Official Report: Monday 07 September 2026

Mr Speaker: Members, there are a number of issues before we move to today's business.

Mr Speaker: The Sign Language Bill received Royal Assent on 9 July. It will be known as the Sign Language Act (Northern Ireland) 2026. It is chapter 7.

Mr Speaker: I received notification from the office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister advising that Mr Mike Nesbitt resigned the office of Minister of Health on 19 August 2026.

The nominating officer for the UUP nominated Mr Robbie Butler to hold the office of Minister of Health. Mr Butler accepted the nomination and affirmed the Pledge of Office in my presence and that of the Clerk/Chief Executive on 20 August 2026.

Mr Speaker: Mr Butler ceased to hold office as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Mrs Diana Armstrong was nominated to fill the office with effect from 21 August 2026.

Mr Speaker: I advise Members that I received notification that Mr Malíosa McHugh resigned as a Member of the Assembly for the West Tyrone constituency on 1 September. I notified the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with section 35 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I was informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that Mr Paul Boggs has been returned as a Member of the Assembly for the West Tyrone constituency to fill the vacancy.

This morning, Mr Boggs signed the undertaking and the Roll of Membership and entered his designation in my presence and that of the Clerk/Chief Executive. He has now taken his seat, and I welcome him to the Assembly and wish him every success.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jonathan Buckley has resigned as Chairperson of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee (AERC), and Mr Peter Martin has resigned as Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure. I have been notified by the DUP nominating officer that Mrs Deborah Erskine has been appointed Chairperson of the AERC and that Mr Jonathan Buckley has been appointed as Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure.

Mr Speaker: On a personal note, I will comment on the death of Dr Stephen Walker, formerly the political editor of BBC Northern Ireland. I express my wishes of condolence and, indeed, those of the House to the Walker family on their loss.

Stephen was an excellent journalist who reported extremely well on issues, without embellishment and without gotcha-type journalism. He was a decent character who carried out his job and duties in such a manner that politicians from all sides of the House could have some degree of confidence in his work and in the fact that he was not seeking to undo them in any way. He just wanted to report what was going on, here and right across the country, in a very honest way to the public.

Stephen will be sadly missed by his family, and he will be well remembered by the people who worked with him.

Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on public confidence in the Parades Commission following the Drumcree legal action that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. Other Members will have their three minutes thereafter.

Mr Gaston: Twenty-eight years ago, when Portadown district was prevented from returning home by its traditional route, the late Harold Gracey echoed Martin Luther's famous words:

Last month's High Court judgement on Drumcree has exposed serious failings at the very heart of the Parades Commission. The judgement did not simply concern some insignificant technical error, as nationalists would have us believe as they try to downplay the significance of what unionists have achieved through the courts; the commission's determination was quashed, as it was clearly unlawful. The court heard that not all the commissioners had even seen, considered or approved the determination issued that was in their name. There were shortcuts and sloppy procedures, while incorrect information was provided to the court under oath by the commission's secretary. These failings go directly to the legality and integrity of the commission's decision-making process. The obvious question is this: how many other cases have been handled in the same way? Unsurprisingly, the Parades Commission has not replied to my letter asking if it had issued similar determinations that took a similar approach.

The Secretary of State initially declared that the commission "can't function" without the respect of all communities. I will be crystal clear to the Secretary of State: principled unionists have no respect for, or any confidence left in, the Parades Commission, and it is about time that he gave the remaining commissioners their marching orders out the door with their P45s in hand.

We now face the extraordinary prospect of this discredited commission adjudicating upon the fresh Drumcree application. Portadown district has proposed a limited parade involving only 60 members. It has offered mediation without preconditions and has again demonstrated a willingness to find a peaceful way forward. Portadown district once again calls on the Garvaghy Road residents to enter mediation without preconditions. Sinn Féin is the one that has ruled that out. Sinn Féin is gaslighting the people of the Garvaghy Road for its own political agenda. Drumcree is not about the rights of Orangemen prevailing over those of residents. It is time that the Portadown district banner was allowed to return home.

Mr Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Buckley: The High Court decision on the Drumcree parading issue came as no surprise, because it is a well-accepted fact among those of us who have been involved in this for some considerable time that the Parades Commission was designed merely to ensure the status quo, and by that I mean to block any form of parade. However, the court case demonstrated that not only is the Parades Commission there to ensure the status quo but that it has acted against one of its statutory obligations, which is to facilitate mediation. What none of us could have expected was just how far it would go to ensure that that mediation did not take place.

One of the commissioners has had to resign in disgrace following his private comments to other commissioners that the commission should never open the door to mediation and that it should not give them that tool to prod it with.

We have seen shoddy decision-making, an attempt to obstruct mediation and a chair, who is still in place, who did not directly challenge the comments made by that particular commissioner at the time. Their positions are untenable. How can any chair still sit in office on some £50,000 of taxpayers' money when she and, indeed, some of the other commissioners would not even read the determination that had been sent to the commission to adjudicate on? It is a complete farce.

The Secretary of State has announced a judge-led inquiry, which I welcome, but it remains to be seen how not only that position but the very body that he insists that he is trying to review can exist when he says that it has the full backing of the current commissioners. It could not be any more barefaced. There is an attempt to cover up gross misconduct in office by those commissioners. If it were any other commission or public body, Sinn Féin and other Members of the Assembly would be outraged.

Sinn Féin has now taken to the public stage, and its position has changed. One minute, it wants no mediation; the next minute, there is some form of mediation. Who is talking for Sinn Féin? For the past 28 years, Sinn Féin has been nowhere to be seen when it came to mediation on the Garvaghy Road. We have heard only from Brendan McKenna — a man who was jailed in the 1980s for his part in trying to blow up the Portadown branch of the Royal British Legion — that is the type of dialogue and facilitation that we have come to expect from those who want to spout loudly in Drumcree instead of dealing with the substance, which is this: devoid of confrontation, let us have mediation and find accommodation —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up,

Mr Buckley: — for a rebalancing of rights across Portadown.

Mr Speaker: I call John O'Dowd.

Mr O'Dowd: First, I concur with your remarks about the late Stephen Walker.

On the matter before us today, 28 years of peace is not a problem that requires a solution; it is progress that needs to be protected. However, yet in all, we have people in this Building and people outside this Building who are determined to reopen an old wound, and for what purpose? For what purpose do they desire to reopen this old wound? Some say that the Portadown Orangemen need to get home. I have news for you: the Portadown Orangemen have gone home. They go home every Sunday. On the annual parade, they parade to their church service undisturbed through a nationalist area. They have their worship undisturbed, and they go home undisturbed.

The unspoken accommodation that has taken place in Portadown between the residents and the Orangemen has worked for 28 years. It has allowed the people of Portadown and the Garvaghy Road to get on with their lives, it has allowed the citizens of the North to get on with their lives, and it has allowed an atmosphere to be created whereby community relations in the Portadown area have improved almost daily. Yet and all, people are coming along and picking at it. Why are they picking at it? They cannot cope with progress. They cannot cope with stability. They fear peace, and they fear the ability of the communities to get on together.

Why are you at this? Why are you opening old wounds? Some of you do not even remember it. Some of you are too young to remember it. I remember it. I remember the hurt and the pain that were inflicted on the Garvaghy Road community. The scar runs deep in that community. The hurt and trauma that were inflicted on the community run very deep and are generational. Stay away from it. Allow the accommodation to work. Allow the Orangemen to march to their church service on the first or second Sunday of July; allow them to have their worship; allow them to disperse; and allow people to get on with their lives.

We recently heard that there is to be an accommodation that allows 60 Orangemen to march down the road. Tellingly, however, the Orange Order's legal spokesperson has stated:

What more do they want? Do they want to inflict more hurt and pain on the people of the Garvaghy Road? Do they want to inflict more pain and suffering on the people of the North?

Let me read out the names of a few people who paid the ultimate price because of what you want: Elizabeth O'Neill, who was killed in her home; Robert Hamill, kicked to death in the street; the Quinn children — Jason, Mark and Richard — whose ages ranged from nine to 11, burnt to death in their home. What more do you want?

Mr Tennyson: Many constituents watching the Assembly proceedings today will be asking themselves whether they have woken up in 2026 or 1996. I am fortunate, thankfully, to be of a generation that is too young to remember the pain and suffering of the Drumcree dispute, but I am wise enough to know that Drumcree was an utterly grim period in our history. It ruptured community relations; roadblocks and disorder were common; people were denied service in shops on the basis of their community background; and many in our community tragically lost their life, including the three young Quinn boys. I think of that family today.

It is not surprising that, in the absence of any vision for the present or, indeed, the future, some will seek to hark back to some of the most painful and divisive episodes of our past. It is less picking at an old wound and more something akin to picking at a scab with a chainsaw. There are no winners in seeking to go back to that hellscape. I do not disagree with other Members when they say that the Parades Commission's latest determination was flawed: the court is clear that it was. I am as frustrated as anybody else that such a sensitive issue has so clearly been mishandled, and it is right that the Secretary of State launch an independent review. However, that is not an excuse to seek to relive the past simply for the hell of it or to rush to throw the baby out with the bathwater and ignore the fact that there has been progress in Portadown as a result of the Parades Commission's determinations over 28 years.

I was at a good relations event with people from across our community in the People's Park just off the Garvaghy Road a matter of weeks ago. That is a sign of the progress that has been made in that community. Some 93% of parades can now happen in Northern Ireland with no conditions at all, so it does not have to be a simple zero-sum game of winners and losers, and none of us should wish to jeopardise that progress. I have consistently said that it would be far more powerful for Portadown district to state that it believes that it is entitled to march down the Garvaghy Road but will forgo doing so in recognition and respect of the deep wounds that are yet to heal across our community.

Just this summer, we saw what a blueprint for positive and not provocative cultural expression can look like. The fleadh created space for everybody, regardless of their background, identity and tradition, to come together and express their culture positively. That is the conversation that we should be having in Portadown in 2026, not reopening the wounds of the past. Most of our constituents today want to focus on the future. We owe it to them to be respectful and sensitive about the past, not to relive it but to live generously in the present and, crucially, always have our eyes trained on the future.

Ms D Armstrong: I hope that every Member will join me in agreeing that Northern Ireland has come a long way in parading. Over the past decade, we have seen a substantial fall in objections, disputes and disorder. Parades take place in a more relaxed atmosphere with far less policing. That has been good for community relations and for our economy. Those gains were hard won, and none of us should take them for granted. That is precisely why what happened in the High Court matters so much. The Parades Commission conceded that its determination had not been considered in its final form by all its members. The judge said that the case did not stand up to any scrutiny at all. He spoke of "errors", "shortcuts" and "sloppy procedures", and correspondence disclosed to the court showed a commissioner describing mediation on the parade as a "non-starter" before a word had been exchanged. That commissioner has since resigned.

The body restricts fundamental rights — freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of religion — and it does so for parades of every tradition in the House and none. If the process behind those decisions is not sound, that should trouble every one of us, whichever community we represent.

The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the Secretary of State's decision to order an independent, judge-led review, but its terms of reference are too narrow. A review of processes and procedures alone will not answer the questions that people are asking. The review must examine the commission's culture, its working practices and its training. It must be empowered to recommend real reform, including a statutory right of appeal against determinations, because a body that reviews only itself has plainly failed. It must establish whether other determinations were affected by the same failure and must report publicly with a clear timescale for doing so.

I say this to the Secretary of State: he has given the current commissioners his full backing, yet a fresh application will now be determined by the very body that has been found to have acted unlawfully on this last one. That is not a stable position: it risks public confidence and invites another court case within months. Fresh commissioners should be appointed and appointed promptly. He should also meet Portadown district, which took its case through the courts and was vindicated.

This is a moment for calm heads. There is a lawful, orderly route through this. Our responsibility in the Chamber is to find it and resolve this dispute without creating others.

Mr McNulty: The recent legal action concerning Drumcree has clearly raised questions about the process followed by the Parades Commission. Those questions should be taken seriously. Where issues have been identified, they should be properly examined. Lessons should be learned, and confidence in the process maintained. We should, however, be careful not to allow questions about one determination to become an excuse to undermine the entire system. We should remember why the Parades Commission exists.

Drumcree represents a horrible period in our recent history. It was a real low point for community relations, when confrontation spilled on to our streets, communities were divided and innocent men, women and children lost their lives. My heart goes out to the people of the Garvaghy Road, many of whom will be traumatised by the ugly Drumcree situation rearing its head again.

For almost three decades, the Parades Commission has provided an independent process for adjudicating on parades and placing conditions on them where necessary. Thousands of parades take place across the North every year. The vast majority pass off peacefully and without controversy, with the commission's decisions accepted and respected. That is worth remembering amid some of the rhetoric of recent weeks, because there is something disturbing, sad and backward about seeing Drumcree forced back on to the present-day political agenda. There are those who want to turn it once again into tribal warfare, reopening old wounds, stoking grievance and dragging people back to some of the worst days of our past. It is hugely disappointing to see political parties fall in behind that. There are voices from across the community, including people with a long history in and a deep connection to the marching tradition, who recognise the danger of where that leads. It does not need to become another unionist/nationalist battle.

Political leadership in 2026 should be about helping people navigate the challenges of the present day and giving them hope for the future, not about constantly dragging them back to the divisions of the past. Our health service is struggling, families cannot find homes and schools are under enormous pressure, and the Executive cannot even agree a Budget. People are entitled to expect political parties to have some strategy and some vision for addressing those challenges.

It is harvest time in Armagh. Growers are bringing in the apple harvest and getting on with the work that sustains families and communities across our Orchard County. They deserve politicians who are focused on their future, not ones who are more interested in harvesting old grievances and dragging us back to the divisions of the past.

Bríd Rodgers, who knows better than most the enormous human and political cost of Drumcree, was straightforward when she said, "Let sleeping dogs lie". There is wisdom in that. I ask Members here and the lodges this: what is the Christian thing to do? Remember that you reap what you sow. What we need now is responsible political leadership, cool heads, measured language and the determination not to stoke tension for short-term political advantage. We have spent nearly 30 years moving away from the politics that produced Drumcree.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr McNulty: Our responsibility is to keep moving forward, not to drag people back.

Mr Carroll: When unionist parties have nothing positive or progressive to offer people, they revert to the tired old tactic of reaching into the past and to a specific event or period that will stoke division and resentment in the hope that it will serve electoral purposes. It has been clear for some time that unionism is in a deep crisis and is no longer able to dictate and command in the way that it used to, so what does it do? It reaches for Drumcree.

It is also worth saying that the DUP is in a terminal crisis because of its failure to deliver anything of substance and because of its excusing and cover-up of the abusive, coercive and violent behaviour of some of its reps — Donaldson and Shannon, to name but a few. In that context, the DUP reaches for Drumcree. It knows that that issue mobilises hardcore loyalist sentiment and puts the fear of God into people from a nationalist or non-nationalist background. That is why the DUP is intent on stirring the pot of Drumcree.

We have to say clearly that the Orange Order is not some cultural or identity-type organisation; it is a political organisation that despises women, rails against LGBT+ women and sees cross-community campaigns and struggles — [Interruption.]

You might not like to hear it, but it is the truth — [Interruption.]

I am speaking. Yes, thank you. It sees cross-community campaigns as a threat to its ideology and grip, but it is a complete non-starter to try to paint all Protestants or all working-class Protestants as being in thrall to the Orange Order. Large numbers are fed up with its divisive rhetoric and see it as completely out of touch and out of date.

We need to challenge firmly those who want to use Drumcree as a stick to whip up division and sectarianism. People on Garvaghy Road and beyond know the division and hatred that that brand of hardcore loyalism brings. They know about the deaths and murder that it brought in the late 1990s. The unionist elite of Buckley, Gaston and Lockhart are trying to drive the agenda, but they offer nothing for working-class Protestants, never mind the rest of us across the North. The Garvaghy Road residents — [Interruption.]

I will speak. I do not care if people want to hear it or not; I will speak here and be heard. The Garvaghy Road residents are entitled to challenge any Orange Order march and are entitled to protest, if they want to.

Mr Speaker: Before I call Diane Dodds, I will say this. Mr Carroll — he should know better — referred to Mr Shannon. There is a live court case going on, and nobody has been convicted of anything. Members should never comment on issues involving a live court case. If you do it again, there will be significant consequences.

Mrs Dodds: The 25th of August was a day of shame for the Parades Commission. It was also a day of vindication for Portadown district. I sat in the court as the judge described decision-making as "sloppy". The representative from the Parades Commission had to apologise for the wrongful information around whether Carla Lockhart had been notified to make representation. It revealed decision-making by WhatsApp. At least two commissioners did not have the time or could not be bothered to read a pre-cooked determination by the secretariat. Absolutely shameful. Another commissioner told everyone not to mention mediation because it would only give "them" something to prod at. Absolutely shameful. The Parades Commission completely ignored its lawful duty to ensure that mediation took place.

Along with my colleague Jonny Buckley, I met the Parades Commission in January this year to have a conversation about parading in general but specifically about Portadown and Drumcree. We talked about how mediation could turn things around in Portadown and, indeed, across unionism in Northern Ireland. The commission really did not care less; it was just ticking a box and going on with its process.

What has happened since — I want to address it because it is important — is revealing about political parties in the Chamber.

The narrative has been, "It is all finished; it was 28 years ago; forget about it; move on; let's not do anything else". For Portadown district, however, it is not finished. They have not completed their lawful parade, nor have they been allowed their rights of assembly and parading. The arrogance of politicians in this House is clear for all to see. Alliance tells us, "Just move on. Forget about it". The SDLP says that Portadown district wants to provoke tribal warfare. For the SDLP's information, Portadown district has made it absolutely clear that violence is not on the agenda. It is not its intention and it is not where it wants anyone to go. All of the hyperbole that we have heard from the other side of the Chamber is exactly that, and it is stoking up fear and tension —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Dodds: — in the Garvaghy Road community.

Ms Sugden: The issue today is not simply about Drumcree, but about public confidence in the Parades Commission and, ultimately, the integrity of an organisation that must continue to command the confidence of people across Northern Ireland. Around 4,000 processions are notified every year, and fewer than 5% of those are considered sensitive. To all intents and purposes, that tells us that much of the work of the Parades Commission happens successfully, routinely and without controversy.

That is precisely why what has happened in relation to Drumcree is so damaging. Mr Justice McAlinden was scathing in his assessment of the process. He spoke about public administration needing the confidence of the public, as well as errors, shortcuts and sloppy procedures requiring appropriate corrective action. For any public body, those comments would be serious, but for the Parades Commission, dealing with Drumcree, they are particularly serious.

Drumcree predates the commission itself. Indeed, the events surrounding Drumcree and other contentious parades were among the reasons why the system was created in the first place. I was a child during the worst years of that dispute, and while I do not remember every argument, I remember the images. I remember the protests, the tension and the sense of fear around them. I remember members of my own family going down to the bridges to protest and being terrified. More than 30 years later, none of us wants to return to that. However, an organisation that was established to manage disputes of that sensitivity must enjoy the confidence of all sections of our community and, right now, I do not believe that it does.

Billy Gamble has, rightly, resigned, and I believe that the remaining commissioners should do the same.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Ms Sugden: This is not personal. It is not about attacking individual commissioners or dismissing the work that they have done; it is quite the opposite. Sometimes, public service requires people to take responsibility, precisely because the institution is more important than the individuals. A significant mistake was made in one of the most sensitive parading disputes Northern Ireland has ever known. For the sake of the integrity and future credibility of the Parades Commission, I believe that a fresh start is now necessary.

Therefore, I find it really difficult to understand why the Secretary of State has chosen to give the remaining commissioners his full backing. I would have had much greater confidence in an approach that saw the commissioners step aside and the Secretary of State establish a genuine, comprehensive review of what the Parades Commission should be in 2026. However, that cannot stop at Drumcree. There are already 4,000 notified processions, not all of which are contentious. Those include protests, community parades, sporting events, road races and activities that are part of everyday life across Northern Ireland. If fewer than 5% of those are sensitive, we should be asking whether a framework that was designed almost 30 years ago remains proportionate and appropriate for Northern Ireland today.

I do not know whether they should walk down Garvaghy Road or not —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Sugden: — but I do know that we need to get back to listening to all sides of the debate.

Mr Brett: The item in the Order Paper is about confidence in the Parades Commission, but going by the comments by the parties on the opposite Benches, you would not think that it is about that. There was not a scintilla of comment from the Sinn Féin representative about the disgraceful, illegal decision that was made by the Parades Commission. Instead, he talked about violence and about threatening peace. I remind the Sinn Féin contributor that no one on these Benches broke peace in Northern Ireland. He may wish to look to the Benches that he sits on, where he will find the reason why there was not peace in Northern Ireland. He talked about the disgraceful murder of the Quinn children. This party condemns that, yet his party is led by someone who celebrated Thomas McElwee, a man who burnt a mother to death in Ballymena. Do not dare come here, Mr O'Dowd, and speak out of both sides of your mouth. No one takes Sinn Féin seriously on the issue of condemning violence.

The Alliance Party wants to create no-go areas in its own constituency. The deputy leader, who has left the Chamber, says, "Oh, it is great that Orangemen can come to a church and go to a community fun day", but do not dare wear your Orange sash and try to walk home from a service.

We then had the rant from the Member from People Before Profit, who says that people come into the Chamber and speak from the past. That is the man who gets up here and speaks about Karl Marx; a man who says that the Orange Order hates women. I am sitting beside a member of the Orange Institution, but he is so idiotic that he cannot even get across basic facts.

We are then told to temper our language. I quote the SDLP's comment on the issue: "You will reap what you sow". How dare the unionist community have the temerity to apply for their legal right to be able to parade home from a church service?

At the heart of the difficulties for the nationalist and Alliance parties is this: their supremacist attitude has been exposed. "Do as we say, not as we do". We have a message for those parties: this issue is not finished. To paraphrase the former Member of Parliament for West Belfast, we are not going away, you know.

Mr Speaker: I am going to allow a little extra time for Members' statements.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Kearney: Andy Burnham is not the first British Prime Minister to come to Ireland and seek to impose a unionist veto on the right to self-determination. Hopefully, he will be the last. There has been speculation on whether his comments had more to do with a gaffe or lines that were drafted by Britain's colonial outpost here in the North, the NIO. Whatever the case, it is not in his gift to put on to or remove from the table the right to self-determination. Irish national self-determination is integral to the Good Friday Agreement. That, of course, conflicts with the unionist security and military mindset of the British state. However, the Good Friday Agreement is an international peace treaty, so it is not for Andy Burnham or for political unionism to undermine or unpick the terms of that agreement.

His remarks have also coincided with the latest attempts, which we have just discussed, by political unionism to drag us all back into sectarian strife over Orange parades. All of that is about slowing down and attempting to block the momentum for change, but here is the thing: the Good Friday Agreement was not negotiated as a handbrake on continued progress in this society. It is a framework to manage change. The right to national self-determination and a unity referendum are absolute. Neither will be vetoed by either Andy Burnham or political unionism.

Mrs Middleton: I express my profound disappointment and deep concern at the recent exclusion of Israeli athletes from the Europe Triathlon Cup in Londonderry. Sport, at its very core, is a universal language that possesses the unique power to bridge divides, transcend borders and bring people of diverse backgrounds together in the spirit of fair competition and mutual respect. The fundamental principle of international sport is that athletes meet on the starting line as equals. They compete under the same rules, and they are free from the heavy hand of geopolitics. We must absolutely keep politics out of sport.

What is particularly disturbing about this situation is the awful, inflammatory language that has been directed at and used about these Israeli athletes. Sadly, we have seen groups and even public representatives openly expressing delight and relief at the exclusion of these competitors. Even more alarming, we saw public statements from the event organisers themselves, openly objecting to the participation of athletes representing Israel and welcoming the fact that they would not compete. Let us be absolutely clear: targeting individual athletes who travel to Northern Ireland simply to compete in their chosen discipline purely because of the country that they represent crosses a dangerous line. It is highly discriminatory, it is exclusionary, and it sets a deeply grim precedent. No athlete should ever be made to feel unsafe, demonised or unwelcome because of their nationality.

Furthermore, there are serious questions regarding exactly how that decision was taken. We are told that the decision was enacted due to safety concerns and the potential for protest and disruption. Are we now setting a standard whereby the mere threat of disruption from protesters is enough to effectively ban a specific nationality from an international sporting event in Northern Ireland? Who ultimately made the call to capitulate to that pressure? What level of consultation took place with the PSNI on those threats? How is it acceptable that an event that was supported by public funding failed to uphold the most basic principles of non-discrimination? If an organiser cannot or will not protect the principle of equal participation, the very purpose of sport is lost. We must send a clear message from the Chamber that discrimination against any athlete is completely unacceptable. We urgently need transparency on how that deeply flawed decision was reached.

Mrs Guy: My focus in the Chamber this afternoon is on children with special educational needs and how they continue to be failed by the education system here. We have had children with statements without access to the provision to which they are entitled. This year, yet again, we have seen families starting the school term without certainty about something as fundamental as how their child will get to school. We have seen tenders being issued late in the summer; parents finding out at the last minute that trusted relationships with individual drivers are changing; and escorts not being in place for children who need them, including non-verbal children. For families who are already navigating the almost daily challenges of our system, facing the annual uncertainty, stress and anxiety around school transport is simply not good enough.

Achieving better value for money in school transport matters. I am aware of the waste, duplication and poor procurement practices that exist across our education system, and we absolutely have to tackle them, but saving money cannot come at the expense of the well-being of children with additional needs. Reform has to be planned around the needs of the child. Parents should have confidence that the people who transport and, where required, escort their child have been properly vetted and appropriately trained and that they understand their child's individual needs.

We cannot look at transport in isolation. If a child has to travel a significant distance because there is no appropriate local SEN placement, the costs increase, as does the stress on the child and their family. All of that is indicative of a much wider failure to plan and provide local, appropriate SEN places for children who are coming through the system. SEN parents should not have to fight every step of the way for an assessment, for a statement, for a school place and then, days before the term starts, for certainty about how their child will get there. The Education Minister needs to step up and take responsibility. He needs to ensure that the needs of those children are a priority and that the Education Authority delivers a service in which families can have confidence, because these annual failings cannot continue.

Mr Nesbitt: With the untimely passing of Stephen Walker, local journalism has lost a role model. With Stephen's untimely passing, society has lost a role model . For over three decades at the BBC, Stephen was a class act, demonstrating all the characteristics of an effective journalist. He was curious, courteous and bloody determined, and he was always fair. In return, he was trusted to reflect the intricacies of the most complex situations, not to put a spin on his reporting and not to make himself part of the story.

Sometimes, I imagine him pinching himself because he could not quite believe that he was being allowed to report on incredibly important situations, such as the run-up to the 1998 agreement or Brexit in 2016. He was extremely talented but too modest to admit it.

I had left BBC Northern Ireland before he joined, so we were rivals rather than colleagues, but he had the kind of personality that made it easy to celebrate his successes with him. He had what many people have referred to since his passing as an endlessly sunny disposition.

Of course, Stephen was not just a cherished, celebrated and award-winning journalist; he was a highly successful author. He penned biographies of two of the central figures of the 1998 agreement: John Hume, without whom there would have been no process, and David Trimble, without whom there would have been no agreement. Again, people who contributed to those books trusted Stephen to accurately reflect their views.

One of his closest friends was a former colleague, Mark Carruthers, who broke the news of Stephen's passing on social media. Mark wrote:

At just 61 years of age, Stephen had a lot more to offer to his family and to society. Stephen Walker, Stephen Grimason and Ken Reid were three of the most brilliant political journalists whom you could ever hope to meet or, indeed, call a friend. I send condolences to Stephen's many friends and admirers and, above all, to his wife, children and broader family.

I also mention the passing of Sharon Bradford, also from the BBC newsroom, who, perhaps, did not have the same high profile as Stephen but was clearly equally beloved.

Mr McCrossan: I highlight what is happening at Altnagelvin Area Hospital's emergency department. It can be described only as an utter disgrace. People across the area that I represent and far beyond who have to travel to the hospital with sick relatives or for themselves are fed up hearing language and excuses about pressures, challenges and demand being used to sanitise the horrific experiences that they have when they visit there. People sit on floors. Seriously ill patients line the corridors. There is one toilet in the emergency department waiting room — one. It is the oldest type of emergency department in this place. It is 41 years old. It was designed for 35,000 attendees a year; today, it is trying to cope with 70,000 to 80,000 attendees a year. That is not possible.

Elderly, frightened and vulnerable people spend hour after hour in conditions that strip them of their dignity. It is not just a once-off issue; it happens every day. Every day, my office is contacted by constituents and families at breaking point. Last week, an elderly gentleman spent 30 hours in that emergency department struggling to breathe. I am told that he went for long periods without being properly observed. He had pneumonia. As soon as the staff recognised that, he was taken to a ward, but he had sat there for 30 hours. A woman with terminal cancer was left sitting in the middle of all that madness. What on earth have we come to when we consider that acceptable? Where is the dignity? Where is the duty of care? Where is the health service that our people pay for, depend on and have every right to expect?

You then look at what the staff are asked to endure. Police are regularly required in the department. Staff deal with people who are heavily intoxicated with drugs or alcohol. The trust informed me that three nurses were attacked in the emergency department last week. Nurses and healthcare staff do not go in to do that work and save lives to be attacked for doing their job. Doctors and nurses should be treating patients, not firefighting chaos in a system that the Government have failed to resolve over and over again.

Let us stop pretending that it is a new issue. In the House, we get angry, upset and frustrated about signs and language. Where is the outrage about this? Where is the outrage that we hear about marches when it comes to our health service? Where is the outrage when it comes to people who are dying and lack the dignity that they deserve, sitting in an emergency department in Derry? When we strip the services out of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, we add to the pressure in the Altnagelvin Area Hospital setting. That is not what people deserve, and it is not what we are elected to allow. We need solutions from the Executive, but the DUP and Sinn Féin continue to preside over the mess while picking holes in each other over things that mean little to people in their ordinary lives.

Mr Speaker: Your time is up.

I call, um, Emma Sheerin.

Ms Sheerin: Me?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Bhí tú i do chodladh ansin.

I have listened with intent this afternoon to contributions from the DUP and, indeed, broader political unionism, hoping that we would hear some positivity. Although I am not surprised, I, of course, have been disappointed. The summer is over, and I do not know whether the DUP has become lost in some sort of time warp and thinks that we are back in 1969 or 1996 or whether it has jumped forward into pantomime season, but its contributions today would give Dame Edna a run for her money. It is not fooling anybody, however. All the drama, deflection and performance is just a distraction from what the DUP really does not want us all to be talking about, which is the summer of scandal that it has just had. It has only five MPs, over half of whom are currently under investigation. Gregory Campbell and Sammy Wilson, men who are no strangers to controversy and who have shown us time and again that you simply could not redden them, are being investigated for financial wrongdoing, and both have been defiant in their response.

We have also had news that another DUP MP is in court, charged with assault. What is most concerning about that was the DUP's response. The DUP leader told us that the party had been aware of the issue for years but saw fit to let the MP in question remain in his role, dismissing it as a private family matter. Such private family matters see women from this place murdered every other week, behind closed doors in family homes by family members and people whom they know. He then told us that it was all right and that there was nothing to worry about, because the DUP had conducted an internal investigation.

That brings me to the story that the DUP really does not want us all to focus on: that of its former leader Jeffrey Donaldson and the fact that his sentencing is coming up at the end of the month. That is why we are dragging up Drumcree and talking about a parading issue that has been dead in the water for almost 30 years. I am lucky enough to remember it only as a news item as a child. The DUP wants to distract us from the fact that its internal investigation is ongoing. We are supposed to have trust and confidence in it when it comes to who knew what. We are supposed to believe that only its jilted former members — those with whom it has fallen out — saw what was happening when Jeffrey Donaldson was on all his trips abroad.

The DUP needs to stop trying to gaslight the public. It needs to show some humility and stop trying to drag up old arguments and rows that have caused trauma in this place. It needs to start delivering for people.

Ms Forsythe: The DUP is, and always has been, a firmly pro-life party. We are dedicated to giving a voice to the voiceless and advocating at every turn for the right to life for babies from the moment at which they are formed in the womb. Only months ago in the Chamber, every corner of the House came together with genuine compassion to introduce baby loss certificates, recognising the lives of babies who died in the womb. I am devastated, however, to see the stark contrast between that compassion and that recognition of the life of unborn babies and, beyond the Chamber, a majority of Belfast city councillors having voted to light up City Hall in support of abortion. The DUP has opposed that and taken a stand for life. Our councillor Tracy Kelly proposed that the illumination should not proceed, but her proposal was defeated by 36 votes to 18.

Abortion is not something to celebrate. Belfast City Hall should not be illuminated in support of an international campaign seeking its further liberalisation and the removal of restrictions. Belfast City Hall is a significant civic symbol, representing the people of Belfast and those across Northern Ireland. City Hall belongs to everyone. It should not be turned into a billboard for abortion. It should be a place where the value, dignity and well-being of every person is recognised and protected, not a place that is used to endorse publicly one side of a deeply contested moral issue.

The language "Safe Abortion" also ignores the reality that abortion is never safe for the unborn child. Both lives matter: women who face difficult circumstances deserve compassion and meaningful support, but abortion ends an unborn baby's life and leaves the mother facing a lifetime of loss. Since abortion services were introduced to Northern Ireland under the Abortion Regulations 2020, 11,192 abortions were carried out here up to 31 March 2025, with the 2025-26 figures still to be published. Those are innocent lives lost. It is too late for them and too late for their parents, but it is not too late to stop and reflect.

Over 20,000 people have signed a petition against the illumination. Feelings are incredibly strong. It was disgusting to watch recent coverage of the Sinn Féin leader, Mary Lou McDonald, and her colleagues celebrating the removal of the three-day wait for abortion in the Republic of Ireland. Abortion is not something to celebrate. That is so distasteful. Belfast City Hall should not be illuminated to celebrate abortion. The DUP continues to oppose that. We will call in the decision, and we urge other parties to reconsider and listen to their constituents. We will stand up for every baby, as they are fearfully and wonderfully made in God's image. Every life matters.

Ms Nicholl: One of the reasons why I stay in politics is that I do not want my children to move to Australia; I want them to stay and have a future here. I want every child to be proud of living here.

The stories that have filled the airwaves over the past few weeks give concern to, I think, everyone in Northern Ireland, but especially to parents who are wondering what sort of society their children will grow up in. The conversation today — old parades disputes, a defaced memorial, flags glorifying a loyalist killer and schools being refused integrated education status — is a reminder of how much our past still impacts on our now. Meanwhile, so much of what needs to be said is not being said when it comes to what is happening with our health services, now that we cannot move on with plans for transformation; the gridlock in infrastructure; the strain on higher education; and what is happening with SEN. There are gaps in so much. There are gaps in what dominates the headlines and gaps in what people need us to talk about.

Something needs to change. That is why, as Northern Ireland's cross-community party, Alliance has, for decades, championed reforming the institutions and how we operate. It is welcome to see that there is more conversation about that, with the Prime Minister saying that the Secretary of State has been empowered to take forward discussions on reform, and more and more politicians talking about it. Our 'Democratic Renewal' proposals would make Stormont more stable, effective and accountable by reducing vetoes and modernising the Assembly and Executive structures. That is not a threat to anyone; it is actually the only way that we will get on with doing what we need to do. We need to look at so much. It is about not just stopping stop-start government and ending the ability to collapse the institutions, but making sure that every person, regardless or their identity and long-term aspirations, is valued and has a clear say.

There is so much that we need to do around changing how the Assembly works. It strikes me that the easy bit of work is to focus on what we disagree on — the divisions that we still hold in this place — rather than on how to move forward. If we were to reform the Assembly and change how the structures operate, we could hold those differences and have discussions and disputes, but, every time that something like Drumcree came up, everybody would not automatically be worrying that the Assembly will collapse again. How do we operate as a normal place with that threat constantly hanging over us? We need to move to a new politics that delivers for everyone in Northern Ireland and, rather than focusing on what divides us, focus on how we can work together. That is the only way that we will ever move forward.

Mr Sheehan: In the December monitoring round, £6 million of funding was allocated to the Minister of Education for Irish-medium facilities and accommodation, which was supposed to go to Iontaobhas na Gaelscolaíochta

It is a simple issue: Paul Givan's Department bid for £6 million specifically for Irish-medium accommodation facilities and the money was secured on that basis, yet, having secured it, the Minister chose to divert £5 million elsewhere. No amount of sleight of hand or retrospective justification from the Minister can change those basic facts.

He asked for money for one purpose, got the money and then spent the vast majority of it on something else. That is not acting in good faith. It is dishonest conduct from a Minister who has serious questions to answer about how he has handled public money.

Unfortunately, Paul Givan has form when it comes to the Irish language. This is the Minister of Líofa renown, who previously stripped away bursaries that enabled disadvantaged young people to attend the Gaeltacht. His party has form too. The DUP has gone through the courts to challenge even the visibility of Irish language in our communities. Therefore, the Irish-medium education community is entitled to look at this decision and question the motivation behind it.

Irish-medium education is the fastest-growing sector in our education system. It needs investment in accommodation and facilities to meet that growing demand, and the Minister cannot bid for money on the basis that the Department will support that sector, take the money and then decide that £5 million of it would be better spent elsewhere. Paul Givan should restore the funding to Iontaobhas na Gaelscolaíochta and explain clearly to the Assembly why he asked for £6 million for Irish-medium education if he had no intention of spending £5 million of it on the purpose for which it was sought.

Mrs Erskine: When it comes to dealing with serious concerns brought to Ministers and Departments, we cannot talk out of both sides of our mouth. Concerns must be taken seriously, investigated properly and acted upon quickly.

On 29 June, in Fivemiletown, a deeply concerning incident unfolded, with the slaughter of 51 cattle. I want to make it absolutely clear that nobody is disputing the court's decision and the order regarding the farm in question. The issue is DAERA's handling of that incident and the questions that remain about how it was managed. Alarm bells rang for me when the response from the Minister began to paint a very different picture from the one experienced by people on the ground. I wrote to him on 30 June, and his response appeared to side with officials and, in doing so, blame the public. Those same constituents heard gunshots and were upset and horrified by the scenes that they had witnessed.

From the very beginning, I made clear to the Department that this was not something that could simply be brushed aside and that there were serious questions that needed to be answered. When the Minister subsequently responded by praising the staff involved, I wrote to him again and raised those concerns directly and promptly, doing what I believe any elected representative should do when serious concerns are brought to their attention. I made sure that the Minister was aware of them and gave him the opportunity to act decisively. It required the issue getting into the mainstream media before the Minister felt compelled to take the matter semi-seriously. That is not good enough.

