate into legislation, when its is careful judgement and practical decision-making that are required. The people working in our prison system need flexibility to respond to individual circumstances. They need the ability to make decisions that protect everyone in custody. Blanket rules may make for simple political arguments, but they do not always work as good policy.

Our focus should be on ensuring that our prisons are safe, that people are treated with dignity and that rehabilitation remains at the heart of our justice system. That is how we create safer communities, how we reduce offending and how we build a justice system that works not only for those in custody but for the whole of society. For those reasons, the SDLP will support amendment No 96 and oppose amendment No 97.

Ms Sheerin: Like the Member who has just spoken, I and my colleagues in Sinn Féin will vote in favour of amendment No 96, which we believe to be a common-sense amendment to increase safety provisions for prisoners as they return to the outside world, and against amendment No 97, which is a deliberate and politically motivated oversimplification of a complex and sensitive issue.

Policy on prisoner management should be guided by evidence, including professional and operational expertise. Unfortunately, some seek to reduce that complex issue to an ill-informed and divisive culture war debate, which distracts from the practical realities of prison management and prisoner safety. Our focus is on how to protect the safety, dignity and welfare of prisoners and prison staff. The current risk-based approach to prisoner placement on a case-by-case basis, which is centred on specific individual assessments, is designed to do precisely that. Risk assessments should include full, evidence-based consideration of an offender, including pre-sentence reports, offending history and criminal records. Those with a history of violence or sexual abuse should not be placed in women's prisons.

The TUV amendment refers to the British Supreme Court judgement that interprets the Equality Act, which does not apply to us in the North of Ireland. Why would we incorporate into our law legislation that has not been debated, agreed or adopted by the Assembly? The judgement does not determine how our legal framework should be interpreted. We have our own equality legislation and, importantly, under the Windsor framework, European law provides the standard that must be maintained, which is a point that the Supreme Court in London did not deal with in its judgement.

While the Equality Commission has committed to producing legal guidance for employers and public bodies in the North, the guidance has not yet been produced. The commission should be given the time and space to carry out that work carefully. In that respect, the amendment prejudges that work and is therefore totally inappropriate.

We in Sinn Féin support a risk-based approach to prisoner placement, determined on a case-by-case basis through comprehensive individual assessment. That approach ensures that the safety and well-being of prisoners and prison staff remain the primary consideration and the deciding factors in every placement decision. We will vote against the TUV amendment.

Miss McAllister: I support amendment No 96 and oppose amendment No 97. I do not plan to speak to amendment No 96, as there were a number of interventions last night, and I will leave many of the remarks to my party colleague the Minister of Justice.

We oppose Timothy Gaston's amendment. I do not plan to mention too much about it, but I believe that it is a cynical attempt to bring culture wars and ideology, instead of security and safety for people in the prison system. The amendment would require the Department of Justice to issue guidance on the accommodation of men, ensuring that they are not held in prison accommodation containing one or more women. More often than not, we have conversations in the Chamber or in public about trans women, but that would place a trans man who has been convicted of a violent crime against a woman in a prison with women. It does not make sense, and it is not coming from the perspective of safety; it is coming from ideology.

The amendment is also flawed because it makes reference to the 2010 Equality Act, which, as the other two Members have said, does not apply in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that the Member referred to the recent Supreme Court judgement referring to Scottish prisons, which made a ruling on the definitions used in the Equality Act. However, given that the Act does not apply here, there are still questions —.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. Some Members were not in the Chamber when we had the discussion with the Chair last night, but the ruling is specifically on the policy that pertained in Scottish prisons, which was a bright-line policy, where anyone who was a trans woman was automatically housed in the female estate and anyone who was a trans man was automatically housed in the male estate. That is not the approach that we take. Therefore, the court ruling does not necessarily read straight across to what we do in Northern Ireland.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for that intervention. I was going to add that, but, as usual, the Minister has put it much better than I could.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mr Burrows: I just want to clarify something. You said that a trans man would be held in a women's prison and that would increase the risk. That would be a biological woman who could not commit an offence such as rape and would not have the extra strength that men have vis-à-vis women. I am trying to understand it.

Miss McAllister: You are saying that they would not have the same strength. I will not dignify that with an answer, but —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: In a moment. A trans man can be convicted of a violent crime against a woman or multiple women that is not a sexual crime.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: No, I will not give way. Do you know what? I do not want the debate to enter into an attack on people

and to mix up what people are saying.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. The issue is about understanding how people transition. Many trans men will have taken testosterone and will have significant strength because the hormone changes determine their strength. Indeed, when they start hormone therapy, trans women will often remark on their shock at the loss of the strength that they were used to in their previous life. It is possible for a trans man to commit a sexual assault; it is simply not true to say otherwise.

Mr Burrows: What about rape?

Mrs Long: Therefore, it is also possible—. With respect, I heard the Member interject with "rape". Rape is sexual assault by penetration, and, therefore, it is possible for somebody to commit that offence. Bear in mind that some people are post-operative and can commit those offences. Again, I caution Members against generalising about those issues, and I encourage Members to deal with these matters in a sensitive manner because we are dealing with individual circumstances that are highly personal and highly sensitive.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her intervention.

Mr McGlone: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes.

Mr McGlone: Surely the point that the Minister has just outlined is that the complexity of the cases emphasises and re-emphasises the need for each case to be assessed on its own merits and demerits.

Miss McAllister: Absolutely. Everyone is taking my speech; I was going to say that. Of course, it is complex and subjective to the individual person. If we are truly talking about keeping an individual safe and other prisoners safe, we would not do what the amendment proposes; we would carry on in the way that the system already operates, using a risk-based approach that is carried out by professionals in the Prison Service.

The Equality Commission asked for further clarity from the High Court, and it is important to give time for that because it is a complex issue, and we need to allow that space. I have faith that the current arrangements work, and there have been no negative consequences because of them. Replacing those arrangements with a system that is a blunt tool opens up more risks and safety questions. Therefore, rather than jumping the gun and using amendment 97 to push something through that has the potential to be dangerous, Alliance will oppose it.

Mr Burrows: At its heart, this is a simple premise. First, I commend Mr Frew for tabling amendment No 96, which we will support: it is a good amendment.

Amendment No 97 is a classic example of when we should be dealing with facts. There should be no place for feelings when we are dealing with legislation. We should treat trans people with compassion. You will never hear me use inflammatory language or insult trans people because they should be treated with dignity and respect. However, we are legislating to make sure that our prison estate is safe.

There is a fundamental fact that some people do not want to accept, and they gaslight women when they fail to accept it. The vast majority of violent and sexual crime is committed by biological men. That is the case the world over. Disproportionately, the victims of violent and sexual crimes are biological women. As a straightforward matter of fact, and whilst there are some caveats to this, generally speaking, a man is physically stronger than a woman. They do not participate in sports together, because men have a larger physical size. They also have more of a propensity to commit violent crime. In our prisons, we have people who, by their very nature because they are in prison, have shown a propensity to commit crime and to inflict violence or sexual crimes on others.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way to the Justice Minister.

Mrs Long: The Member stretched the definition of crime when he said that everyone in our prisons is a violent or sexual offender.

Mr Burrows: I did not say that.

Mrs Long: Actually, you did. You said precisely that. You stated, "have a propensity to commit crime" and "commit sexual and violent offences". That is what you said.

What I am saying is that there will be people who are in for non-violent offences, such as fraud, default on fines and a range of other non-violent offences. Again, can we try to dial down the hyperbole and focus on the issues?

Mr Burrows: Absolutely. We will review Hansard at the end of the day, and I will send a copy to the Justice Minister.

Mrs Long: There is really no need; it is available to everybody.

Mr Burrows: I am not sure that we are having interjections from the Floor, but I will not interfere with the Deputy Speaker's role.

I repeat for absolute clarity: the people in prison, by definition — it may not fit the woolly liberal world that some people want to live in — have a propensity to commit crime. That is why they are in prison. They have generally reached a threshold at which alternatives to prison have not worked. Many of them are in prison for violent and sexual crime, and I repeat what I said before: the overwhelming number of violent and sexual criminals in any society anywhere in the world are men. That is a stain on our character and not something that we should be proud of. About 90% of all crimes are committed by men — certainly violent and sexual crimes. Men have physical capabilities that, person for person, are greater than women's. They are larger and stronger than women in general. Women in prison are particularly vulnerable. They are in a confined space. They are somewhere where the state should keep them safe, and it is a well-established premise that that is the reason why we have males and females in different prisons. I see one of the Alliance Members shaking his head. Right across the United Kingdom and the Western World, men and women are kept in different prisons.

The issue has come into sharp relief because of trans issues. That is why we have had a very useful Supreme Court judgement, which people seem to want to dismiss. Let us be very clear on this: if someone who is trans is a biological man and is put in a women's prison, they are stronger than most women, they have a propensity to commit crimes and there are vulnerable women upon which those crimes can be inflicted. We are merely saying that we are going to airbrush out the fact that they are a biological man because the person identifies as a woman. We had the shocking case in Scotland where a man was convicted of rape, identified as a woman and was going to go to a female prison. This Executive and this Assembly believe in tackling violence against women and girls, yet we would permit a man to be in a prison with women because the man identifies —.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will not give way any more, because I have been misquoted.

A man has been identifying himself as a female. That is preposterous. Let us look at the logical conclusion and the Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court was clear that, yes, trans people have rights, including an article 8 right to freedom of private life and privacy and all kinds of other rights, but that that right does not trump the rights, in primary law, to allow men and women to be segregated safely, because safety is the primary duty of the state. It is a qualified right. On that side of the House, stretching from Alliance through to Sinn Féin, we have a kind of alliance that is now defying the Supreme Court and seems to refuse to allow a woman to go into a prison —.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to suggest that I, as Justice Minister, or, indeed, any Member of this House is "defying" a ruling of the Supreme Court when I have previously stood at the table and accepted the Supreme Court ruling and never once said that I would act contrary to the ruling of the court? We are waiting for a declaratory judgement by our local High Court in terms of interpretation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK, Minister. The point has been aired. I am not sure that that is a point of order under our existing Standing Orders, but the point has been noted and will be on the record.

Mr Burrows: People are entitled to make points of order and interventions. Last week, I was accused of using a prop simply because I had a speech in my hand.

I will get back to the main facts. The Supreme Court was clear in that seminal case that, under the Equality Act, the definition of a man was a biological man, and the definition of a woman was a biological woman. When you look at the purpose of that case, you see that, surely, it applies logically when we are deciding which prison people should go into. I say this to the legislators in the Chamber who seem to resist supporting an amendment that, anywhere else in the United Kingdom, would have majority support: they are doing so not because of facts but, I suspect, because the proposer of the amendment is Mr Gaston or because they themselves are in a culture war. It is not me who is in a culture war or who wants to run down trans people. If a trans person is attacked or discriminated against, the perpetrator should be held to account. That does not mean, however, that feelings trump facts or that ideological zeal gets in the way of safety in our prison estate. It is, as it has been for a very long time, a case of men and women being kept separately. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, you can, if required, put two prisoners in the same police cell, but you never put a man and a woman together because there is a risk of physical or sexual assault. We are saying in this place that we will leave that to the individual policy decision of someone in the Prison Service. We will literally entrust to them the application of a fundamental piece of law. This is not an operational detail but a fundamental reality: men should not be in prison with women.

People are ideologically captured on the opposite side of the House and cannot move on as the rest of the world has. Yes, a trans person has the right to say, "I want to identify as a woman". In sport, they have the right to say, "I wish to identify as a woman", but that does not mean that you let a biological man play rugby against women, because that would do physical damage to the women. It does not mean that you allow a biological man, even though they call themselves a woman, to take part in a long jump contest against a woman. Why?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Burrows, resume your seat, please. There have been a number of debates in the Chamber, points made in Members' statements and other mechanisms used to address the points that you are addressing currently, which relate to sports. I remind you that we are debating an amendment to the Justice Bill that relates specifically to prisons. Therefore, we will return to the theme and narrow confines of the debate. Stick to those, please.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will move on very swiftly because I always respect the role of the Chair.

The point that I am making is that there are practical differences that people practically realise, because there is a difference between men and women. It is in every single cell in our bodies. We had the same issue in last week's debate on the minimum age of criminal responsibility, where, unfortunately, the idea that we are positioned in some progressive spectrum was causing people to defy common sense and endanger women once again. I plead with the legislators in the Chamber to change their minds and simply say that, in Northern Ireland, we will not allow a biologically intact male into our female prisons.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way in one second.

To do so would violate the right to safety of every woman in our prisons, many of whom are vulnerable. You have a moment of truth: if there is a crisis or a grave attack on a woman, the responsibility will lie with those who have not done the right thing here tonight. We should not need to wait for updated advice on what the Supreme Court really meant: it is the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, some of the equality bodies in this country have been captured by an ideology, and we need to ensure that we do not get captured too.

In conclusion, I commend Mr Gaston for tabling his amendment. I do so without using any inflammatory or discriminatory language against trans people, who should have dignity and respect.

For centuries, men and women have been segregated in different prison establishments and in different cells in a police station. That is for good reason: women are especially vulnerable to violent attack and, indeed, to sexual assault. It would be a dereliction of duty by everybody in the Chamber if we were to allow a biological man into a prison estate with biological women because Members think that it is the progressive thing to do. It is not progressive for the victims of any future offence. It is not progressive for the women who would be endangered.

I plead with Members: abandon the ideological zeal; return to common sense. Let us reorientate ourselves in the real world that everyone else has moved on to and now occupies. We give trans people respect, but we do not allow that to trump safety in our prisons. I commend the amendment. My party will support it.

Mr Kingston: I rise to speak on the group 9 amendments to the Justice Bill, as we are all doing, on day 7 of our Consideration Stage. The end is in sight.

I will comment first on amendment No 96, tabled by DUP members Paul Frew, Maurice Bradley and me. As Paul Frew explained yesterday, the purpose of the amendment is to avoid the difficulties that arise for prisoners who are released at weekends or on public holidays, when support services — both statutory and voluntary sector services — are less likely to be available for them. That can result in difficulty securing accommodation and access to support services to help them reintegrate into society. Therefore, we propose that, in such circumstances, the release day should be brought forward by a day or two to a normal weekday to ensure that those support services are available. We consider that to be a common-sense policy that will support rehabilitation and help to prevent repeat offending and a cycle of re-imprisonment. I welcome the words of support for the amendment and trust that it will receive support across the House.

I will also comment on amendment No 97 from Timothy Gaston MLA on the accommodation of women prisoners. We consider it also to be a common-sense proposal in providing protection, and it should be supported. The amendment to rule 90 of the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995 would allow the Department of Justice to make individualised accommodation arrangements for a prisoner, provided that:

The amendment adds that, as per the Supreme Court ruling in April 2025:

namely that of "biological sex".

The matter has come to the fore in recent years as society as a whole has worked out its position on people claiming to be transgender. We in the DUP have been clear that women-only protected spaces — toilets; changing rooms; accommodation, including prison accommodation; sports categories; and so on — must be reserved for biological girls and women. Biological men should not be admitted to those spaces. That is common sense in the interest of safety. Going against that could have serious consequences for biological women and their safety. It is naive to think that biological women would not be at threat from biological men in the same prison accommodation.