Talk is cheap. Talking a good game in the Assembly Chamber about animal welfare is one thing, but demonstrating that commitment when a serious incident occurs is quite another. The review must not be a whitewash. It must clearly identify what steps could and should have been taken but were not. It must establish which aspects of policy and guidance failed and what the Minister will do to rectify those failures because confidence in the Minister has been completely lost, not just in my constituency but right across Northern Ireland. That is why my colleague Jonny Buckley is standing by what he said he would do and laying a motion of no confidence in the Agriculture Minister today. I will be signing that motion, and I encourage other MLAs sitting in this Chamber, who have heard the concerns and calls from our farming industry, to do the same.

Mr Stewart: Over the summer, Carrickfergus suffered the latest of a series of blows to our high street with the announcement from the owners of Dobbins Inn that that historic business will close later this month. That is a huge blow not only to Carrickfergus High Street but to tourism and hospitality across the town and, indeed, in east Antrim more generally. For those who do not know, Dobbins is much more than simply another business. It dates back to 1530 and is an almost 500-year-old historic hotel, bar and restaurant, and is a unique tourism offering in Carrickfergus.

The Fallis family has run Dobbins Inn since 1978 and, for almost half a century, has dedicated itself to providing hospitality to our town and promoting Carrickfergus as a place to visit. I thank the family for all its efforts.

It is desperately sad that we have reached this point — the town is shaken by it — but the closure is not due to any lack of effort from the owners or their hard-working staff. It is because the trading conditions facing hospitality, retail and town-centre businesses have become increasingly difficult and, for many, simply unviable. At every level, government needs to act. At Westminster, the Government must end the enormous tax burden on hospitality. The sector has rightly called for lower VAT, and the increased cost of employing people through National Insurance and other pressures must be recognised. Government cannot continue to increase the cost of doing business and then wonder why businesses fail.

At Stormont, we need a fundamental business reform of the rates system. The Finance Minister must recognise that hospitality and town-centre businesses, in particular, are in a precarious position. Rates have to reflect economic reality rather than becoming another weight around the necks of businesses that are already struggling with energy costs, wages, supply costs and taxation. We have also had the high street task force: we need to see a "Town centre first" approach from it. I call on the Executive to re-establish that as quickly as possible.

Our councils also need to play their role. Local government reform promised greater efficiency and services at better cost, yet, year after year, we have seen business rates continue to rise and services being reduced: that is simply unacceptable. Councils have power in economic development, regeneration and town-centre management. They need to use those powers to improve public realm, address dereliction and support events and initiatives that increase footfall. They also need to look seriously at parking and accessibility and at how we make our high streets an attractive place to invest and do business. The fundamental economic responsibility of government at every level is to create the conditions in which businesses can flourish and investment can take place, but, for too many, the opposite is happening.

I sincerely thank Derek, Maureen, Kirsty and the team at Dobbins for everything that they have contributed to Carrickfergus. I wish them the best and hope that the business can stay open. I will do all that I can to support it. However, hope alone is not a strategy. The Government must do more to support our hospitality industry.

Miss McAllister: Just a few weeks ago — over the summer recess — Northern Ireland was faced with yet another change of leadership in the Department of Health with Mike Nesbitt's resignation as Minister. I thank Mike for his time in the role. We had many robust exchanges in the Assembly Chamber and in Committee, but I respect the dedication that he showed to the role and the matter of principle on which he stepped aside. I also welcome Robbie Butler to the role and look forward to working constructively, because that is important.

The crucial point is that there are only seven months until the end of the mandate. There is no time to wait. I do not underestimate the challenge that is facing the new Health Minister at this stage in the mandate. With a service in crisis, an undoubtedly full in tray and a plethora of issues to understand, prioritisation is key. If those seven months are to be put to good use and not wasted, the Minister must use his time wisely. One of the most important factors in creating a sustainable, safe health service and driving down waiting lists across the board is delivering transformation. However, next month, we will be ten years on from Bengoa, and progress around the reform of services has been held back by the collapse of the institutions, a lack of leadership and, frankly, an unwillingness to make difficult decisions.

Alliance has remained consistent on the need for reform of the health service. It is not a question of there being too many hospitals in Northern Ireland; it is about the services that are delivered in them. We all know someone who is impacted by the increasing difficulty in accessing healthcare services in Northern Ireland. At a time of crisis, having three Ministers in the space of three years is far from ideal, but the reality is that the new Minister has seven months to make his mark. The time cannot be wasted with a caretaker leader at the helm, shying away from difficult decisions or setting up yet another committee or review, because the election is fast approaching and decisions need to be made. If he wants his time in ministerial office to have a meaningful impact, we need to ensure that progress is made now.

We cannot have dithering and delay. We need decisions. We need to ensure that patients are put first.

Mr Gaston: The massacre that took place in the fields outside Fivemiletown in late June horrified people across Northern Ireland. The decision by DAERA officials to slaughter 51 healthy cattle put a focus on the Environment Minister and torpedoed the myth that animal welfare is a top priority for him. Let us not forget that, prior to sending the inhumane hit squad to kill healthy animals, Muir knew that it was going to happen and did absolutely nothing about it. Now, when he has rightly been called out, he cries, "Misogyny" and "Sectarianism". The massacre has once again exposed a DAERA hierarchy that operates under the banner of "Do as I say, not as I do". I fully expect the Minister at Question Time today to attempt to hide behind his not-so-independent external review of the handling of the massacre at Fivemiletown. What the Minister cannot hide, however, is that his first reaction was to defend the staff involved, before having to bow to the public pressure and call for a review.

If the recklessness that the hit squad deployed had been carried out by a farmer, their guns would have been lifted and they would be facing a lengthy time behind bars. The inescapable fact is that the farmer had already found homes for 21 of his cattle, yet the Department proceeded to shoot even one of those animals during the massacre. Why could the rest of the animals not have been rounded up by the farmer and disposed of in the same way? The folly of the decision to massacre all remaining animals was compounded by the resurrection of the three calves that the Department claimed to have shot over the two days. Those calves, including the calf that had been shot through the neck, were allowed, once they turned up, to be transferred to another farm.

To restore any confidence in DAERA, Andrew Muir must resign, and he must take his permanent secretary, Katrina Godfrey, and the chief vet, Brian Dooher, with him. First, it was the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) scandal that was brushed under the carpet. We cannot and will not allow the same thing to happen with Fivemiletown. The agri-industry has had enough of you, Mr Muir, and it is time for you to pack your bags, do the right thing and resign.

Ms Sugden: I reiterate my continued opposition to the removal of emergency general surgery from Causeway Hospital. I do not oppose change for the sake of it. The Northern Trust argues that the current model cannot be sustained across two sites, that emergency surgical demand at Antrim Area Hospital is significantly higher and that workforce and capacity pressures must be addressed. If a service is genuinely unsafe, at risk of collapse or putting lives at risk, of course, we must act. Accepting the problem, however, does not require us to accept that as the solution, because there is another clinical view here, and it must be heard. I speak regularly with senior medical staff at Causeway who believe that this is the wrong decision. The clinicians' concern is that we are weakening one functioning, sustainable hospital to compensate for pressures elsewhere, and they tell us that that has consequences.

Antrim is under enormous pressure. I know that hospital well. I spent time there during my pregnancy and after giving birth, and I listened to the clinicians working there. Ultimately, Antrim is the spillover hospital for north Belfast, and, if it were in the Belfast Trust, we would be having a different debate. However, the answer to the pressures cannot simply be to transfer resources from Causeway to Antrim. Are we transforming the service or managing the cost of failure elsewhere? Emergency general surgery cannot be viewed as an isolated unit on a spreadsheet. Remove it, and we must consider what follows. What does it mean for intensive care and anaesthetics? What does it mean for paediatrics, for services needed by an ageing population in an area with the most ageing population in Northern Ireland and, ultimately, for the sustainability of a 24/7 emergency department?

I recognise the assurances that have been given that Causeway will remain an acute hospital with a 24/7 emergency department. However, my concern is not simply what Causeway will look like in a year but what it will look like five or 10 years from now if we continue to remove the services that underpin an acute hospital. The trust's strategic vision is increasingly one of developing Causeway as an elective and diagnostic hub. Those services are welcome, but they cannot be a substitute for the acute healthcare that the north coast needs. Access matters too. For someone in Limavady, Coleraine or a rural community, getting to Antrim is not insignificant. I travelled there every week during my pregnancy, and I wondered how I would do it if I did not have a car. We have an ageing population, families matter to recovery, and geography matters to healthcare.

If inconvenience were the only argument, I would support the proposal, but it is not. Doctors send me questions to ask the Health Minister about safety, capacity projections and the wider consequences for Causeway. This is not just about wanting to keep it in our backyard; it is about health and safety, which matters as much to the people of Causeway as it does to people in Antrim.

Mr Buckley: First and foremost, on behalf of the DUP, Mr Speaker, I join you in your condolences to the family of Stephen Walker: a remarkable man and a gentleman on and off the screen. I pay tribute to his courage and commitment as a journalist. He was fearless, fair and level-headed. I have no doubt that his loss has left a heavy mark with his former colleagues in the BBC and, indeed, with his family.

Our asylum system is being manipulated on an industrial scale. If you do not know that, you have been living under a rock. The people who are being failed — the people who are most impacted and are paying the price — are ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding citizens.

'The Times' today reports the staggering allegation of a Home Office whistle-blower who claims that one in every 100 asylum applications is genuine. Let that sink in. If that allegation is even remotely close to the truth, we are talking about a system that is being exploited, manipulated and abused every day. It is the scale of it that should shock us. Illegal immigrants and, indeed, their gangmasters are making every attempt to manipulate and bypass laws that are not fit for purpose — failed legislation.

Some in the Assembly shriek in horror at every opportunity when I raise the issue of illegal and uncontrolled immigration. Despite the Sinn Féin, SDLP and Alliance attitude of, "Let's bury our heads in the sand: we don't have a problem", we see that Home Office illegal immigration raids have resulted in over 1,000 people being removed from Northern Ireland. It sounds as though we have a problem, and Sinn Féin's attitude of, "Brits out, everybody else in" is as ridiculous today as it has ever been.

It is not an orange and green issue; it is a common sense issue. It is not a left versus right issue; it is a security issue. Potentially, if we do not grip the issue once and for all, its unrepairable nature and the harm to our communities will be clear for all to see. It increasingly impacts on communities across Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Surely, the Government's priority should be to secure our borders and remove those who have entered illegally, not simply to manage the consequences —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: — of bad legislation.

Ms Reilly: My statement will be in Irish. Members may wish to put on their headphones.

Tá sé cothrom agus simplí a rá go bhfuil sé soiléir, i mbliana, go bhfuil Béal Feirste anois i gcroílár shaol cultúrtha agus Gaeilge na hÉireann: d’éirigh go hiontach le hOireachtas na Samhna ar an bhliain seo caite; bhí ard-fheis Chonradh na Gaeilge againn anseo sa chathair; agus, ar ndóigh, ceann de na buaicphointí i mbliana, gur tháinig Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann go Béal Feirste. Ba í an fhleadh ba mhó riamh í. Tháinig 1·6 milliún duine go Béal Feirste. Sin 1.6 milliún duine a bhí ag baint sult as an cheol, as an teanga, as an chultúr agus as an chathair s’againn. Bhí sin iontach speisialta agamsa. Thug sé deis dúinn Béal Feirste a thaispeáint don domhan: cathair atá athraithe go mór, cathair atá muiníneach aisti féin agus cathair atá bródúil as a cultúr, as a teanga, agus as a muintir.

Ar ndóigh, bhí tionchar ollmhór eacnamaíochta ag an fhleadh: bhí na hóstáin, caiféanna, tithe tábhairne, agus na bialanna uile lán, agus bhí na sráideanna dubh le daoine ó cheann ceann na seachtaine. Ach domsa, bhí rud níos tábhachtaí ná na figiúirí sin ann, ba é sin an t-atmaisféar a bhí sa chathair agus na mílte daoine ag teacht le chéile: teaghlaigh, daoine óga, ceoltóirí agus cuairteoirí as gach cearn den oileán agus níos faide i gcéin. Bhí áit ann do gach uile dhuine acu. Sin an cineál cathrach atáimid ag iarraidh a thógáil, cathair atá oscailte, cathair atá fáilteach agus cathair ina bhfuil meas ar gach duine agus ar gach traidisiún. Gabhaim buíochas ó chroí le gach duine a rinne an fhleadh chomh speisialta sin.

Má bhí fleadh 2026 mór, tá mé cinnte gur féidir linn fleadh níos mó agus níos fearr arís bheith againn nuair a fhillfidh sí ar Bhéal Feirste ar an bhliain seo chugainn. Beidh mise iontach bródúil bheith i mo chuid den scaifte sin arís.

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Education that he wishes to make a statement.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Since taking office in February 2024, my approach has been characterised by three simple ambitions: excellence in education, choice for parents and a fair deal for hard-working families. By this stage, Members will no doubt be familiar with my educational reform plan, which is grounded in evidence and informed by international best practice, known as TransformED. In a few weeks, I will set out my ambition to organise the education system based on the choices of parents and children, not bureaucratic structures. Today, however, I will set out some of what I have been doing to help out the hard-working families who are the bedrock of our community and announce an important next step. Too often, they are overlooked, ignored or taken for granted. They do not complain or make a fuss, but I know that they are the ones who raise their families, pay their taxes and meet their mortgages. In my constituency and in my mailbox, I hear their concerns. I have already responded with practical support, but I intend to do more.

When the Executive were restored in February 2024, "early learning and childcare" was widely regarded by parties across the House as being a priority. It was an early example of how devolution could make a difference to the real lives of real people. With the support of Executive colleagues, I brought forward a range of measures to revolutionise early years and childcare provision in Northern Ireland. Although it is only a start, in a constrained financial environment, I believe that we are beginning to make a real difference.

Amid all the challenges and difficulties that are being faced, and with sustained investment, I believe that TransformED will stand the test of time as one of the signature achievements of the Executive during this Assembly term. There are those who oppose devolution or, at the very least, whose approach would end any form of devolution that is reasonably available, but be in no doubt that, in the absence of devolution, none of the progress that has been made in providing increased early learning, education and childcare support to thousands of families across Northern Ireland would have been achieved. Exceptional civil servants have delivered those changes, but, in the absence of Ministers, they would not have been empowered to do so. That is not speculation but an empirical fact.

In the coming weeks, the Executive will consider a final early learning and childcare strategy, but, in reality, that will be to confirm a direction of travel on which we have long since commenced. Between April 2024 and March 2026, the Executive allocated £80 million of additional funding to deliver on those measures, which are making a tangible difference for thousands of children, families and providers across Northern Ireland. The measures include the design and implementation of a bespoke Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme (NICSS), which has secured over £26·4 million in savings for eligible working parents since its launch in September 2024. When that is combined with tax-free childcare, the savings for families are estimated at approximately £55·6 million.

I will give an example of what that has meant in practice. A family claiming the full subsidy for two children who are below primary-school age will have saved just under £8,800 since the scheme was introduced — that is £8,800 that those families would otherwise have had to pay out in fees. As a direct result of the action that we have taken, they have been able to retain and use that money for other purposes. When combined with tax-free childcare, their childcare bills over the period will have been reduced by an estimated £16,800. It is a significant achievement that the Executive have been able to ease the financial pressure on working families to that extent in just two years, and at a time when many other costs have been rising.

In 2025-26 alone, the subsidy scheme supported 27,486 children from 20,210 families. Eligible families could receive a subsidy of up to £184 per child — over £2,200 per child per year — with no limit on the number of children whom that can be claimed for. Analysis of the NICSS data indicates that only 2·7% of claims reached the maximum monthly subsidy, which confirms that the majority of families continue to receive the 15% reduction available on the full value of the childcare costs, rather than being constrained by the cap. It is also worth pointing out the extent to which the scheme has specifically benefited working families on low and middle incomes. It is further evidence of my commitment to target hard-working families, often where both parents are working in average-income jobs but still struggling with the various financial demands of bringing up young children.

In addition to the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, I have strengthened the support provided to thousands of families through established and highly respected programmes such as Sure Start and the Pathway fund. That investment is enabling over 9,000 additional children across Northern Ireland who have not previously had access to the programmes to benefit from high-quality early learning, health and family support.

Building on the policy set out by my predecessor, Michelle McIlveen, we have made huge progress in moving towards a universal full-time preschool education offer. It will ensure that all children, regardless of their background or where they live, will be able to access 22·5 hours of structured age-appropriate education, learning and development in the year before they start school. Preschools are starting the new academic year as we meet here today, and I am delighted to confirm that the latest Education Authority (EA) data indicates that over 65% of pupils will have the benefit of a full-time preschool education place; that compares with just 40% only two years ago. The Executive have committed to delivering preschool education as a universal offer, and my work to do so continues at pace. Members will be aware of the significant benefits that families are reporting from full-time provision. We can see how popular it is, with settings that moved to the longer day in the first year having received, on average, a 300% increase in applications.

The work to transition all preschool provision to 22·5 hours must be prioritised; it is too important to children and their families to risk losing momentum. I have, therefore, tasked my Department and the EA to progress standardisation for approximately 100 more settings, so that even more children can benefit from full-time provision next year. The speed of standardisation will be largely dictated by the resources that are made available to me by the Executive, as well as by the state of readiness of individual settings.

My Department recently consulted on the draft early learning and childcare strategy, which contained a wide range of actions to further progress the Executive's priorities in that area. In addition to the core objective of providing a universal, full-time preschool education offer, the early learning and childcare strategy includes other preschool education actions, such as consulting on legislative changes to remove the current statutory admissions criterion that prioritises children from socially disadvantaged circumstances (SDC) when applying for funded preschool education places during the preschool admissions process.

The SDC criterion was first introduced in 1998 to prioritise access to a limited preschool programme for children deemed likely to benefit from it most. At that time, there were only enough funded preschool education places available for approximately 45% of children, meaning that more than half our children could not access any funded preschool provision at all.

Back then, the criterion was an important intervention that maximised access for children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. That was nearly 30 years ago. The context today is very different. Following the expansion of provision, all children have been able to access some preschool education provision for more than a decade. There is therefore no longer a need for a law to prioritise children for access because there are enough funded places in every area of Northern Ireland to accommodate every target-age child whose parents want a funded preschool place.

There have been numerous consultations about the SDC criterion, and they have all told us the same thing: it is no longer fit for purpose. There have been calls for more than 20 years for it to be amended or repealed. Many parents, preschool education practitioners and elected representatives from across the Assembly have been clear. The legislation is now outdated, unnecessary and unfair, and I believe that it should go.

Most recently, consultees who commented on the SDC action in the early learning and childcare consultation, which closed in March, gave a very clear response: change is long overdue, and the current legislative requirement should be removed without further delay.

Today, I can confirm that my Department has listened and will respond positively to those comments. The current legislative requirements will be removed in line with the outcome of previous consultations. That will place preschools on an equal footing with primary and post-primary schools. The change is not about removing protections for disadvantaged children; it is about removing outdated provisions to ensure that children at preschool age have fair access to education provision, just as they do at primary and post-primary age.

Many parents have made clear that they consider the continued imposition of a blanket statutory criterion to be wholly unfair. It is no longer needed to prioritise access, but its continued use unfairly decreases their chances of securing their first-preference setting, including full-time places, which can, in turn, impact on their childcare arrangements.

Parents and preschools in various localities have raised the case for children from other circumstances to be given top priority in their area, but that cannot be done due to the current legislation. Elected representatives from across the Assembly have written to me on many occasions on behalf of preschools and families of preschool children who are frustrated at the unintended consequences of the current outdated legislation. Many feel that local children, children of working families, particularly low-paid families, and children who are looked after or who face other barriers to learning that are not reflected in the SDC criterion, are disadvantaged by the current legislation.

A small number of stakeholders have previously suggested that there may be some benefit in maintaining a priority for children from socially disadvantaged circumstances in certain cases. I am open to considering how that could be achieved, but it would be done in a tailored way if evidence could be presented to support it.

The consultation that I am launching today will seek views on whether the present regulations should simply be repealed or whether new, fit-for-purpose legislation is required. However, it is important to understand that we do not need new legislation to permit settings to prioritise disadvantaged children. Without it, they would have the same power that primary and post-primary schools have to set their own criteria, with the benefit of guidance from my Department. This means that they can prioritise children in a way that best reflects the children and communities whom they serve.

My Department is therefore consulting on potential next steps. That is an important part of the process to ensure that the preschool admissions process is the best that it can be. I ask that Executive colleagues, particularly those who have previously written to me on the issue, respond to that consultation and provide their views and those of their constituents. Responses are welcome from all stakeholders and interested parties, particularly parents and carers, early-years sectoral bodies and providers of preschool education, including nursery schools, primary schools with nursery units, and voluntary and private preschool education settings that participate in the preschool education programme.

Subject to the outcome of the consultation, which will launch this week, and the legislative process, it is the Department's intention to repeal the current outdated provisions and, if necessary, put in place replacement legislation and/or guidance prior to the commencement of the preschool admissions process in January 2028. However, in advance of the consultation, I intend to take one further significant step today. The impact of ongoing welfare reforms over the three decades means that the benefits that are referenced in the socially disadvantaged criteria legislation have been almost entirely replaced and phased out, leaving the Education Authority reliant on reading in new welfare payments, such as universal credit, that did not exist when the legislation was written. After careful consideration, I have concluded that that is no longer a legally permissible approach. In the preparation of the consultation, it has become clear that we are, in practice, imposing criteria that are not provided for in legislation. Setting aside the intrinsic merits of such an approach, it is not consistent with the prevailing legislation. Universal credit is a significantly wider welfare payment than those that are named in the legislation. In 2019-2020, around 15% of children's preschool applications indicated that they met the SDC criterion. This year, that figure was more than double at almost 36%. That significantly changes the priority criteria to the point that it is no longer possible to properly target those for whom they were originally intended. The current approach is not legally sustainable and must now be changed.

Therefore, today, I am writing to the Education Authority and all preschool providers to make clear that, pending any amendment to the regulations, for the admissions process for the academic year beginning in September 2027, the only SDC criteria that must be applied relate to those who are in receipt of the benefits that are specifically named in the legislation: income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance. As those benefits have almost completely been phased out or superseded, I expect that that will apply to a negligible number of applications next year. This approach will essentially place preschools on an equal footing with primary and post-primary schools, empowering them to select admissions criteria that best reflect their individual settings and the communities that they serve. This is not a mere tinkering with admissions criteria; it is a fundamental change of approach.

In the past few years, we have come a long way with early learning and childcare, yet we are still in the foothills of what we hope to ultimately deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, as set out in the draft early learning and childcare strategy. Building on the progress that we have made, this consultation will allow for renewed focus on what we want to achieve moving forward. For my part, I am clear: I want to ensure that working families have a fair chance at securing the preschool setting of their choice. We cannot guarantee that they will all get the one that they want, although I am working on that, but we can ensure that the odds are not stacked against them. Today, we launch a consultation on what admissions criteria preschool settings should apply. More importantly, however, we realign practice with the law that governs admissions. Hard-working families make this country what it is. Today, I stand with them, acting to ensure that their hard work is not disadvantaged and that they, along with all families, are properly supported to have fair access to preschool education for their children. I commend the statement to the House.

Ms Hunter: Minister, you will know that roughly one in five children in Northern Ireland live in absolute poverty, and that that will shape their lives and have serious implications for their life chances. We all know that preschool can play a powerful, vital and meaningful role in closing that gap. Knowing that, Minister, why are you pushing forward with removing the only statutory protection for those children without guaranteeing a replacement?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. The rationale was clearly outlined in my statement to the Assembly today. First, it is about ensuring that admissions are based on the actual legislation, and it is important that we align the law on those things with the implementation of it. We are also in a very different place from where we were in 1998-99 when we brought the criterion in, when less than half of all children in Northern Ireland had a paid preschool place. Such places are now universally available. When I took office, only 40% of children were getting a full-time place. Now, because of delivery, 65% of all children are getting a full-time place. We are applying to our nursery schools the same process as applies to our primary schools and post-primary schools, where that criterion does not exist.
Nursery schools will be able to reflect their local circumstances. If a preschool setting in the Member's constituency decides that it wishes to make the number-one criterion something relating to people who are in receipt of a much wider range of benefits, that decision will be available to it. If a nursery setting wishes to disadvantage hard-working families in its local community, it can do that. However, we should not have a blanket approach that, in the last consultation, over 70% of respondents said was unfair and should go. Today, I am delivering on that commitment.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): Minister, in the 2025-26 academic year, your Department spent over £5 million funding places for non-target-age children: two-year-olds. Your officials have sat in front of the Committee and said that that is poor provision, ineffective provision and, at times, unsafe provision. Why on earth, when you have the legislative levers at your disposal, are you not changing the law to deal with that issue, which actually impacts on educational outcomes, rather than bringing in something that could further disadvantage the children who are at the highest risk of educational disadvantage in Northern Ireland?

Mr Givan: A priority for me is to enhance the support that we have in all our preschool settings. It is why, in the early learning strategy, for which I secured funding from the Executive, we have enhanced provision in preschool settings, particularly for children who have additional needs. Often, because of the process of needing an assessment to get support, those children go through nursery school without support. I have been able to put funding into every single preschool setting so that they can provide support for those children.

The Member needs to be honest with the public. Constituents from hard-working families may come to you — it is a notable concern now that the Alliance Party is making clear its position — and ask, "Why can I not access a nursery facility in my local community? Why, because I work and am not in receipt of benefits, am I being discriminated against and disadvantaged?". That is what constituents say in Moira, Hillsborough and right across the Lagan Valley constituency, and they will be very interested to hear that the Alliance Party wants to continue a discriminatory practice against hard-working families. I will not support that practice, but I will support every single child getting the best possible support in our education system, including in preschool settings. That is why I increased funding for Sure Start and why 9,000 children, particularly from more disadvantaged communities, have greater access to that support. Today's statement is about making sure that those who are struggling to make ends meet and are working incredibly hard are not disadvantaged because they work. They should be treated equally.

Mr Baker: Once again, we have the Education Minister playing politics with children. You are pitting children against children, and the most vulnerable in our society are made vulnerable by decisions such as this. It was a very depressing statement, and not once did you mention children with additional needs. Is it fair to say, Minister, that you are removing the rights of the most disadvantaged children in our society?

Mr Givan: In response to the previous question, I mentioned children with additional needs and the support that I have put into nursery settings. Interestingly, the Member raises a concern. He is from West Belfast. His colleague Órlaithí Flynn raised a concern with me earlier this year.

Let me quote from a letter that was sent by Mr Baker's colleague, the Sinn Féin Member for West Belfast. In that letter, she says:

That was in respect of the social disadvantage criterion — that it was unfairly disadvantaging her constituents in West Belfast. [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Givan: Perhaps the Member should have a word with his colleague, who was asking me to do exactly what I have now announced.

The Member seems to be concerned about my taking decisions and getting on with delivering for my constituents. I note that not one other Minister in the Assembly today is bringing forward decisions that will help to deliver. Sinn Féin's track record on delivery — the A5, Casement, Magee university, and the list goes on — is one that it should rightly be embarrassed about. On the part of the DUP and me, we will continue to deliver for the hard-working people of Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]

Mr Baker: Education Minister? You are a disgrace. [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. I remind all Members, including the Minister, that this is about the statement. He can wax lyrical — that is his role — but it would be really good if Members would stick to asking questions on the statement. I think that I have everybody's name down; if I have not, try to catch my attention.

Mr Martin: I welcome the Education Minister's statement. What numbers or percentages of pupils were eligible for priority when the SDC was introduced, and how many were there last year?

Mr Givan: I thank Mr Martin for that question. I mentioned in my statement the percentage of pupils who were eligible for priority in respect of the SDC arrangement, but it is worth repeating. The priority was to give access to a limited number of places when there were enough for only 45% of children. While that need for priority has disappeared, the number of children who have been prioritised has increased. Although the Education Authority does not hold the data for the number of children who met the criterion when it was first introduced, we know that, in the admissions process for the 2019-2020 academic year, around 15% of applications were processed on the basis of the socially disadvantaged criterion.

During the process for this academic year, because of the evolution and expansive nature of welfare reforms and the way in which they have been wrongly read in, 36% of applications met the socially disadvantaged circumstances criterion. That is why hard-working people in their communities feel aggrieved that they have not been able to access settings because some people who are not from their local community have been able to trump local applicants on the basis of that criterion. That number of people has expanded, and that is why we need to change that. On the basis of this year's figure and what has been announced today, the number of applicants whom, we believe, will meet the socially disadvantaged criterion will be 27, accounting for 0·4% of the total of preschool applications.

Mr Burrows: I agree entirely that we need to stand on the side of working families, often with two parents who are working hard and struggling to make ends meet. There has to be fairness for them. The flip side of that is that there are those who are socially disadvantaged; often, there is not the same social capital, and that means that they start on a path of continuing underachievement. What steps can be taken to mitigate the risk of any increase in educational under-attainment in the long term among, for example, Protestant or Catholic working-class boys?

Mr Givan: There are significant supports in place for people who find themselves socially disadvantaged. I support many of them in my constituency, including many who vote for me, to get access to all that support. Today is not about taking something away but about ensuring equality for all children. Constituents come to me, and those who are just about breaking even but do not qualify for any benefit are rightly aggrieved that they have not been able to access their local setting or to get a full-time place on the basis of outdated, discriminatory legislation that referenced particular benefits.

People see this as being the right thing to do, particularly given that the circumstances have changed dramatically. Now, 100% of all preschool places in nursery settings are funded. Everyone who wants to have a funded place in a preschool setting can have that provided. In 1998, the number of funded places was less than half, so even if there may have been a case for the criterion at the time, the circumstances have since changed fundamentally. What we should not allow is for those hard-working families who make this country what it is to be further disadvantaged.

Mr Sheehan: The Minister will be aware that there is incontrovertible evidence that children from disadvantaged backgrounds have poorer educational outcomes than their peers from more affluent backgrounds, hence the reason that the prioritisation criterion was brought in in the first place.

Following on from the previous question, what other measures will the Minister introduce to ensure that our extraordinarily long tail of educational underachievement is not made any worse?

Mr Givan: Members will be able to look back over the steps that I have been taking over the past two years to address disadvantage and underachievement and see where their communities have qualified under the RAISE programme to raise educational attainment and the funding that goes into that programme. There are significant amounts of funding for which I am under severe pressure around the Executive table. When we look at extended-schools funding, for example, millions of pounds go to schools based on free school meals provision. I am having to fight every single day with Executive colleagues, including those from Sinn Féin, when it comes to our education system, so if they want to support me when it comes to prioritising those who need more support, they will have to back it up with funding.

This week, I have already met the Secretary of State and spelled out to him the underfunding of the Executive and the impact that that has on my Department. I trust that, collectively, we will all make the case to get more resources so that we can help the very people whom Mr Sheehan and I want to help.

Mr Harvey: Will the Minister indicate what the outcome of previous consultations on the issue has been?

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member's asking that question. There have been a number of consultations. From December 2025 to March 2026, there was the consultation on the draft Executive early learning and childcare strategy. That draft strategy went through the Executive for consultation. Perhaps Ministers did not know what they were putting through the Executive, but in that consultation was this very proposal to remove the criterion. The last time that I checked, the Alliance Party is on the Executive. So is Sinn Féin.

When the strategy went through the Executive, it was therefore consulted on for the criterion to be removed. That is the direction of travel. The fact is that, in doing the work in preparation for the consultation, I was able to identify that the legislative basis for the current policy is flawed. That has allowed me to make this decision today. Beyond that, however, there was, in 2021, a specific consultation on the criterion, and 70·7% of respondents asked for its immediate removal, because of the reasons that I have outlined.

Members here are opposed to its removal, but on what evidence? The evidence shows that it is no longer necessary and that the public believe that it should be removed, yet in here we have criticism coming. Is it purely in order to score political points? I suggest that it is, particularly when Órlaithí Flynn, a Member for Sinn Féin in West Belfast, put it in writing that she wanted me to do this. The evidence shows that I am on the side of where the public are at on this particular issue.

There were also reviews in 2011 and back in 2004 on the matter. The issue has therefore been well consulted on, and the decision will be well received by the overwhelming majority in the country.

Mrs Guy: Minister, I also hear from a huge number of families on the issues. I want all families to have the option of full-time preschool hours if they want them. Although your statement announces a consultation, in effect, through the way in which you are asking settings to implement the current legislation, you are ending the socially disadvantaged circumstances criterion. Would it not be more appropriate to wait for the findings of the consultation and the evidence that it produces before making any changes to the admissions criterion so that preschool and nursery-school leaders can have a say?

Mr Givan: The Member highlights the fact that she, too, hears from constituents about the issues. I actually take decisions that address those concerns: that is the difference between the Member and me. The constituents who raise those concerns with her and my colleagues in Lagan Valley also raise with me the discrimination and disadvantage that they feel as hard-working people, but I listen and then I act. That is what I am doing today.

The Member invites me to preside over an admissions process that has now been identified as legally flawed. That, in effect, is what the Member is asking me to do. It is incumbent on Ministers to respond positively when they get clear legal advice on such issues that the legislation has been read in a way that is no longer legally defensible, as, I suspect, all Ministers would. I will not continue to preside over what is, in effect, an illegal process; I am aligning the practice with the law. The Member is absolutely right that, as of today, the admissions policy has changed.

Mrs Mason: Minister, you mention equality for all children as what you are trying to do here, but children do not start on an equal footing. They do not all start out from the same place, and, as Education Minister, you should understand that. You know what the socially disadvantaged circumstances criterion was for. You know that it is widely accepted that children from deprived backgrounds are more likely to face educational disadvantage. You also know that early intervention is key to addressing that. I have heard that from your officials' —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: A question.

Mrs Mason: — mouths. How can you stand here and justify taking away measures that are designed to support the most vulnerable? Should you not put your efforts into creating more and better places for those children?

Mr Givan: That is exactly what I have been doing for the past two years. While Sinn Féin Ministers have presided over inertia and done nothing of any great meaning in their Departments for the people of Northern Ireland, I have acted on a series of education reforms. I have put in place funding particularly for those from more disadvantaged backgrounds and increased access to Sure Start and the Pathway fund. I have been able to put in additional support for all those things in schools. What I will not do — I am glad that the Member for West Belfast Órlaith Flynn is now here — is to allow — .

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is Órlaithí.

Mr Givan: Apologies, I take that back.

I will not preside over discrimination against hard-working families. It is notable that parties in the Chamber — Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party — have indicated that they want to continue a practice under which those who struggle to just about get by are disadvantaged. Those people have a right to have their children in a full-time nursery setting, just like anybody else. They should not, on the basis of that criterion, have that right dislocated and trumped, often by people who are not even from their local community. It is a discriminatory criterion. I am for equality, and that is why the decision has been taken.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excellent. Question Time will begin at 2.00 pm, so I ask that the Assembly takes its ease until then. Questions on the statement will continue after the question for urgent oral answer. The next Member to be called to ask a question will be Julie Middleton. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): The public consultation on the draft Northern Ireland artificial intelligence (AI) strategy was launched on 12 August 2026 and will remain open until 7 October 2026. The consultation provides an opportunity for citizens, businesses, academia, public-sector organisations and the voluntary and community sector to help shape the final strategy. The draft strategy sets out a framework for the responsible, ethical and fair adoption of artificial intelligence across the public sector. It aims to support the delivery of better public services while maintaining public trust and confidence in the use of AI. We encourage all those with an interest in the future development and use of artificial intelligence in Northern Ireland to participate in the consultation. The responses received will be carefully considered and will inform the final strategy before it is brought to the Executive for consideration.

Mr Delargy: Go raibh maith agat.

I thank the deputy First Minister for her response. She knows that there are many conflicting accounts of how AI is used. People in the public sector in particular want reassurance that their data will be protected. What is the Executive Office doing to ensure that, particularly in public-sector use, there is human oversight of anything sensitive to do with data collection?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: There are a lot of concerns about the future of AI and how it will be brought in and used. The Member is right that human oversight is critical. That is why, at the outset of the process, we made it clear that we wanted an ethical framework. We needed the principles of that to be embedded in and core to the strategy from the start. People's personal data and sensitive data must be protected. As we move increasingly towards digitisation, that is important not just with AI but across the system. The Member is absolutely right: it is an important issue, which is why it is at the heart of the consultation document.

Mr Brooks: It is right that we highlight some of the risks and the concerns that people have about AI, but there are also opportunities. How will AI support efficiency and effectiveness in the Civil Service and the wider public sector?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member. It is incredibly important that we are aware of not just the potential risks with AI but the potential opportunities that AI and further digitisation might provide and that we seize those opportunities. That is why we need a plan. It is why we moved quickly to establish the office of the Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser and tasked her with bringing the work forward. I am really pleased with the work so far. I thank all of the many people who helped with the strategy and contributed to putting it together, particularly those working in the industry. They did so freely, because they want to see a robust and workable AI strategy for Northern Ireland as well.

The Member touched on an incredibly important issue. People want to know that their hard-earned taxpayers' money is being used in the best way across Departments and the public sector. We need to reassure the public that that is the case, but we also need to do everything that we can to root out inefficiency and waste and make sure that the likes of AI and further digitisation improve services and improve the working lives and environments of those who are tasked with delivering and implementing such decisions.

Ms Nicholl: The deputy First Minister will know that I am delighted that the AI strategy has been published. I have tabled many questions about it. From my engagement as chair of the all-party group on artificial intelligence, I know that there are different views on AI depending on the sector. The tech sector is excited about the opportunities — there are many — while those in the creative sector may be worried, and there are environmental concerns. So much of the conversation is based on outdated information. What will the Executive Office do, beyond an online consultation, to facilitate a wider public conversation about what AI is and its opportunities and risks? Will there be a wider public conversation about it?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is incredibly important that there is discussion. A huge amount of the understanding of and apprehension about AI is fuelled by what people see. There have been key stories about that even over the summer. You referenced the creative industries: the voices of voice actors have been used without crediting them or giving them remuneration for that but taking that within a system and using it in particular ways. There are a lot of frightening things about AI, but the key thing for government is that we are here to reassure. We will not step back from trying to seize the opportunities from AI, but, as I referenced, we need to make sure in doing so that we have an approach that is ethical and safe and engages the wider public. We do not want only those who are incredibly passionate about and interested in AI to respond; we want to engage absolutely everyone. The future use of AI, even just a couple of years down the line, will really engage absolutely everyone. That is why we need everyone: young people, older people and, of course, people across all industries, not just in technology. There are potentially huge impacts across every job and profession in Northern Ireland.

Dr Aiken: Deputy First Minister, you will be aware that, through the wonders of the protocol, there are two different versions of how AI is being interpreted in EU regulations and United Kingdom regulations. Will the deputy First Minister point out to us which ones we will use in government? That is important, because they have entirely different outcomes.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As the Member is likely aware, there have been developments in the European Union and, of course, in the UK in relation to AI. There have been reports, including one published by the UK Government over the summer around AI's impact on the creative industries. This document does something slightly different. It is not about legislation or regulation; it is a framework for the use of AI in the public sector in particular. It does not touch on either of those particularly, but you are absolutely right: we need to get it correct from the start. Therefore, we need an international conversation about how we define things and the safeguards that are in place. The reality is that AI does not respect boundaries; it goes much beyond that. That means that the dangers of AI and the images that it creates, for example, go beyond the boundaries of any particular jurisdiction. We need to have cooperation right from the outset so that the problems and issues that we see emerging, such as different definitions, are not allowed to bed in. We need a joint approach.