It is clear that some political parties and legislators in Scotland got on the wrong side of public opinion and of the law on such matters. It has taken some time for that to be rectified. As we have discussed, a few days ago in Scotland, a judge ruled that existing prison guidance that allowed some transgender prisoners to be held in jails that match their preferred gender identity, rather than their sex at birth, is unlawful.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: In a wee minute. I will finish this part of my contribution first.

Put simply, the court ruled that a biological male prisoner who says that he is a trans woman should not therefore be admitted to a female jail. Judge Lady Ross said in her ruling that sex segregation in prisons must be based on biological sex on the basis of the Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of a man and a woman in equality law in April last year. The campaign group For Women Scotland had challenged the Scottish Government's guidance through a judicial review (JR), saying that only those born biologically female should be held in the women's estate. Lady Ross said that the existing guidance was:

She wrote:

Currently, the Scottish Prison Service uses a system of individual risk assessment that permits circumstances in which trans women born biologically male can be housed alongside women if they are deemed not to pose an unacceptable risk to them. The court, however, ruled that article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects private and family life, does not mean that there is an automatic right for a transgender prisoner to be housed in a prison designated for the opposite biological sex. As others have said, Lady Ross said that article 8 rights were qualified and may be restricted where there is a legitimate justification, including maintaining sex-based segregation in the prison estate.

I do not know whether the Minister still wishes to come in.

Mrs Long: No.

Mr Kingston: She does not. That is fine.

I consider amendment No 97 to give us the opportunity to provide such protection for women prisoners in Northern Ireland to avoid the mistaken guidance in Scotland. The DUP will therefore support it.

Mr Gaston: We have already heard the ideology train in full flow this afternoon. Let me be clear at the outset that amendment No 97 is based not on ideology but on biological reality and that those who will not support it are following their ideology and their vision of events. They are certainly not following the biological reality that we see and that the person with common sense on the ground — the Christian, conservative person from Northern Ireland — sees. Members will knock on doors in a number of years and find that they are out of touch with what the people of Northern Ireland want.

I will speak primarily to amendment No 97, which I tabled. I did not recognise it at the time, but I am indebted to the long-winded speeches by my North Antrim colleagues, which ensured that the Consideration Stage debate lasted for the time that it has. Now that I come to speak to my amendment, the arguments that I present in the Chamber are significantly more robust than they would have been prior to Friday's ruling. I say that because we debate the amendment at a particularly opportune moment, as, just last Friday, Scotland's highest civil court, the Court of Session, handed down its verdict in a case brought by For Women Scotland on the very issue of whether men should be accommodated in female prison spaces. The answer from Scotland was clear and emphatic.

Let me read from paragraph 181 of the judgement:

Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the For Women Scotland case, the words "man" and "woman" in that context refer to biological sex. That has sent the woke brigade into a tailspin ever since.

Of course, Lady Ross is referring to the rules on prison accommodation in Scotland, but the words "man" and "woman" in that context refer to biological sex. Do we have a similar rule? Is it spelt out in legislation? Yes, indeed it is. I draw Members' attention to the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995, which is a statutory rule made under section 13 of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953. It is not guidance; it is the law. It is something that sits above any other document produced by the Justice Department or the Northern Ireland Prison Service on the issue. What has it got to say about the issue? Part 10 of the 1995 rules deals specifically with women prisoners. The opening rule in Part 10, rule 90(1), addresses the question before us today:

Whatever the House decides in relation to my amendment, the law is already clear. Men have no business being held in the same prison accommodation as women. That is not just my opinion; it is the position of the highest court in Scotland when dealing with a similar question. Most significantly, it is the position of our legal framework.

Let us look at the guidance on the care and management of transgender prisoners, which has been mentioned in today's debate. Paragraph 2 of that guidance states that people's gender identities can be different from the sex that they were assigned at birth. The solution that the current guidance has in order to get around that idea is to house prisoners who identify — identify— as female in female accommodation. What did Lady Ross's judgement say about similar guidance in Scotland? She was clear. She drew attention to rule 126 of the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011, which is remarkably similar to our rule 90(1). Rule 126(1) states:

I will remind the House once again that our parallel rule 90(1) reads:

"Must" and "shall": there is not a lot of difference between those two words. Yet, currently, the Northern Ireland Prison Service has guidance that disregards that. Let us consider paragraph 179 of Friday's judgement and see what it said about similar guidance.

— the Scottish Prison Service —

So that is in conflict with the requirement. It is a misstatement of the law.

The reality could not be clearer as to what faces the House tonight, with the providence that that judgement happened last Friday and the amendment is being debated tonight. Has the Minister sought her own legal advice on the robustness of the guidance that she currently operates? I presume that she has not. Is she just waiting for someone to take a judicial review of the guidance?

I remind the Minister of the argument that activist organisations such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission hid behind, which was that article 2 of the Windsor framework means that the situation is radically different in Northern Ireland, or so they claim. That was blown out of the water by the Dillon judgement. I turn the House's attention to paragraph 157 of that judgement, which applies specifically to Northern Ireland and the extent to which article 2 can be applied:

That was the Dillon judgement. Where is the anchor in relation to housing men in women's prisons?

Let us look at the practice in Poland, an EU member state that has not been captured by the trans agenda. Put "transgender women" in the female prisons there and see what answer you get.

In a previous debate on the matter, some Members put much weight on the fact that a risk assessment was carried out in relation to transgender prisoners. I read the guidance in preparation for the debate. The word "risk" is mentioned only twice. Tellingly, on those occasions, it addresses the risk to transgender prisoners. The risk of transphobic harassment and transphobic hate crime is mentioned in paragraph 7. Only in paragraph 9 is the risk that a prisoner might pose mentioned. That comes as an afterthought. The transgender person is given primacy over those with whom they serve in prison. Interestingly, the Scottish guidance did the same in that it built in provision for a risk assessment. Did that remove women's legal right to their own space in prisons? I bring Members back to paragraph 179 of Lady Ross's judgement: arguing the like of that constitutes a misstatement of the law.

I draw the House's attention to paragraph (3B) in my amendment:

I pay tribute to the Bill Office. I confess that that element of the amendment would not have occurred to me, but it occurred to Bill Office staff owing to their professional expertise. I have made provision for those who do not accept that they conform to the gender binary to be accommodated in prison, but the amendment builds in a careful proviso: it stipulates that ensuring their welfare or dignity must not come at the expense of women. I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but, clearly, the official in the Bill Office who assisted with the amendment could lay claim to that title. I say that, because paragraph 181 of Friday's judgement in Scotland states:

Lady Ross accepted that those who claim a transgender identity have rights that should be respected, and I do not challenge that. My amendment does not challenge that. It respects what Lady Ross said. Significantly, however, she found that the Scottish Prison Service guidelines went beyond those rights in placing biological men in female spaces.

I invite the House to consider paragraph 174 of her judgement, which states:

That is exactly what the current system operating in our prisons does. Ironically, a TUV amendment gives more consideration to the rights of those who identify as transgender than the current guidelines do to the rights of women.

I will draw the House's attention to one final point in Lady Ross's judgement. In paragraph 149, she notes comments from the equality and human rights impact assessment that was carried out by the Scottish Prison Service to defend a policy that, as I have noted, is strikingly similar to the one that pertains to Northern Ireland. It is worth quoting again from the judgement. It states:

I ask the Minister directly: in June 2022, when the current guidelines came in, what was the role of Stonewall? How captured is your Department? The Scottish Prison Service relied on information that Stonewall provided as gospel, but when it was examined by the Scottish courts, it was found not —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: — to hold any water.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, you are moving some way off your amendment and towards previous judgements by the Department that are outside the scope of the debate, so please return to the subject of your amendment and confine your comments to that.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I am making reference to the guidance on the care and management of transgender prisoners. I am purely trying to get out of the Minister and the Department what role the discredited Stonewall had to play in the creation —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston —.

Mr Gaston: — of that guidance.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, I made a request. Now I am telling you: you will stop referring to previous judgements and decisions by the Department and stick to the subject of your amendment, or you will speak no further. You decide.

Mr Gaston: With respect, Deputy Speaker, I am referring to the guidance that is currently in operation, and, on that basis, I feel that it is very relevant to my amendment. However, I will take your guidance, and I will move on.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Yes, you will.

Mr Gaston: Towards the beginning of my remarks, I quoted from the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995 — the document that I am holding. It is not guidance; it is law, and it is clear. It is as clear as the corresponding legislation in Scotland. For the benefit of the House, rule 90(1) states:

The five pages of guidance cannot get around the fact that that is the law. That is what the Prison Service should be operating from. The current guidance that is operated for prisoners in Northern Ireland takes five pages to try to get around that, but the truth is that it does not get around that point in rule 90. One document is guidance, and the other is law; the former cannot supplant the latter.

I tell the House plainly that, if my amendment is voted down today, it will not be the end of the matter. If my amendment is voted down, and the Northern Ireland Prison Service continues to blindly disregard the law, the Prison Service will, I believe, continue to be acting illegally. Not only does it defy logic and common sense; it defies the law on the basis of guidelines that were never brought before any legislative Chamber and were, I suspect, written by one or a combination of several lobby groups. I appreciate that the Alliance Party is happy to outsource responsibility for its decisions to lobbyists, but that is not how the Chamber should do business. Will the Minister read out the list of organisations to which the guidance on transgender prisoners was outsourced? The same thing was done when it came to increasing the minimum age of criminal responsibility. I am sure that that list would enlighten the Members who are here tonight. Even if that is not produced today, the Minister can expect me to table questions or submit FOI requests on that matter.

Mr Deputy Speaker —.

Mrs Long: Would the Member be happy to give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Mrs Long: Our primary source of consultation at the time when the guidance was produced was that the director general engaged with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which is the statutory adviser on such matters.

Mr Gaston: I look forward to tomorrow's Executive Office Committee, when we will have the Equality Commission in front of us. That —.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows: Does the Member agree that it is anathema to safety in our prisons that, under the current position, which you are trying to reverse, biological males who are fully intact could, despite having been convicted of a sexual crime, be housed in a prison with females?

Mr Gaston: That is the reality that we are faced with. Yes, we hear all the good chat about risk assessments, but the law is the law. If we go back to operating the law, no man should be allowed in a women's prison. As I said, the guidance that I have gone through consists of a number of pages but cannot get away from or around that reality.

We have situations in which a man who claims to be a woman can say, "Oh, I have to be housed in a women's prison". They are then taken and have an absurd risk assessment carried out. That could, indeed, become reality, but the law is very clear, as is my amendment, that, if such a situation were to arise, it is up to the Prison Service to accommodate the man who is pretending to be a woman in their own space. If that person does not want to be part of the men's wing, that is up to them, but they certainly should not be allowed to go into a women's prison. That is what the law states, and I can see nowhere in any legislation that has been brought before the House where there has been a change to that definition.

Let us get back to the Supreme Court judgement, which refers to a person's sex being based on their biological sex, so a man is a man, and a woman is a woman. What someone is born with should determine how they are housed in prisons. I say again that my amendment includes a proviso that allows a man who wants to pretend to be a woman and does not want to abide by that law, reality or logic to be housed in separate accommodation.

Ms Sheerin: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you give an assessment on whether it is appropriate for Members to use transphobic language numerous times in the House?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Whilst, of course, there is a place for freedom of expression, I expect that Mr Gaston is fully aware of the need in this place for respectful language in descriptions of others. I ask him to bear that in mind as he moves forward. Further advice can be issued on the point of order, but those are the general guidelines on it: respectful language in description of others.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I remind the House of recent polling that has been carried out by LucidTalk and the 'Belfast Telegraph' in the aftermath of the Supreme Court judgement. It found that around 99% of TUV voters, 94% of Ulster Unionist voters, 93% of DUP voters, 58% of Sinn Féin voters, 57% of SDLP voters and 47% of Alliance supporters agreed with the UK Supreme Court ruling that sex is binary. What we have heard from the contributions today defies what the general public want their representatives to do. That is something that the parties in the House will not be able to get away from.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: The Member is quoting statistics on whether people agree with the Supreme Court judgement. That is not the issue for debate this evening. The issue for debate this evening is the amendment that the Member has tabled. Whilst he may be of the view that the Supreme Court judgement applies in a Northern Ireland context, that can be disputed. Therefore, the figures are irrelevant to the discussion that we are having.

Mr Gaston: In the Minister's intervention, she said that my view can be disputed. The Minister talks about the Scottish judgement as not being relevant. She talks about it as not being relevant because it relies on the Equality Act 2010, which does not, generally, extend to Northern Ireland. Therefore, let us step that through. Let us assume for a moment that she is right. Let us assume that the Equality Act is entirely irrelevant in this debate. That does not solve —

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Gaston: — the Minister's problem.

Mrs Long: The Member persists with misrepresentation. At no point did I say that the Supreme Court judgement was entirely irrelevant or without merit. Indeed, I have made the point now on a number of occasions that I respect the Supreme Court judgement, and no one is arguing against it. It is impossible, Mr Deputy Speaker, to have an orderly debate when Members deliberately misrepresent what other Members have said.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, whether the Member deliberately misrepresented something or not, he can reflect on that. We can certainly review the transcript of this, but I ask again that the Member who has the Floor and those who are intervening try to stick within the confines of the debate on the amendments. It is one thing to set context, but we are straying very far and wide from that.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will continue with the train of thought that I was on. If the Equality Act does not apply, I ask the House this very simple question: what provision of Northern Ireland law permits a biological male — a biological man — to be treated as a woman for the purposes of rule 90? Rule 90 has never been changed and states:

The Minister has not tried to challenge me on that. She has not got to her feet to say that I am wrong in pointing that out. It is obviously correct then that that indeed is the law. I can find no provision that redefines the word "woman". Let us take this because that is exactly where we are at. This is the law. It is what the Prison Service should be following, and I am gravely concerned that, in the current system, the guidance that the Minister is following is based on ideology. It is not based on law, and, on that basis, I believe that it is dangerous. My amendment is clear. It sets out a provision where, for a man who pretends to be a woman and does not want to go to a male prison — a men's prison — there is that individualised opportunity. That risk-assessed —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, I have asked you to use respectful language when speaking about and describing others. You have clearly decided not to do that. The next time that you use that description, I will stop you, and your contribution to the debate will be finished. Be mindful of that. Please also be mindful not to stray so far and wide. I also ask you not to repeat points and ask questions of Members. This is not Question Time: it is a debate.

Mr Gaston: I will sum up and bring my remarks to a close, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The law clearly states:

That is not guidance but law. The law has not been amended, so that law stands. The Justice Minister is not fulfilling and following that law, so she is leaving the Prison Service open to a judicial review. Why should we have to wait for a court case to be taken, as has happened in Scotland, for the Minister to act? I presume that it is because I am the one who tabled amendment No 97, and it is about her dislike for me. That is why she has decided not to back the amendment and, indeed, will instead wait until somebody takes a judicial review, which will cost the public money. That is shameful.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows: I will give a tangible example to address some of the concerns. Adam Graham was charged with two rapes in Scotland. Post-charge, Adam Graham declared that he was a woman. Under the deficient guidance for the Scottish Prison Service, the perpetrator was convicted and went to a female prison. The policy was deficient. That is a real-life example of where the biological sex of the man must be followed. While there are genuine trans people who are going through issues — gender dysphoria or whatever it might be — there will be people who could, post-charge or post-arrest, declare themselves to be a woman and end up in a women's prison. It happened in Scotland. Adam Graham became Isla Bryson and ended up in a female prison in Scotland, despite being charged with and later convicted of rape. That is real life. It is a real scenario. I ask Members on the other side of the House to reflect on that.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Burrows, for that timely intervention. That is a real-life example of something that took place, and it is an example of the dangers that can arise from the Minister not following —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: In the main, the debates in the Chamber on the Justice Bill have been reasonable, temperate and good-humoured. This is the first time, however, that somebody has accused me of taking a policy position based on dislike of a Member. I do not know what kind of vindictive person would imagine that any Minister or, indeed, any politician would come to the House and take a position based on their like or dislike of the individual who proposed it.