Mr McGlone: Minister, do you agree that the question is not about what AI can do but about what it cannot do, given the fast pace of its evolution? As part of your deliberations and cross-departmental deliberations, will an employment risk audit be done? Inevitably, that is the major issue. We see what has happened in places such as Amazon at a very fast pace. We want to establish that job security for many, including those in the public sector, will not be jeopardised by the introduction in places of AI.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Over the past number of months, I have had the opportunity to visit a number of factories, particularly in the engineering and manufacturing space. The support that new technologies are able to give to those companies is incredible not just in terms of efficiency but, of course, in making them sustainable for the future. There is no doubt that that produces some challenges. It means that some of the jobs that have been in place will not be the jobs of the future, but here is the reality: AI is happening right now. AI is developing at an extraordinary pace. We cannot simply wish that away.

There is an opportunity for us in the public sector. I know that people can be deeply frustrated by the pace of delivery in Departments, agencies and arm's-length bodies. People want to see quicker, more efficient delivery. AI and digitisation can help with that in the right context, so there have to be those conversations. I welcome the fact that the unions were engaged during the consultation process. I have heard the calls for more of that to happen. As well as that, the officials tasked with bringing the consultation forward have assured us that they will continue to have those conversations. It is not about replacing jobs; it is about evolving beyond and making sure that the contribution of everyone can be maximised, working hand in hand with the developments.

Mr Gaston: Artificial intelligence is a sector that I have a great deal of interest in. Can the deputy First Minister tell us why, two months on from missing the most recent scheduled appearance at Committee, the Executive Office Committee Clerk has been unable to secure an alternative date to allow the Committee to scrutinise your work on AI? Is it the First Minister or you, deputy First Minister, who is on the run from attending your scrutiny Committee?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. I am always happy to answer questions. If we do not have the answers to those questions, we should not be in these roles, so I am, of course, always happy to come along. I advise the Member that I have indicated full flexibility to come along to the Committee, so we will, hopefully, be able to get some dates in fairly soon.

Mr Carroll: Deputy First Minister, how many people in TEO are working on AI, policy and strategy, in total? Concerns have been raised. There are growing concerns about the dangers that AI could pose and calls for an AI kill switch that could basically stop it in an emergency situation. Has that been discussed by the Executive or in the Executive Office?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is important that we do not prematurely fall into a position of opposition or of creating fears and apprehensions about something. That is why we have set up the process. At this stage, there is not extensive use of AI across the public sector. Inevitably, however, as AI develops, it will be used in all sectors, including the public sector. That is clear to us and is why we moved quickly to put in place an ethical framework that, as I indicated, has at its heart safeguards to make sure that some of the fears that are being discussed will not be realised. No system is perfect.

The Member asked about the team in the Executive Office, but AI is not just an Executive Office issue: the teams that have been working on it are cross-departmental, and there are AI leads in each Department. Indeed, it goes much wider than that and into our agencies. For example, it has huge potential in Health, and that engages the health trusts and others. It is much wider than the Executive Office. It is led by the Executive Office through our Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser, and I have no doubt that she would be more than happy to engage with you on the detail of the process.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Executive are focused on delivery. We are committed to improving lives, driving economic growth and ensuring that our infrastructure meets the needs of our businesses, communities and people. Significant work has already been undertaken to develop the draft investment strategy and progress a range of enabling actions designed to address barriers to delivery. The work has established a strong foundation for achieving the ambitions that will be set out in the strategy. We are confident that the substantial progress made to date, together with continued advancement of the enabling actions, provides a clear direction of travel. Once the strategy is finalised, decisions on its approval and publication will be a matter for the Executive.

Mr Durkan: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. It is four years since the consultation on the investment strategy. In April of this year, the First Minister said that we were weeks away from its publication — from seeing the final version. As the Opposition, the SDLP, of course, supports the Executive's bid for a fairer financial package, but are we any closer to the publication of that important strategy? Do we have a firm date for publication? What guarantee can the deputy First Minister or the Executive Office give that the strategy, once it is eventually published, will actively correct the decades of underinvestment in the north-west, rather than simply prioritising greater Belfast?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member will be aware that the Programme for Government sets out our desire for not just regional balance but regional prosperity. We want every part of Northern Ireland to be able to succeed and thrive. For example, I am pleased to have been able to get up to the north-west on a number of occasions for positive announcements such as investment in new offices, new jobs or businesses doing exceptionally well. I have been blown away not just by what I have seen when visiting there but by the ambition and positivity about the future.

Everyone is saying the same thing, which is that they need the Northern Ireland Executive to work with them, particularly in relation to challenges around planning, the length of time that things take and our waste and water system. There is a huge elephant in the room when it comes to the investment strategy: the continuing implications of climate change legislation and the A5 case. That matter has been dragging on, and it will have potentially profound implications for the investment strategy. I had hoped that we would have got clarity before this point.

I have put a proposal to my colleagues in the Executive that we should move forward with urgent amending legislation that would unlock the big infrastructure that is currently caught suspended and postponed until the outcome of the appeal in that case. That is what is holding up that document, but I can advise the Member that the £32 billion worth of capital, as outlined in the draft investment strategy, is also contained in the various plans in Departments. The enabling actions are moving forward. Of course, at the heart of this is the fact that we need more capital to be able to spend on that much-needed big capital infrastructure, should that be for roads, for hospitals or for schools. That is the case that we have been making to the UK Government.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank Mark for submitting the question. You did not answer his question other than to confirm what I understood the reason for the delay to be. It is that the DUP is a party of climate-change deniers, and that is why you are blocking the investment strategy. Is that the case?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: No.

Mr K Buchanan: Deputy First Minister, you referred to the Climate Change Act. A lot of Members are shouting about what needs to be done and what needs to be built, yet they support the Act. What needs to happen to reverse it and move forward to develop and build the roads and big infrastructure that those Members want built but will not let be built?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister has made it clear that there are number of projects, including the Enniskillen bypass, that are paused and postponed, waiting for the outcome of this case. Those are the real-life impacts of the climate change legislation interacting with plans on big infrastructure. To me, that is not good enough. We must have the ability to move forward. We look to other jurisdictions. The Republic of Ireland has moved forward with legislation to exclude key infrastructure from the implications of its climate change legislation; yet, here in Northern Ireland, we still have dithering and delay by those who could take those actions that could unlock that capital infrastructure and enable the investment strategy to be amended and released. We have to have balance in this. We cannot simply have virtue signalling around climate change and everything else, should that be a road, a hospital or a school, that is vital for the delivery of public services being delayed. What does delay cause? It will cause billions of pounds of increased costs over the next 10 years if we do not get this right. My call is for people to act quickly and get on and amend to allow those important projects to go ahead.

Mr Dickson: Deputy First Minister, if you were serious about delivering an investment strategy, would the answer not simply have been a date and a time for the delivery of that strategy for Northern Ireland? Seven months out from the end of the mandate, the reality is that you should be telling the truth. The answer is that there will not be agreement on a strategy.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I can advise the Member that the draft investment strategy extensively discusses the implications of the climate change legislation on big capital infrastructure, particularly, of course, in the public sector. That has been impacted on, objectively, by the A5 court case. That has been appealed. The interpretation of the implications is not agreed by the Infrastructure Minister, by the Executive or by our system. That is important. This is not about not being upfront and transparent; I am being more than that. I am saying very clearly that, if the interpretation of the court on the A5 stands and the appeal does not succeed, the investment strategy will have to be extensively redrafted and there will have to be a rethink about what we do. Otherwise, we will not be building any big infrastructure any time soon.

Mr Speaker: Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: All allocations to good relations programmes have been made, with delivery under way to a range of very worthy projects, including £1·5 million for central good relations, enabling 57 projects to receive funding; over £2 million for the district councils' good relations programme to support more than120 projects across all council areas; £400,000 for the planned interventions programme for 71 projects, engaging 1,400 young people; £1·5 million for the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) camps programme to deliver 100 camps, engaging 3,500 young people; and £1·12 million for the Community Relations Council to provide core funding to 27 organisations.

A lot of fantastic community organisations have therefore been delivering, in partnership with us, on that very important issue.

Funding has also been issued for such T:BUC headline actions as interface removal and shared housing. In response to the unrest earlier this year, we also established the £500,000 response fund to support those affected, to divert young people from becoming involved in unrest and to build community cohesion.

Ms Flynn: I thank the deputy First Minister for her response. Does she agree that applications for public funding should include a commitment to promote good relations and that funding should be withdrawn from marching bands when they repeatedly engage in deliberately provocative and sectarian behaviours?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We have been absolutely clear that no one should be engaging in clearly provocative or sectarian behaviours. I have come out and condemned those behaviours whenever I have seen them. Of course, it is important that our funds be inclusive and that every part of society be able to celebrate, mark and engage in their fundamental human right of freedom of expression. That is at the heart of our T:BUC strategy, and I have no doubt that, moving forward, it will continue to be at its heart.

Mr Brett: There is no doubt that good relations funding does important work, and it is right that the deputy First Minister and the Executive Office support that work, but it is also important that the deputy First Minister show leadership within the community to ensure good relations not just here in Northern Ireland but on and across these islands. With that in mind, will the deputy First Minister outline what work she personally undertook this summer to try to build good relations?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. It was a busy summer, with plenty of activities, some of which I engaged in with the Member, not least the Farnborough air show, at which we supported our aerospace and defence companies, right through to the fleadh in Belfast.

It is incredibly important that we take opportunities to show leadership. I count it a huge honour to be in this role and to be able to speak up for, champion and showcase all that is good about this place. I had the honour of attending many events, from the commemorations for the 110th anniversary of the Somme in France to our Twelfth celebrations. I supported our athletes in the Commonwealth Games and went down to Dublin to the Dublin branch of the Royal British Legion to remember the lives of the young men from not just this region but right across the island who gave so much in the war. I also attended the fleadh. I believe that it is incredibly important to show respect. It is, of course, important to demand respect for who I am, but it is also important to show that respect. I do not have to be of a particular tradition or to have a tradition belong to me in order to show respect for it. I hope that that has been the clear message that has gone out from what has been a positive summer of engagement.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, I welcome some of the warm words that you have said today, but in all the engagements that I have had with ethnic minority and newcomer communities since the appalling racist riots of June, I have heard that they feel let down by the response of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, and by the Executive more broadly, to the appalling riots. You indicated or suggested earlier this year that some of the integration funding had been held up by the absence of a Budget. Will you offer clarity, here and now, to those communities that the absence of a Budget — the refusal of the Executive to set a Budget — has had no impact on funding allocations to overcome community integration issues?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Not only has funding now gone out to groups but the First Minister and I moved quickly to put together a new fund this year: the response fund of almost half a million pounds. Working very closely with officials in the Executive Office, the Education Authority (EA), councils and our partners in Communities in Transition (CIT), we have been able to impact on thousands of young people at risk of getting involved in disorder or into some of those narratives. We have, of course, also worked with those from ethnic minority communities. Let me be very clear: all violence or disorder that is based on a person's race or on anything to do with their characteristics is wrong. I said that at the time, and, when I have engaged with them, members from the ethnic minority communities have thanked us for that leadership and for those strong messages. Of course, there were other issues. We have engaged in detail about what people want to see done if such a thing were, unfortunately, to happen again.

That includes better communication, from officials, teams and the Home Office, as to what is happening. We have taken that on board and made a commitment to make sure that communication is improved.

Ms Bradshaw: I will follow on from my South Belfast colleague. In your initial response, deputy First Minister, you mentioned that very worthy projects were being funded — I have no doubt about that — many of which focus on the unrest. I was dismayed last week to find out that a really good project in my constituency was turned down for funding. Now that it looks like the Budget will be set soon, are there opportunities for other groups to come forward? We do not want to lose a lot of the important work that is so valuable in our constituencies.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We have been trying to maintain consistency. The Member will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for the First Minister or me to interfere politically regarding individual funding applications and their scoring. All applications go through a process that is led by officials and are scored against criteria. I do not know the particular circumstances that she references. I have been pushing, across the Department, to make sure that all our funds get out in some form. If additional money can be secured within this year, we will certainly look at topping up and reopening some of those applications.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: With your permission, Mr Speaker, junior Minister Bunting will answer this question.

Ms Bunting: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 5 and 12 together. I may need slightly more than the allocated two minutes to give a wholesome answer to the Members.

Ending violence against women and girls is an Executive priority and a key part of our Programme for Government. Our first two-year delivery plan focused on prevention through community investment, targeted campaigns and strategic collaboration. Our second delivery plan, which launched in April, builds on that momentum, with a continued focus on driving action by sustaining grassroots investments, introducing new campaigns to shift attitudes and expanding partnerships into new sectors.

Our change fund has supported over 5,000 events, reaching more than 96,000 participants to date. Awareness campaigns, including Power to Change and Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes, are increasing public understanding. Substantial work continues as we deliver our second delivery plan. We continue to work closely with partners, particularly our sectoral groups in workplaces, safer socialising and education, to help bring about the societal change that we all want to see. We know that addressing this long-term issue will require a coordinated whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach, but we remain committed to playing our part when it comes to ending violence against women and girls.

We are all well aware of the financial pressures that Northern Ireland faces. However, we remain focused on delivery, which is why, this financial year, we have committed over £4 million for communities, working with partners across society to raise awareness on violence against women and girls and to equip everyone to take action to prevent it. That includes the allocation of interim funding to continue the delivery of the regional change fund as well as issuing funding awards to all councils to support community activity under the local change fund, which will allow community organisations to get their grassroots projects up and running. The funding allocation will ensure that our change fund can continue to support regional and local initiatives as well as community-based interventions that contribute to preventing and addressing violence against women and girls.

Ms Hunter: This week, I tried to get a constituent who is a victim of domestic violence a safe space and access to services to keep them safe in a refuge, and that was not possible due to the large number of people who desperately need help. Many community organisations that work tirelessly to help victims of domestic violence say that they are disheartened by the lack of agreement on a Budget and the impact that that is having on victims. Any words of confidence that you can give them today that funding will continue for them would be greatly welcomed.

Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Member for her question. We understand the seriousness of the issue. The Member will be aware that issues around domestic abuse also factor into the Department of Justice.

The deputy First Minister indicated in an earlier answer that letters of offer have gone out. That applies to those engaged in the change fund, regionally and locally. I am sure that the Member and her constituents will take reassurance that those letters of offer have issued, which will enable delivery to be taken forward.

The Member will appreciate that issues relating to refuges are part of a bigger, cross-departmental Executive issue. With regard to services and ending violence against women and girls, however, the Member will have seen the recent Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes campaign, which encourages people to reflect on their relationship and their behaviours and what is healthy. Each campaign advertisement carried a QR code that directed people to specific services to enable them to get the help that they may need. If we can assist the Member with anything else, I ask her to highlight it.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions. I call Matthew O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I wish to add my sincere condolences to those expressed about Mr Stephen Walker, who was an extraordinary journalist, a very decent and kind man and someone who will be greatly missed in our public life and in politics here. There is universal feeling for him and his family.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Every day that I turn up to do my job as deputy First Minister is about pushing for progress in Northern Ireland: making Northern Ireland work and driving better public services for everyone. The reason why we do not have a Budget is that the Budget envelope is not adequate for our public services. If we were to set a Budget with that envelope, the first thing that would happen is this: Ministers would have to go and have a conversation with their accounting officers about what they would cut in-year. Those cuts would be brutal and devastating not just for our public services but in particular for the people who need to use them. Every person using a school, every person using a hospital and every person driving on our roads will see the impact of severe cuts unless we get a better Budget settlement. That is why I have been at the forefront in pushing the UK Government and the Secretary of State to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. I will never apologise for putting up a strong fight for every person in Northern Ireland, no matter their background, to get the best funding envelope and the best Budget to enable us to improve and deliver public services.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, you did not answer my question. The Opposition have said that we support the Executive's efforts to secure more money, but, in refusing to set a Budget, you are pushing public services into crisis. Public servants have contacted me about the real-world consequences across health and education — you have acknowledged them on the Floor of the Assembly — of not setting a Budget. The Fleadh Cheoil na hEireann in this city in the summer proved that this wonderful region, diverse as it is, does not have to be defined by division and dysfunction, but, sadly, your party and others are determined to make it so. Do you agree that, if your Executive cannot set a Budget and agree fundamental reform of how this place works, the public will simply have had enough? They will conclude that members of the Executive —

Mr Speaker: Deputy First Minister.

Mr O'Toole: — are more than happy to take wages and take office —

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole, you are getting into a monologue. Deputy First Minister.

Mr O'Toole: — as long as that does not mean taking responsibility.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is absolutely inexcusable for the Chair of the Finance Committee not to understand the process. If we were to set a Budget that is short by £1 billion this year, the immediate result would be that an accounting officer could not sign off on anything further in their budget. They would immediately be cutting and cutting in-year. I am not prepared to stand over that for the people of Northern Ireland, whom I am here to serve. The people of Northern Ireland deserve a fair funding model for the Budget. They deserve to have public services that work. They deserve delivery, but we can only deliver with the right funding. That is the message that we have given to the Secretary of State today. We want to work in partnership. We want to drive efficiency and to drive out waste. However, he needs to give us a fair funding position to enable us to continue with the important work of transformation, to invest in our public services and to deliver on health, education and roads — the important things that matter to every single person in Northern Ireland. I am not prepared to stand over letting the people of Northern Ireland suffer because of a bad Budget settlement.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. There is extensive research on that. Of course, the strategy that we have works hand in glove with the Department of Health and Department of Justice document on tackling domestic violence. Of course, those are important issues. It is important that those two strategies complement and supplement each other.

Ms Ennis: Does the Minister agree that, just because domestic abuse incidents occur within family settings or among families, that in no way lessens the seriousness of such incidents? If so, does she agree that the comments of the DUP party leader in that regard were not only wrong but potentially dangerous?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: A court case is ongoing, so none of us in the Chamber knows the facts in relation to that issue. However, I assure the Member that, in the Executive Office, we have been driving forward our ending violence against women and girls strategy, and funding is out on the ground. As I said, we will continue to work very closely with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health to make sure that we drive forward that strategy and that the strategies complement each other.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: This is, of course, topical questions to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, but I advise the Member that our safeguarding policy is online. If you go on to the DUP website and just click on the safeguarding policy, you will be able to read it there.

Mr Speaker: I warn Members that there is a live case, so please do not interfere with that.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you for your answer. Is it the case, then, that the DUP will take no action, no matter how serious the charges are, until a person is convicted by the courts of a criminal offence?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I suggest that the Member go online and take a look at the safeguarding policy, which, of course, we implement.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Over the summer, we have seen the demonisation and, quite frankly, dehumanisation of people across the community, including those who are in the Orange institutions — mothers, daughters, fathers, friends, husbands and wives who are in these organisations. The message that I gave at the fleadh is one that I stand over absolutely. It was about respect. I demand respect for who I am. That is so important not just because it is about our cultural identity but because it is a fundamental human right and a fundamental civil liberty in freedom of expression. Unfortunately, that is not given by those who continue to vilify, dehumanise and demonise the cultural identity of others, which Members to your right and left do day in and day out in relation to the Orange institutions.

Miss Hargey: Unfortunately, you did not answer the question. The fleadh showed that Orange culture was represented and respected. Given what you said, and if you are sincere in your words about somebody else's culture, namely Irish, not threatening yours, is your ministerial colleague Gordon Lyons willing to withdraw his legal action against the representation of the Irish language at Grand Central station in my constituency of South Belfast?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I advise people to step back and look at their own positions at times. Some people are very good at running around talking about others imposing their cultural identity on others or where it is not wanted. Yet, when it comes to something that they feel passionate about, such as the Irish language, they have no such hesitation about imposing it, even where just a minority of people are in favour of an Irish language sign on a development or elsewhere.

I advise the Member that, even in the past number of weeks, I have heard some appalling things said that have demonised, vilified and dehumanised the cultural identity that I feel strongly aligned to, despite the fact that, over the summer, I made it clear that I will give respect to the cultural identity of others, and I am proud to do so. That is leadership. That is being a deputy First Minister who represents everyone across Northern Ireland. I suggest to the Member that there is a lot of hypocrisy from those sitting on her Benches in their attitude of demanding respect for the Irish language and their identity but absolutely opposing — no, nay, never — any identity that they do not agree with or align with.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The reality is that we need things to work better. I want things to work better, whether that be project delivery in Departments, efficient public services in our arm's-length bodies or the spirit of consensus and compromise that we need to see in the Executive Committee. Importantly, at the heart of this is the fact that any four-party coalition is challenging, but it can work and will work best only when people are willing to work together and show that spirit of compromise and agreement.

Mr Blair: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Does she agree that the next Executive will never be able to deliver fully on the public's priorities unless we reform Stormont to remove vetoes from our system of government?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The process that the Member refers to as "vetoes" is at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and it is about inclusivity. It is about making sure that any significant, controversial or cross-cutting issue will not be decided by one party in isolation, which happened back in the early days. Indeed, it is the Executive's responsibility to look at those issues and find a consensus and agreement on the way forward. You cannot simply amend your way out of that or try to force consensus. It is about the spirit of people being able to come together, to have those conversations and to try to find accommodation with each other on very tricky issues on which they will have very different views. The system that we have is based on inclusivity and is absolutely grounded in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. Let us try to do business better — absolutely — but let us not misdiagnose the issues.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is hugely difficult at the moment. We do not have a Budget. I want a Budget, and there needs to be a Budget as soon as possible. As I have outlined, the implications of agreeing an inadequate Budget are sweeping and damaging cuts across every Department, including and particularly Health, Education and Justice. We cannot stand over that, and that is why we are appealing to the UK Government to work with us. We need transformation. Progress has been made, and there is much more to do. We need to get to a sustainable position of efficient, effective public services and sustainable finances. However, we need the support to get there. Any idea or proposal that tries to sustain huge reductions in expenditure in-year is simply impossible. It would mean cuts that would have a detrimental impact on every single family across this place. Of course, we are doing everything that we can to push the UK Government for a better funding arrangement and to get the Budget agreed as soon as possible.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the deputy First Minister. What can or will be done to ensure that the pressures do not derail the Executive's key priorities?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: At the moment, it is exceptionally difficult. Without a Budget, of course, it becomes more challenging to ensure that the full Budget envelope is rolled out for any of those particular issues, but we are doing what we can.

I really welcome the fact that, across Departments, we have been able to find a pragmatic way through. For example, the Executive have agreed to facilitate the Health Minister to continue this year with £80 million of health waiting list initiatives outside the context of the normal Budget round. That is not an isolated example; we have been able to do that across a range of areas. For example, the Education Minister has asked for the same approach in relation to affordable childcare, and the Executive are actively looking at that.

It is not ideal for us to be in this situation, but it is right for us to try our very best to put forward the most robust case possible to the UK Government that we do not need resources that we are not going to use effectively but we need a Budget that is fit for purpose. We need a Budget that will support health, education and justice. We need a Budget to enable us to roll out those public services, and the DUP and the First and deputy First Minister's office will continue to push for that.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): The updated draft remediation strategy, informed by consultation feedback and supported by significant additional technical work, was presented to me in May this year. There has been significant work to bring the draft remediation strategy to this stage, and further important decisions will be required regarding the adoption and implementation of the strategy, including consideration of the substantial costs involved.

Work continued over the summer to update the cost estimates that will inform consideration of the overall financial requirements associated with the remediation of the site. My officials plan to present updated cost estimates to me in the coming weeks. Once that work is complete, it will inform further discussions and consideration of next steps and associated timescales, taking into account my Department's responsibilities in relation to protecting water quality and the environment.

The environmental monitoring programme continues to be delivered, and I am committed to ensuring that it remains in place until a long-term solution is delivered.

Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Minister for that answer. We have recently seen the British Government step in to support a £6 million clean-up of a major illegal dump in Oxfordshire where more than 22,000 tons of waste was removed. Given the greater scale that we face in Mobuoy, has the Minister engaged directly with the British Government to explore whether similar financial support could be made available to finally progress the clean-up on the site?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Sinéad. I have had meetings with the current and previous Finance Ministers to highlight the potential costs of remediation. I need to know the final estimated costs, and we will get those in the next few weeks. Engagement with Treasury is primarily for the Department of Finance, which will take that forward. I trust that the Finance Minister will do that once I have the final estimated costs.

I reassure the Member that I get the importance of the issue. I want to ensure that we can adopt the remediation strategy and move forward together. I will seek to meet MLAs, MPs and council representatives later this year to update them on the issue, because the situation regarding the dump at Mobuoy is wrong and needs to be remediated.

Mrs Middleton: Minister, can you provide an update for residents who live close to the Mobuoy site to reassure them about the drinking water, particularly those who do not have access to the internet?

Mr Muir: Thank you. I look forward to meeting you next week to discuss the issue further. The concerns relating to drinking water are of real importance. That is why we carry out daily testing. We have an environmental monitoring programme there, and we publish the results on the internet. We can have more discussion next week about those who do not have digital access.

Ms Ferguson: Minister, given the significant community impact, will you ensure full transparency and accountability and publish the review's findings and recommendations in full, including any lessons learned and actions to be taken?

Mr Muir: I will publish the remediation strategy for Mobuoy once the costings are finalised and are with me. I will meet you later this year to discuss the issue.

Mr Donnelly: Can the Minister outline the timeline for the remediation of Mobuoy?

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Danny. I get the concerns that we need to be moving towards remediation of the site. We have adopted the remediation strategy, and the steps ahead of us relate to that. We need to get the costings for remediation, followed by business case approval and the formal adoption of the remediation strategy. Then, we need to move to procurement. I hope to be able to do that at the beginning of the next financial year and for remediation works to commence in 2028. That requires a lot of steps to be taken, particularly regarding funding, but I am committed to remediation of the site.

Mr Muir: My officials and I continue to engage directly and regularly with the farming community and its representative bodies on the work that my Department does in order to ensure open dialogue, practical engagement and continued partnership working. That engagement takes place through established forums, including the agricultural policy stakeholder group, the tuberculosis partnership steering group and the nutrients action programme stakeholder task and finish group, and through regular meetings with the Ulster Farmers' Union and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association. I also place significant importance on direct on-the-ground engagement. I have visited 55 farms since becoming Minister. Those visits provide me with an important opportunity to hear directly from farmers about the issues affecting them and ensure that they can inform the Department's work.

I recognise and share the concerns about the operation at Fivemiletown. That is why I commissioned an independent external review of the Department's implementation of the court deprivation order in Fivemiletown to ensure that there is a transparent, evidence-based assessment of the planning, decision-making and implementation of that operation.

More broadly, there are significant challenges and opportunities facing farmers in Northern Ireland. My Department will continue to work constructively with the sector to improve animal health, support sustainable agriculture, restore our environment and help create a thriving future for farming. I remain committed to listening to, and engaging with, farmers and their representatives. Next week, I will meet the Ulster Farmers' Union. I look forward to having further constructive discussions.

Mr Harvey: Minister, farmers have no confidence in you or your Department. That is a damning indictment. Will you be able to win back that confidence, or should you step aside for someone who will?

Mr Muir: I expected better from you, Harry. Farmers deserve an apology, and it is the DUP that needs to offer it. Look at the legacy that I inherited. Very little action was taken on TB. There was unlawful action on ammonia. Northern Ireland was treated as an environmental sacrifice zone. The situation that the DUP left for me to inherit was a disgrace. You should be ashamed.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, you mentioned Fivemiletown and the impact of that operation in my constituency. When it comes to the independent review that you mentioned, will you ensure that there will be full transparency and accountability and that you will publish the review's findings and recommendations in full, including any lessons learned and actions to be taken?

Mr Muir: I can give the Member that assurance. It is important that we look at all issues that relate to that operation. As the Member knows, and as many people know but fail to recognise publicly, the operation at Fivemiletown was neither authorised nor directed by me. I ordered an independent external review of that operation. I am committed to full transparency, particularly in the review's findings and recommendations. If mistakes have been made by my officials, those mistakes must be identified and lessons learned.

Fundamentally, however, an awful lot of what has been happening over the past couple of weeks has not been to do with the situation in Fivemiletown. Rather, the fact is that some people have not wanted me to be in this position since the day and hour that I took it up. That is because I believe in the environment and in climate action.

Ms Nicholl: Does the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs agree with me that his duty is to serve the entirety of Northern Ireland within the full remit of his Department, as opposed to being beholden to one vested-interest group?

Mr Muir: When I took up office, I took a pledge to serve all the people of Northern Ireland equally, which is something that other people struggle to do. I am the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. An awful lot of people seek to speak on behalf of farmers. I will quote from one of the letters that I have received from them:

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, no one understands the environment more than farmers. Farmers work in the environment every day, from the moment they get up until the moment they finish their very long day. Minister, in order to rebuild confidence among farmers, do the terms of reference for the independent review permit Dr Blake to examine comparable earlier operations? Will that review, as my colleague from Fermanagh and South Tyrone has asked, be published in full and unredacted?

Mr Muir: I will not seek to restrain what Dr Blake does. He is doing good work. I encourage anyone who has any relevant information to share it with him. It is important that they do that so that it can inform his review. The only redactions that will take place will be those required under the law. As you are aware, there will be some situations related to GDPR, but full transparency is the default position.

Mr McNulty: Minister, after the fiasco of the public shooting of cattle near Fivemiletown, can you detail what changes you have made to engagement, consultation and decision-making processes to reassure farmers that their voices are being properly heard?

Mr Muir: Justin, I continue to go out and engage. That is what I will do. There is an open door, and I believe in engaging on the issue. People have questions, and they deserve answers. That is why I commissioned the independent external review. It is important that there is full transparency and that the findings and recommendations are published, and that is what I am seeking to achieve. Ultimately, as Minister, I have a duty to serve all the people of Northern Ireland and not be dictated to by right-wing unionist commentators and TikTok users in relation to an agenda that denies the reality of climate change and the importance of facing up to our environmental obligations.

Mr Gaston: Minister, you brushed off the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) scandal by claiming that it was an historical issue that related to malpractice in 2023 and 2024. The court order regarding Fivemiletown related to offences between 2022 and 2024, yet the farmer was not given enough time to sell off his 51 healthy animals. It is no surprise that farmers believe that you preside over a two-tier system of, "Do as I say, not as I do". Confidence in you has gone. When will you submit your resignation letter, or do we have to wait for your nominating officer to give you your P45?

Mr Muir: Mr Gaston, I will be going nowhere. All that you bring to this Chamber is division and hate. I will take no lessons from you on animal welfare, because you voted against the Bill from the Alliance Member to stop foxes being ripped apart by dogs. You are an absolute hypocrite.

Mr Speaker: I call Aoife Finnegan. [Interruption.]

Order, Members.

Mr Muir: To date, in this season, no cases of bluetongue have been detected in Northern Ireland. Any reported suspect cases here have been ruled out following testing.

I am aware that, on Friday 4 September, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine confirmed that, on post-mortem examination, an unvaccinated 16-month-old heifer tested positive for the bluetongue virus BTV-3. The herd is in County Wexford, and no clinical signs were detected prior to the death of the animal. That is the first case of BTV-3 detected in Ireland in the 2026 season.

As of 6 September 2026, there have been 910 cases of bluetongue BTV-3 in Great Britain in the 2026-27 bluetongue season, which began on 1 July. That includes 791 cases in England, 98 cases in Wales and 21 cases in Scotland. A case is defined as a premises on which at least one bluetongue-positive animal has been confirmed. The figure represents a significant increase compared with the 2025-26 outbreak season, when 348 cases were confirmed in Great Britain.

My Department continues to respond to any reported suspect cases and is undertaking abattoir surveillance, post-import testing of susceptible animals from EU countries, monitoring of wind plume meteorological data and midge surveillance in order to determine the beginning and end of the vector-active period.

The increase in BTV-3 cases in Great Britain, including recent cases in Scotland, is concerning. My Department is also aware of reports of increased severity in clinical signs. I encourage all livestock keepers to consult their private veterinary practitioner for advice on vaccinating their livestock against the threat of BTV-3.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his response. In light of the recent confirmed case of bluetongue in County Wexford and the continued spread of the disease in Britain, which he has already mentioned, will he provide an update on the availability of bluetongue vaccines, the Department's vaccination strategy and whether further action is being considered to protect the livestock sector?

Mr Muir: I encourage all livestock keepers to consult their private veterinary practitioner for advice on vaccinating their livestock against the threat of BTV-3. That is not compulsory; it is optional, and vaccines are available at the moment. We will continue to monitor the availability of vaccines. It is up to every livestock keeper to make a decision on that. Alongside the availability of the vaccine, we will continue to promote awareness of the issue.

Mr T Buchanan: Given the number of cases across the water, farmers are somewhat concerned about not only disease risk but the financial hit should a case come this way and bluetongue restrictions suddenly tighten in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister confirm whether compensation arrangements, movement-control protocols and rapid-testing capacity are fully in place so that farmers are not left carrying the cost of uncertainty if a suspected case should arise in Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: The Member will be aware of the arrangements that are in place, particularly in relation to compensation. The issue in focus at the moment is about making sure that we are dealing with the same strain that we dealt with previously. There are arrangements in place for that, and that is why there will be no immediate changes as a result of the case in Wexford. The most important thing to do is to monitor in order to ensure that no different strains appear in Northern Ireland. If they do, we will have to respond differently, as we did last year.

Mr Blair: What actions has the Department taken to raise awareness of bluetongue and to ensure that the public and the sector in particular remain vigilant?

Mr Muir: My officials continue to engage with and update the Northern Ireland farming industry through various communication channels, including the DAERA web page, social media pages and press releases when appropriate. Farmers in Northern Ireland should continue to operate in accordance with existing guidance, which is available on the DAERA website. The Ulster Farmers' Union, alongside my officials, hosted a seminar on bluetongue, a recording of which is available on the DAERA website.

Mr Speaker: Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Mr Muir: The current legislation requires all equines under a person’s responsibility to be correctly identified, which includes holding a single lifetime identification document or, as it is commonly known, an equine passport. For equines born on or after 1 July 2009, that includes being microchipped. Owners and operators must ensure that all information in the passport is accurate and kept up to date, including ownership details.

Since 1 February 2026, it has been compulsory to register establishments where equines are kept. It is now also a requirement to provide an equine establishment number when applying for or amending an equine passport. That was an essential first step towards introducing a robust equine traceability system in Northern Ireland. The Member may be aware of the context around that. While further work remains, those coordinated efforts are laying the foundation for a more robust, transparent, and compliant equine traceability system that will be in line with animal health law requirements. However, that will take several years to operationalise and deliver.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for his answer. He is right that there is a process to go through, and I accept that. However, he will also be aware of Professor Patrick Wall's report on equine welfare-led reform. That report was not commissioned here but by the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and 11 of its recommendations affect Northern Ireland. One of those recommendations was the rationale for our implementation of the arrangements around identification, traceability and keepers/owners. The report contained another 10 recommendations. Is the Minister able to give us an update on where we are with those other 10 recommendations, particularly around inspection regimes, database control and enforcement?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Doug. That report came about as a result of an RTÉ documentary, which was a really grim watch. On enforcement action, the Department currently has enforcement powers under the Equine Identification Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2019, as amended, with various passporting offences. A person guilty of an offence under the regulations is liable to either a conviction or a fine. The statutory maximum on conviction is £5,000. I will write to you to set it out a bit more. It is heartening to see someone show an interest in the issue, because we need to step up on equine welfare in Northern Ireland and we need to implement the report's recommendations.

Ms Murphy: Minister, have you had any engagement on or given any consideration to an all-island equine register for traceability and disease prevention?

Mr Muir: There is an interoperability as part of this. Further discussions are occurring with the Irish Government on how we can strengthen the future of equine skills at our College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) campus in Enniskillen. I am taking that forward with the Irish Government, with the potential for Shared Island funding.

Mr Wilson: Animal welfare in that sector has been brought to my attention in my constituency in recent weeks with regard to a tethered pony. Are you content with how councils exercise their powers under section 17(1) of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to alleviate suffering immediately when it is encountered? If so, what routine evaluation does DAERA undertake to reach that conclusion?

Mr Muir: I am interested in getting more detail on that. I am conscious that councils have a responsibility in a number of areas, but if you give me the details of that case, I can follow it up and, if necessary, engage with the council.

Miss McAllister: Sitting alongside the welfare of the animals in the equine industry is the welfare of the people who work and volunteer in it. To that effect, what action has your Department taken as a result of the review of the murder of Katie Simpson?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Nuala. A working group consisting of representatives from a range of equine organisations in Northern Ireland, Ireland and Great Britain, chaired by Dr Jan Melia, was established to review the recommendations from the Katie Simpson review in relation to safeguarding in the equine industry. The first meeting of the group has taken place, and a further date has been scheduled. My Department is represented on that group by CAFRE's head of equine branch, and I am happy to keep you updated on that important matter.

Mr Muir: I decided to establish the Northern Ireland Government Mournes strategic group to provide a platform for Departments and local government to work collectively to provide strategic leadership and advice on strategic issues impacting on the delivery of a sustainable future for the Mournes. Through the establishment of the group, I am putting in place the leadership and coordination needed to respond effectively. This is about bringing the right people together to deliver real, practical outcomes: protecting the environment; supporting sustainable economic activity; and ensuring the long-term resilience of the Mournes.

The purposes of the group include: facilitation and enabling of conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenities of the Mournes; conservation of wildlife, historic objects and natural phenomena within the Mournes; promotion of the enjoyment of the public in the Mournes; provision and maintenance of public access to the Mournes. It is also about understanding, championing and supporting rural communities in the Mournes, alongside sustainable farming and commitments to drinking water supply.

Mr McMurray: Minister, is your Department undertaking any further work to ensure that my constituents and, in fact, all the people in Northern Ireland, can enjoy that precious landscape for years to come?