First, I assure the Member that I have no strong feelings either way. With respect to him, I do not know him well enough to have formed such. Secondly, irrespective of my views on any Member, I treat their approaches on the basis of the substance of the issue and the policy and advice that I receive. I find the idea that I would behave in such a vindictive and reckless manner fundamentally offensive. It runs contrary to the point that we have made repeatedly, which is that we can disagree without impugning the character and integrity of other Members.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Minister, for your intervention. I will sleep better tonight, knowing that you are not holding anything against me.

I will draw my remarks to a close finally. To avoid being sidetracked, I am not minded to take any more interventions.

I know that there are Members sitting on the Benches to my left who acknowledge and agree with biological reality and the common-sense position that the amendment takes. It is time for them to find their courage. It is time that you followed your convictions. It is time that you found the courage to step away from the ideology that has captured your party and the whole left of the Chamber. Those who know better and follow the ideology blindly as they are told to do by their parties and who fail to back the amendment are failing women in our prisons because you are allowing the potential for a biological male to be housed with them, with the risks that that creates.

I move my amendment. I am happy to support it, and I believe that, if it is not passed next week, history will remember those who voted for common sense, those who voted on the basis of biological reality and those who were simply too captured by their own ideology and that of the wokery that has captured the left-hand side of the Chamber. History will remember you on these issues.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): For clarification, the amendment has not been moved. That was agreed prior to the commencement of the debate. I am sure that the Member meant "commend" rather than "move".

Mrs Long: I will start by addressing the amendment tabled by Messrs Frew, Bradley and Kingston and then speak to the amendment tabled by Timothy Gaston.

Mr Frew described amendment No 96 as stopping prisoners and young people in detention centres being released on a Friday or on the day before a public or bank holiday and added that that would potentially help to reduce reoffending. The amendment has the potential to have an impact on prisoners who receive mostly shorter adult sentences and are not committed to custody under the terms of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. That represents about 25% of the prison population. As those prisoners are not subject to post-release supervision by the Probation Board, I can see the merits in bringing forward their release day if it falls on a Friday. We already bring forward Saturday and Sunday releases for those prisoners, which is why, as the Member noted, a larger number of people are released on a Friday. By bringing that forward again, we would basically move all the people from Friday, Saturday and Sunday to Thursday and Wednesday, and that has been modelled by the Department.

Being released earlier in the week may give prisoners more time to link in with community-based service providers, for example, jobs and benefits offices, the Housing Executive, community mental health teams, addiction services, GP surgeries and social services, so there are opportunities for people to receive the care and support that they need in the community. We consulted the Department for Communities in particular and other service providers, and, while they acknowledged that it would create an additional pressure on Wednesdays and Thursdays, they felt that it was a manageable pressure. For those reasons, I support the amendment.

The Member who tabled the amendment raised during the debate last night the potential to extend it to those who are covered by the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. There are a number of reasons why that may be problematic, but, as I said last night, I am happy to discuss the matter with the Member over the next few weeks and, indeed, during recess. First of all, I do not think that it is essential to do so because those who fall under that category will at some level have the support of probation prior to and after exiting prison. They will, therefore, have the wrap-around support that they need to engage with services, so that should be a help to them in a way that it would not be to the cohort that we are dealing with today. Secondly, a decision was made at the time of the 2008 Order to end the policy of remissions and flexibilities in the system. That was a policy decision based, I think, on wanting to ensure that it was possible to predict when a sentence was coming to an end and that could be prepared for in advance. Those prisoners will have pre-release support in prisons to help them with rehabilitation and resettlement because their release date is determined. There are complexities around extending the provision to that cohort, but there is certainly merit in dealing with those who fall into the category that is covered by the amendment.

The Member will be aware that, in the debate last night, other Members raised the issue of people having their custody reviewed when they are on remand. The judiciary has helpfully taken the initiative and now tries to hold most such review hearings earlier rather than later in the week, so that, if someone is to be released on bail, they will have the opportunity to seek the help and support that they need.

We know that lack of support for any extended period, be it over a bank holiday or a weekend, can create challenges for people, particularly those who are susceptible because of poor mental health or addiction, in managing their affairs. It can be challenging for people to register with the Housing Executive, a jobs and benefits office and other services. As Members noted, there is no guarantee of where someone will be released to, and, sadly, despite the fact that we are working with other Departments to streamline the process, there can be no such guarantee. It simply depends on the accommodation that is available at the time of release.

Given the priority system for housing and other accommodation, even where the Department for Communities and the Housing Executive are in a position to indicate that there may be property available in a particular location — that would be helpful, because we could then assist somebody to register with a GP and all the other services before they leave prison — should somebody else who is of higher need become homeless in that locality, they would be displaced. That is the problem: it has to be needs-based. The fundamental challenge is the shortage of accommodation. The Department is looking at that as part of the work that we are doing on reducing offending and reoffending.

I am happy to support the amendment. I am also happy, along with my officials, to engage with the Members who tabled the amendment to see whether there is a way through on the other sentences, but I suspect that that may be a more complex matter than is appropriate to address at this juncture in the passage of legislation.

I now move on to Mr Gaston's amendment No 97, which I do not support. If enacted, it would insert three rules into the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995. Contrary to what has been said — I will make this clear — it is not about who tabled the amendment, and, for me, it never will be. I will treat every Member in the Chamber with respect on the basis that they treat me also with respect. I noted the sarcastic and sneering comments when I said that I did not have strong views about Mr Gaston and did not dislike him. He seemed to think that that would help him sleep more easily; I really do not care. It matters to me that I deal with people with integrity, so, whether or not he is entertained by it — I also noticed some of those around him sniggering — it is not funny. To suggest that a Minister would come to the Chamber and make decisions in a vindictive manner says more about the people who make that accusation than it does about me.

I will come to how we deal with the issues in prison. Every day, prisons have to address conflicts between different categories of prisoner, different cadres of offenders and between people with different levels of risk to themselves and others. Prison Service is very experienced in that dynamic management of risk. It does not take it lightly, because it affects not only the safety, dignity and mental health of the prisoners but the safety of the prison staff.

I admire the work of Prison Service and the fact that we have seen such positive reviews of our prisons, particularly Hydebank Wood, which, of course, is the prison that will be in focus in this debate. The fact that it is seen as a model of a European rehabilitative prison and won an award for that is something that we should be proud of. The fact that Hydebank — the men's facility and the women's prison — scored top marks across the board in its most recent inspection is something that we should be proud of. We should show respect to the professionals who made that possible.

Those same professionals have been managing these issues, not through ideology but on the basis of practicality and the values of protection of safety, protection of dignity and fair treatment.

These issues were issues long before they were raised in the House. I reflected on questions that I had received on transgender issues in the previous mandate in 2020, and you could have counted them on the fingers of one hand if that hand had no fingers. Suddenly, however, it is now the topic of conversation. People say that it is not part of a culture war, but it has emerged suddenly as it has gained momentum in other places. We come to the House and we hear ignorance around trans people.

Mr McGlone: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will.

Mr McGlone: Minister, to put this into some perspective, can you advise how many cases as so described have come before the Prison Service in the past five or even 10 years?