Mr Muir: The implementation of environmental plans and strategies, such as the environmental improvement plan, the peatland strategy and the draft nature recovery strategy, will all benefit the Mournes. Initiatives to implement the wildfires Northern Ireland strategic action plan will support habitat restoration alongside the development of wildfire management and response plans for the eastern Mournes. Work has commenced on the development of an updated outdoor recreation plan for Northern Ireland, which will offer benefits for the Mournes. Alongside that, we are delivering the Farming with Nature package. The first phase, the Farming with Nature transition scheme, offers support to a wide range of practical actions to improve biodiversity, protect water quality and contribute to climate resilience and farm sustainability. In addition to that, we will roll out further elements of Farming with Nature and will continue to engage with people, including through the strategic forum, which meets for the first time on Wednesday.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, I live in the Mournes and love the Mourne Mountains area very much. I really care about the issue. There is a bit of a perception among local people that, in forming the group, there was a helicopter view of bringing together people who work for different organisations, whereas there was very little engagement with or participation by local people. Do you have any more detail on how you will develop the group by using the lived experience of those who use the mountains to walk or run in, those who farm the land and the trustees to make sure that that experience is carried forward and that the group is bought into by local people?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Diane. The whole principle is about taking a bottom-up approach. We have the Forever Mournes partnership, and this is an opportunity for it to escalate things for resolution. The Forever Mournes partnership will be at the heart of this. It has done good work, but what was really required was a forum for it to bring things to government for resolution. That is what we are seeking to do, and I am proud to chair the group.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Minister for those details. Of course, bringing any number of organisations together is really important in order to deliver on the ground. Sometimes, however, people get strategic oversight group fatigue. They see lots of groups coming together, but tangible outcomes on the ground can be slow to reach them. Can you give some assurance that people will see outcomes that will make a credible difference, allow us to enjoy the Mournes, bring people in and protect the environment?

Mr Muir: That is my desire. The first meeting of the group is on Wednesday. Thus far, the council has not nominated anyone. Hopefully, it will do that before Wednesday, because we have to do this together. It has to be a collective effort. I am happy to lead it, but other parts of government, including local government, have a role. Collectively, we need to take on that leadership role and deliver for the Mournes, as they deserve.

Mr Muir: Of the 37 actions in the plan, 23 have been delivered, and 14 are actively progressing. I remain committed to driving forward the delivery of the remaining actions at pace. Progress to date reflects coordinated efforts across key themes, including scientific research; enhanced monitoring and enforcement; education and stakeholder engagement; regulatory reform; and strategic communications. Consultation on an updated nutrients action programme concludes today. There is also £49 million of funding from the Shared Island Fund to support farmers with nature-based solutions.

I am doing all that I can to improve water quality, but tough decisions are needed to secure investment in waste water. I still await approval from the Executive in relation to stronger regulation of and enforcement in sewage pollution. Whilst important strides have been made, it is important to recognise that the recovery of the lough requires sustained, long-term action and leadership in taking those difficult decisions, which I am looking for.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will the Minister give an update on his efforts to bring the lough's bed and soil into community or public ownership?

Mr Muir: Thank you, David. Last month, I requested and had a meeting with the Earl of Shaftesbury to discuss the ownership of the bed and soil of Lough Neagh. The option for the transfer of the bed and soil, without charge, to public ownership was discussed. Community ownership was noted as presenting significant challenges, given the scale of the lough and the range of interests within the catchment, but it was also recognised that it should not be ruled out as a long-term goal. As we know, Lough Neagh is also of strategic importance to drinking water security, and, naturally, that must influence future ownership and governance arrangements.

I have written to the Infrastructure Minister today to request a meeting about transferring the bed and soil of Lough Neagh to Waterways Ireland, NI Water or the Department for Infrastructure. This is an important opportunity, and I hope that it can be seized.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, in your answer, you referred to how you are doing all that you can on water quality. In May, in a constituency beside mine, six to 10 sheep, one calf and 20 to 30 lambs were dumped in a river. No farmer dumps animals in a river, so, in my eyes, whoever did that is not a farmer. Those animals are still in that river, affecting both it and a river that flows through my constituency and goes into Lough Neagh. Therefore, you are not doing all that you can for water quality, because those animals are still in that river and polluting it. What will you do to address that issue?

Mr Muir: We all, including you, have a responsibility to encourage anyone who has any information associated with that crime to report it so that we can bring the offenders to justice, because it is wrong and deplorable. I have asked officials to consider what more we can do to have a coordinated response to that, and they are taking forward work on a wider coordinated response. Ultimately, a crime has been committed. Someone is culpable, and the veil of secrecy needs to end. People need to report it to the official agencies to ensure that the guilty person goes in front of a court.

Mr McGlone: Minister, this year again, we have seen the proliferation of blue-green algae on the lough. What measures are being or have been put in place to monitor the effectiveness or otherwise of the action that your Department has taken?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Patsy. A range of monitoring takes place on the lough. There is a dashboard available so that people can see that, and it is important that people have access to that information. Fundamentally, however, we need to address the pollution. That is why we have gone out to consult on a revised nutrients action programme, and it is why I seek enhanced regulation and enforcement against sewage pollution, which will end the bye ball that has wrongly been afforded to NI Water. Alongside that, we need to have stronger fines and penalties. I am progressing the legislation, but we also need an independent environmental protection agency. As you know, that has been vetoed by one party. It is a shining example of why there must be reform of the institutions. It is an affront to democracy that an independent environmental protection agency cannot proceed because one party does not like it.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Mr Muir: That is precisely why I have commissioned an independent external review on that matter. If there was wrongdoing or if mistakes were made, it is important that that is identified and published and that lessons are learnt. I am clear that there should be openness and transparency on it. I will not pre-empt the outcome of the review, but I can say that, if people examine the facts, they will understand that the story is not what others have decided to tell. In relation to the humane slaughter of animals, that happened well before my mandate, but I get the concerns about it, and I share them. I have seen the footage, and it would be strange if I were not distressed by it. It is important to have the independent external review and that the findings and recommendations are published.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for that answer. I have no doubt that the footage caused him distress, as it did everyone else. However, given his long-held views on animal cruelty, surely the Minister does not need a review to acknowledge that the cull was handled badly by the Department. Minister, will you explain precisely what safeguards were put in place to prevent unnecessary fear and distress to those animals, who authorised the method that was used on that day and who will be held accountable for the way in which the animals were killed?

Mr Muir: Daniel, I have seen enough to know that there needs to be an independent external review of the matter: that is why I have commissioned it. I get the public concern about it, and I have instructed that any further use of the humane slaughter team must be authorised by the Chief Veterinary Officer in advance of any deployment. I understand the concerns, and I am responding to them, but a lot of the commentary by others that I have seen has nothing to do with it. The commitment to animal welfare of some of those individuals is very distant. They are happy to see foxes ripped apart by dogs and want to see electric shock collars and choke chains applied to dogs. I do not mean you, but others. It is important that we distinguish between fact and fiction on the matter, and that is what I seek to do.

Mr Muir: The Department has taken a range of actions on environmental crime. Additional legislation will be introduced to increase fines and penalties so that we can hold polluters in Northern Ireland to account. There are also measures in the Justice Bill that will deal with issues such as serious and organised crime. I am conscious that my Department has a range of enforcement roles relating to water pollution, waste crime, odours and other environmental issues, as well as farmed animal welfare. As a result, an internal review of the Department's approach to enforcement has been undertaken at my request and will complete at the end of next month. I have asked for that to be completed at speed and have expressed a clear view to officials that the balance of the Department's enforcement approach needs to change.

Too often, the Department responds to breaches by repeatedly spending an inordinate amount of time on seeking to return the operator back to compliance, rather than on seeking prosecutions to compel compliance under the law. Essentially, the Department needs to move faster and firmer in response to environmental crime and farmed animal welfare.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that answer. It certainly sounds as though there will be progress made on improving processes to tackle and better solve water quality issues. What role does DAERA enforcement policy play in tackling environmental crime, and where can further improvements be made?

Mr Muir: The policy plays a key role, but it is important that there be a review. I have also expressed my view on the situation. Where some operators are non-compliant, we have focused on bringing them back into compliance, only for them to do it again, after which we focus again on bringing them back into compliance rather than on having a situation in which I move towards taking enforcement action under the law. On farmed animal welfare, it is not lost on me that, when it comes to the case in Fivemiletown, two years were spent on bringing the farmer, who was subsequently convicted of animal welfare offences, back into compliance. The balance is wrong. Yes, we need to focus on bringing people into compliance, but we also need to move faster and firmer on environmental crimes and farm animal welfare.

Mr Muir: The deposit return scheme for drinks containers is scheduled to launch in October 2027. Exchange for Change has been appointed as the deposit management organisation across the UK, including Wales. As an independent, not-for-profit private organisation, it will be responsible for the administration and day-to-day operation of the scheme. There has been extensive engagement with stakeholders by my officials throughout the development of the deposit return scheme, including with key producers, retailers, wholesalers, the hospitality sector and material manufacturers. Exchange for Change has established an industry advisory group and a consumer engagement forum to engage stakeholders and support informed decision-making on DRS implementation. Northern Ireland representatives participate in both groups. The interoperability of the scheme with the Irish DRS remains a key priority for the Department and will occur as part of the roll-out.

Mr Allen: Is the Minister able to advise whether, as part of the engagement with Exchange for Change, there has been any discussion about what supports will be in place for those with reduced mobility, for example, who perhaps will not be able to return the containers themselves?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Andy. There has been extensive stakeholder engagement on that issue. I will check with officials and write to you to set out a bit more information about the important issue that you have raised.

Mr Muir: The climate action plan is very clear about its implementation and the impact on our economy. If, however, people do not get what the impact of climate change is and will be on farming, I despair.

Miss McIlveen: I am not going to thank the Minister for that answer, because it was not particularly helpful. He has stated that there will be no rolling back, but climate policy must be affordable and attainable. Will he confirm whether his test for climate policy is that it will reduce emissions at an affordable cost or simply that it satisfies the ideological demands of the environmental lobby?

Mr Muir: Climate action is absolutely imperative. Climate change is the biggest economic risk to us. It will potentially devastate farming across the UK if we do not take action. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better than denial, dither and delay from the DUP, which sidles up to its friends in Reform UK and to Donald Trump.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Nuala. I am conscious that my role is that of Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The transformation of Health and Social Care (HSC) is critical for people who live in rural areas: they deserve health outcomes that are much improved from those that are offered currently. The current situation is failing rural people. Leadership, vision and courage are needed. Populism and avoidance just will not cut it, Nuala.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, do you agree that it is rural communities that feel the impact of service collapse most and that, when we do not plan for any transformation of the health service, it is those rural communities that will pay the highest price?

Mr Muir: I agree 100%. It is nearly 10 years since the Bengoa report. The recommendations of that report resonate loudly with me and should be heard by populist politicians who pretend that difficult decisions can be delayed without real consequences. I will quote from the report, although I should not have to do so 10 years later. It states:

The Health Minister has joined us now, and I urge him to take those decisions.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Declan. There are massive benefits associated with the soil nutrient health scheme. That is why we have rolled it out across Northern Ireland. There is also conditionality associated with the farm sustainability payment (FSP), because it delivers benefits not just to farmers but to the environment. It is a win-win, and I am proud of what my Department has done.

Mr McAleer: Thank you, Minister. I declare an interest in that I registered for and partially completed the training at the weekend. I commend DAERA and the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) for the relevant learning and for the accessibility of the training. Minister, will you join me in encouraging any farmer who has not yet registered for the scheme to do so by the deadline of 12.00 midnight tonight?

Mr Muir: I will, Declan: 100%.

Mr Speaker: We have no Steve Aiken.

Mr Muir: Fundamental to the Dilapidation Bill is identifying someone who can be gone after to recover the associated costs. That has been identified in the Bill. There is separate legislation in place for Japanese knotweed. It is important that people step up to their responsibilities, because the number of enforcement cases that we are taking in relation to that is rising, which is not acceptable.

Mr Brett: Thank you, Minister. I welcome the clarification. That places a clear duty on Belfast City Council, which will have the ability to tackle land that impacts on people who have invested their life savings to buy homes but are now at risk from Japanese knotweed on unregistered land.

Mr Muir: Ultimately, we have properly scrutinised the Dilapidation Bill. We will, hopefully, deliver the Bill in the Assembly tomorrow. It will be for councils to use the legislation. I urge councils to see the wider picture. By bringing buildings back into use, councils will potentially increase their rates base and see the revitalisation of villages, towns and city centres. I therefore urge councils to embrace the legislation and to use it in the spirit that is intended, which is to provide flexibility of use.

Mr Muir: I struggle to match this, where I have one question asking me not to take climate action and then another one about the impacts of climate change. Climate change has a real impact on food security. We are food-insecure in Northern Ireland because, whilst we produce a lot of protein in the form of meat, we do not produce enough in the arable sector. We need to be conscious of that. There is a real risk to us from the impacts of climate change, particularly in relation to food security across the UK, and we should be conscious of that.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. I notice that you did not answer my question on the barriers to food production that are faced by many farmers. They come from EU regulations that we still have to obey at the whim of the European Parliament. What are you doing to reduce the barriers to food production in Northern Ireland?

Mr Muir: I say to you that, if we left the Windsor framework, you ain't seen nothing yet in relation to barriers. Our dairy industry would be destroyed, because, as you know, it is a cross-border industry.

Mr Speaker: Congratulations, Mr Butler, on becoming Health Minister. You now face the reality of getting called to the Assembly regularly. Colin McGrath has requested a question for urgent oral answer. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should continue to rise in their place. I also urge Members to be brief, because a lot of Members will want to ask questions.

Mr Butler (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your welcome. I am not the first Health Minister to hail from Lagan Valley. I pay my respects to my predecessor, Mike Nesbitt, who performed a fantastic function as Health Minister and is responsible for bringing me to the House.

Mr Speaker, I welcome this first opportunity to stand here as Minister, and I look forward to working closely with you and Assembly colleagues in the short time that is left in the mandate. In that collective spirit of generosity, I hope that you will grant me a little longer to respond to this really important issue.

I want to be clear from the outset what the independent reconfiguration committee (IRC) is and what it is not. Despite what may have been stated by some as fact last week, I need to be clear that it is not another review of Northern Ireland's health service — we have had enough reviews — nor is it another layer of bureaucracy through which every service change must pass. However, as per my written ministerial statement last Thursday afternoon, the committee, similar to the equivalent body that has already existed for some time in England, will be a small, independent and responsive source of expert advice that I can call on but only as and when a major or controversial proposal for permanent service change requires additional scrutiny. I appreciate that that point of detail may have been lost on some — not necessarily in the House, by the way — last week, but I encourage everyone to read my Department's new, detailed analysis report in response to the hospital network consultation.

I intend that the committee be established shortly and, indeed, as soon as possible. It had also been the direction of travel of my predecessor, and so my Department has already made much progress. Work was already under way over previous months on its membership, its terms of reference and its operating arrangements. I will update the House as those arrangements are finalised.

Importantly, the IRC, as I am referring to it, will not have an open-ended remit. Where I refer a proposal to it, I expect its work to be focused and completed within a defined time frame appropriate to the issue under consideration. That is important. There has been considerable discussion about the proposal over recent days, and I welcome that scrutiny, even if I do not engage with it on Twitter. However, I make no apology for wanting to interrogate the evidence before making major decisions that can have profound and permanent consequences for patients, staff and, importantly, our communities.

Clinical evidence will always be fundamental to those decisions. I have already spent considerable time meeting and listening directly to clinicians, and I will continue to do so. As I have said already, clinicians can also hold very different views about complex proposals, and trusts can make recommendations that deserve further examination. The communities that we are charged to serve are entitled to confidence that alternatives have been properly considered before permanent decisions are taken. That is where independent scrutiny can and will add value.

The committee will be able to examine the evidence underpinning a referred proposal, test the assumptions being made, consider reasonable alternatives and look at issues including patient safety, clinical effectiveness, sustainability and the wider consequences for our health service. It will advise me; it will not make the decision for me. I support the reform of our health service, but, equally, reform needs and is entitled to scrutiny. My responsibility is to make the right decisions on the basis of the best possible available evidence, and I believe that additional independent scrutiny in the most significant and contentious cases will help me do exactly that. My ambition is to have the right people in the right place at the right time.

Mr McGrath: I welcome the Minister to his new role. We arrived in this place on the same day, and I wish him well as he progresses to the role of Health Minister. I also record our thanks to his predecessor, Mike Nesbitt, for his work in the Department.

That was the nice bit. Minister, your statement last week generated a lot of media headlines. It might have been better for you to wait for two working days and then come here and make a ministerial statement on which we could have had a much fuller discussion and interpretation. Given that we can see that this could mean Bengoa being paused and decisions on the Causeway Hospital and South West Acute Hospital being paused and given that it looks back at the issues at the Downe and Daisy Hill and says that they may not have been the right decisions —.

Mr Speaker: I am not sure if the Member understands what "succinct" means. It means cutting things down a little. Will you get on with it?

Mr McGrath: I certainly will. I will respond to the Minister's four-minute answer by asking whether it is possible that he will refer any of those — the issue of the emergency service at the South West Acute Hospital or the issues at the Causeway, Daisy Hill or the Downe — to the new committee?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member not only for his kind words today but for being one of the earliest to contact me privately to wish me all the best. I believe that, for over 10 years, health has been a priority for many Members, be that in their service to their constituents or because they have a particular interest in the health sphere. The Member raises an important point that relates to why the IRC exists. There have been contentious changes in the past. In the past, the bridge between the clinical advice, which, potentially, is right and often is and where the community is has, unfortunately, been missing. Community confidence is missing. As I see it, a significant pillar of what the IRC will do is establish and build community confidence that, if a decision is right and it is the right decision to make, it can be made with confidence.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have listened to radio commentary on the subject; I think that it was Professor John Compton. I do not want to misrepresent his words, but, whilst he said that he would support the clinical evidence for making changes, he said that it was vital that we bring our constituents and communities with us. I intend to learn from what might have been the right pathway in the past to make sure that the steps in the future are the right decisions: not a rushed decision but the right decision.

Miss McAllister: I welcome the Minister to the post. I heard your previous answer: "the right decision" and "not a rushed decision". There has been no rush whatever in health transformation. We had the first review in 2001, and we have had many since then, the most recent being Bengoa. Minister, you said that the committee will provide additional scrutiny based on patient safety, clinical effectiveness and other options to make it sustainable. That is exactly what the trusts do; that is exactly what the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) is doing when it comes to the Causeway issue. At the most recent Committee meeting, we were told that the recommendations regarding Causeway could be made imminently. Will you take a decision when it comes to health transformation based on what is best for the patients? Will that include —

Mr Speaker: OK. Minister.

Miss McAllister: — the future of Causeway and its services?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for North Belfast for asking a very reasonable question. A lot of things in recent weeks have misrepresented the health transformation journey. Bengoa has not been paused. If, at some stage, anybody cares to ask me a question on that, I will take the House through the litany of changes that was Bengoa. However, the Bengoa report was a set of principles and pillars, not a plan. Bengoa charged us with doing things differently. The report did not tell us to set aside community confidence, and that is what has been missing all along in our journey to transform and reset our health system, so that is what I have set about doing.

I go back to the point made by the Member for North Belfast. The consultation 'Hospitals — Creating a Network for Better Outcomes' collected nearly 30,000 responses: that is unprecedented. When you look into the responses to that consultation, you see that they point very directly to one thing, which is that we have very nearly challenged the important relationship that has to exist between the patients who receive the care and those charged with changing that care. What I am about is resetting that, and I believe that we can do that within this mandate. I believe that we can get the IRC panel, with political and public confidence, to take cognisance of the business cases that come before us.

I have to be clear, however, that this is not a rushed decision. I have not seen a proposal. Some of you in the Chamber seem to be better sighted of a report that I have not seen. If you have seen it and I have not, I would like to know why.

Mr McGuigan: I also formally welcome the new Minister to his role and thank the previous Minister for his work.

I do not think that anybody will argue that the health service needs more reviews; in fact, what it needs are timely decisions and implementations. I also do not think that anybody will argue against independent scrutiny; in fact, the Minister owes his job not to independent scrutiny but to political interference, so we absolutely need independent scrutiny. The issue here is decision and delay.

The Minister talked about the press coverage since his announcement. He has made a statement and is answering questions today, but I am still none the wiser about exact time frames for the independent committee. When will it be set up, and when can Members of the Assembly and I, as Health Committee Chair, see that group sitting and making decisions? We want to know how many decisions that committee will make in advance of the Assembly election.

Mr Butler: I thank the Chair of the Health Committee for what is, I am sure, the first of many questions that he will pose to me. Also, thank you for the welcome.

I believe that we are facing in the same direction and that everyone in the Chamber is facing in the same direction. I have inherited and commend the Department for the 30,000 consultee responses from 2024. What was designed at that stage was the creation of the committee. We have to understand that this is not in response to anything that happened in any political space. It was very much on the departmental radar and being worked on a number of months before I came in. Evidently, however, we have significant challenges to face into, and this is a high-profile case.

Last week, I spent half a day in Causeway, because I knew that I had to have a face-to-face conversation with the community and the clinicians. I reiterate the point that everybody is facing in the same direction. The clinicians want better outcomes for their patients, and the patients want better outcomes for themselves and their families. I believe that there is a solution, but what is missing at the moment is detail, and there are some challenges. I will bring those challenges to any report that comes before me and that, in my determination, hits the bar for the IRC. I am absolutely wedded to re-establishing the contract that has to exist with the communities that we serve, our taxpayers and the vulnerable people who may live further away from a hospital. I want them to understand the pathway and have confidence in the changes. What we are talking about is life and death.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Minister and welcome him to his post. Also, my thanks go to Mr Nesbitt for the work that he did. It is not an easy job, and we all recognise that.

Minister, you talk a lot about getting down to work — I am sure that you are a bit disappointed that your party leader is not here to see the first element of delivery in your making the statement — but your first statement to the House is largely seen as a can-kicking exercise not just by my party but across the spectrum.

Since we do not know the reconfiguration committee's remit or time frame, can you at least let the House know whether the reconfiguration committee will have in its remit delivery of investment in hospitals such as Causeway, the SWAH and Daisy Hill, or is it just a centralisation committee?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for Upper Bann. Mrs Dodds, thank you for your message: again, you were one of the first out of the traps. I recognise that I will get some "Dodds sandwiches" over the next seven or eight months, because the Member has a habit of saying something nice at the start, giving you something desperately difficult in the middle and, if she is in good form, maybe, finishing it off well.

The question is really important, because, if I say that we are going to give our communities and constituents confidence, I have to deliver that. The committee will have a limited remit insofar as it will consider what are termed controversial or significant changes to our health system and the network that we are trying to establish. It will not be charged with any work wider than that. In fact, if I were not to refer any projects to it, it would not have any work to do, but members of the Health Committee in particular know that a plethora of challenges face the transformation and reset agenda. We have to be faithful to the pillars that Bengoa set out in 2016, but it is absolutely right that we put our head up every now and again, look at where we are, consider how far we have come and make sure that we are heading in the right direction. As I see it, the panel will give us a benchmark and a confidence-building institution, because, evidently, politicians sometimes just do not cut the mustard.

Mr Gaston: The Minister's party leader gave a guarantee that he would never support the removal of emergency general surgery at Causeway Hospital. Will the Minister commit, here and now, to the retention of all existing services at Causeway post election, or is the new committee just a time-buying tactic? We all know that the Minister and Mr Burrows are not exactly best mates. Do they disagree on that as well?

Mr Butler: I must have missed the Member for North Antrim's text of congratulations

when I got the role of Health Minister. I was desperately disappointed.

Miss McAllister: He does not have your number.

Mr Butler: He has my number?

Miss McAllister: He does not have your number.

Mr Butler: He has more than my number [Interruption.]

The Member for North Antrim, I am sure — [Interruption.]

I invite this, guys, and I will do so over the seven or eight months that are left of the mandate, because iron sharpens iron, and I have to stand confidently on my words and the promises that I make.

Last week, when I met the SOS Causeway group, it asked me similar questions to those of the Member for North Antrim, such as what commitment I would give on what would remain and what would be taken away, and I was absolutely candid and honest with it. I made no commitment other than to forensically interrogate the evidence, to forensically seek alternatives and to ensure that whatever is designed and delivered has the best outcomes and the confidence of the people, or the majority of the people, that it will deliver. After 12 years in politics, I recognise that, sometimes, not everybody gets exactly what they want.

We have to remember that, even with a constrained budget, our health and social care system exists to make people healthy, to make them better and to give them dignity. We cannot break that contract. I do not intend to break it; in fact, I intend to deliver a new contract.

Dr Aiken: First, Mr Speaker, I apologise for not being in my place for my question to the Agriculture Minister. I was with the Secretary of State, trying to get us more money. We will see, and, hopefully, we will be more successful at that.

I welcome my good friend and political colleague Robbie Butler to the most important ministerial position in the Northern Ireland Executive: Health Minister.

Minister, thank you for your helpful update, which tackled much of the misinformation that was circulated at the end of last week.

There is a perception among some that, when clinicians speak, they do so with one voice, but, in reality, as the Minister said, they do not always agree on the way forward. Does the Minister therefore agree that the panel will provide important overarching and final independent scrutiny of all the competing viewpoints?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for South Antrim for his warm words. Indeed, he reached out to me and was probably one of the earliest to show confidence in my ability to take up some portfolios in politics. I will be forever grateful for that, Dr Aiken.

It is well documented that not all clinicians will agree on all matters. Unfortunately, because we have a series of trusts and multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) that are working within constrained budgets and are under pressure most, if not all, of the time in that patient-facing arena, they do not always find the time to share best practice and air their frustrations, but they do all have an equally valuable part to play. Be they a paramedic, a nurse, an allied health professional, a consultant, a surgeon or a medical doctor, they all have equal value and equal importance in this. In my visits to both the SWAH and the Causeway Hospital, I found that, when one speaks to medics, they do not always speak with the same voice.

The report that will come before me will be interrogated forensically. The committee will perform the function of ensuring that it has full confidence in those medical spaces, with the promise of better outcomes, or else change will not happen. The report has to have outcomes. We cannot have change for change's sake — we have done that in the past — but where change is necessary, it will happen, and it will be backed up with evidence.

Mr Carroll: I wish the Minister well in his post in the time ahead, even though his party leader cannot be here to do the same.

Minister, will you refuse to close or strip out services not just at the Causeway but in every single ED across the North between now and the election? That is a reasonable demand and request, and it should not be dismissed as parochial or parish-pump politics. It is good politics and principled to want to defend and extend our health service.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his kind words. I agree with him insofar as we need to remove the parish-pump from politics. We have to remember, however, that people do not experience healthcare in the same way. For instance, if you live in Belfast, you have the choice of three or four excellent hospitals. If you live in Belleek, however, you have to drive 30 or 40 miles to reach one hospital. People therefore experience health and social care in a very different way.

I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not here. In answer to one of the last questions to him today, he managed to have a dig at the Health Minister. I wish that he were here, because one of the things that I remember from my time as Chair of the Agriculture Committee is that the third pillar in this is rural affairs. If you live rurally, sometimes you do not get the best deal. Everybody who lives in Northern Ireland, however, is equal and has an equal voice. Everybody has the right to speak up to demand equity of access and understand that they have that right. Although we cannot build a hospital on every corner, with the advances being made in medicine and with diseases being cured, if we step with confidence towards the neighbourhood model, through which we will turbocharge prevention and intervention before people need to see their GP or a consultant in secondary care, we can change the face of health. We can do it, but we need to bring people with us. That is why the committee is being established. I ask the Assembly to ask me questions as this unfolds, because iron sharpens iron. This is the way forward, however.

Ms Sugden: Welcome, Minister. It is a difficult portfolio, and we all wish you well in taking it on. Minister, do you recognise that the Northern Trust's proposal is essentially one to manage failure, given the crumbling service at Antrim Area Hospital and the proposal to remove the service from the Causeway, which is currently sustainable? It is about managing that failure rather than about investing in two services that will facilitate people on the north coast and in Antrim.

Minister, do you consider that Antrim Area Hospital being the overspill hospital for the Belfast Trust is the cost of failure and that we need to look at that if we are to genuinely ease the pressures that exist there?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her words. I heard similar words last week, but I cannot say that I share the opinion. I caveat that by saying that I took up the portfolio less than three weeks ago, and, as you can imagine, I have had a huge amount of information to look at. However, my ears are open. It was important for me to, at the outset, engage, face to face and eyeball to eyeball, with the people that the proposed changes will affect. I do not accept that Antrim Area Hospital is failing. I do accept that all our hospitals are under immense pressure because of their constrained budgets, the failure to agree a Budget this year and the failure to agree multi-year Budgets. Why is that important? It is important because transformation will take time and will require a plan that has money attached to it. We can get on to a sustainable footing where we never talk about a hospital being a failing hospital, but, if we want to achieve that, we need to bring the public and our communities with us. That is why the committee will pay for itself.

Mrs Erskine: Minister, I welcome you to the role. I will be a constructive and critical friend.

Minister, Robin Swann faltered in his decision-making on emergency general surgery at the SWAH. Minister Nesbitt acquiesced on the removal of emergency general surgery. You are keeping the seat warm until May. Temporary removal of emergency general surgery is four years down the line, so this is a can-kicking exercise, which is completely farcical. Figures that I obtained during the summer showed that it takes 16·5 hours for an ambulance transfer from the SWAH to Altnagelvin Hospital: that is unacceptable. We do not have the extra commissioned ambulance service provision that we were promised four years ago.

Minister, your first decision — the decision about this committee — was announced by the UUP before it was announced by your Department. Is this Butler or Burrows’s decision-making? Can we expect the same in the lead-up to the May election, particularly around decisions on emergency general surgery at the SWAH?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her very kind words. There was no sandwich there, to be fair. The Member has illustrated what can happen when you do not bring your community with you, and I accept that. I do not accept or recognise the points about Minister Swann and Minister Nesbitt. I have worked with both of them. They are two absolutely fantastic public servants who were Minister of Health in increasingly difficult times. I remind the Member that, for five of my 10 years here, we have not had a Health Minister, an Executive or an Assembly. I contend that, in essence, we are five years behind where we should be. Political confidence does not exist in a bubble; it does not exist just in the health sphere — it is up to us all. If the Executive loses confidence, the Health Minister does not retain confidence; it does not work like that. The Executive need to face forward, and, to be fair, the Executive have been supportive on transformation, albeit not necessarily on this issue.

I come from a background of risk-management planning. I have confidence in the committee, because that is what this is about. When I talk about being forensic about something, that is what I will be. I will ask the hard questions of the clinicians, the directors and the chief executives, because I need to understand that any transformation is patient- and outcome-focused and not a response to another pressure. If it is a response to another pressure, I want to see the avenues that have been explored to find other solutions. We need to be much more agile, and I have some ideas on that, which the Health Committee will be made aware of in the coming weeks.

Mr Donnelly: Like others, I welcome the Minister to his post. I hope to work productively with him for the remainder of the mandate. I also thank Mike Nesbitt for his work during the earlier part of the mandate.

The Minister said that the committee's purpose is:

He also made it clear that the final decision will rest with him, as Minister. Will the Minister commit to his final decisions being subject to the same standards of transparency, evidence and clinical justification, including publishing the evidence and the considerations? Does he believe that previous Ministers were not transparent?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. He has met many all-party groups, so his interest stems not just from his profession or from being a Committee member, but it is organic, through the all-party groups. In that vein, it is a reasonable question. I cannot demand of others what I am not prepared to give, so transparency will be absolutely key. That will be demanded.

When I decided to take the role, initially, I was full of fear because all I could see were the pressures and challenges that, at a glance, looked insurmountable. However, we come from a fantastic country, and we have the best people. If you are open, honest and transparent, and you bring them on the journey and do not tell them what is best for them, but you include them in the design and the steps that need to be taken and convince them and win the argument, and you have to be in the room to do that, we can take those steps.

The last part of your question was whether I have confidence in the decisions that were made previously. I absolutely do. All Departments and Ministers face myriad problems and challenges, mostly centred around money, but a lot are centred around culture, tradition and how we do things. Health impacts on most people almost every day of their life. There are two nurses in my family, my wife and my daughter, and there have also been health issues, so it impacts on all of us. My commitment is that it will be transparent and honest, and it will build on the good work of my colleagues Mr Robin Swann and Mr Mike Nesbitt.

Mr Speaker: The 30 minutes have gone. I am in the hands of the Minister. I am prepared to carry on if he is.

Mr Butler: How many more questions are there?

Mr Speaker: Six.

Mr Butler: I will probably regret it, but go for it.

Mr Speaker: The advice on being succinct applies to the Minister as well as to Members, I might add. [Laughter.]

We could have got another three or four in, but nonetheless.

Mr Robinson: Like others, I welcome the Minister to his new portfolio. How will patients, staff and concerned groups, especially in my constituency where there are huge concerns about the possible loss of emergency general surgery at Causeway, hold the new process to account?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. He rightly points out that he represents the area, and he understands acutely the challenge that we face. Any Member wants the best services in their constituency. It is my ambition, through the process, to either prove or disprove the findings in the report that will be brought to me. You have to remember that the report is still somewhere between the Northern Trust and the Department. These things do not happen overnight. In fact, the report has been ping-ponging for some time because it is incredibly important to get it right.

I will not dismiss the previous work because the outcome of that work that all those people contributed to was exactly the same. However, we have the opportunity to bring another level of forensic, transparent information sharing to it. I have not seen the report yet, but when it comes through, if it is controversial and is referred, it will be really important for the people of Causeway to have confidence that the committee, which will be established quickly, based on the report that it is reporting on — it will not be a fixed committee — will have the requisite professional people with the relevant experience who are best placed to speak to the public. It is my ambition that the committee will deliver that.

Ms Egan: I welcome you to your post and wish your predecessor, Mike Nesbitt, all the best. What will the review committee add that current evidence, professional clinicians' advice, the many previous reviews of our healthcare system and previous UUP Health Ministers did not?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her question. It is a really good question. I will have to repeat myself a little bit because there are a couple of conflicting topics in the question. The first thing is this: getting over 30,000 responses to a consultation should indicate to any of us, and give us a clarion call, that the public are saying, "We need confidence". At the very top level of that consultation response, people are also saying, "We are open to change". People are open to change because they recognise that what is happening at the moment could be a whole lot better. In order for something to get better, change may be required. However, change for change's sake is not the answer.

I have not seen the report in question. That report was not a response to the 2024 network of hospitals documentation: it was done prior to that and was part of the wider hospital network plan. That is absolutely fine. It is absolutely right to pass any significant change through a panel and give it rigorous scrutiny. If you give something rigorous scrutiny and then make a decision, you can stand on your evidence with confidence. At this moment in time, however, I have neither seen the report nor had a qualified clarion call from all clinicians that it is the right thing. What you do in one hospital to squeeze the balloon will cause it to pop out somewhere else. There will be pressure somewhere else, because the need has not dissipated. I want to know where it is going to pop out, who will be there when it pops out and what will happen to keep it sustainable. I want to ensure that any change that is configured anywhere in our hospital network is recognised right throughout the system.

Mr Gildernew: Minister, will the committee have an absolute right to obtain all the relevant departmental and trust information, including workforce data, risk assessments, financial assumptions and alternative options? Will that evidence be published alongside the conclusions?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. I have no reason to believe that it will not be. I am only three weeks in post. Certainly, I want anything for which I am responsible, and which I put my name to, to be in the public domain. The health service exists not for clinicians, nurses and doctors but for public health and the constituents whom we serve. It is absolutely vital that any transformation or change has the confidence of the very people who own it. I want to move into a sphere — it will be difficult and there will be challenging decisions to make; of that I have no doubt — but I want to ensure, before we get to that challenging moment, that we give all the relevant requisite information to those who want to see it and read it and become part of that process. We are running out of time — I do recognise that — but we will not make a rushed decision. We will make the right decision.

Mr McCrossan: I join with others in congratulating my friend on his appointment as Minister of Health. I might make a friendly point: you might have to update your election posters, because you will definitely be greyer come May.

Minister, you will know fully the frustration, worry and anxiety that exists in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and, indeed, Omagh in relation to the proposed loss of services at the South West Acute Hospital and, indeed, the similar concerns about services at Causeway Hospital, Daisy Hill Hospital and Downe Hospital. Will you refer those matters to the committee? If the committee recommends reversing previous decisions, will you implement them?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. Having watched and sat beside the Member in many Committees over the years, I am sure that his remarks to me will not always be as genteel as those that he has just delivered.

The Member lives in a rural community and understands the complexity of where we interface with health provision. As I have said, there are finite budgets. We have our structures, which we are having to reconfigure in that networking piece. As Minister, I will take everything that comes before me as it comes. I will look at the business case, the complexity and whether it is controversial.

If I believe that it has not been tested enough, I will not be behind the door in invoking the committee. However, there is no point in invoking that committee if it does not have public confidence, so it is vital that the terms of reference, the chair and what that panel may look like are set out clearly at the start.

Every hospital is different, Mr Speaker. You served as Health Minister, and you know only too well that each case has to be dealt with on its own merits, and that means taking into consideration who lives where, how people get that care and separating out those functions. Giving people confidence is vital. If we do not give them confidence and we heap worry on them, perhaps by being forced to make rushed decisions — no one will make me make a rushed decision; I will not do that — we will impact on the well-being and mental health of the very people for whom we are trying to fix this. I thank the Member for his useful question.

Mr Bradley: I pay tribute to the previous Health Minister, Mr Nesbitt, for all his hard work during his tenure. I welcome the new Health Minister to his place and wish him all the best for the future.

To ensure transparency and scrutiny, especially in relation to the lack of investment at Causeway Hospital, and given the recruitment deficit of at least 3:1, which has, I feel, led to the position that we are in, will the Minister guarantee that the independent reconfiguration committee will examine the capital and recurrent resources allocated to Antrim and Causeway hospitals since 2001 and since the formation of the Northern Trust in 2007, alongside the services removed from Causeway during that period? Will he ensure that the findings are reported to the Assembly before any irreversible decision is taken on Causeway?

I understand that some Members have an opinion. It is my constituency, so I also have an opinion, but I also have an opinion on the Causeway coast and glens area, which will be left without an emergency hospital from Ballycastle — from the glens right through to Greysteel. I also know —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question, Maurice, please?

Mr Bradley: I have asked a question. I know the Minister personally. Will he ensure that his integrity is kept to the fore during the whole process?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. When we are talking about hospitals in our constituencies and the very matters that Members are allowed, through the Principal Deputy Speaker, to raise, we should evidence that with passion, as the Member did. However, in response to the first part of the question, I suggest that, if I went to every hospital across Northern Ireland, they would all suggest that they have been underfunded and that they all need more money and resource. We have a complex and complicated health system. I am not saying that it will ever be any different, because health is complex. We live differently, consume differently and exercise differently.

We have an absolute commitment that Causeway will remain a very important hospital. The emergency function has not been removed and will not be removed. I have asked the Department to look at this in the wider sense. I have had to get my head around medical acronyms and what things are called. Emergency general surgery is not the same as an emergency admission. The clinicians talk to me about that, and I ask them questions such as, "What if someone came to the door?". Here is the bit: the hospitals exist for the person who turns up. Not everybody turns up in an ambulance, because, sometimes, an ambulance takes time to come. Lots of people turn up to hospital in a car or walk in, and their expectation is that they will get a certain service. It is a massive challenge. It still might be the right thing to do, wherever the decisions are made. However, if that is the case, the public have to know that there was a reason for doing it and that the rationale is there, and it needs to have their confidence.

Mrs Erskine: On a point of order, Principal Deputy Speaker. In my question, I referenced the fact that the UUP publicly announced the decision on the committee before the Department of Health did so. I would like the Speaker's Office to make a ruling on that, because I find that incredibly disrespectful to the House.