Mrs Long: It is very interesting that the Member asked that question, because my not being able to answer it is an answer in itself. We asked for those statistics, and the truth is that we cannot disclose the number of prisoners, because it is so small that to do so could identify individuals. It is so small — we all know the statistical reporting rules, so you can go away and work out the number that that means — that it would identify individual prisoners, and yet we spend a disproportionate amount of time concerned with that one small group of prisoners, albeit they are as important as any other group of prisoners, and little time discussing the wider issues around prisons that really matter.

Miss McAllister: Will the Minister take an intervention?

Mrs Long: Yes.

Miss McAllister: The Minister has been part of the Assembly for some time, and this is her second mandate as a Minister, so I wonder whether she can provide clarity on whether, during that time, such outspoken concerns were expressed about the safety of women prisoners as vociferously and passionately as they have been in recent months?

Mrs Long: It is amazing, because some of the people who have stood up to defend women have, first of all, demeaned the women in the Chamber who spoke up with their own voice and made their position heard. They were dismissed as having been told what to say by their parties. They were dismissed as being captured by ideology. If I am going to go for advice about issues that affect men, I will probably ask a man, but if I am looking for advice about issues that affect women, I will listen to women, and I will take their views on those matters with a degree of seriousness and a degree of respect, both of which have been missing in this particular part of the debate.

Mr Kingston: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Burrows: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: No, I will not, because the Member did not give way to me on the basis that he felt that I had misrepresented him, when I had simply sought to clarify what he had said. I therefore have no intention of giving way to him, because he has, on more than one occasion today and in previous discussions, misrepresented me.

I will give way to Brian.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Minister. For my understanding, would you be comfortable with the idea of a biological male being accommodated on a female prisoner wing and having free association with the female prisoners on that wing, or is that something that you would seek to avoid and rule out?

Mrs Long: As I said, because of the small number of trans prisoners whom we have held, I have not been able in the Chamber to get into the detail of how people are accommodated in the estate, because to do so would be to disclose details about individual prisoners that the Prison Service never discloses.

To put it in context, we received multiple requests overnight asking us, for example, how a high-profile paedophile would be housed in the prison estate as a result of a conviction yesterday. We have declined to provide any comment on that individual, as is right, because, although they may have been convicted of a serious offence, they retain a degree of privacy and the rights that everyone in the prison system has. I am certainly not going to get into the habit of discussing the details of how we handle prisoners. Suffice it to say that, in order to protect the safety and the dignity of the women, men and transgender individuals in prisons, we are sensitive to the accommodation of prisoners, where and how that is managed, and how association is managed in those contexts. However, I do not want to get into the detail and the minutiae, because we are dealing with very small numbers, and it would involve my discussing what I feel are private details that, based on the advice to me, go too far.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Long: I will not give way at the moment. To be fair, the Member has accused me of being vindictive in my approach. When I explained that I was not, he treated that with derision. I am not sure that the Member has earned the right to have me give way to him during this speech. If he has no interest in or respect for my opinions, I do not see why I would bother giving way to hear more of his.

What we have at the moment in the Prison Service in Northern Ireland is an approach that was brought forward in 2002 with advice from the Equality Commission, which is the statutory body that gives advice to prisons. I have checked with officials, many of whom have now moved on, but we are not aware of any involvement of Stonewall in the development of that advice and guidance. It is my understanding that the Department took advice from the Equality Commission. Which organisations the Equality Commission took advice from and engaged with as part of that process, I do not know that. We engaged with the Equality Commission, and we tried to ensure the safety and dignity of all our prisoners.

I find it bizarre that some of the people who are lecturing us on women's rights have had so little to say on women's rights in so many contexts over so many years. Yet, suddenly, they are championing women's rights. It is about weaponising an issue that is about the safety of women and girls to use it against another minority that is also vulnerable. The majority of women do not want the genuine concerns that we have around safety to be weaponised in that way.

I have heard really ignorant statements — I use "ignorant" not in the rude sense but in the absence of understanding sense — about trans people and how they are affected. First of all, trans people are a spectrum of people. Every individual will be at a different stage of transition and, therefore, will have different issues attendant to that. Transmen and transwomen who have gone through hormonal therapy only will, nevertheless, have seen physical, bodily changes as a result of that, including changes to their strength, their sex drive, their hair, their facial hair and all those other things. That is as a result of hormonal treatment only.

There will be others who will have undergone surgical treatment, and some will have undergone complete surgical transition. While all the noise today has been about biological males in women's prisons, I am simply suggesting that Members need to think about the consequences of, for example, placing a post-operative transwoman in a male prison. That is where we do not need a rigid approach. I have to say that the initial Scottish approach was rigid, in that it simply said that transwomen are women and therefore go to the women's prison; transmen are men and therefore go to the men's prison. I do not agree with that, because, despite what some people say, I am not captured by ideology.

My focus is on ensuring that all the people in our prisons are safe, and it is important that we do that in the best way possible. At this point, I do not know what the end position will be. It may be that we will eventually get advice from our courts, based on their reading of our laws, that we have to come up with an alternative means of housing prisoners. If that time comes, we will deal with that, as you would expect us to do. That will require changes to the estate. It will require significant investment in how we develop our services, and it will require time. What it will not do is take place as part of a Back-Bench amendment with none of that consideration given —.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Long: No. I have said that I will not give way to the Member.

The new rules would require the Department to issue guidance on the management of women prisoners. They would not prevent the Prison Service from making individualised accommodation arrangements for prisoners, but they would specifically prevent it from accommodating them within the female estate. Think about that: "within the female estate". The pertinent point that Mr Kingston raised is that we could make individual accommodation available, but we could not do so within the female estate.

We have only a male or a female estate at this time.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I have said that I will not give way to the Member. There is no point in persistently asking.

The issue that Mr Kingston has raised is pertinent. There will be occasions when people will be housed in the female estate but will be separate from the other female prisoners. Similarly, there will be occasions when people will be in the male estate but separate from the general population of the male prison. It is not about recklessness on the part of the Prison Service, nor is it about placing women — either transwomen or women — or transmen or men at greater risk. It is about housing people in a manner that respects the individual's dignity, their identity and their right to safety. I will stand over nothing that would place any woman in our prisons at a greater risk. The women in our prison have often faced extraordinary abuse at the hands of violent men, and I would not jeopardise a single one of them because of ideology or anything else, but neither will I engage in the kind of pantomime concern that some have expressed about women's rights and protections, when they are not willing to stand up for women on the many other occasions when women need their support. The amendment does not seek to apply the same conditions to accommodating biological females in the male estate. Think about that. Somebody who has stood here and claimed that they want to protect women from harm has made no mention of biological women being housed in the male estate.

The amendment seeks to use the definition of "man" and "woman" as defined by the Equality Act 2010.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: However, the Equality Act 2010 —.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have indicated to the Member for North Antrim and, if necessary, both the Members for North Antrim that I will not give way to either of them because of their conduct earlier in the debate. I ask that you encourage the Member to stop asking.

The amendment seeks —.

Mr Burrows: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to be told not to seek an intervention?

Some Members: Yes.

Mr Burrows: I was asking the Deputy Speaker for clarity. Can the Minister tell a Member not to ask for interventions?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Burrows, I can answer that question. It is totally up to a Member whether they take an intervention or not, and that is made clear in the guidance issued to MLAs. It is also made clear that a Member should not persist when it is clear that the Member is not going to give way. It is in the guidance that is available to all Members.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister is misrepresenting what my amendment sets out to do. I will repeat it for the record:

in women's accommodation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, I rule that that is not a point of order.

Mr Gaston: The Minister is misrepresenting it, and she will not take a point of order to allow me to clarify.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, you will resume your seat when I am on my feet, as well you know. That is not a point of order. You are making a speech, and it is going no further.

Mr Burrows, do you have another point of order?

Mr Burrows: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. For clarity, as the Minister's contribution moves on, am I entitled to try to make an intervention when different facts emerge even though the Minister may not want to accept it? Am I still entitled to ask the Member to give way?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Burrows, let me read the guidelines to you. I have already explained it. Frankly, I am surprised to be asked the same question twice. I will read the answer to you from the rules:

Those are the exact words that I used. If a Member makes it clear, you should not persist. It is for each Member to decide whether to take an intervention, and, if a Member does not take an intervention, Members should respect that.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The amendment seeks to use the definition of "man" and "woman" as defined in the Equality Act 2010. That Act does not apply in Northern Ireland, however, so the attempted importation of primary legislation, namely section 212(1) of the 2010 Act, from other jurisdictions — England and Wales and Scotland — to another jurisdiction — Northern Ireland — by way of secondary legislation in that jurisdiction — Northern Ireland — could, at best, be described as a novel approach. Although it is not necessarily impossible to do so, by doing so through an amendment to secondary legislation via the Justice Bill, we risk circumventing Northern Ireland's constitutional arrangements, and I therefore do not believe that that is appropriate. It means, in effect, that the section is to be treated, for the purposes of the 1995 rules, as though drafted for Northern Ireland, when that has not yet been ruled on.

The Member's proposed amendment would operate to ensure that men and women are not held together while in prison and would remove all decision-making, permitting a contrary decision from the remit of NIPS, notwithstanding the assessment of risk, the existence of a gender recognition certificate or any of the other reasonable factors to consider. At present, the Northern Ireland Prison Service supplies its guidance on the care and management of transgender prisoners to address effectively the needs of all prisoners who may find individual challenges in custody.

The Member for North Antrim to my rear referred to concerns about other prisoners' safety as an "afterthought". That is simply untrue. The safety of all prisoners is the main consideration when housing people in the accommodation that is available to the Northern Ireland Prison Service, so the idea that other prisoners' safety is an afterthought, because it was mentioned secondarily to a document that is about guidance for transgender people, seems to be a ludicrous proposition. There was no issue of its not being a serious concern. It is a serious concern. Indeed, it is the overriding concern. It is why we do not have a bright-line rule to say that all trans men go to the men's prison and all trans women go to the women's prison. That is because, despite my support for the trans community, about which I am very open and honest, I believe that safety in prisons is paramount.

When it comes to risk assessment and the use of case conferences, both consider the risks to any transgender prisoner and any risks that they may pose to others. A real-life scenario was outlined in the Chamber today of when somebody committed a violent sexual offence and then said that they identified as trans and asked to be transferred to a women's prison. That would not be permissible under our assessment of the rules, because that person would represent a greater threat to the women in that prison than we could justify, based on the balance of risk.

I understand what Scotland did and did not do. I understand the ruling in Scotland, but, with respect, I am not the Scottish Justice Minister, that policy is not my policy and NIPS is not the Scottish Prison Service. I therefore I have to come back to here and to what we are talking about, and there have been no examples of any harm being caused to a trans prisoner, a female prisoner or a male prisoner as a result of how we have chosen to house trans prisoners in the prison estate.

Members will be aware of the Supreme Court ruling last year, which held that, under the Equality Act 2010, "sex" means biological sex. I acknowledge that that was reaffirmed last week in the Court of Session's ruling on the Scottish Prison Service's policy on the management of transgender prisoners. I have never denied that reality, and those Members in the Chamber who have sought today to suggest otherwise are misguided at best and malevolent at worst. I have never sought to ignore what the Supreme Court said, nor would I. As I have already said, however, the Equality Act 2010 does not apply in Northern Ireland, whereas it does in Scotland, nor is the current policy directly analogous to that which was appealed in Scotland. Rather, it is based on a risk assessment.

Therefore, the ruling on the meaning of "man" and "woman" may not be directly read across in this jurisdiction, although it remains highly persuasive. However, taking action in this jurisdiction on the basis of a ruling on a different policy in another jurisdiction would be unwise.

Again, the Member for North Antrim to my rear suggested that I should seek legal advice on those matters. I assure the Member that we have been in continuous contact with legal advisers both in the development and the implementation of the policy since the Supreme Court ruling and the most recent judgement on Scottish prisons. It would be a dereliction of our duty were we not to do so. Unlike others who come to the Chamber with their ideology front and centre, I am interested only in the safety of prisoners: that is it. It is not about ideology but about the protection of people who are most vulnerable.

Members will also know that the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has asked the High Court for a declaratory ruling on how the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Equality Act in Great Britain should be applied in the different legal context of Northern Ireland, including in relation to obligations under article 2 of the Windsor framework. The High Court's view on that matter is still awaited. The Equality Commission will then need time to consider what that means in practice and translate that into practical guidance. We obviously keep a watching brief on that matter because it is of critical importance not just, I have to say, in prisons but across our public services and, indeed, many others. It is for the High Court to consider the implications, therefore, of the most recent ruling from the Supreme Court, which is ultimately founded in its original decision. Mr Justice McAlinden has been clear that all views should be heard in the case and has invited evidence from any organisation that has an interest in the outcome of the judicial review.

In order to support the court in its decision-making on a complex and sensitive issue, Northern Ireland Prison Service will submit affidavit evidence outlining its current processes and the unique challenges that it faces in respect of managing risk and ensuring the safety of all prisoners. Prison Service takes its duties in respect of equality, human rights and prisoner safety extremely seriously. We will, of course, seek to abide by any ruling handed down by the High Court. I would not seek to frustrate it.

Clearly, amendment No 97 pre-empts any court ruling in the Equality Commission challenge. It would therefore also create two further issues. First, Prison Service would be out of lockstep with the rest of Northern Ireland and all other public authorities in having to apply section 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010 and the outworking of the Supreme Court ruling directly and without the proper guidance from the Equality Commission. Secondly, the interpretation that is imported by section 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010 is confined solely to rule 90 (3A) to (3C) and prison accommodation in Northern Ireland. It does not address at any level how our Prison Service is to meet gender recognition certificate obligations or, indeed, any other obligations that it may have to transgender prisoners in any other respect of prison life. For those reasons, the amendment is premature and, whatever the motivation behind it — I presume that it is well intended — it should not be supported.

That concludes my remarks on the group and, indeed, this stage of the Justice Bill. We can all agree that it has taken considerable time to get to this point in the Bill's Assembly passage. We cannot complain because we are all as guilty as each other in having elongated the Consideration Stage debate. However, I want to record my thanks, if I may, to the Chair, Deputy Chair and current and former members of the Committee for the work that they have done and to the Committee's support staff.

Without their scrutiny, cooperation and questioning, the Bill would have been poorer, so I thank them.

I am also aware that much has been made of the fact that the Bill came, let us say, in two parts, but I want to pay tribute to the Committee for showing flexibility and patience as we navigated an ever-changing scene. Unfortunately, when scrutiny takes a year and a half, the world moves much faster. This was the only legislative vehicle that we really had, so some of the things that I would have preferred to do in a different Bill ended up being put into this Bill. However, I appreciate the work that the Committee did, and I welcome the fact that the Committee did not waste the opportunity to introduce its own amendments either, and to propose some things that, otherwise, would not have happened in this mandate. I thank all the Members who participated.

I also thank the Office of the Legislative Counsel and my own Bill staff in the Department of Justice. When people talk about the Bill team in the Department of Justice, they often imagine that it must be a huge engine room full of people. You could count them on the fingers of one hand — if this hand actually had some fingers on it for once. It is genuinely a small team, yet they have navigated the passage and scrutiny of this Bill, the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill and the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill, which was introduced yesterday. I pay tribute to them and to the Office of the Legislative Counsel for the efforts that were needed to get us here today.