I want to raise another point. In the file properties of the document containing the ministerial statement, the author is named as "Mark Ovens (councillor)". That concerns me, because it would appear that other means of communication have been used in order to ensure that that statement went out. Will the Speaker's Office investigate that as well? In my view, that is very concerning.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Deborah, for your points of order. I suggest that you refer the material that you mentioned in your point of order to the Speaker's Office, which will, I have no doubt, make a ruling.

I congratulate the Minister on his first appearance in the Chamber in post, but here comes the slap: you have up to two minutes to respond to questions, and you need to ask permission for anything more than that. Good luck, OK?

Mrs Middleton: I thank the Minister for his commitment to action over warm words. Will he consider new arrangements for preschool applications in order to increase parental choice?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question on preschool applications. When it comes to providing access, you want as many first-choice applicants as possible to be successful. An increasing number have been successful in attaining their first choice, but managing the number of providers and making them available is an ongoing issue for the EA to deal with. There is a declining birth rate, which can have implications for the number of providers that are available in a particular local community. Today's announcement will ensure that local people in a community will all be treated fairly. There will be no advantage or disadvantage now, which was the case under the social disadvantage criterion. Everyone will be on a level playing field. Just as in a primary school or a post-primary school, those settings will be able to select their own criteria. That was the only area where there was a legislative requirement on a particular aspect of a preschool setting. That has now been removed, which will help to level up things for people in their communities.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for all that he is doing to provide childcare support and access to preschool education for families across Northern Ireland, as he says, at a time when the birth rate is declining. I hear from many young parents that those costs are a factor when it comes to the size of family that they choose to have.

Based on this year's figures and on the benefits that are listed in the current regulations, how many pupils would be eligible for priority for preschool places?

Mr Givan: I referenced that figure earlier when I made my statement. It is a recognition that what was initially intended, and the purpose behind that when the regulation was brought in, was in respect of those who were in receipt of income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance. Those criteria, when they were used in 2019-2020, accounted for around 15% of applications. Welfare reform and the increasing number of areas under universal credit, which have been read into the interpretation that is applied by the EA, has resulted in 36% of this year's applicants meeting the social disadvantage criterion. That is distorting the process and is not what was intended. I have now realigned the admissions policy with the actual legislation, and, therefore, based on our assessment, there will be only 27 applications, which represents 0·4% of those who are entitled to avail themselves of the social disadvantage criterion, based on what is actually in the law.

Ms Nicholl: I was in the Chamber for the answers earlier. I congratulate the Minister on his particular flair when responding to questions in such a politically pointed way, which I always enjoy. I have also noticed that the Minister has made a number of announcements that often do not have any funding attached to them.

He mentioned the expansion of preschool standardisation. I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to outline the total cost of announcements that he has made since the restoration of the Assembly in February 2024 that have no actual funding secured for them yet.

Mr Givan: Thank you, and I will return the compliment, because I do like Ms Nicholl's political style. She is far too nice to be in this place. [Laughter.]

She is incredibly generous and someone with whom I get on very well. She can hold her own, that is for sure.

She asks an important question. The statement referenced the 100 further settings that will be identified as part of the rolling programme of standardisation. For me to take those forward, Executive funding will be required. Currently, we are in a position in which I have been proceeding at risk in the current financial year because the Executive have not provided the ring-fenced funding needed to allow the continuation of the already agreed measures. I am therefore proceeding at risk with the funding that we are currently putting into a number of the schemes, on the basis that I will get Executive agreement, because I do not believe that any party will want to renege on doing that when they have already agreed to the standardisation process. That speaks to the wider budgetary challenge facing the Executive that will crystallise if we cannot get a resolution over the next period.

In order to keep the momentum going, having moved from 40% full-time provision — we now sit at 65% full-time provision — we need to be planning for and identifying those 100 settings, making sure that they are in a state of readiness and then bringing them online for the next academic year. What I have therefore announced today is that we will identify those 100 settings. We will move towards their being brought into the full-time provision, which I believe everybody wants us to do, but, obviously, funding continues to be an issue, not just on this issue but across all the early learning and childcare strategy schemes that we are currently implementing.

Mr McCrossan: I was also here earlier, listening to the questions to the Minister and to his answers. Minister, it is clear that you have spent the summer perfecting how to blow your own trumpet, and you are doing an exceptional job of it. I remind you that your party and Sinn Féin have presided over some of the worst levels of child poverty in this place during your tenure in Government.

Minister, you stated the figures earlier, and there is some concern. Can you guarantee that the plan will not result in children who live in poverty losing priority and that it will not create a postcode lottery, where children's chances depend entirely on whatever admissions criteria an individual preschool decides to adopt?

Mr Givan: I can guarantee that every single child in Northern Ireland who wants to get a paid preschool place will be able to get it regardless. The position is that there has been universal provision for nearly a decade now, which was not the case in 1998. Then, it sat at less than half of all young people availing themselves of preschool provision being able to get a paid place in a setting. That is why the policy, when it was introduced, may have had merit then, but the context has changed significantly since.

Whether the Member wants to call it "blowing one's own trumpet", we have been able to deliver. I prefer to call it "DUP delivery in action". I wish that others were able to deliver in their Departments. We have moved to a much better position, with 65% of children getting full-time places. He knows, as does every MLA in the Assembly, that this is a significant issue for hard-working families who do not get their child into a setting of their choice or get a full-time place as a result of somebody else, who may not be from the local area, having been able to take the place of their child through the use of a criterion that is now out of date and that disadvantages hard-working families.

Ms Brownlee: This is a really successful announcement today. I will focus particularly on the roll-out of the full-time nursery provision. That has been welcomed by so many families, and, of course, I welcome the increase to 65%, with 100 more settings announced today. Minister, when do you believe that you will have a 100% roll-out so that every single family in Northern Ireland can benefit?

Mr Givan: The Member is right. I know the impact that it has had in my constituency, as it has had in every Member's constituency. The ability to get a full-time nursery place or a place in a preschool setting makes a huge difference.

Going from two hours per day to four and a half hours per day of planned educational play and learning will benefit the child — that is the main driver for the policy — but it will also benefit the parents. I know that from my circumstances: two of my children were in part-time classes but my third child was in a full-time class, and that made a big impact on my wife's work-life balance. This issue has a huge impact, and that is why there has been an increase of over 300% in applications to settings that have become full time. Parents want this, and it benefits children. It has a big impact on early intervention and contributes to the long-term benefits of our education system. As of today, we sit with 65% of children being in a full-time class.

I want us to move forward to 100% full-time provision. That is dependent on funding being available and the state of readiness. I believe that we can move the next 100 settings forward, but we will reach a point where some settings, such as those in small church halls or nursery schools, cannot accommodate it. There will be some increased capital requirement for those settings near the end of the process. However, there is a real appetite and demand for this. The evidence shows that it is working. We in the DUP have taken the issue forward and delivered on it, but we want to do more, and that will require everyone in the Chamber to help me.

Mrs Erskine: Minister, I welcome the work on childcare places and the fact that you are driving things forward in that regard. You will be aware that I have been in touch with you regarding matters that are prevalent in rural areas and, indeed, in constituencies with a cross-border nature, such as mine. You have kept your side of the bargain by delivering on childcare, and you are listening to communities, but can you indicate what cross-departmental work you are pushing to ensure that providers that face rising costs receive support from the likes of the Department for the Economy and the Department of Health and that working families really feel the increased and full advantage of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme that you have implemented?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for those comments. She is right to highlight the work in rural areas in particular and the importance of those settings to communities. We must make sure that the benefits accrue everywhere in Northern Ireland. We are taking a number of measures, but one is to increase the value per child in the funding to settings. Again, I am looking at those figures, and, on average, we have been able to increase funding by £2,500 for each setting. That builds on increases that we have already provided and will assist them. We have put in additional funding to preschool settings to assist children with additional needs who still have not gone through the statementing process. I know that that funding has been a real benefit to them. We also have the draft early learning and childcare strategy, which I intend to bring back to the Executive in due course.

When I came into office two years ago, people were demanding a strategy. I got on with delivering substance by setting up a childcare subsidy scheme that brought real, meaningful and tangible benefits that were worth tens of millions of pounds. Too often, in this place and other Departments, people talk about policy and strategy and set up reviews. They then review the reviews, but they still cannot take decisions. That has not been the case in this Department. We have taken decisions. My party said that we would prioritise hard-working families, and that is exactly what we have been doing.

Mr Buckley: In today's society, it is clear that people who are perhaps juggling two or more jobs to fight for their family see the odds stacked against them. I know that I speak for many when I say that I am glad to see a DUP Minister who is prepared to stand up and fight for those people. Does the Minister agree that the law should never pit parents who are on benefits against working families who cannot access preschool settings in their own community? Further, does the Minister agree that the "disadvantaged children" that have been spoken about here today also include children from working families?

Mr Givan: I do. The Member is absolutely right that hard-working families should not be disadvantaged or discriminated against. That is exactly what has happened on this issue. When it comes to public services and the provision of support, too often, those who just about break even or are just above the entitlement to benefits are the ones who endure the most disadvantage and find things most difficult. Never again should they be forgotten. Certainly, for my part and the DUP's part, we will stand with them.

Every day in my constituency, I help young people and families who face difficulty, and we have prioritised support for them by extending Sure Start. That has allowed an additional 4,300 children to receive more support. We have expanded the pathway fund, which has enabled a further 4,700 children to benefit from high-quality early years provision. We have also expanded the Toybox programme, which helps Traveller children, Roma children and newcomer children. There are other schemes as well. This is not a case of either/or. I have made sure that those who are in need and come from disadvantaged backgrounds get support, but that cannot continue to be to the exclusion of other disadvantaged children. That is why we have removed the criterion today.

Ms Mulholland: I hope that the Minister is aware that universal credit is a working benefit. I have many constituents, as he does, who are both hard-working and in receipt of a benefit. The constant and consistent use of fake contrasts is really dehumanising.

I will focus on rural settings. Social and economic disadvantage has a huge impact, particularly in a constituency such as mine, on access to transport and access to a vehicle. If we look at the likes of Armoy —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question, Sian?

Ms Mulholland: The nearest setting can be up to five miles away. What rural impact and concerns have been taken into account when looking at poverty and access to the provision?

Mr Givan: The Member makes a point for me about local communities trying to access their nearest setting. The problem with the criterion was that children and people from outside the locality were able to choose ahead of the local community, unless someone was in receipt of the benefits that the EA had read into it. If the Member truly supports communities in rural areas being able to access their nearest preschool setting or nursery provision, she will see that removing that criterion will help them do so. She should support the removal rather than be critical of it.

This is a good-news announcement. It is a decisive decision that backs hard-working families. For too long, they have been neglected and disadvantaged. Today, we put that right when it comes to preschool settings.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the Minister's statement to ensure that working parents will no longer be discriminated against when selecting a nursery setting for their child. Will the Minister confirm that, when we reach academic year 2028-29, and if we are under a new Education Minister in the next mandate, the decision that he has taken today will continue to ensure that governors alone have the responsibility for setting the entry criteria for nurseries to ensure that they best meet local demand and needs?

Mr Givan: I can tell the Member, on the basis of advice that we received, that the current criterion that was being applied was very much at risk of a successful legal challenge because of the way in which it discriminated against hard-working families. Therefore, the lawfulness of retaining that criterion is no longer there. I have acted today to make sure that only the benefits that are in the legislation are used, which means that we have significantly reduced the ability of those who may have used the current entitlement that the EA was reading into the criterion to do so. Should a future Minister decide to reinstate the criterion, they would be very likely to receive a legal challenge. On the basis of the legal advice that I have received, they would find that position difficult to defend. That is not to say that you may not get such a case and have to go through that process, but, based on the basis of the legal advice that I have received, I am clear that the decision that I have taken is the right one.

I gently say to the Member, as I said in my statement — I welcome his support for it — that a direct rule Minister would not have done this. Had there not been devolution, a childcare subsidy scheme would not have been established and put in place in the way in which the Assembly and I, as Minister, have done. A direct rule Minister would not have taken the decision that I have taken today to benefit his hard-working families and constituents. That is why I support devolution warts and all, despite all the problems that it certainly has. Under devolution, there are occasions when a local Minister can take decisions that will benefit the people of Northern Ireland, and that is what I have done today.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Minister. I welcome the intention to provide preschool places for all children across Northern Ireland. As someone who has a little preschooler, albeit part-time, I recognise the value of the provision for work-life balance, as well as the development that she is getting from it. I also appreciate the Minister's recognition of voluntary preschool providers. Does he accept that reforming admission will achieve little if voluntary playgroups are struggling to be financially viable? How does he plan to financially support voluntary providers in order to support his aim of preschool places for all children?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her support for the changes. The pupil figure has gone up. A lot of providers have indicated to me the financial pressures that they are under. Despite the difficult financial pressures that I am under in the Department, we have increased the funding for the voluntary and community sector, which is part of the preschool education programme. It is at a slight disadvantage as against the statutory nursery setting, which is why we have sought to increase the funding that it is in receipt of. The Chairman of the Committee asked me earlier about the penultimate year age in the statutory setting, which is those who are able to access statutory nursery schools two years before they come in. That is a challenge and a real difficulty. As we see a declining birth rate, we have an increasing number of nursery settings in which children are getting access to that, which creates a challenge in the system. The draft early learning childcare strategy states that there will be a consultation on that, because that is a legislative provision. If we were to remove the legislative requirement to allow the admission of penultimate age children, the law would need to change in that respect. That is not something that I am able to do today. The merits or otherwise of doing so are open for debate. That is an issue in the draft strategy, and it is something that we may have to return to in the next mandate.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We have received notification from the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A).

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Assembly may sit until 9.00 pm this evening, if necessary.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Dr Archibald: Today, I seek the Assembly's approval for the draft Renewable Heat Incentive (Closure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026. The RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Act 2026, which enables the Department to make these regulations, was enacted on 17 June 2026. Regulation 4 provides a high-level overview of the key aspects of the regulations. Their purpose is to close the non-domestic renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme, convert existing accreditations under that scheme to closure accreditations, revoke all accreditations that are not converted, and provide for annual closure payments for installations with a closure accreditation.

My Department has engaged extensively with stakeholders throughout the development of the closure proposals, including with representative bodies such as the Ulster Farmers' Union and the Renewable Heat Association Northern Ireland. In addition, many individuals and businesses contributed to the development of the proposals through their responses to the consultation that was carried out at the end of last year. We made changes based on those responses. I extend my sincere thanks to those stakeholders, as well as to the Economy Committee, which undertook detailed and very constructive scrutiny of the policy for closure.

As a result of that constructive engagement, the closure proposals set out in the draft regulations have been built on a solid foundation. They fulfil the New Decade, New Approach commitment to close the RHI scheme, and they provide a fair and balanced outcome for participants and taxpayers. The draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Closure) Regulations 2026, which I am pleased to bring to the Assembly, are the final step in the closure of the scheme.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): As Chair of the Committee, I recommend that the House support the regulations.

The RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Act (Northern Ireland) 2026 allows for regulation-making powers relating to the closure of the RHI scheme. As the Minister articulated, the associated regulations that are before us today do quite a number of things. Principally, the regulations revoke all the old regulations that established the non-domestic RHI scheme. The new arrangements establish the eligibility criteria and the basis for the calculation of payments, which will be around historical heat use. The statutory rule allows for inflationary changes to tariffs, a cap on annual closure payments and a four-band usage declaration model to enable reduced payments for installations that operate at lower levels. Closure participants will be required to make an annual declaration and to comply with an inspection, compliance and enforcement regime. The rule allows for the withholding of payments by the Department, the revocation of closure accreditation and the recovery of overpayment. It also provides for the right of review, including an independent panel, changes of ownership and location, and voluntary withdrawal from the closure arrangements. The Department will be obliged to publish procedural guidance and information about closure accreditations and payments. The rule also sets out eligible purpose provisions, such as that heat may not be:

and states that biomass fuel will have to be produced sustainably and be of satisfactory quality.

As has been indicated, Committee members felt that the use of historical data and the banding arrangements, although unusual, would likely limit the cost of the scheme to no more than £196 million over 10 years and would comply with state aid and Treasury requirements, thus limiting the likelihood of an additional charge against the block grant. The Committee felt that the tariffs were calculated on a rational basis and did not appear to generate either unreasonably high or unreasonably low returns for boiler owners and thus that, importantly, they met the requirements of the court ruling. The costs are substantial, but the Committee understands that they are capped and, in effect, in line with the mandate of the court, and the regulations allow the Department to intervene when necessary. On that basis, the Committee is content for the regulations to be approved. The Examiner of Statutory Rules recently confirmed that she is content with the regulations, and it is understood that Ofgem has agreed to extend its management of the old RHI scheme. With that in mind, as Chair of the Committee, I recommend that the regulations be supported today.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will say a few words in my role as a DUP MLA. I pay tribute to the Minister and her officials, who listened to the questions and concerns of members of the Committee to ensure that we got it right. Although it is unusual to do so, I will name an official: Catriona Harkin needs to be singled out for praise. Her work over recent weeks and months has been excellent, and officials coming before the Committee for the Economy were exemplary. To have my endorsement may not be considered a good thing in the Department for the Economy, but I wanted to congratulate her for the work that she has done. With that, I recommend that all Members support the regulations.

Ms McLaughlin: The SDLP welcomes the fact that we have finally reached the point at which the RHI scheme can be closed. It has taken far too long — that needs to be said again and again — but the regulations allow us to draw a line under a scheme that has cast a long shadow over government in this place. We recognise the work that has gone into getting the closure arrangements right, and I endorse the praise that the Chair gave to the officials for getting us to this stage. The tariffs that underpin the payments have been independently verified by Professor David Rooney. That independent scrutiny is really important. We need an outcome that is fair to those who participated in good faith but also protects the public purse. Balance and scrutiny were so badly missing when the RHI scheme was established, and it exposed some of the worst failings of government in Northern Ireland. There were failures by elected representatives and serious failures in the Civil Service. There was poor scrutiny, inadequate record-keeping, a failure to challenge decisions and, ultimately, a real failure of accountability.

The question for us today is whether we have genuinely learned from that. To be honest, I am not convinced that we have. The Audit Office has continued to raise concerns about the implementation of the recommendations that followed the RHI inquiry. Incredibly, it found that progress on record-keeping had regressed. We cannot allow ourselves to forget that as we close the scheme, but, equally, we cannot allow the failures of RHI to become an excuse for paralysis when it comes to renewable energy. The SDLP wants to see any money being released from the closure of this scheme being used to support a new green energy scheme with proper standards, safeguards, scrutiny and value for money built in from the beginning. The answer to a badly designed renewable energy scheme cannot simply be to stop developing renewable energy schemes, and that is particularly important as we look at the wider energy portfolio.

Progress from the Department has been painfully slow. Tomorrow, we will, finally, debate the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill at Second Stage. We welcome that progress, but that legislation has been delayed repeatedly. Every delay has added to the uncertainty facing renewable energy investors at precisely the time when we should be giving them confidence to invest here. We have enormous renewable energy potential, particularly in my constituency. However, potential on its own does not cut bills, does not create jobs and does not deliver energy security. It requires government to actually deliver.

I welcome the closure of RHI, but closing the scheme cannot mean closing the book on what has happened. If we are serious about developing renewable energy, attracting investment and decarbonising the economy, we have to prove that we have learnt from RHI. That means moving much faster than we have done and ensuring that proper scrutiny and the safeguards and accountability are there from day 1. That is how we will make sure that the legacy of RHI is not paralysis but better government. We support the closure.

Mr Kearney: Ten years after the DUP ineptitude and arrogance around the RHI debacle, which collapsed these institutions, I welcome the work that has been done by the Sinn Féin Minister for the Economy, Caoimhe Archibald, to close the RHI scheme. I associate myself with Phillip's remarks, as Chair of the Committee, in noting the progress that has been made to bring us to this point and in commending the officials who have worked diligently to ensure that we have arrived at this point.

The RHI scheme was a missed opportunity. It should and could have been a positive, successful green initiative: one that could have reduced our carbon footprint and, overall, contributed to a viable, sustainable renewable energy strategy. That did not happen; instead, the scheme descended into farce and absolute ridicule due to the lack of oversight by the then Department and by the chronic incompetence of the then DUP Minister. I thank the current Economy Minister for her work in bringing the scheme to an end and ending the saga, and I note the ongoing work of the Economy Committee in assisting her in bringing us to this point.

Mr Honeyford: We also support the regulations and the final closure of the RHI scheme. It has been a long and extremely difficult chapter for the Department and for the Assembly. The damage caused to confidence in this place is not to be underestimated. I also thank the Minister for bringing this through to closure. I never thought that I would see the day when this was ended, and, Minister, I thank you for that. Thank you for listening at Committee Stage. You listened to us on the extra bands that we raised, so credit where it is due. That came back with changes to the Bill. Thank you for that.

I also pay particular thanks to Catriona Harkin from the Department. She was outstanding at taking the Committee through the detail of the regulations and at listening to what we were saying. That engagement is so important, as it is vital for Committee members to have confidence that the Department is listening to what they are saying. She was outstanding not only with us, however. She went to the Renewable Heat Association for Northern Ireland (RHANI), to farmers and to the business community, all of whom were affected by the scheme. She was able to bring all of them together, which is no mean feat. I mentioned that at the Committee, but it deserves to be recognised in the House as well. I commend Phillip, the Chair, for mentioning that. I agree with every word that he said, but I also wanted to thank her personally.

With the transition from Ofgem, the priority for participants is now the transition period, as we move forward with the new rules. We know that a gap was created between the Ofgem departure at the end of the previous school term and the timing of the regulations. I thank the Department for its reassurance that people will not be left out of pocket as a result of that administrative change as the Department sets up the scheme and the change is made. I thank the Department for that. I also thank it for its assurance that the entitlement will not be lost and that it will move at pace on the commitment that the farm, the business or whatever user it is will see the money quickly and will not be waiting for cycles and that bureaucracy will not get in the way of delivery. I commend the Department for that. I would appreciate an update from the Minister on whether that work is under way.

Ultimately, as the RHI scheme closes, we can never allow what happened to happen again. Safeguards, scrutiny and accountability all have to be in there. Public money has to be protected, but there is another lesson that we need to learn. Unfortunately, I still see the ghost of RHI hovering in the midst of other areas in the Department. The fear of getting something wrong could become a fear of doing anything at all and thus cause delay. We therefore have to check ourselves. As Sinéad mentioned, we will be debating the Second Stage of the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill tomorrow. That legislation is two years behind schedule. As we try to transform energy, we cannot allow the mistakes that have happened in the past to paralyse decisions that we need to make for the future, because people need change to come forward, and they need it to happen quickly. As I said, the new renewables scheme is two years out of date. We have seen another spike in energy costs with the increase in the price of oil and gas, and we cannot allow the RHI debacle of the past to ghost into the future. We need a Department that understands risk but that also manages it properly and scrutinises it, that is upfront with Committees and that lets us get on with delivery.

Finally, there is an opportunity to take something positive from the ending of the scheme. At the end of June, we heard in Committee that there would potentially be £10 million left from the annually managed expenditure (AME) budget that could be used to support the development of the biomethane industry, for example. I strongly encourage the Minister to pursue that at pace, as soon as we know that that money is there to be used, so that research and development, for instance, can go ahead. We must ensure that that money is not left in a pot and that we close the chapter properly and make sure that everybody involved receives what they are entitled to. We must learn lessons and not allow the legacy of the past to hold back the future. We must move forward and deliver for people.

Ms D Armstrong: The initialism "RHI" has become infamous in Northern Ireland politics, but it has also become synonymous with a declining public confidence in the Assembly to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. I am pleased to have seen that be rectified during my time on the Economy Committee. I am pleased that the scheme will finally close and that the Department carried out an holistic engagement process with our Committee and other stakeholders. I thank the Minister, Catriona Harkin and other officials for their work in bringing the scheme to this juncture, as was rightly acknowledged by the Chair and others.

This is a valuable opportunity for us to restore public trust, but we must see real monetary value in the closure, where stringent oversight remains and the system does not become vulnerable to exploitation. RHI must be a lesson in oversight of the use of public funds and in accountability. It must also be a lesson in the importance of asking difficult questions before problems emerge, as my colleague Mr Honeyford said, rather than after public money has been committed. The people we represent rightly expect every pound spent by government to be tested with the same degree of care that they apply to their own household or business finances. Public money is not an abstract figure or a departmental balance sheet; it is money raised from taxpayers that could otherwise be invested in our hospitals, schools, roads, skills and economic development. As we finally bring RHI to a close, our responsibility is to ensure that the taxpayer is protected, that genuine participants are treated fairly and, above all, that the confidence lost through this scheme is steadily rebuilt. That is the standard that the public should expect from the Assembly, and it is the standard that we must demand of ourselves.

The Ulster Unionist Party is happy to support the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Closure) Regulations, and we wish participants well with the continuing scheme.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call on the Minister for the Economy to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Dr Archibald: Go raibh maith agat.

I thank all Members who contributed to the debate and all members of the Committee. As I said in my opening remarks, I very much appreciate the engagement of the Committee on this matter. I have no doubt that the Committee will continue to have an interest, and I will welcome its continued engagement.

I appreciate the positive comments about Catriona and her team, which I, of course, echo. Ofgem was also impressed by Catriona's engagement with the Committee and agreed to continue administering the scheme until the end of August. The process of completing the residual handover and closure activities is ongoing.

As for next steps, David Honeyford mentioned what we should do with the leftover AME that is not being used for the RHI scheme. We have agreement in principle from the Treasury to use that AME to develop a support scheme for biomethane that is going towards decarbonisation objectives. Further policy development, a business case and all the approvals that need to be gone through have to happen. We are actively working on that policy development and hope that it will be completed in this financial year, so that we will be in a position to agree the business case in the next financial year. It is worth saying that we are making good progress when it comes to renewables. By the end of June 2026, we were up to 53% of electricity being from renewable sources, which puts us back on the trajectory that we want to be on.

The Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Closure) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 will bring to an end the non-domestic RHI scheme in a way that delivers fairness to taxpayers and participants alike. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit to the debate. I call on the Chairperson to open the debate on the motion.

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.

As Chair of the Committee for Communities, I seek the support of the House for the motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Charities (Amendment) Bill until 11 December 2026.

The Bill was introduced on 15 June and completed its Second Stage on 23 June, when it was referred to the Committee for Communities. At Second Stage, I indicated that the Committee welcomed the broad policy intent of the Bill but had yet to undertake its formal evidence-taking, stakeholder engagement or detailed scrutiny. I also made it clear that the Committee would want to examine carefully whether the legislation was proportionate, workable and sufficiently clear.

The issues that the Bill addresses are significant. It takes forward 18 recommendations arising from the independent review of charity regulation in 2022. Broadly, it seeks to strengthen the regulatory powers of the Charity Commission here, streamline accounting and reporting arrangements and deal with the position of organisations that were established elsewhere but operate for charitable purposes here.

The Committee has received two briefings from departmental officials, one before the Bill's introduction and the other on 2 July, after its Second Stage. Those discussions demonstrated that a number of areas merited detailed consideration, including the safeguards surrounding official warnings and other regulatory powers; information-sharing arrangements; accounting and reporting requirements; the implications of the repeal of section 167 of the Charities Act 2008; the use of delegated powers; and the practical capacity of the Charity Commission to implement some of the proposals. In the evidence session on 2 July, the Committee heard that the Department was continuing to consider the practical delivery of aspects of the Bill, following concerns raised by the Charity Commission about the resources that would be required under the proposed new approach. Exactly that type of issue demonstrates why it is important that the Committee Stage provide sufficient time for proper scrutiny.

There is also an important practical issue with timing. The Bill reached the Committee immediately before the summer recess. The Committee's call for evidence has therefore included the summer period and will close this Thursday, on 10 September. That is a particularly relevant consideration for the Bill because many of the bodies affected are small charities and voluntary organisations that depend heavily on trustees and volunteers and may have limited capacity to respond quickly to legislative consultations. After the call for evidence closes, the Committee must consider the submissions, identify matters that require further examination and hear oral evidence from relevant stakeholders. We must then consider the evidence collectively, return to the Department for clarification where that is required, consider potential amendments, undertake formal clause-by-clause scrutiny and agree our report to the Assembly.

As with many Committees, the Communities Committee already has an extensive programme of legislative and wider scrutiny work ahead of it during this session. The extension is intended to allow the Committee to carry out those responsibilities alongside proper and robust scrutiny of the Bill. I emphasise that the Committee has no interest in delaying the Bill unnecessarily. If we are in a position to conclude our scrutiny and report to the Assembly before 11 December, we absolutely will do so. The purpose of the motion is simply to provide the Committee with the necessary flexibility to do its job thoroughly and to ensure that the legislation that returns to the House has benefited from proper, evidence-based scrutiny.

The charity and voluntary sector plays a hugely important role in communities across the North. Changes to the framework governing that sector therefore deserve our careful consideration. The Committee wants to ensure that the Bill achieves the proper balance between effective regulation, public confidence and accountability, on the one hand, and a proportionate regulatory burden on charities, particularly smaller organisations, on the other.

For those reasons, on behalf of the Committee for Communities, I ask Members to support the extension of the Committee Stage of the Charities (Amendment) Bill to 11 December 2026.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No other Member has indicated that they wish to speak.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, will you take your ease for a few moments?

Ms Bradshaw: 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.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been working on the Bill for nearly a decade. In that time, we have had two prolonged periods of suspension of the Assembly; a global pandemic that, rightly, skewed our focus here; and the publication of the report of the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT). While the legal space around flags has not changed in that period, it is clear that the public space has. We are seeing larger and more sinister flags being erected in our increasingly integrated society. Our neighbourhoods are becoming more mixed and more diverse than when FICT began its important work 10 years ago. I am sponsoring the Bill because we need a clear, consistent and fair legal framework to govern the erection of flags and emblems on street furniture. When I refer to "street furniture", I am not just talking about lighting columns; I am talking about railings and billboards on public land. In fact, a recent motion in the Assembly was concerned about and focused on the latter issue of billboards and called for departmental intervention. That is why I have included them. I should add that the many intimidating and sinister messages that now appear on posters placed on street furniture, several of which are overtly racist and xenophobic in nature, are included as well.

As I will outline, at present there is no clear legal basis for regulating flags and emblems displayed on public property, nor is there a consistent enforcement mechanism for public authorities to act. The current legislation provides for a variety of offences around public order and prohibits certain displays on street furniture. However, what we need is clarity in law around statutory duties and responsibilities with specific regard to the display of flags and emblems on public property. That is why, as FICT and others have agreed, stand-alone legislation on the issue is needed.

As I will also outline in more detail, the Bill's purpose is to allow for respect of cultural celebration and commemoration while preventing intimidation, territorial demarcation and the coercive use of symbols. I will also explain, for the avoidance of doubt, that individuals and organisations will be able to display flags and emblems on street furniture. Importantly, there will also be an opportunity that does not exist at present for those who do not want to see flags and emblems erected in their neighbourhood to give their views and for those to be recorded and considered by the Department in any potential enforcement action. As I will also outline, however, any such action will be dependent on a public interest test and not merely on the basis that someone does not like a particular flag or emblem. That is a key point, because shared space does not always mean neutral space.

I understand how important it is that my Bill strikes a balance between article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is the right to freedom of expression, and article 8, which is the right to privacy and family life. At the outset, I highlight the fact that article 10 states:

However, it goes on to state:

Let us also be clear that there is an appetite for change. Every week, I receive emails, as, I am sure, every Member in the Chamber does, from constituents expressing their dismay that multiple large flags have been erected in their area without consultation or any consideration of local opinion. They ask why their views do not matter.

We can look at the statistics. The Department for Infrastructure asked the police for advice on complaints about unauthorised attachments to its properties 68 times in 2022, 115 times in 2023, 157 times in 2024 and 264 times in 2025. That points to a problem that, far from being resolved, is growing. In June this year, a flag was erected in a prominent position in Antrim, seemingly as part of a turf war between paramilitary organisations. Are we in the Chamber happy to let such things go on? Before that, people had to flee their houses after masked men descended on a Craigavon housing estate to erect flags. Why the masks?

As I have said, every Member knows that it is an issue brought to them in correspondence from constituents. In fact, as I will show, every Member in the Chamber who belongs to a political party has, at one stage or another, justifiably complained about flags or emblems, including the display of billboards and posters in a manner that is intimidatory, designed to antagonise or marks territory. Every Member knows that a basic question lies at the heart of the issue: who controls what is displayed in our public spaces? For years, debates around flags and emblems have been treated as a cultural battleground. That may be convenient for some, but it misses the point of the Bill. We are not looking at the conflict around culture; we are looking at a failure of governance. During the debate, I will set out how the governance failure affects all of us, regardless of background, because, as every Member also knows, where there should be clear guidance on the issue, there is a vacuum. Where it should be clear where responsibility lies to act in such cases, there is, in fact, operational paralysis. Departments and agencies pass around the hot potato while public street furniture is routinely claimed, marked and controlled with neither consent nor justification. If we want a clear example of that, we can reflect on the events of two summers ago when UDA flags erected outside the PSNI station on the Garnerville Road were not removed.

The Bill is not designed to suppress legitimate, time-bound cultural expression; if anything, it is designed to enhance it. The Bill is designed, however, to ensure that no single faction gets to determine who does or does not feel welcome in a street, a new housing development, around a school, near a library or close to a place of worship. For decades, we have known that the status quo is not neutral, It does not have consent and is not sustainable. We now have the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the past and replace deadlock with clarity by establishing in law a transparent and fair framework that will balance legitimate cultural expression with the need to respect all citizens and protect shared spaces. In other words, the Bill is fundamentally about proving that the Assembly can make progress on the basis of consensus, that we are a legislature that can legislate and that the rule of law matters. I was heartened recently when the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party talked about antisocial behaviour on the Stewartstown Road on 'The Nolan Show' and said that we must get back to the rule of law. I want to see that attitude applied consistently when people breach existing laws.

Let us consider what we all agreed to during the process led by the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition. All parties in the Chamber agreed that the status quo was not an option, and that should be no surprise. Later, I will clarify in detail that every party has justifiably expressed frustration at the abuse of flags and emblems that have been placed for intimidatory or exclusionary purposes. The Assembly needs to agree on how we move forward so that such complaints do not need to be endlessly repeated. The task before us is not to complain about something and then apologise for not being able to find a way forward. We must agree that way forward through the Bill. We should also agree that it is fundamentally harmful to the institutions and our Administration generally when we simply pass the buck in response to an obvious question, such as flags that commemorate a paramilitary commander being placed on public lamp posts.

I note that there is a new Infrastructure Committee Chair, and I wish him well in his new post. He was clear on 'The Nolan Show' last week that such flags should be removed, and I am sure that he agrees that threatening anyone trying to replace them should be deemed as acting outside the law.

Mr Buckley (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I thank the Member for giving way and for her good wishes. I look forward to further commenting on the Bill as it goes through the scrutiny process.

The Member is right: I condemned the paramilitary flags outright, but will the Member agree that there is existing legislation through which they could be removed?

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member, and I look forward to working with him and his Committee colleagues. The issue, as he well knows, is that, as I have already outlined, there is piecemeal legislation in that area, but it is not acted on. My Bill will place a specific duty and statutory obligation on the Department to remove flags and emblems in the specific circumstances set out in the Bill to remove any shadow of doubt around responsibilities.

As I said, I look forward to working with the Committee so that it can scrutinise the Bill. It should not be Paula Bradshaw's Bill or the Alliance Party's Bill. It has to be the Assembly's Bill, and it should reflect what all parties want to see. I will go into further detail on their utterances around how and when we should deal with those issues.

I suspect that some Members in the Chamber would be happy if they never saw another flag attached to a lamp post, and there are probably others who would regard the flying of a particular flag as an important expression of who they are. The Bill is not asking either group to change that view. What is at issue here is not so much the flag or the emblem but the way in which it is used or, too often, abused.

Let us consider in more detail what FICT agreed. It agreed that the flying of flags or emblems to mark events is common across the world; that it was more common in Northern Ireland for it to be done on houses rather than on public property until this century; that the nature of the flags that are displayed and how they are flown is changing; and that new flags are being designed. That challenges the idea that flying flags on public property is an established cultural tradition in Northern Ireland, though, in general, flying them for the purposes of commemoration clearly is.

I acknowledge that protocols operate effectively in towns and villages across Northern Ireland. My Bill is not intended to interfere with those local agreements; it is intended to deal with displays where that is not the case. FICT noted that commemoration in Northern Ireland is inherently political; that there was popular support specifically for time restrictions on flag flying; and, unfortunately, that, often, the operation of those local protocols and such time-bound displays were impeded by paramilitary threats.

Historically, authorities have liked to quote community tensions as a reason not to remove a flag or emblem, but community tensions are not taken into consideration when it is displayed in the first place. In public correspondence, the Department for Infrastructure has quoted community tensions as a reason not to act. We should also not be fooled by the response from the police that the issue should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The issue is that it is never dealt with; sorry, I should say that there has been one instance in the past two years when a UDA flag was removed in the Cregagh area. That happened only after a journalist began to embarrass the authorities about it. Nevertheless, all that should be read alongside clear polling that shows overwhelming public support by almost two to one for the immediate removal of specific paramilitary flags in all circumstances, regardless of any claims of heightened community tensions. Fundamentally, if we cannot remove flags placed on lamp posts by paramilitary organisations, we are not a truly democratic society. Perhaps most notably, it was agreed by FICT and has been argued by others, such as the Equality Commission, that the change required to provide clarity around all that would require a regulatory framework and, therefore, legislation. That is why we are here today.

We may then wish to look at the political commentary around that. I quote:

I also quote:

I wonder whether anyone in the Chamber can really dispute either of those statements. The first, as it happens, was from the Sinn Féin First Minister and the second was from the DUP's new MLA for Newry and Armagh. As I say, I hope that we can build consensus on that.

Northern Ireland is changing. When we try to bring in things such as this legislation, it can provoke scepticism, and never more so than when it involves symbols. That, however, is why Members need to look at what the Bill actually does and says, rather than for them engage in myth-making, scaremongering or assumption. On that note, let me clear, and it should be noted, given some interesting social media commentary this morning, that the Bill does not criminalise anyone, other than by imposing a fine on those who would seek to interfere with or threaten public servants who are doing their work. Who could disagree with the need to protect our hard-working public servants?

Nor does the Bill ban any national or cultural flag. The Union flag, the Ulster banner, the tricolour and any other flag that is used in traditional, time-bound celebrations would continue to appear as a form of legitimate cultural expression where that is done with respect, not least with respect for the flag itself. What will not be permitted are abusive flags, the practice of leaving torn, faded or tatty symbols flying indefinitely and the abuse of any flag as a territorial marker. Respect means treating flags and emblems with dignity and not abusing them for the purposes of antagonism or intimidation.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. She has referred to national flags. If a national flag or emblem is found, under clause 1(3)(a), to be "offensive, abusive, or insulting" — a flag may be perceived to be such, as we know that national flags have different connotations for different people living in Northern Ireland — where does that leave flags when it comes to the Member's Bill? That paragraph is subjective and open to opinion.

Ms Bradshaw: This is probably an opportune time for me to read into the record clear examples of those definitions from recent years. Clause 1 places an absolute duty on the Department to remove a flag or emblem that is "intimidatory". Let me give an example. In Belvoir estate, in my constituency, we saw posters going up that read, "local homes for local people". In my colleague Nuala McAllister's constituency of North Belfast, we saw banners going up that read, "housing for locals first", alongside paramilitary flags. I think that we can agree that it is a form of intimidation to say that only certain people are allowed homes.

The next area is "threatening". In the summer, in the Creggan area, we saw a flag that read, "kill all cops" and "kill all Huns". Does anybody in the Chamber think that we should not remove such flags on the grounds that they are threatening? Clause 1(2)(b) refers to flags and emblems that:

We have the "Billy was Wright" flags in Dungannon, Portadown and Lurgan. We have also seen the "revolution is unfinished" New IRA banners that were displayed during Easter Rising parades. Then, of course, we have flags of proscribed organisations. There is nothing in the Bill about national flags. The only area in which I think that you may feel that the Bill could possibly have an impact on national flags is where they have been up for an excessive period.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I will address the issue in my remarks. The examples that she cites are examples around which we could all unite.

However, I asked a question about national flags. Clause 1(2) states:

We have seen examples where people have cited the national flag as giving such fear. Beyond the Member's comment, what assurances will the Bill give in legislative content that the national flag will not be pulled into the debate around flags?

Ms Bradshaw: I will go into the specifics of the clause, and hopefully I will be able to address that.

Fundamentally, as I have said, this gives people an opportunity to act voluntarily. It is not a notification system. People can go on to the online portal that is featured in one of the clauses to say, "We're going to put flags up in this area. This is the celebration. Here's when they'll go up, and here's when they'll come down". Likewise, there will be an opportunity for people living in that vicinity to express a view. My colleague Kate Nicholl, whose office is at the Inns Cross on the Saintfield Road, will know well that business owners there have said, "We're trying to attract people from all sides of the community. We want them to stop along the Saintfield Road". It is not about the flag; it is about the purpose that, people sometimes feel, the flags have been put up for. Again, the Department will have to make a judgement and say, "They've been put up for the marching season. A local band or lodge put them up". It is the excessive period that some people have an issue with.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: I am answering the question, sorry.

It is not about the flag per se; it is about, for example, whether it has been put up on a new housing development. Deirdre Hargey and I both commented earlier this year when tricolours were put up in a new housing development in the Markets area in South Belfast. We also saw flags go up beside new private housing on the Mealough Road. There is nothing wrong with flags; it is about the purpose for which they have been put up.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way briefly?

Ms Bradshaw: Yes.

Mr Buckley: I will close on this point and conclude it later. The Member is acknowledging that the national flag will be encompassed in the legislation. Is that a fair point?

Ms Bradshaw: Absolutely. I have said that. For example, we are very supportive of LGBT rights. If the organisers of Belfast Pride want to put flags up, we would be delighted. Not everybody will want to see our public space used in that way, but not everybody will like every flag that goes up. I will give another good example, with your indulgence, Deputy Speaker. A few years ago, Bredagh GAC put flags up on the Ravenhill Road when there was an all-Ireland final. The flags were up for a week or two and were then taken down. Not everybody in South Belfast supports the GAA, but the flags were put up respectfully for a sporting celebration and then taken down again.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Yes, I will, and then I will bring David in.

Ms Nicholl: That is completely true, and it is not a threat when people know who has put the flags up. We hear time and time again from businesses at the Inns Cross, in Finaghy and on the Lisburn Road that the issue is not national identity or the flag itself but that, so often, they do not know who has put the flags up and what their motive is. That lack of transparency is the key issue.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for giving way. Given what she said, I will draw on two examples from my constituency. Your East Belfast colleague on your Benches will be familiar with an example from Ballyhackamore. I will not labour the point, but there is a street where Union Jacks go up around the time of the parade that passes through it on 1 July. It is fair to say that, if there is an accommodation at all, it is an uneasy one. The flags go up, but many of the residents are not happy with that, while some of them are: you have that tension. Given that situation, I am slightly uneasy that the Department will have to make a judgement. I am not clear about how the judgement will be made, and, in that example, it is only Union Jacks and has been for a relatively short period.

The other issue, which comes more into resource, is that, on the greenway in East Belfast, which people will be familiar with, Belfast City Council — idiotically, in my view — took down a number of flags, primarily Union flags, that were supported by the local community. As you can imagine, the reaction to that was anger, and that led to many more flags being put up than were there in the first place. That raised the hackles of some community organisations in the area that were trying to do other work. It was not that they objected to the flying of flags, but they felt that there were now too many. That was the reaction.

I fear that we will get into a situation where there are instances — I will come to that when I speak later — when flags should be brought down, but there are other instances where things like that can spark a cycle. How much resource are we willing to put into playing cat and mouse, not just in Belfast but across the country, if we end up in a situation where every flag that is taken down is replaced by three, four or five more? That has been, and will be, the reaction in many communities that feel that their flag has been brought down unfairly.

Ms Bradshaw: The Comber greenway is a good example. That should not be demarcated for one section of the community or the other, in my opinion. If it is on a traditional marching route during the marching season, of course, there should be accommodation in that community for flags to go up.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way briefly on that?

Ms Bradshaw: That is a public park, which leads people to areas. It is a lovely resource in the community. In that instance —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Just for me to give context to that.

Ms Bradshaw: I will just finish my point. In that instance, people could express their concerns about flags going up in the area. It would be up to the Department, then, to apply the public interest test. As is outlined specifically in the Bill, the Department would have to take the views of people who live in the vicinity and would also have to reflect on the code of practice. There will be a duty on the Department to do that so that there is a clear protocol around flags where public services are provided and in shared communal spaces etc.

There will be transparency and a very clear outline of the circumstances in which the Department will make its decisions around where to apply resources. Flags will go up in some communities where people will not have an issue with them at all. I do not believe that the Department will be overburdened in that regard. This is about giving a voice to people who have not been heard before and whose frustrations have not been listened to.
Where the Department for Infrastructure has done its due diligence, applied the public interest test and decided to remove flags, the Bill does not make it an offence to put flags up again within a certain period of time. That is something for the Committee to consider. Go ahead and make your intervention, but I then want to make progress.

Mr Brooks: I wanted to intervene in order to give some context to the complexity of the matter. I understand what you are saying; the greenway can be used by many people for dog walking, cycling and all of that. However, it could not be closer to houses in loyalist working-class communities. Before the greenway was there, flags were always put up, and there has been a tradition of that. There is a complexity if we are going to put in a greenway but then say to the local community that the area is not theirs any more, that it belongs to communities the length of that greenway and that therefore they cannot express their culture and identity in the way that they always have done. There is a constant tension in and around that area. CS Lewis Square is a wonderful facility, but the communities around it are working-class loyalist communities that have always identified in that way and celebrated that. There is a tension there in how we allow communities to celebrate, even in those areas.

Ms Bradshaw: The Bill supports people being able to have celebrations and commemorations, but they have to be time-bound. Do you know what I mean? If flags are up for too long, there is a demarcation. There has to be an expectation that greenways that have had significant public money spent on them should be open to everybody. They should not be demarcated as belonging to one principal national identity or the other. If the flags are up for the Twelfth and the marching season, we all have to be more tolerant. We all have to show respect for everybody's culture and traditions, but we cannot have a situation in which people are using flags in order to mark territory and claim it for one section of the community over the other.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: I will give way briefly, but I want to get back to my speech.

Mr Burrows: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she accept that the Bill does not explicitly demarcate between a terrorist flag and, for example, the Union flag? There is no clear demarcation between them in the legislation.

Ms Bradshaw: There is.

Mr Burrows: Would you explain that?

Ms Bradshaw: There is. Clause 1(2) contains an absolute duty to remove a flag that:

As you move into clause 1(3) —. Do you have a copy of the Bill in front of you?

Mr Burrows: I have a copy, yes.

Ms Bradshaw: OK. We then move into a presumption of removal in clause 1(3). I have given the top examples — I do not know whether you were in the Chamber when I gave them — of the types of posters, banners, flags, etc that would have to be removed. The Department would then have to engage in presumption.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: I will, but this is the last one.

Mr Burrows: Clause 1(2)(a) explicitly states:

and

Those could apply, subjectively, to someone complaining about a Union flag. A Union flag, for example, is not clearly disaggregated from a terrorist flag, because it could fall into both categories.

Ms Bradshaw: I disagree, and I have answered that question at length with your colleagues on the Benches. I will come back in towards the end on some of those issues. Let me just see where I had got to. Apologies, Deputy Speaker.

The question before us is not whether we like flags but whether we think that public property should be governed by clear, fair and enforceable rules. To pick up on David Brooks's point, I want these rules to be fair to everyone in society. It is not just about one persuasion or the other. However, we need to eliminate excuses for inaction. Administrative excuses will no longer cut it. It is, in fact, the ambiguity of the status quo that breeds conflict. Statutory clarity will require a clear code by which everyone can live and a duty to act where it is breached.

What are the challenges? Based on significant previous work, FICT identified some, such as the absence of lawful authority for citizens to attach flags to street furniture; the inadequacy of the existing voluntary framework; the legitimacy of cultural and commemorative expression; the problems caused by intimidation, territorial marking and prolonged displays; and the need for principles for a future framework. As I have said, all parties in the Chamber have made public statements agreeing with that and, to be clear, they have all agreed that, often, the issue is not the type of flag or emblem displayed as much as the purpose of it being displayed. Unionists certainly agree. In June 2019, the display of national flags — as it happens, the Irish tricolour — outside a new housing development before a football match was described by TUV leader Jim Allister MP as:

He was quite right to challenge the purpose of the flag rather than the type of flag, adding that it was an attempt "to raise tensions". Of course, the display of some flags is always designed to raise tensions, a point accepted by his party colleague Councillor Ron McDowell only last year, when he congratulated the Metropolitan Police on charging someone with the display of a flag in support of a proscribed organisation. The organisation happened to be Hezbollah, but consistency dictates that we would say precisely the same were it the IRA, the UVF or any other proscribed organisation.

As noted above, other unionist parties have not been quiet on these issues either. In August 2023, the Ulster Unionist MLA and peer Tom Elliott took almost exactly Jim Allister's line in opposition to national flags — again, in this case, Irish tricolours — appearing outside a new housing development in Dungannon. He claimed, with some justification, that they were designed to show that unionists were not welcome. The problem was not the flag itself but the purpose of its display.

This is not restricted to flags. In 2017, then DUP MLA Gary Middleton stated that "sniper at work" signs were designed to stop people joining the police and thus constituted "incitement to hatred". I agree: the Bill includes flags and "emblems" are clearly defined to include posters for that reason.

In fairness, parties across the divide were clear about their revulsion at flags stating "kill all cops" and "kill all huns" appearing during the summer in the Creggan area, as I have already referenced. That is an appalling and chilling example of the escalation of sinister messages on flags in recent years. Similar to the examples in which Irish tricolours were used, we have seen Union flags and Ulster banners abused, such as in June 2024, when their presence outside a new housing estate was described by local SDLP Councillor Roisin Lynch as "inflammatory". She quite rightly noted that the people who had erected them did not speak for the majority in Antrim.

Sinn Féin has also described national flags — in this case, Union flags — as sectarian intimidation, most recently in Castlederg last year. It is worth noting that, as long ago as 2018, the current Economy Minister called for an end to the use of flags to mark out territory. In 2022, her Sinn Féin colleague and my South Belfast colleague, the then Communities Minister Deirdre Hargey, called for the PSNI to take action on flags on Finaghy Road South, claiming that the police had a responsibility to act. I share that view. I also feel, however, that the police need a clear regulatory framework within which they can support DFI to take action and meet any of its responsibilities. That is what the Bill is designed to achieve; in other words, it will require the Minister for Infrastructure to act. In fact, most recently, the current Infrastructure Minister noted last year that:

Therefore, I look forward to hearing from the Minister about any engagement that she has had with her Executive colleagues and the actions that she proposes to take to secure agreement.

For some, of course, FICT did not give us full agreement on the precise nature of the solution that we should take forward, but neither did it give us a mandate for indefinite inaction. In fact, the strongest argument against my Bill — at least in the sense of arguing about it — is contained in it, rather than in the mischievous suggestion that it is trying to do something that it is not. That argument is that it should not be necessary, because placing a flag on someone else's property is already illegal. That is what the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee referred to. The issue is that the authorities are not dealing with those flags. I have a lot of sympathy with that argument. The fact remains, however, that, for decades, the authorities have not dealt with the issue, and my Bill makes it clear where a flag or emblem must be removed and creates a statutory duty to remove it or, at least, investigate it.

It is worth reading into the record the fundamental FICT principles that lay behind its recommendations. Those principles, as I understand it, were accepted unanimously. For a display to constitute a legitimate cultural expression, it must meet a respect threshold for the flag, the community and the event. That means that the expression must have value; it must be for a celebration or commemoration with a clear beginning and end; and its display must respect the fact that public space belongs to us all. It further emphasises that respect for the flag means that cultural symbols, including national flags, should not be degraded or used as instruments of intimidation. Respect for the community means that one community's expression should not tell another community that it does not belong. Respect for the event means that a legitimate commemoration does not automatically justify an indefinite display. Those who have responded to surveys and consultations on the topic share those priorities. Broadly, most people are tolerant of displays, even celebrations or commemorations that mean nothing to them, provided that they are respectful and time-bound.

Nevertheless, there are those who like to talk about change but are less keen on delivering it when the moment comes. That is a natural aspect of human psychology, and it is called "loss aversion". Loss aversion makes change difficult to deliver. Imagine, however, if we had thought during the Troubles that there was no way that we could build the more peaceful, stable and more prosperous Northern Ireland that we all now enjoy. It bears repeating that we are Members of a legislature, and we are supposed to serve our constituents. That means that we should deliver the change that they want to see. Of course, I would prefer it if the Executive Office or the Department for Infrastructure were taking the Bill forward. I am doing it out of frustration and on behalf not only of constituents in South Belfast but of those across Northern Ireland who rightly demand change.

A total of £800,000 was spent on the flags commission. It did a lot of really good work, engaged extensively around the issues and provided us with a good blueprint. I have not lifted everything that it suggested in its report. It is also worth noting that I reflected very much on the 8,000 responses to my consultation last year. I had made some suggestions, and, rightly, there was pushback. I have not included those in the Bill, and I am happy to talk about them with the Infrastructure Committee in greater detail as we go through the scrutiny of my Bill, because I want it to work. I want the legislation that flows from it to meet the needs of our constituents.

The starting point is that the Department for Infrastructure will apply a public interest test, as I said, when it becomes aware of an issue with a flag or emblem. That will most obviously happen through a notification from a submission made on its online portal, as per clause 3.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Bill sponsor for giving way. It is interesting to tease out clause 3, which refers to a voluntary process. Does she agree that those most likely to engage in a voluntary process about which flags they intend to put up, where and for how long are those most likely to engage in localised agreements and protocols that may already be in place and that those most unlikely to engage in a voluntary process are the ones putting up sinister flags late at night and not giving their name and details? That may create an imbalance between those who are putting up flags for the right reason, who will take them down, and those who will do it incorrectly.

Ms Bradshaw: I certainly appreciate that, which is why I said that, where they fall into the first category of being intimidatory, there is an absolute duty to take them down.

Say, for example, that a local protocol is in place for the Ormeau Road and that Ballynafeigh Orange Hall is very much involved in that with local bands et cetera. New people may have moved into that area who will say, "This is a very mixed area. I moved here to bring up my family in this area". They may not be aware of that protocol. They can express their views on the portal. There is a responsible Orange hall in that area, as I said, which may say, "It makes no difference to us. We put the information up". That allows the Department to say, "There is a protocol in place here. This is where they put the flags up, and this is when they take them down". I did not want to make that mandatory. I am certainly not trying to create a parades commission mark 2. This is a way in which that information can be shared with the Department and people can say, "We put them up every year. OK, there is a new system, so we will put up the information". That allows the Department to say to the people who have expressed concerns, "Here is where they are going up, and here is when they are coming down".

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: I will.

Mr Kingston: The Member is aware that it is a sensitive topic. Location is key. What is considered acceptable in one area might be considered unacceptable by a resident in another area. We agree with you that flags should not be used to intimidate people or create fear. That should not happen, but my main problem with the Bill is that it puts all the onus on the Department for Infrastructure. The test that you are putting in the Bill is whether, in the Department for Infrastructure's opinion, a flag or emblem is intimidatory or threatening, but matters of intimidation and threatening behaviour are for the police first and foremost. You are talking about a criminal act if there is a claim that someone is intimidating somebody or acting in a threatening manner or that a flag or emblem is likely to stir up hatred or arouse fear. A hate crime is a matter for the police first and foremost. You are putting all the emphasis on Department for Infrastructure officials to make a judgement and decide on criminal matters. Later, the Bill refers to a protocol or a code of practice and states that the police will be one of the consultees, but all the emphasis is being put on Department for Infrastructure officials.

Location is such a key matter that the primary function is for the police to give the lead on whether something is considered to stir up hatred or cause intimidation or threat. The Bill puts too much of the onus on Department for Infrastructure officials, whose job is to ensure that street lights work, address potholes and deal with other matters of public infrastructure. The emphasis should be on the police and their guidance in deciding where flags or emblems cause a problem.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you very much, Brian, for your considered comment. By way of example, take the "Billy was Wright" flags that went up recently. You will be aware of them. When the police were approached, they said that the flags did not meet the threshold for their intervention. The obvious question then is who removes them. My point is that those lighting columns are public property and the responsibility of the Department for Infrastructure. The Department is the property owner, so it should remove the flags. We cannot allow the Department not to discharge its section 75 duties and ask the police to perform them on its behalf.

The police would provide support, as I have outlined. I have met the police, but, at the end of the day, it would be for the Department for Infrastructure to discharge its section 75 duties. As I said, it would have a clear framework and code of practice in order to do so. Operational guidance and regulations would therefore be produced off the back of the proposals. At the end of the day, the lighting columns belong to the Department for Infrastructure, not the police.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: I will, briefly.

Mr Burrows: First, I think that the police are wrong in their assessment of the Billy Wright flags. A Billy Wright flag does meet the criteria for the police to take action. My view is that it is a crime, but I say that as an aside.

It is worth nothing that the language that the Member has used about the police making an assessment is often identical to that used in existing public order laws or terrorism offences. If the police were to make a decision about whether to intervene, they would have a series of developed case law about what would reach that threshold, whereas the Department for Infrastructure would have to make its own assessment. How would it become sufficiently trained and experienced to make an assessment of what those things mean? It would not have the case law or access to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). We could also have a situation in which the police adopt the very same test — the language is identical — and say, "That doesn't amount to threatening and insulting", while DFI could presumably reach a different conclusion. How would that work when it comes to interoperability?

Ms Bradshaw: My understanding from the PSNI's public commentary last week is that those flags did not meet the criminal threshold, but I am saying that, in circumstances in which such flags are put up, they are clearly meant to stir up fear and intimidation etc.

Mr Burrows: It would be a crime, then.

Ms Bradshaw: No. What I am saying is that, in those instances, the police have already done their own assessment. I have given examples of the types of banners, flags and posters that have gone up in public spaces on which we have seen no action taken.

Let me get to the bones of the clauses. I will be able to respond to some of your commentary in my winding-up speech. The starting point is that the Department for Infrastructure would apply the public interest test when it becomes aware of an issue notified through the online portal. That would mean that, in circumstances in which a flag or emblem is erected on street furniture, it must be removed by the Department if it deems it to be intimidatory or threatening, if it could stir up hatred or arouse fear or if it is a flag or emblem of a proscribed organisation. Clause 1(1) and clause 1(2) make that an absolute duty. Clause 1(3) sets out that there is "a presumption" that the Department will remove a flag or emblem if it is deemed to be:

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Sorry, but I want to make a bit of progress.

That presumption is not absolute, but all elements are important. For example, the other day, I drove past some flags near a railway. I think that there were four, all of which were hanging on by one cable tie. They were on a road over a railway line. What would happen if one of those flags were to come off? We do not want there to be a risk to public safety.

Clause 1(4) states that the Department must take account of views and information provided through the online portal, as outlined in clause 3, including:

which, again, is information that could be relayed through the online portal, and:

We will get on to the details of that under clause 4.

Clause 1(5) provides the Department with the ability to assess whether its actions or inaction would pass the reasonable person test. Clause 1(6) places a duty on the Department, once it has made a determination, to:

Again, I have not stipulated whether that is a week, two weeks or whatever. A bit of realism is in there, given the Department's resources, so I have chosen not to include a time frame. I would like to think that the Department will prioritise intervention or removal based on the views expressed through the online portal and all the other factors that I have listed.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for giving way. I have just two points to highlight.

You mentioned the reasonable person test. It is important to highlight the fact that not only is that element contained in the Bill but that, for the issues that were mentioned by Jon Burrows, for example, the threshold in criminal law is higher than the threshold in the Bill. If it were otherwise, we would not be able to get any of the offensive material that currently flies from lamp posts or railings removed.

My second point, taking into consideration the views that the Member just outlined, is on one of the biggest issues about which people contact us every year. I know that many MLAs get these emails, although some parties may say that they do not get them — that is probably because people know what their view would be anyway. People contact us around the same time every year to say, "These flags are being put up, despite me asking them not to do it". Those people are harassed and then things are spray-painted on their wall. That happens every year here. The point about people having an ability to express their view is very important, even if, as has been mentioned, it is about a national flag.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your intervention.

Clause 2(1) sets out definitions and examples of sensitive places, including places of worship and interface areas. Clause 2(2) provides examples of places where public services are provided, such as schools. Clause 2(3) provides examples of shared communal spaces, which include public parks.

Clause 3 provides for the Department's establishment of a procedure or adaptation of an existing procedure, via an online portal, for example, whereby a person can notify voluntarily — nobody will be mandated to do so — if they wish to display a flag or emblem or have done so and to give their reasons for doing so, which may, for example, be for a certain cultural celebration. I imagine that it could also relate to sporting events or community festivals. The Department would also provide, via the online portal, the ability for residents and other stakeholders to give their views on flags in a particular location at a particular time. It should be noted that the Department already does that for street lights, for example, and that it already has a dedicated phone number for reporting flags, so I am not seeking the Department to set up an entirely new system.

Importantly, underpinning all those considerations, I have included, in clause 4, a duty on the Department to consult on and produce a code of practice on the display of flags and emblems within 12 months of the Act coming into operation and have stated that the code must be reviewed every five years. Clause 4 lists the main bodies that must be consulted. Members can read that for themselves in the Bill. It is worth noting, however, that the Department does not have to produce that code of practice on its own. The Department holds responsibility for the code, but, if it feels that it would, for example, be a council function to carry out the role, it may wish to consider that. It can be noted that I have given plenty of time for those things to be arranged: most of the provisions of the Bill will not come into effect until 2029.

Clause 5 stipulates that anyone who obstructs the removal of a flag or emblem is guilty of an offence and would be:

Currently, the maximum amount for a fine would be £1,000, which is in line with similar offences that are already on the statute books.

Clause 6 provides that the Department may request assistance from the PSNI if there is concern that removal of a flag or emblem may result in a breach of the peace or an obstruction, as per clause 5.

I have tried not to turn up the temperature on the removal of flags in my Bill, but, should the Committee proceed to scrutinise the Bill, it may wish to consider what would happen in a scenario in which the Department has gone in, through its own due process and with transparency, and removed some flags but new flags go up in the exact same place.

In summary, the Bill would establish a statutory requirement for the Department to remove flags and emblems, including banners, billboards and posters, that are placed on its properties where it is in the public interest to do so. The public interest test is determined, in clause 1(2), as being where:

I will move on a bit. The Bill does not require people to notify that they are going to place flags or emblems on public property, but, if they wish to make a case that it is not in the public interest to remove them, they are free to make their case voluntarily through the online portal.

In my view, there is no conceivable reason why someone wishing to place flags or emblems on public property for the purposes of celebration or commemoration should not be identified. We have not made that a requirement because, obviously, there are potential human rights implications, but it is also to limit bureaucracy and costs and to enable the relatively free display of emblems and flags that clearly have not been displayed contrary to the public interest as defined. Those who do choose to make their case via the online portal will be free to outline how they have gauged public support for the display, what assurance is in place that the display does not constitute harassment or intimidation, how long the display will be for, what commemoration or celebration the display is for and how the display will align with the code of practice based on respect.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for giving way and for the information that she has given so far. She said earlier that she was not trying to establish a Parades Commission mark II, but it sounds like an awful lot of information will be required from people who want to make an argument for the flag to be flown. On top of that, it appears to me that you will have to have some kind of structured decision-making body if you want to do this effectively. Whilst I have no doubt about the genuine intent behind it, so much of what you are saying is completely subjective. What makes it controversial or what makes it a shared space or shared area? Those things will have to be defined in one way or another, and, if that sits with the Department, the Department will have to find structures in which to do that. That is going to look an awful lot to people like the Parades Commission, which, at the moment, does not fill people with confidence.

I am not making a defence of any particular flag. We do have to address the elephant in the room around the minutiae of this. Like Nuala, I get emails from people who are not happy with flags, and I try my best to mediate in those circumstances to find a solution.

Ms Bradshaw: Are you going to respond in the debate?

Mr Brooks: Can I ask one question? There are, for instance, flags that people perceive to be UVF flags, but they are dated. A plethora of flags can come under this scenario, but that is one example. I understand that people perceive them in that way, and, sometimes, they are intended in that way. However, how do you propose to deal with that, given that some of those flags can be used for commemorative purposes as well? Those are the kinds of grey areas that will make it really difficult for the people who have to decide. Thank you very much for your time.

Ms Bradshaw: I appreciate your question. The code of practice will, in many ways, outline that. I certainly do not want the online portal to become burdensome or to make people feel in any way that they are obliged. We are trying to strike a balance so that there is transparency about who puts the flags up, why they are up and when they will come down again. I have tried to ensure that this is not overly burdensome, but — I hope that I have laboured the point — the status quo is not working. We are seeing larger flags and more of them. For example, as was mentioned, we have seen a flag that said, "Eff your Irish language". Some of the flags that go up are appalling. My focus is on those flags and not so much on the flags where there is a very clear reason for celebration and commemoration. I am going to move on; I am genuinely nearly at the end of my speech.

People are concerned that the public authorities have been passing the parcel on this for many years. I hope that, through this legislation, we can remove some of the obstacles that are in the way of dealing with this. I think that it was Brian who talked about the Department's getting itself involved in what are, essentially, cultural identity issues. However, we have seen recently that the Department has put up Irish language road signs in west Belfast, and we saw other signs during the fleadh. These are cultural issues, and I very much support them. I am all about visibility of minority languages and all of that.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way briefly?

Ms Bradshaw: Let me finish my point. We have seen some signs go up showing Glider halt names in the Irish language, so, in some ways, the Department has moved into that space, and rightly so because cultural identity is not just the responsibility of Communities or the Executive Office.

Go ahead, very briefly, Brian. I am trying to get to the end.

Mr Kingston: To clarify, the point that I was making is that this is getting into the role of the police. It is not that it is getting into cultural matters. The criteria are, at clause 1(2)(a):

and, at clause 1(2)(b):

Clause 1(2)(c) asks whether the flag or emblem is of "a proscribed organisation". That is a bit more clear-cut, but the others are opinions. The Bill contains the words "in the opinion of the Department", so the Department would decide whether a crime were taking place and whether the flag or emblem were causing intimidation or was threatening. I am saying that it is getting into the role of the police. Overall, these things are best done through local agreements.

Ms Bradshaw: That is not —.

Mr Kingston: That is the main point. It is not that you are getting into cultural matters.

Ms Bradshaw: I know. I know.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I am sure that all of you will agree that the proposer of the Bill has been very generous. I have tried to be patient, but there have been a number of times when two Members have been on their feet, engaging in exchanges. Can we desist from doing that?

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is the point; that is the reason why I read into the record the examples that are not reaching the threshold for that sort of intervention. We know of the need to tighten. The police have said many times over the years that they would like more seizure powers with regard to flags, and the Crime and Policing Bill should be addressing the proscribed organisations part. However, this is about public property that the Department for Infrastructure has responsibility for maintaining. It is about making sure that the flags on that property are not the more sinister flags. I do not want to keep repeating myself.

Anyway, where are we? I will move on, Mr Deputy Speaker. Sorry.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms Bradshaw: Go ahead while I try to find my place.

Miss McAllister: I want to give the Member a moment to find her place. I would burst into song, but we want Members to stay. Are you OK?

Ms Bradshaw: Yes, thanks. I just do not want to go over old ground that I have possibly talked about in an intervention. I thank my colleague. Let me be clear on —.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Certainly.

Ms Kimmins: I want to get a wee bit of clarity on your last point. You said that DFI should take responsibility and that it is about the property within DFI's responsibility. My understanding of the Bill is that it relates to all property, regardless of whether it is DFC or DOJ. It is not just DFI property specifically. I just want some clarity on that point.

Ms Bradshaw: It is primarily DFI property. Are you saying that it could be the like of Housing Executive land or something? Is that what you are intimating?

Ms Kimmins: My understanding of the Bill is that it requires DFI to become the lead Department in being responsible for taking down flags, billboards or whatever it might be, regardless of who owns the property.

Ms Bradshaw: That is not necessarily the case. If you think that the Bill —.

Mr Kingston: It is in the first sentence.

Ms Bradshaw: Let me just answer the Minister. When I talk about railings, for example, I am talking about the railings that are along bridges. When I talk about billboards, I am talking about the like of the billboard that was talked about last year, which was on DFI land. Primarily, the focus is on lighting columns, for which your Department has responsibility. If you feel that that needs to be —.

A Member: Nonsense.

Ms Bradshaw: Mr Deputy Speaker, may I continue?

If you feel that there needs to be clarity, come forward with an amendment, by all means, but this is about public property — the street furniture for which your Department has responsibility.

Ms Kimmins: That is an important clarification, because it is my reading — other Members have suggested the same — that DFI would be the lead Department, regardless of who owned the property. That is important. My concern in relation to that — I will come back to some of it in my remarks later — is on how we deal with it when it is on other government property, because it is not just DFI. Yes, lamp posts are probably a key area, but this is not something that is specific to DFI.

Ms Bradshaw: There is greater clarity on that in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), but I am happy to look at it.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms Bradshaw: Yes. Go ahead, please.

Miss McAllister: If there are concerns around whether it is DFI property, is the Member agreeable to the Minister's coming forward with amendments, should the legal services in her Department do that? Also, if parties see particular gaps in the legislation, would the Member be agreeable to strengthening it? Quite intimidatory banners have been put up on, for example, the sides of Housing Executive properties. Where gaps are identified, would the Member be willing to work with the Minister and all parties to ensure that the legislation is as robust and balanced as it can be and to strengthen it where needed?

Ms Bradshaw: I have no problem with that at all. How I envisage this playing out is that an outside contractor will come in, so it is possible that any Department could bring forward a request for removal.

A Member: Will the Member give way on that point?

Ms Bradshaw: I want to get finished.

Inaction is not an option, and we need to bring this issue to an end. The Bill does not state that the Union flag, a tricolour or an Ulster banner is inherently intimidating. For that matter, it does not state that a GAA symbol, football club badge or any other symbol that is not of a proscribed organisation is inherently intimidating. Nor does it state that community celebration is illegitimate. In fact, the intention of the Bill is clearly the opposite. Instead, it asks what a display is doing, where it is, how long it has been there, how it is being used and what effect it has on the people who share that space. That is why, to repeat the point, in the past, all parties have challenged the presence of even national flags at certain locations on the grounds of their purpose.

The question is how we ensure that control over what appears in public spaces rests with the public. Perhaps the ultimate question, however, is whether the Assembly can act, build meaningful consensus, engage meaningfully on delivery and legislate in our mutual interests. The Committee, as my colleague just said, absolutely has the duty and right to look at every single clause and bring forward any proposals for amendments. That is what scrutiny is about, and I have no doubt that the Bill will benefit from such scrutiny and amendment. I look forward to engaging with not just the Committee but the Minister.

Consensus and compromise are not dirty words, and we should not treat them as signs of weakness. They are actually how we make progress, especially in a place such as Northern Ireland, and I feel that they are written into the Bill. Originally, as I said, we talked about possibly consulting on a full notification process. I listened to people and removed that, because the Bill reduces bureaucracy, limits costs and intentionally enables legitimate cultural expression to proceed without barriers. Given recent events, I cannot deny that I am rather glad that I made that change in advance. We need a proportionate way forward to provide a framework for how public space is used, because the way in which a space is used tells people who belongs there, who is welcome there and, too often, who is not welcome there.

I will leave it there, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am happy to respond to any concerns that might have arisen as a result of that information.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. Before I call the Chair of the Committee, I want to take a moment, and I am sure that Members will join me, to welcome the new Chair of the Infrastructure Committee and wish him well in the post.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the very freshly appointed Chair of the Committee for Infrastructure, which is destined to scrutinise the Bill, I look forward to working with all the members of the Committee and, indeed, with the Department and the Minister to ensure that we can make some progress.

It is fair to say that flags, rightly, are not the usual subject of Committee discussion. The Bill provides regulations on the hoisting of flags on street furniture that belongs to the Department for Infrastructure and on the removal of flags that are deemed offensive or illegal. The Department would, therefore, be required to remove offensive flags, decide what is a sensitive place, establish a procedure for the display of flags and issue a code of practice on the same.

It will be an offence to obstruct anyone who removes a flag or emblem on behalf of the Department, and the Department may call the police in the event of a breach of the peace or the obstruction of the removal of such an item.

It is clear that issues around flags and symbols are controversial and that their display is a contested space. I am pleased to say that the Committee for Infrastructure has maintained a collegial approach to the issues within its remit. While aspects of the Bill, such as which flags should be allowed to go up and which should be taken down, may be contentious, there are also entirely practical considerations, such as who will take flags down, who will protect those who take them down, what happens if the flags are put up again straight away and how much it will all cost. Those may be themes that the Committee will explore should the Bill land in its midst.

The Committee heard from the Bill sponsor on 1 July and subsequently agreed to issue a call for evidence over the summer prior to Second Stage to give the Bill every opportunity to complete its passage by the end of the mandate, which is coming fast upon us. The Committee will play its part in ensuring that thorough scrutiny of the Bill is carried out and that the Assembly is suitably informed in its deliberations at later stages. Going by the volume and nature of the responses so far to the call for evidence, to which there is another week to respond — it will not surprise anybody to learn this — the subject is one on which there are many and varied views. Those views will be considered in the Committee's deliberations on the Bill.

I thank the Bill sponsor, Paula Bradshaw, for her early engagement with the Committee and for giving way extensively in the debate. It is an approach that, I hope, many of us can follow and that the Committee welcomes for its work. The Committee looks forward to getting its teeth into the questions as the Bill progresses.

I will now make remarks in my individual capacity as a DUP representative on the Infrastructure Committee. Let me be clear from the outset: there are legitimate issues surrounding the display of flags and emblems. There are circumstances in which certain flags can be used to intimidate, glorify terrorism and to promote proscribed organisations. Those legitimate issues must not be underestimated, but the Bill is not the answer. The fundamental question that I want to put to the Bill sponsor is this: what problem does the Bill solve that cannot be dealt with under existing legislation? I will give way if the Member wants to speak directly to that point.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. As I said, there is a plethora of legislation, but it is not acted on. The Bill places a clear duty on the Department to act in that regard. At the minute, on no such occasion does that occur.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for her answer. In summarising, I say to her that there is law to deal with the exact issues. The problem that has been highlighted is not the problem that the Bill seeks to deal with. The problem is enforcement, not the absence of legislation.

Before creating a new law, government should demonstrate why the existing laws are insufficient. The existing legal framework already allows public authorities, including the Department for Infrastructure and the PSNI, to intervene where there is a suspicion that an offence has been committed or where intervention is necessary to prevent harm or public disorder.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for taking interventions. One clear example in North Belfast in past years is the erection of flags on Alloa Street, near Girdwood. The community there had made many strides in coming together for community relations, but the erection of a Union flag was used to clearly demarcate territory and was seen as intimidatory by the people who lived there. Neither the Department nor the police would assist them or remove the flag, despite multiple requests from politicians and residents. That is exactly what the Bill would provide for: what Departments do not do. If Departments such as DFI or the police refuse to act because, they say, the legislation is not sufficient, somebody will bring the legislation forward. I am glad that it is my colleague who is doing so.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for her intervention. It is clearly one view. I hear Members to my right chuntering on about a very different position. That goes to the very heart of the argument. Northern Ireland already possesses a range of legal powers to deal with such issues. There is legislation in place for public order offences, for the removal of flags of proscribed organisations, for intimidation, for criminal damage and for the unauthorised use of public property. The problem therefore is not the amount of legislation but the ability to enact and strengthen such legislation. We see that the PSNI's 2026 guidance specifically relates to and relies on existing law rather than on creating new powers. We already have terrorism legislation to mark and move on proscribed organisations. Public order law already addresses the issue of threatening or intimidating displays. Public authorities already possess powers over infrastructure that they own.

I therefore hope that, in my opening comments, I can reassure you, Members of the Assembly, that we have an abundance of law in this area but that we have very poor enforcement. That begs the question — Ms Bradshaw says that she has taken considerable interest in the issue over the past 10 years, while, over a similar period, her party has occupied the Justice Ministry — of why have we not seen amendments to such law, be it to the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 or other legislation that I outlined, to deal with that specific issue?

If you were genuine about wanting to look at the issues relating to the plethora of public law, and if you identified a problem, surely that would be a starting point —

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: — rather than bringing forward needless new legislation that essentially adds an added layer of bureaucracy and, indeed, cost. I will give way to the Bill sponsor on that point.

Ms Bradshaw: I make the point that some of this is in the terrorism legislation at Westminster. As I mentioned, we as a party have fed into the review, and we support the police's having more powers to take down flags etc. We are, however, still dependent on Westminster for that coming through.

I would like Mr Buckley to reference the wider point that I outlined in my contribution, which was on the sense that flags cannot be taken down because of community tensions. Local paramilitary organisations — criminal gangs that should be long gone — are saying that they cannot come down. I read into the record the statistics on the number of times that the Department has asked the police for an assessment and they said, "You shouldn't intervene because of community tensions". We should not be allowing paramilitary organisations — local self-appointed chiefs — to dictate what happens in public spaces. You are therefore missing the point about what my Bill is about.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for her intervention. I respectfully say that it is the Member who is missing my point, because she will find that, in these quarters, we have no truck — none whatsoever — with anybody who supports paramilitaries. In fact, when I talked about the review of current legislative provision, I deliberately and specifically did not even mention the terrorism legislation, which, I know, is Westminster-retained power. I talked about the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order and other legislative provision for exploring the PSNI guidelines for dealing with such sensitive issues. The Member's party has had a front-row seat in that Department.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: Just let me progress, if you will. I think that we are now on level terms with interventions, but there is perhaps another one to come before my contribution is over.