Last but not least, I place on record my thanks to the Speakers of the House and the wider team, the Bill Clerk, the Bill Office, and to the many officials who, over seven or eight days, have been in the Chamber until later than most of us would wish to be. I appreciate their dedication. Without it, we would not be able to deliver the legislation that we do. Ultimately, legislation is a team effort, and to all those who played a constructive role in that effort, I say, "Thank you". I sincerely hope that Further Consideration Stage will be a much more sedate and swift affair, when we finally get there in the autumn.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for your "thank you to the Speakers". That is a first in my time sitting up here. I know that your gratitude expressed to the Assembly officials will be much appreciated. I call Paul Frew to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will start off in that trend and mode of thought by thanking again the Committee Clerk and staff for their diligence and work in supporting the Committee members over the past year and a half. I also thank the Assembly's Bill Office for all its work over that period. I do believe that its staff were overworked, but they were able to step up very well and cope with all the demands that the members placed on them. Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister beat me by a couple of minutes: I wanted to thank you and all the Speakers who have led on the debate, given guidance during the debate and kept us all in check, albeit some needed more checking than others. I also thank the Speaker's Office and everyone who supports the Speakers in that regard.

I will now go into some of the Members' contributions, but I will not be long, so we will not have to break for dinner — [Interruption.]

We will get the work done, and then we can go home to our families.

Sinéad McLaughlin, Emma Sheerin and Nuala McAllister all spoke in support of amendment No 96: the DUP's amendment to avoid the release of prisoners on a Friday. I thank you very much for that support. I really do. Some did not really speak much on it, but Sinéad went into her experiences with the bail hostel in her constituency close to her office. She also talked about the support that was needed and the dignity that was required for people getting out of prison. Emma Sheerin also said that she would support amendment No 96, as did Nuala McAllister. I thank them for that support; my gratitude is genuinely heartfelt that we will get support for that amendment from right across the House. I am starting to get somewhat worried that someone like me can produce an amendment that gets incorporated with the support of the entire House, but I will take it and bank it when I get it.

They all said that they would not support amendment No 97, which is Timothy Gaston's amendment, and they outlined their arguments for that position. Nuala said that it did not make sense and was not about safety and that we should wait for the Equality Commission's guidance.

My North Antrim colleague Jon Burrows commended amendment No 96, which was tabled by my party. He talked at great length about amendment No 97 and how he supported it. He said that, when we deal with legislation, we need to deal in facts, not ideology. He said that, generally speaking, biological men are stronger and commit the most crimes, whereas, generally speaking, biological women are weaker and are the victims of most crimes. He noted that people in prison have the propensity to commit crime and that, when prisoners are confined to that space, they become vulnerable in their own right by virtue of that. He said that safety is a fundamental duty of the state and that, thanks to the Supreme Court opinion, which is so clear-cut, we should not need to wait for guidance from the Equality Commission.

Brian Kingston spoke on our amendment No 96, which is all about services and support. He said that we should assist those getting out of prison and that the amendment should lead to breaking the cycle of reoffending and re-imprisonment. We sincerely hope that that will manifestly show itself in the years to come. He stated that we would support amendment No 97, and I give that assurance and guarantee to its proposer. Brian said that women-only protected spaces must be preserved and protected, and he referred to the situation that Scotland now finds itself in. Of course, he mentioned Lady Ross's opinion on that.

Timothy Gaston spoke to his amendment, of course. He said that it was steeped in biological reality, whilst those who oppose it are all about ideology. He went on to thank his North Antrim colleagues — Sian Mulholland and Jon Burrows — for their long-winded speeches, which meant that he had the opinion of Lady Ross to back up his amendment when we debated it today. I will pass that thanks on to Sian and Jon for their long-winded speeches. I feel the pain of the Member for North Antrim.

The Member spoke about the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995. He talked about Part X and rule 90, on which, of course, his amendment is based. He went on to speak about the law in Scotland. He stated that the Equality Commission hid behind article 2 of the Windsor framework and referred to the Dillon judgement, saying that it blows a hole in the Equality Commission's guidance.

The Minister of Justice spoke first on amendment No 96 and talked of the opportunities that it could lead to. She talked about engagement with the Department for Communities and how it would manage the pressure. She said that it was happy enough with that. The Minister addressed my point about extending the measure. She said that, while she has concerns, she is content to engage on the matter over the coming weeks in order to see whether it is possible. She went on to speak about the ending of remissions at that stage, what that meant and the pre-release support that other prisoners get. She addressed the issue of remand prisoners being released on bail and the work that the judiciary has been doing in that regard. I echo the Minister's sentiments on that.

The Minister went on to talk about amendment No 97. She did not support it. She said that it was not about which Member proposes an amendment but the detail of the amendment. She talked about the assessments and decisions that the Prison Service takes every day. She talked about its respect and diligence in keeping the prison population safe. She also talked up the Hydebank Wood establishment as a model of European standards.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member very much for giving way. I put on record my thanks to you, as Chair of the Committee, for your diligent work throughout the process in setting out the Committee’s position. As somebody who is not on the Committee, I can say that it has certainly been helpful.

I listened intently to the Minister’s summing up. I still cannot square the circle.

Rule 90(1) of the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995 states:

Throughout the Minister's summing up, she did not tackle that issue to say how she is following the law when it is clear that she is not following the law as stated in the 1995 rules.

Mr Frew: The Member has put his point on the record with that intervention. I cannot possibly speak on the Minister's behalf. If she wants to address that point, I will give way. If not, I will move on.

The Minister said that she had asked for the number of trans people in our prisons currently and in the past, but it could not be disclosed, as there was a danger that people could be identified because the number was so small. The Minister therefore cannot go into further detail in the House or anywhere else for that matter. In order to protect people's human rights and, of course, their safety, we do not want them to be identified.

The Equality Commission assisted and engaged with the Department of Justice in the production of the guidance, as it is constituted to do. The Minister stated that she is not the Scottish Minister and is not responsible for the Scottish law or guidance. She then talked about the Supreme Court judgement and said that she accepts the Supreme Court's opinion. She said, however, that she is responsible for the Justice Department in Northern Ireland and that that is not the case with the court opinions that have been formed in Scottish law and guidance over the past months.

On amendment No 97, the Minister was concerned that prisons might be out of lockstep with the rest of the bodies in Northern Ireland if they had to adhere to section 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010. She said that rule 90 of the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995 would be out of lockstep with the other laws, as it would need to be applied by the Equality Act 2010 in the same vein.

That concludes my winding-up speech, other than to say that I thank every person who took part in or listened to the debate. Nine groups of amendments have been debated over seven days. We have not finished yet; we will vote on those important issues. I record my gratitude to everyone who supported any amendments that I put my name to — I really appreciate it — and, of course, with the votes coming up next Tuesday, I would appreciate your support for the amendments that we as a party tabled and that I have put my name to. It would be much appreciated.

We are here to make law and to make good law. If it takes seven days to iron things out, put the Bill through the ringer and scrutinise it properly, we will do that, and we will apologise to no one. We are here as legislators, and we will do that job.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Frew, thank you for that summary and the timely way in which you delivered it. I also thank you for your acknowledgement of the amount of work that many have put into the debate over seven days.

That concludes the debate on the amendments at Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill. Valid petitions of concern have been received in relation to amendment Nos 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 and 86 in group 6, so the votes on amendment Nos 79 to 132, clauses 24 to 34 and schedules 1 to 4 will not be taken at this point. The consideration period for the petitions of concern, as required under section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, ends on 28 June 2026. On 29 June 2026, any or all of the petitions may be confirmed. If a petition is confirmed by 30 Members on that day, the vote on the amendment to which it relates will be taken on a date after 29 June, and that vote will require cross-community support. If a petition is not confirmed by 30 Members, the vote on the amendment to which it relates will require simple majority support. The votes on all subsequent amendments, clauses and schedules will then be taken in the usual way, with no further debate to take place.