Members, ask yourselves this: why do we need another layer of legislation? Why do we need a new online portal for reporting? We are told that contributing to an online portal will not be mandatory but optional, but one has to ask what the purpose of such a portal is if it is not to inform the people whom the Member ultimately wants to make the decision. If we get into that space, are we again pitting community against community? Are we looking at having a grievance factory of online reporting? From a DFI perspective, are we making issues when we could instead find a community resolution?

Why do we need to give DFI responsibility to decide which flags and emblems are acceptable and which are not?

The Minister made a very interesting intervention about whether the Bill potentially gives DFI oversight over other government-owned spaces. If we are being brutally honest about the wording, it is not entirely clear that the Bill does not mandate DFI to engage in respect of all street furniture. At clause 1(1), the Bill's very opening line is:

Some of the raw examples that Mrs Bradshaw outlined in her opening remarks, which, by and large, I think everybody in this place could agree on, do not relate to DFI property. If we understand correctly the interaction between the Minister and the Member, the Bill would not apply to the vivid examples that she cited to illustrate why her Bill is necessary. Perhaps the Member would like to intervene on that point or clarify it in her winding-up speech: will the Bill mandate DFI to remove and intervene on flags and emblems that are categorically not on DFI property? Does the Bill categorically set that out? If it does, will the Member, please, highlight where?

Ms Bradshaw: I will get to your point, but, first, I will go back. You asked about legislation: hopefully, I laboured the point enough that the flags commission — FICT — called for stand-alone legislation to tidy this up. Unlike others, even government Departments, I looked at what came out of the flags commission and am taking forward a recommendation from it.

The second point is about the telephone reporting line. I recently submitted a question for written answer to the Minister. The telephone line has been in operation for many years, but my understanding from freedom of information requests — I am happy for the Minister to correct me — is that, while people have been reporting to it, no flags have been removed as a result. The Bill moves away from the wishy-washy approach and says, "No. We're done with the Department’s voluntary approach as to whether or not it responds. The Department has a duty to respond".

What was your third point? Was it about the locations? Go ahead: remind me of your third point.

Mr Buckley: I am confused, to say the least. First, I invited the Member to make an intervention. Secondly, it is not the place for the Minister to intervene with the Member who was asked to make an intervention. Maybe it is just me who is confused, but what confuses me most and what should perhaps concern everyone in the Chamber is that the substance of my question was very clear: what part of the Bill specifically refers to DFI having responsibility only for DFI furniture? If that is in the Bill, does that mean that, in other contentious places where, as the Member has outlined, flags and emblems are clearly intimidatory and designed to hurt, they will stay in place under the legislation?

Ms Bradshaw: Will you give me an example from those that I cited of where they were not on public land or DFI property?

Mr Buckley: I am confused, to say the least, if the Member is not willing to answer that basic question. In fact, I will give her a moment to reflect on it while I continue, because it is very basic. Where in the Bill does it categorically say that DFI is responsible only for DFI property? If it does not say that and there is an expectation that DFI will lead for other Departments, I want the Member to show me where that is written on the Bill's blue pages. This is legislation, Members. It is not some private Member's motion, and we have to get it right. I will come back to the Member if she wants to clarify the point.

Most important, we have to bear in mind who gets to decide. Who gets to decide what is intimidatory or threatening, which flag or emblem is likely to stir up hatred or arouse fear or which flag or emblem invites support for or is the flag or emblem of a proscribed organisation. I think that we can all find common cause around that point. However, that is where the Bill falls apart. Clause 1 talks about flags being "abusive, or insulting", or being:

in circumstances that are:

What does that mean? Who decides what is insulting or what is conducive to good community relations? Who decides whether a flag is being displayed as a proud expression of someone's identity or is being used to demarcate territory? Those are not objective questions. In fact, my colleague Mr Kingston rightly outlined the words that should concern us all. They are written all over the Bill, and they are these:

We are putting in place a power for the Department to legislate on subjective terms that mean different things to different people.

We live in a contested space. There are people who will look on the national flag, which I hold dear, as intimidatory and offensive, but, under the legislation, we are given a charter for grievance. Subjectivity runs through the heart of the Bill. The word "subjective" means "based on a person's individual feelings, opinions, tastes or experiences". You cannot legislate in subjective terms. You have to be categoric and clear, which is everything that the Bill is not. It is inherently subjective and open to interpretation. In Northern Ireland, where questions of identity, culture and national allegiance remain deeply contested, handing a Department the power to make those judgements is an unnecessarily dangerous step. Remember that the very Department that Ms Bradshaw wishes to hand powers over to is headed by a Sinn Féin Minister. She is the Minister who, in the Chamber, ruled that she would not remove, never mind take responsibility for, a Sinn Féin billboard on DFI land, despite sending letters as Minister on departmental headed paper to her own office. Yet, we are meant to believe that that Department would act as a fair arbiter in community resolution on flags and emblems about which there are clear differences. The Bill effectively asks civil servants to become arbiters of cultural expression. That is not and never can be or should be the role of the Department for Infrastructure.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will indeed, Ms Armstrong.

Ms K Armstrong: The Member just mentioned civil servants being arbiters: civil servants are already arbiters. Every year, constituents complain to me about the flags of proscribed organisations being erected on flagpoles in my constituency. They want them removed, but DFI will not do it. It has taken the decision that those flags are allowed to fly, and the police will not take them down because, as was mentioned, they say that it will cause a row and will cause community tensions. Therefore, we already have civil servants being arbiters and going against the wishes of communities. Surely, having something in legislation will help many of our constituents who raise concerns about flags that they do not like.

When people complain about the Union flag, I tell them that it is the flag of our nation. That is fine, and there have been some local agreements where it is just the Union flag flying and the UVF flags and UDA flags are no longer flown. However, where such flags are flown, I have never had success in having them removed because civil servants and the police have said no.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for her thoughtful intervention. I will say clearly — it is perhaps an issue that Mr Burrows mentioned in his intervention — that there is a legitimate question about what the police are doing, especially when we talk about the flags of proscribed organisations and how they impact on local communities. That is a question and a debate that I am open to having. The Member is right, and I have seen them cause issues in my constituency.

Where I disagree with the Member is on the subjective nature of the Bill. She used words about things being imposed against the interests of a given community, but that is a particular individual's view and is not necessarily the view of the entire community. What we are doing through this potential legislation and, indeed, an online portal is manufacturing that grievance. There should be community resolution. There should be a focus on dialogue between the residents of a particular area. That is the best way to solve a lot of the issues.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will come back in a moment.

Let us be real. This gets to the nub of my issue, folks. In today's world, when we have so many issues and the Department for Infrastructure cannot meaningfully fix the potholes in our roads or unblock the gully on a lay-by, are we asking to give it responsibility for deciding which flags should be removed? Have we learnt nothing? The legislation is a recipe for disaster. We have roads across Northern Ireland that are crying out for investment. We have potholes that motorists are hitting every day. The Alliance Party is keen to talk about its inbox being full of emails on flags. You could times it by 25, 30 or maybe even 100 to get the number of complaints that Members receive about the condition of our roads, yet Alliance's priority is to say, "Let us burden DFI with another complex and divisive issue. Let us divert its resources and energy away from what it should be doing and put it into an issue surrounding flags". We have roadsides covered in weeds; graffiti that is left on street signs; infrastructure that needs to be maintained, repaired and upgraded; a waste water system that is under immense pressure; and a Minister who is in the courts over the A5 road fiasco and Irish signage at Grand Central station, yet the solution from the Alliance Party appears to be, "Let us give DFI another job, create even more time-consuming bureaucracy, give officials another set of complaints to process and then, when a flag is deemed to have breached the new framework, send departmental staff out to remove it, potentially requiring PSNI assistance where there is a risk of confrontation". Folks, if the Department cannot get around to spraying the weeds along our roadsides, what confidence should anybody realistically have in its ability to police thousands of flags and emblems across Northern Ireland?

I have no doubt that, during my tenure as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, the Minister and I will cross swords on many occasions. I want to be clear, however: I do not want to be at the Dispatch Box debating which flags should fly and which should not from a DFI perspective. I want to be talking about road investment, waste water systems and how we can make this place thrive for all of its citizens, not the issue of flags. I argue that it is simply unfair to mandate departmental staff with the issue, which — let us be frank — politicians have been unable to deal with. I will hazard a guess that it certainly will not be dealt with by DFI. Let us create even more time-consuming bureaucracy. If the Department really wants to deal with the issues that are the people's priorities, why should we not enable it to do so at every opportunity? Remember this: every minute and every pound that is spent administering this scheme is a minute and a pound that cannot be spent on the Department's existing responsibilities.

Welcome to the la-la land fantasy of Alliance politics. It is government by unelected quangos and officials, ultimately at a cost to Joe Public. It is important to note that there is no proper financial impact assessment associated with the proposed legislation; indeed, the costs are effectively unquantifiable. Members, if you want a recent example of the explosive cost of policing flags in the way desired by Paula Bradshaw and the Alliance Party, look no further than Birmingham City Council, which recently spent in the region of £2·6 million removing Union flags and England flags. Members, I think that we can all agree that Birmingham is no Belfast. The issues that we have with traditional flag-flying and the tradition of emblems are a far cry from the issue on which Birmingham has just spent £2·6 million. I do not think that anybody could realistically justify to the taxpayer and the paying public that that is a good way to spend DFI money. Roads are falling apart, and waste water infrastructure is in a dire state. We have a planning system that is unable to connect houses and unable to promote businesses and connect new businesses to the grid. The needs are endless, yet the Bill is where the Alliance Party wants to prioritise the spending of public money. How naive to believe that introducing such divisive legislation will not result in spiralling, uncontrollable costs to the taxpayer. We do not even know the scale of the supposed problem that the legislation is intended to address. That is remarkable, given that it is the basis on which the Member proposes to implement an entirely new regulatory regime.

There is another issue that deserves attention. The Bill appears to give considerable weight to the views of complainants. We are told that members of the public will be able to report flags and emblems through an online portal and provide their views. What stops that portal becoming a grievance factory? What stops that portal being manipulated by certain actors and certain communities to place pressure on and create a certain perception in the Department for Infrastructure, which the Member wants to adjudicate on the decision? How will we ensure that the Department is not influenced through a portal? It is for the birds to suggest otherwise.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will indeed, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: I am intrigued. I am not the Bill sponsor, but there is real merit in its being brought before the Assembly. The Member talks about influence and people being able to abuse a system, as he sees it. The truth is that there is no system at all at the minute. Does he understand that there are flags across this city and across Northern Ireland and that people — in many cases, moderate and respectful people — have absolutely no say in whether they go up, how long they are there and when they are taken down? By the way, in that definition, I include many, many unionists, because many, many unionists email me about the problem.

Mr Buckley: I am glad to see that the Member's outreach to unionism is going well for him, because that is certainly not reflected in many of his fighting diatribes in the Chamber. I do not know whether the Member was in for the start of the debate; I cannot recall. I think that he was here for most of it but maybe not all. I referred to current legislation and acknowledged the problem with paramilitary flags. I acknowledged that there are occasions when flags are flown that cause offence. I was at pains to say that there is an inability to enforce such existing law, never mind creating new law. That is factual. Mr O'Toole knows that fact.

I will continue. What happens when two neighbours have completely different views on the same flag? What happens when one person sees a symbol of cultural identity while another sees something offensive? What happens, by means of the Bill, when the Department has to decide between two competing interpretations?

Are we really to believe that civil servants sitting in offices in Belfast are to decide whether a flag that is flying on a street in Portadown, Ballymena, Londonderry or Newry is sufficiently offensive to warrant its removal? That is what the Bill entails. That is a recipe for inconsistency, resentment and accusations of political interference, which DFI simply does not need.

Where are the safeguards? Where is the independent appeals mechanism? Where is the guarantee that one community's cultural expression will not be treated differently from that of another? The Bill does not adequately answer those questions. What confidence can any member of the public have in the ability of a civil servant to interpret different flags and emblems when the Member who is introducing the Bill does not even appear to know the difference between a paramilitary flag and a Linfield flag?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Buckley: The Member who is the sponsor of the Bill released a video that described a Linfield flag — a football flag — as an offensive flag. We are, in some way, to believe that we can trust civil servants to get this sensitive topic right, when a lady, the sponsor of the Bill, who proclaimed that she had been working on it for 10 years, could not even differentiate between a paramilitary flag and a Linfield flag.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will give way to the Member on that point.

Ms Bradshaw: You are not very well informed. First, it was a graphic that used the phrase "striking a balance". As I indicated, I want to see a balance so that sporting organisations such as Bredagh GAC and others can put them up for a time-bound period. The flag in the graphic is a prime example. It had been up for many years and was tattered, but it is no longer there. Who put it up, and who took it down? That was on Tate's Avenue. My son lives in a property that I own on Tate's Avenue. The Bill would allow me to say, "That flag has been up for a long time", and it would deal with that.

I have no problem with Linfield Football Club, and I apologised when I felt that some offence might have been caused. The graphic was not directed at the club; it was about striking a balance in public spaces where sporting flags can go up for a period but cannot stay up indefinitely.

Mr Buckley: The Member knows exactly what —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before you continue, Mr Buckley, I ask that you pay heed to the line between making a point and making a personal attack. When you are referring to a Member, I ask you to remain mindful of the fact that any graphic that is out there on social media, from any source, is not necessarily related to the detail of the Bill. I ask that you especially remain mindful of repetition. If you repeat further any of the points that you have made a number of times, I will ask you to stop.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Deputy Speaker for his ruling, albeit I find it bizarre, and I respect the position of the Chair. Perhaps he will ask the Speaker's Office to clarify those points. I do not feel that I have been personal at any point during this debate. I do not feel that I have not stayed within the remit of the Bill at any point. Many Members who bring legislation to this place fail to grasp its weight and its potential impact on communities. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will respect your ruling, and I will direct all my remarks through you as the Chair. However, the sponsor of the Bill could not get away from the fact that she could not differentiate between a Linfield flag and a UVF flag. That was not lost on anybody on these Benches or many people in our community. In fact, it reinforced the point that we already knew, which is that legislation on flags and emblems is an extremely difficult subject. The very situation that was displayed on the Alliance Party's social media account is going to be placed at DFI's door. DFI staff and officers are going to be put right on the front line of cultural division. That is what is at stake, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that is what I seek to address in my comments.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will give way on that point.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member agree that, when the Bill sponsor spoke earlier, she continually referred to examples such as "Snipers At Work" and Billy Wright flags?

Those are the most clear-cut examples that can be dealt with. The problem is that, when we hand this over to the Department, officials, as you rightly say, will be dealing with nuance and grey areas, and they will have to come down on one side or the other on what is a difficult, sensitive circumstance. It is therefore misleading at times just to discuss the areas on which everyone will agree and that are so clear-cut.

Mr Buckley: The Member makes a very valid point. That leads me on to a point that I would like to address and that he, in part, raised earlier. When it is just, as we have mentioned, the clear-cut examples, we can find a united political community response and, indeed, a united response from our communities at large in Northern Ireland. The grey areas are those in which DFI will constantly find itself embroiled. Those grey areas will become areas of demarcation. They will result in heightened tensions. I argue that we could see a proliferation of flags as a result of the Bill. That is not something that I want to see. It is not something that any Member on these Benches wants to see.

The Member for East Belfast raised another very important point. It was not directly discussed in the opening contribution from the Bill's sponsor, and it concerns historical flags, such as the historical flag of the UVF from 1912. My great-great-grandfather fought in the Battle of the Somme as part of the 36th (Ulster) Division, the Ulster Volunteer Force. He gave his life and is buried at the Somme, where he fought alongside those of the 16th (Irish) Division. That was a battle of its time. Every year, I know of specific historical flags that honour and commemorate that regiment that are legally put up across our community to reflect its historic contribution. There is no mention of the difference between such a flag and other flags. There is an easy ability for an online portal to misrepresent what the nature of that particular flag is. That is but one example, but I am sure that there are many, many others. Every time that we look at the Bill, we need to remember that such distinction matters.

I will defend, without apology, the dignified display of the flag of my country and the legitimate expression of British culture and identity. At the same time — I do not want to be misrepresented by anybody in the Alliance Party — I will never make excuses for the display of anything that is associated with paramilitary organisations or anything that glorifies terrorism, full stop. I argue that, if we were to look at our current legislation in great detail and explore how it is being enforced, we could find mutual ground as an Assembly.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

Rather than that, the Member is intent on progressing a Bill that will manufacture grievance. I will give way to the Member for South Belfast.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for giving way. I am struck by the point that he makes. He is obviously proud of his great-great-grandfather, and that historical flag has a specific meaning for him. Does he agree, however, that the meaning that it has for him will be very different from that that it has for someone who was a victim of the UVF and who sees a different meaning behind that flag? One of the biggest issues with living in a post-conflict society is that symbols mean so many different things to different people. At the moment, people feel intimidated and feel that territory is being demarcated at different times, so we have to find a way forward in order to deal with that. My colleague is not trying to manufacture grievance. We try to pin things on people and imply that their intent is not what it is, but I know exactly why the Member has introduced the Bill, and it is to try to make our society shared and better and for it to respect all cultures. To misapply the reason behind the Bill could create more grievance and tension. Does the Member accept that?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member as ever for her thoughtful contribution. I enjoy debating with her across the Chamber, but she has actually made my point for me. She is absolutely right.

People in Northern Ireland, particularly those of traditionally different communities, will have different experiences associated with flags that are on display. That is inevitable. It would take a long time for me to explain to someone who has had direct association with and hurt from the modern UVF and its despicable display of hatred, murder and mayhem on the streets of Northern Ireland — I can say that without fear of retribution — that the historical 1912 UVF, in which my great-great-grandfather served, is very different. He fought for values and my ability to stand in the Chamber some day in the future to debate with passion the interests that affect this country. That is very different. My main point of contention is that the Bill enables "the opinion of the Department" to remove a flag or emblem that is "intimidatory or threatening" or:

That is subjective, and that is my exact fear when it comes to the Bill. We cannot legislate for that.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will, indeed.

Mr Burrows: It is an excellent point, and I was going to turn to it. The drafter chose the word "opinion", which is an expressly subjective term. It is "the opinion of the Department". It is not like other legislation that talks about whether something is reasonable or whether there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect. It is simply an "opinion". It is being hung on the hook of a personal, subjective view.

Mr Buckley: The Member makes a valid point. It goes to the heart of why the legislation is simply unworkable.

We all know that there is no legal right not to be offended. UK human rights laws include freedom of expression. Yes, it is within a context and has limits, but it is a subjective term. I worry about where the position that the Member seeks to place DFI in will ultimately leave community relations. We can support community agreement without creating an authoritarian authorisation regime.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will make some progress first.

We can deal with genuinely threatening or unlawful displays without creating a bureaucratic apparatus that is capable of deciding whether someone has offended somebody else. There are basic principles on which, I believe, we can all agree. Before I come to them, I give way to Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate it, Mr Buckley. I want to come in briefly, because it is a legitimate debate, and there is no issue with that. This is exactly what we should be doing: debating the precise text and meaning of legislation. I am not the Bill sponsor, but I will say this. The Bill refers to "the opinion of the Department." Clearly, by definition, "opinion" is subjective when read in the abstract, but, if you read the rest of clause 1 specifically, you see that it obliges the Department, which is a person in a legal sense, not the individual sense, to inform and develop that opinion with reference to clause 3, which covers the procedure and mentions a portal, and clause 4, which covers the code of practice. I presume that, if someone wanted to challenge by dint of a judicial review, that would be justiciable — you know the word that I mean — on the basis of how well the Department had developed a code of practice or whether it had done so. If a code of practice had not been developed, I imagine that someone who took issue with the opinion given by the Department could say that there has not been a code of practice. One would imagine that, but I am not the Bill sponsor.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for his intervention. That goes to one of the core problems with the legislation. It is reliant on a code of practice to inform the Department's opinion. It is reliant on a voluntary online portal to inform the Department's opinion. Those will all be subjective opinions and will be based on individuals' experiences. If we are getting into the business of saying that it could ultimately result in legal action from you-know-what-where-and-wherever in Northern Ireland, again, that is the basis for bad law. We can support community agreement without an authorisation scheme.

As I said, there are some basic principles on which we should all agree. Flags should not endanger road users; they should not promote proscribed organisations or glorify violence; they should not be displayed with malicious or illegal intent; and, where possible, they should be displayed with local agreement. A large number of issues go to the heart of Mr Kingston's comment about policing: they are policing matters. I have only to look at my constituency, where I can point to community engagement on the erection of flags and local flag protocols. There was serious local engagement to bring together those who had erected flags to ask them to take them down, whether they were loyal orders or bands. The system largely worked, but it was based on dialogue, not something that was being imposed on them. It was about a group of people coming together to understand that there needed to be a better way forward. It was not perfect — far from it — but, if that was the type of incentive that was pushed out across Northern Ireland by all political parties and Departments, it could work. Ms Bradshaw fails to take it into account that dialogue and community engagement are the only way to ensure that we have a respectful debate about flags and emblems. The Bill runs the real risk of heightening community tensions and resulting, as I said, in the repeated proliferation of flags.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

None of those principles requires us to criminalise the act of displaying a flag rather than deal with the intent and conduct of the person displaying it.

I will give way to Ms Armstrong.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank Mr Buckley for being so generous. I wish that there were local agreements across my constituency. Unfortunately, someone comes in the dead of night, and, all of a sudden, a number of flags are erected with no community consultation. It is done deliberately to intimidate and offend. I am talking about proscribed organisations and other organisations that are not proscribed in our legislation but are offensive. I refer, for instance, to people who are connected to far-right groups in Norway. There is no community conversation, because the action is done to a community. There is an opportunity now to capture those areas, such as the village of Cloughey in my constituency. I constantly get phone calls from people there saying, "We do not want it here", and those people are Catholics, Protestants, unionists, nationalists and others, like me. They all do not want the flags. Their community conversation is about an integrated village that loves celebrating everyone, but the flags are put up by somebody whom they do not know.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for her thoughtful intervention, and I do not disagree. Dialogue has to be the way forward, if we are all to be serious about the issue. Imposing the Bill will do nothing to improve community dialogue or community relations when dealing with the issue.

A number of Members want to intervene, but I think that there is a move towards having a comfort break, so I will continue and come back if I have time. Dialogue is key, however.

The DUP believes that the answer to disputes over flags and emblems should be voluntary action: local agreement and mutual respect backed up by the existing law where there is criminality, intimidation or a threat to public order. We do not need another regulatory regime. We do not need to turn DFI into the flag police. We certainly do not need to give civil servants the power to determine whether a particular expression of culture or identity is sufficiently offensive to warrant removal. We have only to look at another quango championed by the Alliance Party — the Parades Commission — to see how that story ends. Northern Ireland has spent decades learning that attempts to regulate identity through blunt, top-down mechanisms can make tensions worse. We should learn those lessons, not repeat them. The Bill risks doing precisely that. It risks taking matters that are capable of being resolved locally and consensually and dragging them into the formal bureaucratic process.

From the evidence of the debate, many more community conversations need to happen. The Bill risks creating more disputes, more complaints and more confrontation. Ironically, it also risks damaging the very community relations that the proposer claims to want to protect. I say this to the proposer: by all means, let us have a serious conversation about how existing responsibilities can be clarified, and let us make sure that the PSNI, councils and Departments know exactly where their relevant responsibilities are, but do not pretend that giving the Department for Infrastructure another mountain of bureaucracy will improve outcomes, given that it cannot get to the bottom of the mountain of potholes already sitting on the roads. Our constituents want safe roads. They want infrastructure that is worth championing. They want potholes repaired, drains emptied, roads marked and painted and our waste water infrastructure funded properly. They do not want already-scarce departmental resources diverted to a subjective cultural policing exercise.

Today is my first day as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. I give this categorical assurance to the Assembly: the people's priorities, which I have outlined, will be my focus as Chair. There will not be endless debates about flags; rather, they will be about infrastructure. The DUP will continue to defend the dignified expression of our national, cultural and religious identity. We will oppose terrorism and paramilitarism, and we will support practical, proportionate action where genuine harm or illegality occurs. We will not support the Bill. Good relations are built on mutual respect, local agreement and common sense, not on giving civil servants a clipboard and asking them to decide which flag they find offensive. I urge Members to oppose the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Buckley. To clarify, during my intervention, I did not make any ruling in relation to you; I asked that you simply be mindful of the line between personal attack and making a point. That was in the context of you pointing at a Member and talking about a graphic on social media that the Member may well not have been responsible for directly. I would make the same comment, Mr Buckley, if any such point had been made to your good self.

Members, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, that we have a 15-minute comfort break. Parties were consulted prior to this announcement. Business will continue until 9.00 pm, and any business not covered by then will fall, to be rescheduled by the Business Committee. The sitting is suspended. We will resume at 7.25 pm.

Miss Hargey: When I wrote my speech, I was going to say that I welcome the opportunity to speak at Second Stage of this Member's Bill but, over two hours in and with only two Members having spoken, I do not know whether I do.

Dealing with flags and emblems is an important issue. That was recognised in the FICT report, which sought to establish a pathway towards dealing with these difficult and sensitive issues. Unfortunately, that work has stalled. The DUP's continued refusal to support the establishment of the working group has prevented the FICT process from progressing and delivering the work that was intended. As a result, we are now considering this Member's Bill.

Sinn Féin recognises the policy intent behind the Bill, and, importantly, the concerns that it seeks to address within and across communities. We want to approach the Bill constructively, because these are not abstract issues. It is important that we deal with those issues as we have seen concerns highlighted in recent weeks and months with the erection of Billy Wright flags; racist and anti-Irish language flags; and, of course, hate displays on bonfires. We know that community tensions rise when those items are deliberately placed in interface and mixed areas with the aim of causing intimidation and provocation. Nobody should underestimate the impact that that can have on people and communities, so we need a mechanism that allows the issues to be dealt with properly, consistently and fairly.

We believe in finding a mechanism for dealing with such displays, and that is why Sinn Féin supports the Bill at Second Stage. The Bill should progress to Committee so that the necessary scrutiny can take place and the Bill can be tested and, where necessary, strengthened. While we support the intent of the Bill, we believe that there are important gaps that need to be addressed. The first is that this is clearly a cross-cutting issue, yet the Bill places significant responsibility on the Department for Infrastructure alone. That does not reflect the reality of where displays occur or the responsibilities that exist across government and in respect of other public land and buildings. We need to ensure that the legislation provides a coherent approach rather than creating different processes depending on which organisation owns or manages the land.

There is also a concern around the proposed arrangements for notification, consultation and the development of a code of practice. Again, those responsibilities cannot simply sit within one Department when a number of Departments have a role to play. The Department of Justice, the Department for Communities and, indeed, the Executive Office all have responsibilities that are relevant to this issue. If we are serious about tackling the problem, we need a genuinely joined-up approach across the Executive, local government and relevant arm's-length bodies. We need clarity around responsibilities and a consistent process. Most importantly, we need legislation that is robust, workable and capable of making a real difference on the ground.

We need to ensure that any framework strikes the right balance, addressing displays that are deliberately used to intimidate, threaten or provoke, while recognising the complexities and sensitivities that surround flags and emblems in our society. We must respect the right of people to express their culture and to mark cultural, historical and sporting events, but we must also recognise that that right is not absolute, and, as has been stated, attempts to deliberately provoke, threaten and offend through the erection of flags and emblems should be addressed through their removal by the appropriate authorities. That is precisely why Committee Stage is so important: the Bill provides an opportunity to have that detailed discussion and, indeed, to improve the legislation before us.

Sinn Féin will engage constructively with colleagues across the political spectrum to see how we can strengthen the proposals. We cannot continue to allow the issues to be kicked down the road. Our communities all deserve better. They deserve a system —

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Miss Hargey: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Brooks: The Member clearly sees the problems that are caused. Does she agree with the proposals for displays being time-bound? If we talk about flags in that regard, the example that many people in my community will draw on is — as the Member will understand — the Bobby Sands statue at Twinbrook. That is not time-bound; that will continue to stand there. How will we be consistent across the board? If flags are an issue, how do things such as statues come into it?

Miss Hargey: That shows the importance of allowing the Bill to go to Committee Stage rather than trying to cut the process at Second Stage, which is about the policy intent of the Bill. It is not a perfect Bill. I reflected on the fact that there is much work to be done, and there are gaps in the Bill. If we are serious about addressing the issues, and everybody has suggested that they are, that is all the more reason to allow the Bill to go to the next stage. If Members are still not content at that point, they can vote. We are happy at this point: we agree with the policy intent — what the Bill is trying to do — because it is reflected in communities and across constituencies. We are keen to work with all parties at that stage, when all the issues can be addressed in the round.

That was the ambition of the FICT process, and it is unfortunate that political obstruction has prevented that work from progressing sooner, but, through the Bill, we have the opportunity to move the issue forward. That is why Sinn Féin supports the Bill's passing at Second Stage. We look forward to its progression to Committee, where we can work constructively to address the gaps and, importantly, strengthen the proposals and develop a framework that is coordinated, effective and capable of making a meaningful difference in our communities.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call John Stewart.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker: I was not expecting to get in so quickly.

First, I welcome the Member for Upper Bann as the new Chairman of the Committee for Infrastructure: I look forward to working with him on the Bill as it goes through the scrutiny process and on the many other issues that we have to look at.

As the infrastructure spokesperson for the Ulster Unionist Party, I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Second Stage of the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill. I begin by acknowledging the intention behind the legislation. There is a genuine problem — throughout the debate, we have all agreed on that — that, across Northern Ireland, there are areas in communities where flags and emblems are not simply an expression of cultural identity but are used to intimidate, to mark territory, to glorify proscribed organisations or to demonstrate who exercises control in that area.

The Ulster Unionist Party has been clear: paramilitary flags have no legitimate place in our communities and should not be defended under any guise of culture or tradition. We have been consistent in that approach, and we believe that there is no place for hate, intimidation or violence and that any emblem or anything else that displays any of those things should be dealt with by the PSNI. I have considerable sympathy with the Member about the problem that she seeks to address. Where we part company is on whether the Bill truly provides a workable solution. If the Bill ends up in Committee, as, by the sound of it, it will, we will play a fruitful role, as always, and try to be as constructive as possible.

Legislation must be judged not simply by the worthiness of its objective but by whether it can operate fairly, consistently and safely in the real world. Before we create an entirely new statutory regime, we should ask the basic question: are we dealing principally with a gap in the law, or are we dealing with a failure to use and enforce powers that already exist? That point has been made before, because this is not a blank legislative canvas. DFI already has a responsibility for unauthorised material attached to its infrastructure. The Department has stated that article 87 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 makes it an offence to attach unauthorised signs or advertisements to structures such as lamp posts. DFI already has an operational approach to flags and other unauthorised attachments, including road safety considerations and the safety of staff and contractors, and that point has already been made.

More significantly, there has been a recent change to the terrorism legislation that is directly relevant to some of the most serious displays that we have discussed today. Section 233 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 strengthens section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The expanded powers enable police to seize an article such as a flag or banner where it is suspected to be evidence of an offence relating to support for a proscribed organisation, and we know that there is confusion about whether the PSNI is fully utilising the legislation. It walks on eggshells around this, but there is merit in looking at that law, which applies across the United Kingdom. Indeed, the rationale for change specifically referred to concerns about articles relating to proscribed organisations, including flags left on lamp posts in Northern Ireland, and that is highly relevant to this debate. If terrorist and paramilitary flags are one of the central evils that we are trying to confront, surely we must first ask how those newly strengthened powers are being used and whether everything that is currently in place is being used to its full potential. I fully accept that those powers do not cover every flag or emblem that is addressed in the Bill, but this Bill deliberately goes much wider. However, that in itself brings us to one of the central difficulties.

Clause 1(2) states that removal is required where:

I have considerable sympathy for decisive actions in those circumstances because they are precisely the types of displays that our enforcement areas should focus on. However, clause 1(3) takes us into much more subjective territory, and that is the issue. It creates a presumption in favour of removal where a display is considered to be:

and around sensitive places where it:

Clause 1(4) then states that the Department must consider factors including local views, the length of time that the flag has been displayed, whether it is connected to a celebration or commemoration and whether it is being displayed in a disrespectful manner. Clause 1(5) then requires the Department to consider:

Those are exceptionally difficult judgements. They are not infrastructure judgements; they involve culture, politics, equality and human rights, and community relations and the potential for public disorder. Who in the Department for Infrastructure will make those decisions? I sense that there is probably nobody in place to do so. What expertise will those officials have? What evidential threshold will apply? My colleague for North Antrim made that point previously. How will consistency be ensured across Northern Ireland? That is probably the biggest issue that we will see in the outworkings of the Bill. What happens when one section of the community believes that an official has been too lenient, while another believes that exactly the same decision demonstrates political or cultural bias? I fear that, far from depoliticising the issue of flags, the legislation could place civil servants directly at the centre of what is one of the most politically and culturally sensitive issues in Northern Ireland.

That leads to a more fundamental question, which the Chair of the Committee has already raised: why the Department for Infrastructure? As we know, the Department for Infrastructure is already under significant financial and operational pressure in trying to meet all the expectations placed on it in its primary areas of responsibility. Every Member of the House regularly deals with constituents who are frustrated by potholes that need to be repaired, street lights that remain out, roads that require resurfacing, gullies that remain blocked, drainage issues, overgrown verges and the pressures on our water system — the list is endless. Those are not peripheral responsibilities; they are the bread-and-butter responsibilities of the Department for Infrastructure. DFI has repeatedly had to prioritise its resources amid the difficult financial pressures that it currently faces. We must ask ourselves whether it is really the Department to which we can give an entirely new and highly sensitive statutory regulatory function. The proposer of the Bill said that it was not her intention for the legislation to create another Parades Commission. I take the point, and I am sympathetic to that, but the more that we hear about the outworkings of the Bill, the more it sounds remarkably as though its bureaucratic nature could create a flags commission in the Department for Infrastructure. I do not think that anybody wants to see that.

Under the Bill, DFI will potentially have to receive and assess reports about flags, consider their cultural and political context, assess local opinion, make judgements about community relations, administer a notification and reporting process, develop and regularly review a code of practice, arrange physical removal, manage contractors and, in potentially contentious situations, coordinate with the PSNI. That requires staff, policy expertise, legal advice, administrative support, contractors, enforcement arrangements, and, most importantly, it will require money, which, as we all know, the Department for Infrastructure does not currently have.

The Assembly has to ask a core question: if DFI is already struggling to meet the basic public expectations around potholes, street lighting, drainage, road maintenance and grass cutting, is it really sensible to create an entire new division on flags enforcement in that Department? Unless significant additional funding accompanies those responsibilities, what existing DFI services will receive less resource as a consequence? That is not a criticism of officials in DFI. It is a question of priorities and capacity and whether it is the appropriate institutional home for the policy.

There is another issue with the breadth of the scheme. Under clause 2, a sense of place can include schools and medical facilities. It can also include leisure centres; libraries; shopping centres; arterial roads; public parks; interface areas; new housing developments; and places of worship. I understand entirely why sensitivity is required around many of those locations, but the wider the categories become, the greater the number of difficult and contested decisions we are asking officials in DFI to make. Colleagues have made that point already. It could become almost insurmountable for many civil servants trying to make those decisions.

I also want to make one brief point about the Union flag. The Union flag is our national flag, and its lawful and respectful display is plainly not equivalent to the flag of a proscribed terrorist organisation. There is no false equivalence between the two, nor should there ever be. At the same time, defending our national flag does not require us to defend every manner in which it is displayed. When I see Union flags in tatters, torn and devastated after months, I hate it. It is not respectful, and it is not what I want to see. Indeed, clause 1(4) specifically asks the Department to consider whether a flag is displayed in a disrespectful manner. I understand the sentiment behind the proposer including that provision, but I am not convinced that the answer is to place an official in DFI in the position of making a statutory judgement on when an individual Union flag has become sufficiently faded or is displayed in a sufficiently disrespectful manner to justify removal by the state. I do not think that that is the answer to dealing with the issue. I would much rather see, as we have heard before and happens already in many places, strong local protocols governing when flags go up, how they are maintained, when they come down and when responsible community leadership takes ownership of those arrangements. We have seen many examples across the country of that happening.

On clause 3, the Department must establish a procedure, potentially through an online portal, through which a person may notify DFI that they have displayed or wish to display a flag and give their reasons and views. Members of the public may also report displays and give their views through the portal. The explanatory material makes it clear that the notification element is voluntary. The proposer has already agreed with that, but we need to consider very carefully who is most likely to engage in that system. A responsible community organisation planning a display for a jubilee commemoration, for example, or a sporting celebration may well engage with it. However, those who erect a flag anonymously, perhaps in the hours of darkness, with the purpose of marking out territory or intimidating a community are less likely to log on to the DFI portal and tell the Department what they are doing. Therefore, I fear, and I am happy to give way on this, that there is a real danger that we would create a system that regulates most heavily those willing to comply and that the compliant engage with —.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Stewart: Yes, absolutely.

Ms Bradshaw: I think that you are making the argument for my Bill. I do not know how many times I said it in my opening remarks, but we want to support people to celebrate and commemorate their cultural heritage etc. We want to give them the space to provide the justification and information about why the flags are up so that DFI can go back to anybody who has made a complaint and explain to them why they are up. It is in a good space, and it allows the Department to say, "We have no understanding as to why those other flags have gone up, especially ones that include offensive language". We would want the Department to prioritise when there is no evidence and when the flags are intimidatory, as I outlined earlier.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Member for her intervention. My fear is that the compliant will engage with officials, explain themselves and subject themselves to scrutiny, but those who deliberately use flags to intimidate will simply carry on regardless. That raises the question of how much substantive additional value that bureaucracy will provide.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. That is exactly the point that I have been trying to make. Do we not need to understand better what weight and significance the Department will place on responses to the portal? We have heard that it will be voluntary, but we have had no explanation in any detail regarding the weight and significance that the Department would place on the representations that are made. That is fundamental to understanding, number one, what the portal's primary purpose is and, number two, safeguarding against the very grievance factory that the Member has set out, which it could become.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Member for his intervention. Again, he makes valid points. It is about the weight that is given to applications when they come in. Will the application from someone who complains about a display from 15 miles away be given as much weight as the application from someone who complains from 15 metres away? How is that weighed up? How do the people who are trying to make those decisions objectively take that on board? Clearly, all of that needs to be up for discussion. As I said, it raises the question of how much substantive additional value that bureaucracy will provide.

There are similar questions about the reporting side of clause 3. As we know, flags are already some of the most contested cultural and political issues in Northern Ireland. What happens when the Department receives hundreds of reports or representations about a particular display? How does it distinguish genuine local concern from a coordinated campaign designed to influence the process? What weight should be attached to the views of somebody who lives beside a display compared with the views of somebody from elsewhere? Again, those are intensely subjective judgements that somebody from DFI will have to make.

Then we come to clause 4, which requires the Department to develop, consult on, publish and regularly review a statutory code of practice. That involves consultation with a substantive range of organisations and requires continuing political expertise, legal advice, administration and oversight. All of that brings us back to the issue of resource.

The greatest practical difficulty with the Bill arises when we reach clauses 5 and 6. Clause 5 creates the offence of obstructing DFI or somebody acting on its behalf when carrying out removal, with clause 6 then allowing the Department to request PSNI assistance where it believes that removing a flag may result in a breach of the peace or an obstruction. Putting those provisions into legislation does not remove the practical reality that somebody has to go up and take the flag down. If a display is associated with a proscribed organisation, DFI may be asking an employee or contractor to enter an area and remove a symbol erected by precisely the people who are capable of intimidating them. Questions arise from that. Will contractors be willing to undertake the work? What protections will be in place for them? Will specialist contractors have to be procured? How frequently will police assistance be required? What happens if the operational assessment is that removal at that particular time could risk serious disorder or put staff at risk? We know that those are not hypothetical situations. We have heard from the Committee Chair of the cost of policing the Union flag situation in Birmingham. The cost here could be absolutely astronomical.

DFI's existing approach to unauthorised flags and attachments already specifically recognises the safety of its staff and contractors as a paramount consideration. There is a tension at the heart of the legislation: clause 1 creates a duty to remove while clause 6 recognises that carrying out the duty may create a public order problem that might not be solvable. That creates the potential for a perverse outcome. The easiest flags to remove will be those in the peaceful communities where no one threatens or obstructs the contractors, and the hardest flags to remove may be those associated with terrorist or paramilitary organisations, backed by people who are willing to intimidate, obstruct and threaten disorder. If relatively innocuous displays are removed because it is safe to remove them and intimidating displays are left up because contractors are unable to go into those areas, the compliant are penalised while the intimidators gain an effective veto.

That is not an argument for leaving paramilitary flags in place — quite the opposite; it is an argument for ensuring that our enforcement arrangements are designed around those that cause the greatest harm. Those powers currently exist. It is precisely why the recent strengthening of police powers matters and why I believe that we could get a political protocol and agreement in this place to put further powers and resources into the hands of the police to deal with the issues.

If the issue is a flag or banner providing evidence of an offence involving support for a proscribed organisation and the police now have an expanded statutory power to seize such material even when no individual can be connected to it, surely the first priority must be to understand how that power is working in practice and ensure that it is being used and resourced effectively.

Clause 7 defines "public street furniture" very broadly. It includes:

That speaks to one of the key problems that we have already discussed today and one on which I am keen to get answers from the Bill sponsor. It raises questions about ownership and jurisdiction. The explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) states that DFI is "typically the relevant landowner" where such issues arise, but "typically" does not mean "exclusively". We know that trees are not in the sole ownership of DFI. We know that public buildings, railings and bins are not in the sole ownership of DFI. Some public street furniture may belong to councils or other public bodies, so how will that relationship work? Who will arrange access? Who will take responsibility for a removed flag or emblem? How will disputes about responsibility be resolved? Those may initially appear to be technical matters, but they concern the basic operation of the legislation.

I appreciate that the Member may respond by pointing to the shortcomings of previous voluntary arrangements and protocols, and there have been many. I accept that criticism. There has been a frustration over many years over the failure to deal effectively with inappropriate flag displays, but the failure of a voluntary protocol does not automatically prove that this statutory model is the correct answer. If previous arrangements failed because there was no clear ownership, insufficient resources and inadequate enforcement, those are the deficiencies that we should address and not in new legislation. There is a stronger case to be made for a properly resourced and coordinated inter-agency approach involving the PSNI, DFI, councils and relevant community partners with clearly defined operational responsibilities and with the recently strengthened terrorism legislation properly utilised where material relating to proscribed organisations is involved. Our priorities should be clear: terrorist flags, genuine intimidation and coercive territorial marking are what finite public resources should be focused on.

I know that those areas will be addressed at Committee Stage, as that is where the scrutiny process begins. There is, however, a distinction to be made between amending and improving a Bill and fundamentally reconstructing it. To make the Bill workable, we need clear definitions; new appropriate review and appeal mechanisms; robust and transparent evidential standards; clarity around jurisdiction and ownership; more detailed enforcement procedures and protections for staff and contractors; clarity around how the Bill interacts with existing PSNI and terrorism powers; and a realistic funding model. Ultimately, we may need to consider whether DFI should be the lead authority at all. Those matters are not peripheral amendments around the edges of the legislation; they go to the foundations of the Bill.

I and my party want to see the removal of all paramilitary flags from our streets, and I want to see an end to the use of flags for intimidation and territorial control. I want communities to be free from the shadow of such organisations and the symbols that are used to demonstrate coercive control, and I want to see our national flag displayed properly and treated with the dignity that it deserves. Those objectives are not contradictory, but good intentions do not automatically produce good law. The question before us is not whether a problem exists, because it clearly does; the question is whether the Bill provides the right solution.

Clause 1 asks DFI to make exceptionally sensitive cultural and political judgements that it is not currently designed to make. Clause 3 risks creating a system with which responsible and law-abiding people will engage, with those intent on intimidation simply ignoring it. Clauses 5 and 6 do not overcome the fundamental safety and public order difficulties involved in physical removal, while clause 7 raises further questions about the breadth of the regime, ownership and responsibility. All of that is being placed on a Department that is already under significant pressure to meet public expectations on its basic statutory responsibilities. Most important, when it comes to the flags of proscribed organisations, the Assembly should ask itself why we need to create substantial new bureaucracy before properly testing, resourcing and using the newly strengthened police powers that have been specifically put in place to address the problems that we are discussing. For those reasons, the Ulster Unionist Party will not support the Bill at Second Stage.

Mr O'Toole: I am pleased to speak to the Second Stage of the Bill. Some of what has been said tonight has been useful and constructive. For the most part, the debate has not been heated or intemperate, which is helpful because this is clearly a sensitive subject. The subject of flags and emblems goes to the heart of this society, its divisions and its distinctiveness. The SDLP is famous for a number of things, one of which is the maxim associated with our leader and founder, John Hume, who said that you cannot eat a flag. What that value and insight was really about was saying to people in this part of the world that not everything has to be about national identity or the assertion of identity and that there are other things that should animate our politics and our political life, including the material well-being of our people, our public services and people's ability to live a good life. We stand by that view: that is what animates us. We have also always been a party that believes in the diversity of our people in this part of the world. We believe in celebrating that diversity and not just acknowledging but celebrating and finding space for the diversity of all the traditions on this island now and in the new Ireland that we want to build.

I have set out the context. That is the approach that we have taken on the issues throughout our history, including in deliberations on the FICT report or, now, on Paula Bradshaw's Bill. We do not inherently want to shut down cultural expressions or expressions of national identity, even where they are different from ours as individuals. In an instinctive and emotional sense, I genuinely do not feel offended or angry when I see a Union flag. Lots of my constituents, even those who have no allegiance to the Union flag, do not either. However, those constituents often communicate to me a sense of frustration that they have absolutely no means of understanding why those flags are on their street. They will often vocalise to me clearly and very insistently by email, in phone calls, in the supermarket, down the pub or at the school gates that they have no issue with people flying a national flag — perhaps it is not that they have no issue with it but that they are willing to accommodate and accept it — in the streets where they live but that they would like a little clarity over who has put the flag up. The flags usually go on street furniture, which is, as John Stewart said, on the face of it, a possible offence. They would also like to know when the flags will come down.

Where people have been accommodating around specific flag protocols, for example for the Twelfth, there has often been a reciprocal generosity from people who do not adhere to or have allegiance to the Union flag, the Ulster banner or other symbols of orangeness and what is often called "Ulster Britishness" and are willing to accept that. However, it is also true to say that those protocols are not in the majority and are not in any way regularised or consistent across Northern Ireland. What is consistent across Northern Ireland is the inability or unwillingness of statutory authorities to provide any consistent, clear approach to taking down flags. I will come on, by the way, to drawing a distinction between national flags, whatever their origin, and proscribed paramilitary flags because there is, of course, a legal and ethical distinction between those. There is no consistency of approach from statutory authorities when it comes to dealing with flags of any kind, including national flags that have become unsightly and ragged. No one should want that in their street, whether it is a tricolour or a Union flag, a Palestinian flag or an Israeli flag, a flag of a football team or a rainbow flag. It really does not matter whether you support the cause or the national identity that is being expressed: it is unsightly.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in one second.

The lack of consistency and the inability to deal with the matter, particularly in constituencies such as mine and that of the Bill sponsor — South Belfast — which is proud of its diversity, is deeply frustrating. I cannot get that across to people enough. People have said that this is not a huge priority. It is quite a significant priority for people who are proud to live in a diverse constituency. People in South Belfast, in places such as Finaghy, Rosetta, Carryduff and now, Saintfield — the wonderful town of Saintfield is coming into our constituency — are proud to live in a shared space. They are proud to live in a space where there is room not just for different identities but for shared, communal space that people live in together. They are deeply frustrated when flags are put up.

A week or two ago, I was leafleting in Saintfield about a public meeting that we will have there soon. Someone came out, and the very first thing that she was keen to tell me was, "Just for the record, I am a unionist. There are loads of flags along here. I do not know who put them up, but it is now September. I have no issue with them putting them up around the Twelfth. I have relatives in the Orange Order, but I do not know who put them up. In fact," she said, "I am fairly confident that the people who put up the flags do not live here, and I do not know when they will be taken down. They are beginning to become unsightly". If Members do not think that that is a real issue and that people are not frustrated about that, they are kidding themselves. That is not to diminish national flags.

I will come on, now, to the more serious, proscribed flags, but Mr Buckley asked for an intervention.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. We can probably find common ground in the lack of consistency from Departments and the PSNI in dealing with the issue. That is an issue of enforcement rather than the legislation, as I have mentioned.

On his previous point — I respect that it is his experience — that it is the exception rather than the norm to have local agreement and protocols in place and respect for the flying of flags. However, I can give an account from my community — there are many others who have a similar experience to mine — where there is respect, community dialogue and engagement. I would say that it is not the case in your specific example in the constituency you represent, but there are many constituencies and many parts of Northern Ireland way beyond Belfast that operate on that principle of mutual respect. The flag is raised in an honourable manner and is taken down in a respectful manner, and community relations are good.

Mr O'Toole: There clearly are examples of that happening, but it is also clear that that is entirely inconsistent and not universal.

If those who oppose the Second Reading of the Bill believe that that kind of voluntary and entirely, as it were, laissez-faire approach to regulating such matters is the way to go, perhaps they should be arguing for the Executive Office to respond properly to the FICT inquiry, to bring forward, perhaps, a voluntary code of practice or a set of advisory regulations or a structured approach to engagement. They have not done any of that. It is one thing for people to say, "We do not want this". I will come on to the legitimate points that have been made. To be fair to the Bill's sponsor, she has acknowledged them. We have some real questions about the outworkings of the Bill. We will, of course, support it at the Second Reading, but we also think that there are practical questions to be asked for us to pass good legislation. Those who are rejecting the Bill at Second Reading are saying, "We do not need hard and fast legislation because of resource implications, unintended consequences or imprecision in definitions" or for whatever multitude of reasons they have given.

You can acknowledge, as John Stewart reasonably enough did, that there is an issue at the hardest end, right up to the proliferation of illegal flags of proscribed organisations in shared areas or along major thoroughfares, as there is, by the way, on the A55 leading up to Stormont — the Belfast outer ring road — which for months on end, yards from the headquarters of the PSNI, had UDA flags. Last week, in the constituency that I, Ms Hargey, Ms Bradshaw and Ms Nicholl represent, there was graffiti again on the memorial to the victims of the Sean Graham bookies massacre. That massacre was done by the UDA, and the man who is believed to have been involved in it was buried a couple of days before the graffiti appeared. Those are real, live things. Victims of those organisations have to drive on a major arterial route past a UDA flag yards from the PSNI headquarters and half or a quarter of a mile from this legislature. If we do not think that that is an issue to deal with, we are kidding ourselves.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in a second.

That is at the hardest edge, right down to the issue of flags of whatever nationality or organisation simply being up and turning into rags and creating an unsightly environment. That is also a problem not just for local communities and for people living in those streets but for local businesses.

We have established that there is a real problem. It may not be the biggest problem in terms of our public services, but it is a real problem around how we share this space. It is important that we look at it and deal with it. I will come to briefly talking about the specific clauses in the Bill, but I wanted to set out that broad picture.

Mr Burrows wanted an intervention.

Mr Burrows: The UDA flags are an absolute disgrace. That massacre, like every massacre in Northern Ireland, was absolutely unjustified and unjustifiable. Is there not a danger, however, if we pass the Bill, of creating unreasonable expectations among the public that the flags will come down? The PSNI, with all its might, is not prepared to take them down, and we are going to ask DFI to take them down. What expectation will we create by passing such a law?

Mr O'Toole: It is for us to debate and interrogate the law. It is for the Committee to interrogate the potential downsides and discuss amendments. That is why we have legislative stages. It is open to all parties and MLAs to vote for a Bill at Second Stage while reserving the ability to amend it or, indeed, vote against it at Final Stage. That is the purpose of scrutiny. If you vote against something at Second Stage, you are saying, "I disagree with the principles, and I do not even want to interrogate how it could be improved or adjusted."

To answer your question, yes, it is totally reasonable and important that we draw distinctions when it comes to illegal flags. There was a bit of a debate earlier about the UVF 1912 flags. I ask people to genuinely think hard about whether somebody whose family were victims of the UVF is really supposed to draw —. I understand that Carson's UVF is a different historical thing, and I am not disputing that, but are we honestly asking absolutely everybody who has been a victim of the UVF to engage with that historical distinction? I do not really want to get —.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: In a little while, perhaps. I do not want to get completely distracted by that distinction.

I go back to Mr Burrows's point. He talked about the paramilitary flags. Clearly, there is a distinction when it comes to flags of proscribed organisations. I had written down the name of the new legislation that was passed at Westminster, but I have lost it. I have engaged with the PSNI to press it to use those powers to take certain flags down. By the way, it has not been happening, or it has not happened quickly. It happened in one instance.

There is a question about who has power. Such things are related, because often it is the same people, related to the same organisations, who put up the Union flag, the Ulster banner and the UDA flag. That is not to say that the UDA flag is legally the same as the Union flag, but it is to say that it was the same fella who showed up in a van with a cherry picker to put it up.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Hang on for one second.

That is the distinction. That is why people might feel that those things are being conflated. I say this to Members from the parties opposite: engage seriously with the pernicious coercive control that goes on in communities. By the way, it makes no difference to me whether it is the INLA, the Provisional IRA, as it was in the past, dissident republican organisations or whatever. Those things are precisely as pernicious and wrong, but there is clearly a significant problem with loyalist paramilitaries. The fact that it is the same people putting those flags up means that, in reality, when we as elected representatives go to DFI, the PSNI, both of them or one and then the other, the point that it is the same people will often be made. There is a community issue, and we have to engage with that fog. It is a moral and legal fog, and it has gone on for long enough. I urge people who are opposed to the Bill to help us. If you do not think that this is the right way, help us to get out of that fog, because we cannot stay in it.

I give way to Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows: The UDA flags outside the police station are a perfect example. It was the security reviewer of police powers who spotted them and said to the PSNI, "How come they are outside your police station?". The PSNI said, "We do not have the power to deal with it", so the Government gave it the power, but it is still not dealing with it. This is about fairness to the Department for Infrastructure. The PSNI, with all its might, resources and the ability to protect itself, has been given the power to do something and has refused to do it, so what are we now going to do? We are going to say to DFI, "You must do it. Over to you, civil servants, because the police force of 7,500 is not prepared to do it". The flags should come down. The questions are how and who is responsible.

Mr O'Toole: I gave way to Mr Burrows. He has made his point, but he is not offering a solution as to how we make those flags come down. He is simply saying that —.

Mr Burrows: I will come to that.

Mr O'Toole: OK, you will come to that. I look forward to hearing that, because I want a solution, as do my constituents. I say this from the perspective of genuinely wanting people to —. If we have a new Ireland, there will still be Union flags flying in the North. If we stay in the UK, which is the preference of the Members opposite, there will still be people who fly the tricolour, and the tricolour will remain, as it is now, the national flag of a huge number of people in this society. I want to have a serious conversation about how we regulate. If we cannot do it legally, someone should come up with a more voluntary system.

There is a distinction, and it is not just in relation to the Union flag. People whom I know and grew up with will draw a distinction between a tattered tricolour on a lamp post next to offensive graffiti and the tricolour flying at a GAA ground when 'Amhrán na bhFiann' is playing, there is a major GAA match and people feel pride in their community and national identity. In the same way, there is a distinction between a tattered Union flag that has been stuck up without any consultation by some fella who has driven in from up the road in the middle of the night and the Union flag flying at a Remembrance Day service. Those are different things. We need to be honest about them being different things, and, as elected representatives, we need to be willing to confront them, talk about them and find solutions. I am not sure that precisely everything in the Bill as introduced will be perfect — I do not say that it is — but at least it is a try, so we are willing to debate it.

I will go through some of the provisions, because I want us all to get away tonight, and I want others to be able to come in. Where Mr Burrows has a point, believe it or not — others made the same point — is that there is a question about all the responsibility going on to DFI. It is not primarily DFI's responsibility to deal with community relations issues and, indeed, criminal justice matters. However, DFI is critical to it, so it has some responsibility. It clearly has responsibility for large street furniture and the public highways, but community relations are the responsibility of the Executive Office. There has been an utter failure at TEO level to agree any meaningful progress on the FICT report. To the parties that are represented in TEO, I say this: if it ain't this Bill, what are you and the people who lead you doing to bring forward changes there? If it is not this Bill and if the responsibility should not be with DFI — there is a legitimate question about the resourcing of DFI — I am happy to take an intervention.

Miss Hargey: I will give a bit of clarity, in case you are saying,

I clearly set out the fact that Sinn Féin supported progressing the FICT proposals to a working group. One party blocked that. Sinn Féin also supports the Bill's moving to the next stage. It is important to point that out.

Mr O'Toole: I am happy for that to be on the record. It is clear that your party supports the Bill's progressing. That is fair enough, but other parties that think that the responsibility on the DFI in the Bill is not proportionate, as it were, or not realistic should explain why TEO cannot bring it forward.

There is also the question of the Justice Department. That is important, given the work that Justice is supposed to do on tackling paramilitarism and, as I have mentioned, the clear and substantial intersection between paramilitarism — not exclusively but significantly loyalist paramilitarism — and how the flags go up, not just the proscribed flags. As I said, it is not just the proscribed flags; it is the fact that some of the national flags and the Ulster banners are put up by people who are in or are allied to illegal organisations, which creates a concern and a nervousness around people reporting them or other statutory organisations taking the flags down.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for letting me in. He will have seen from the Positive Peace report that came out last week that there has been a significant reduction in paramilitary organisation. A lot of that is down to the work of the Justice Department with its partners. What my Bill is trying to address is one element of that paramilitary activity. As you said, in places such as Erinvale, people come in from other parts. I do not see the Bill as a panacea for dealing with paramilitarism, but it addresses one element of it that acutely affects the people whom we represent.

Mr O'Toole: I am happy that that has gone on the record.

I will quickly go through the Bill's provisions, which have been mentioned. Clause 1 gives the Department the power — in fact, it compels the Department — to remove a flag or emblem that is attached to public street furniture. As I said, there are descriptions of when that should happen. To some extent, that is contextualised by the creation of an online portal, at clause 3, and the production of a code of practice at clause 4. Having read the Bill and the EFM, I draw a slight distinction between clauses 3 and 4 or, perhaps, a slight difference in how convinced I am at this stage of how fully thought through each provision is.

That is not to say that neither provision has merit. There needs to be a code of practice. In fact, the FICT report very clearly calls for one. Indeed, the logical outworking of some of what was talked about by Members opposite around protocols and informal agreements is that there needs to be some kind of code of practice. Why could it not be set out by a statutory body?

An online portal would at least address the idea that members of the public have no opportunity at all to either raise a concern about a particular flag or notify the Department, should they wish to, about a flag's going up. It would be voluntary; clause 3(a) states:

Precisely what weight will be given to compliance with the voluntary need to apply via the portal is not yet clear. That goes to the heart of whether that is a Parades Commission-style provision. The Bill sponsor is very clear that, in organisational terms, it would not be a Parades Commission-style organisation, but a notification process is mooted in the Bill. As the Committee scrutinises it, it will be worth interrogating how precisely that is envisaged. Those are important questions to ask.

There is a lot of demonisation of the Parades Commission, but, in the past quarter of a century, in which the Parades Commission has existed, there has been a massive improvement in the community acceptance of Orange marches. I say this to people who do not like the idea of the scrutiny of, or questions being asked about, flags going up: it is often the case that, if people feel that their consent is being asked for, they are much more likely to give it.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will in one second.

I think that, if people feel as though they have some ownership or authorship of a decision, or there is some process by which they can say to an elected representative or someone else, "Look, there's an Ulster banner up there. No harm to the people who put it up, but can we bring it down now? It looks awful in our street, and local businesses don't like it. I don't mind its going up around the Twelfth, but can it come down now? It's Halloween", they are more likely to volunteer a bit of consent, just as more communities, including people from a nationalist background, have been more willing to accommodate Orangeism, the loyal orders and marches, which is a huge part of a tradition on this island. By the way, that tradition is represented in the tricolour, which is one of the national flags that we are talking about. I genuinely treasure esteem, but it is not straightforward and easy. It is a difficult and conflicted thing, including in the Member's constituency, which he talked about. If you ask people for their consent and treat them with a degree of seriousness, they are more likely to give it and to accommodate and respect the thing that is being asked of them. Sometimes, showing respect is the best way of getting respect in return. That is the approach that we will be taking as we scrutinise the Bill. It is really important that it has been brought to the Assembly. I thank the Bill sponsor for doing so.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He may come on to this, or maybe he is concluding his remarks, but does he have any opinion at all on the subjective nature of some of the words contained in the Bill, particularly in clause 1, and how that may lead to an inconsistency from the Department when determining whether to remove one flag or another?

Mr O'Toole: I am not the Bill sponsor. As I said, I support the principles of the Bill, but it will have to be interrogated in the Committee. I expect that the code of practice will have to be an exhaustive document that sets out the meanings of some of the provisions in clause 1. That will be important. The question that he asked is not an unreasonable one. Clearly, it is the case that, in matters relating to cultural expression and all sorts of not quite civil law but civil matters that involve cultural expression in the public space, there is a degree of subjectivity. There is no perfect objective truth about or interpretation of a national flag. As I said earlier, a tricolour flying at an inter-county GAA match while people are standing to 'Amhrán na bhFiann' is a fundamentally different thing from a tattered tricolour or one placed on a bonfire, just as a Union flag at a remembrance service is categorically different. Those things are, to an extent, subjective.

I look forward to a code of practice being published should the Bill be passed. There is lots in the Bill to unpack. We will support it at Second Stage, and I look forward to seeing it go to the Committee.

Mr Gildernew: A chairde

, over the summer period and, indeed, over previous summers, we saw the erection of emblems of a racist, sectarian and hate-filled, criminal nature in Moygashel in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. We have also seen the targeting of Killyman GAA club, with a threatening and sinister poster having been in place outside the club grounds since 2020, causing great distress for children and others participating in their games and other club activities. In recent weeks, flags praising the loyalist killer Billy Wright have been erected on lamp posts close to Dungannon Park on the main Moy Road, which is one of the key routes into our town. The erection of such flags is a clear attempt to create division and fear in our community in a shared space. They are a crude attempt at marking out territory. That type of intimidation and provocation must be condemned by all, and calls must be made for the removal of those flags. Families in our area whose loved ones were murdered by Wright and his gang, as well as members of the wider public, are being forced to walk and drive past those obscene displays daily on their way to work, to access services and to enjoy their local park. That is completely unacceptable.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gildernew: I will in a minute.

The presence of such displays also hinders the work that many of us are engaged in with the newly formed chamber and the wider business and retail sector in Dungannon town to develop and improve the ability of our businesses to attract footfall, trade and opportunities to assist them in what is already a difficult time for our town-centre traders.

I give way now.

Mr Burrows: I am not trying to be antagonistic. There is complete condemnation of the Billy Wright flags. I condemn them. They should be taken down. No victim or anyone else should have to walk beneath the flag of a convicted terrorist. Does the Member agree, however, that all flags and emblems with references to IRA terrorists should also be taken down?

Mr Gildernew: No flag or emblem should be used to promote or create fear. Everyone should be able to go about their daily business without being confronted by symbols that are deliberately designed and erected to intimidate, to offend, to provoke or to incite sectarianism and hatred. Sin é.

Mr Dunne: Let me be absolutely clear from the outset that the flying of flags is a legitimate expression of cultural identity, national identity and community tradition. The DUP will always defend that right. Let me be equally clear that there should be no place in Northern Ireland — none whatever — for the flag or emblem of a proscribed terrorist organisation. The question is not whether we should tackle paramilitarism or the glorification of terrorism, because of course we should; the question is whether the Bill will help us do that. I did not believe that it would before we had the debate, and, having heard the debate, I certainly do not believe that it will. The confusion around some aspects of the Bill has only been added to over the past hours, including, to name but one, by the contribution from the Infrastructure Minister on the lack of clarity on the matter of responsibility.

I fear that this divisive Bill could make matters worse. I firmly believe that we should be fully focused on tackling the causes of division and paramilitarism, but the Bill instead risks creating yet another regulatory framework around cultural expression that could end up generating even more grievance, resentment and community tension. It is another regulatory structure, another layer of bureaucracy and yet another attempt to manage cultural expression from the top down, which, as has been seen over many years, is the wrong way around.

The Alliance Party has not exactly covered itself in glory when it comes to cultural expression and fairness. Take Belfast City Council's approach to street signage. Fully backed by the Alliance Party, Irish language street signs can be approved with the backing of just 15% of local residents, yet Alliance Members now lecture communities about consent when it comes to flags. There is an obvious but perhaps unsurprising inconsistency there.

You cannot demand one standard of consent from one community and a completely different standard from another.

As has been mentioned, a short number of months ago, a post from the official Alliance Party social media account described the Bill as being aimed at tackling "abusive flags". Those words were in a post in which the Alliance Party published a photograph of a Linfield flag. Following legitimate concern and its being called out and criticised by the club and others, the image was deleted. The Bill sponsor offered a somewhat half-hearted apology. Nonetheless, I think that that was welcome. However, where was the full apology from the Alliance Party? Where was the apology from the party leader, for example? It was nowhere to be seen, and perhaps we should not be surprised. The Alliance Party has form when it comes to taking aim at football clubs such as Linfield: its former North Down MP, Stephen Farry, did not like the colour of a new shirt released by the club. The party that likes to pride itself on being a party of respect and tolerance showed —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Dunne.

Mr Dunne: — its true colours in a divisive and regrettable way.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Dunne, resume your seat. We are straying away from the flags Bill. Will you focus on the Bill, please? I have heard a broad perspective and given you a bit of leeway, but bring it back into focus. Back to you, Mr Dunne.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was important to link in the context, given that that was an official post by the party that is proposing a Bill that mentions the issues that I have just covered. That should concern the House. It seems that tolerance of British identity has clear limits among some sections of the House. Legislation to deal with identity and cultural expression must be even-handed and command real and genuine confidence across our communities.

I am concerned about the powers being proposed for the Department for Infrastructure. The confusion was acknowledged even by the Infrastructure Minister earlier in the debate. Will individuals or organisations have to notify the Department before displaying a flag? Will they have to seek approval? Will they have to comply with a code of practice that contains a series of conditions? Who will decide what is acceptable? That gets to the crux of the concerns and the issues of subjectivity. Will it be a Minister, a civil servant, a Department, the Alliance Party, Sinn Féin? Where are the safeguards against political interference? Where is the independent oversight? Where is the efficiency and effectiveness in dealing with these problems across Northern Ireland? What happens when the Department gets it wrong? Does an individual have to spend thousands going to court to defend what should have been regarded in the first place as a perfectly legitimate expression of identity? As has been said by colleagues and others around the House, there are genuine concerns around the subjectivity and confusion in clause 1. The presumption that a display deemed to be offensive should be removed represents significant overreach. There is no right not be offended. It is important to acknowledge that when considering how the Bill has been drafted. Being offended is not the same as being harmed. We should be extremely careful before giving the state powers to decide which expressions of identity are acceptable and which are not.

The Bill would place new and potentially costly responsibilities on the Department for Infrastructure to police cultural expression. As has been said and as I am sure will be said again, that is the same Department, led by the current Infrastructure Minister, that cannot properly maintain our roads network and footpaths; that is failing to tackle the waste water crisis; that pumps pollution into Belfast lough daily; and that is failing to deliver key projects such as the A5, on which over £150 million and counting has been spent without an inch of tarmac to show for it. We have also seen significant funding threats to public transport. Are we now being asked to trust that Department to police flags? Frankly, the priorities are badly misplaced. There is also the very important issue of the financial implications. The costs are unclear and unquantifiable. That is concerning, particularly given the pressures on our public purse. We do not have a clear picture of the scale of the problem that the draft legislation is supposedly designed to solve.

There are sensible principles that should apply: everyone in the House can agree on that. Flags or emblems should not promote proscribed organisations, glorify terrorism or violence or be displayed with malicious intent, and, wherever possible, communities should seek local agreement. However, we do not need to criminalise legitimate cultural expression to achieve those objectives. We need common sense, dialogue and local engagement and agreement, and we need political leadership that promotes respect rather than creates another battleground over identity. We will always defend the dignified display of the flag of our nation, and we will defend legitimate cultural expression, but we will never make excuses for paramilitarism, terrorism or the glorification of violence.

I welcome the progress of the Crime and Policing Bill, which amended section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Bill received Royal Assent in April. That means that articles such as flags, banners and signs that contain emblems belonging to proscribed terrorist organisations can be unconditionally confiscated. Those positions are not contradictory: they are perfectly compatible. The answer to disagreements over flags is not yet another layer of regulation and bureaucracy. If we are not careful, the Bill will only increase division. I do not believe that it will build community relations. Rather, it will damage them. In attempting to manage identity, it could end up entrenching the divisions that it claims to address.

It is time that Alliance recognised that British identity is part of our diversity too. The Bill, in its current form, is deeply flawed, unnecessary and counterproductive. That is why I cannot and will not support its passage at Second Stage.

Mr McMurray: I welcome the new Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. I hope that he got the memos from the previous Chair about the collegiate nature of that Committee. I am sure that he will put that into action.

I also thank Ms Bradshaw for bringing the Bill forward, and for the work that has gone on. The Chair was not in post when Ms Bradshaw presented the Bill to the Committee before the summer recess. It was a detailed and well-received presentation.

I speak as a member of the Infrastructure Committee and as an Alliance MLA, but also as someone who, like many here, has borne witness to flags and the painting of kerbstones to denote territory. I have listened to the contributions, and I look forward to getting into some of the more detailed clauses at Committee Stage. That is the right thing to do. Scrutiny at this stage is welcome, but it is at Committee Stage that we will get into the further detail. It is disappointing that some Members have already voiced their opposition and stated that they are determined that the Bill will not proceed.

Flags and emblems cause consternation across every community in Northern Ireland. We know that. We are constantly contacted about them, be that on the street, on social media or by email. Some Members on the Benches opposite have asked why we need the legislation. Why? A blind man on a galloping horse can see that there is a problem in this country with the display of flags, placards and banners, as well as with the legislation surrounding their erection, enforcement and removal. I am not convinced that local arrangements are the solution, as has been said before, because I am not convinced that they will work. Such arrangements seem to be loose, and as someone who is used to such things not being put in place, I feel that it is important that we have legislation.

I am not sure whether Mr Buckley is indicating that he wants to come in, or if he is just being polite.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I look forward to working with him on the Committee. I suppose that the Member's question about the intention of the Bill is directed towards me as I asked why there was a need for the legislation. I posed that question because there is existing legislation. The Member will accept that, given the number of pieces of legislation that my colleagues and I have outlined. Does the Member agree that it is about enforcement rather than a lack of legislation? The points that we raise in relation to community dialogue and mediation, for which there are local protocols and agreements in place, are not the panacea — I do not claim them to be — but they are something that we should encourage rather than discourage.

Mr McMurray: I thank the Member for his point, but I am still not convinced by the argument that he puts forward. However, at the same time, I always want to encourage dialogue. I look forward to dialogue with the Member, be that in the corridor, the Chamber or in the Committee room.

Every party here has complained at various stages about national flags being placed to exclude one side of the community. To attribute that to simply one end of the political constitutional spectrum is not a fair or accurate reflection. I believe, and Alliance believes, in a shared society. I reimagine what this place could look like all the time. Perhaps that is the la-la land that Mr Buckley referred to as well, but it does not take much imagination, because anybody who witnessed the Fleadh Cheoil in Belfast knows what this place can look like. That is the intention behind the Bill and the intention of a shared society and a reimagination in Northern Ireland.

I reflect personally on how to understand and act towards the issue at hand. The Bill is not about the banning of flags or suchlike but rather setting out in legislation how they may be displayed appropriately and respectfully. Lots has also been said about the "dignified" display, and I am not sure what that actually means. I have no problem with a display of national flags or whatever, but that term "dignified" has cropped up a number of times, and I am not sure what that means and what the parameters are for that. I imagine a shared society to be one where expressions of constitutional aspiration can be displayed and where, at the very least, there is tolerance among those who do not share that aspiration or belief, and, at best, a grace is shown towards it for someone who does not share the same view.

A shared space does not mean a neutral space. The Bill's aim is to legitimise the use of flags and emblems and put in place clear arrangements for that. Those who already manage their displays well will see very little change. The Bill also aims to provide context and openness to the rationale behind the erection of such displays. I will be honest and say that my opinion on some of these displays has changed. My understanding has progressed, not least because I have taken the time to get to know some of the groups that display flags and emblems in my area from all sorts of narratives and aspirations. Furthermore, the Bill will give room to institutions to say that flags and emblems displayed in poor taste are not reflective of the values that they hold. I think that Mr Stewart made the point about removing the confusion between legitimate display and the under-the-cover-of-night display.

Many feel threatened by those who put up flags and emblems. Even more simply, many feel unsettled by the colour scheme that may be used. I do not come at this from a position that all flags are intimidating — nor, indeed, does the Bill — but some most certainly are, as other Members have said. The same people who feel unease when they see people put those up probably would not feel the same unease when they were in the shop buying the milk or the Sunday papers, but the context, process and openness that the Bill seeks to establish matter. I can cite many examples of where the flags work well, as, I am sure, can many others. The flags go up and they come down. I was driving down the A1 the other day and there were ladders up and flags being removed — chapeau, kudos, well done. As I said, a lot of what the Bill is proposing is already being undertaken.

It is hard to intervene with Mr Buckley, because his oratory is so mesmerising that I sometimes get carried away just listening to him. There have been times when —. I am giving him a compliment, and he is talking away, so he is. [Laughter.]

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr McMurray: Do you want me to start again?

Mr Buckley: Please do. [Inaudible.]

Mr McMurray: You talk about community arrangements. There are times when flags go up and a community has not even been established. As I drive in to work, I have seen a UDA flag on a lamp post on the dual carriageway. Flags have been put on lamp posts even before the houses have been built. How can there be a community resolution when there is no community?

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr McMurray: Of course.

Mr Buckley: I apologise for not having heard the Member's initial compliment. I certainly did not hear it in the second bit of his contribution. I ask him to forgive me for not listening to his entire contribution because I was explaining to Mrs Dodds some of the inconsistencies in the language used.

I cannot speak for all of Northern Ireland. I cannot speak for every individual development or every art and part where flags have been misused in the right way or the wrong way or for paramilitary flags. I do not speak for them. I can only say that I know many people across this country who deeply respect the national flag of the country, its tradition and its place within our culture and society, and are deeply committed to good community relations with everybody whom they live alongside.

Mr McMurray: Maybe the Member should listen more closely. Not only did I give him compliments, but my colleague explained what the Bill does not set out to do. As he quite rightly said, there are people out there who do care deeply about the flag and who do give it dignity and respect. As the Member also said, he does not speak for all of Northern Ireland. Hence why, perhaps, legislation is needed to speak for the whole —.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. He will recall that I read out the number of times in each year that the Department asked the police for advice on unauthorised attachments. I will not read them all out again, but they totalled 604. On no occasion in the case of any of the 604 complaints from residents did a flag come down. Does the Member agree that there is clearly a failing in the existing legislation and that no amount of dialogue between the police and those people who are, supposedly, community representatives has resulted in any of the flags coming down?

Mr McMurray: I agree totally with my colleague, unsurprisingly, and that brings me, again, to a point about the PSNI.

There are messages that are not subtle at all. I have mentioned the subtle messages, such as flags on lamp posts at the entrance to a housing development that has barely taken shape, but there are messages that are not subtle. In the spring, we witnessed "billboard-gate", if you will, and all that went with it. We have seen the Moygashel bonfire and the abhorrent flags in Dungannon. I will not give that too much airtime.

Mr Burrows made a point about the PSNI not having powers and not being able to act. I have noticed a trend in some of the solutions that Mr Burrows puts forward. It usually seems to be a case of saying, "Give the PSNI more powers", yet, ironically, we are now in a situation in which the PSNI has powers but not the ability to enforce them. That is the issue that the legislation goes to.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr McMurray: No, you are all right: I am going to crack on.

The broad question is: who controls what appears in our public spaces? Flags that are put up by men in masks and flags that commemorate terrorists reinforce that question. As democrats, we need to find the answer, and that is what the Bill aims to do.

We have talked a bit — we touched on it slightly — about how hurt in this society goes both ways. I know that from the area that I live in and the area that I come from. It is communication 101: the intention behind what I say may be completely different from how it is received and interpreted. The historian Diarmaid Ferriter said:

As someone who is passionate about reconciliation in our society, I think that that is an important quote when it comes to how we approach this topic. As I have said, I want to live in a shared society. I want a reconciled society. I want to see confident communities that can also offer respect in what they do.

To conclude, I will go back to where I started. This takes a bit of imagination sometimes, and that is what the Bill does: it turns a bit of positive imagination into a tangible reality for a shared society.

Mr Harvey: I join colleagues in speaking about the Bill. In so doing, I will say that, regrettably, the Bill represents a missed opportunity to work collaboratively across the Chamber to further tackle paramilitarism and displays of support for paramilitary organisations, which continue to blight many of our communities. There was an opportunity to seek to address the symbols of proscribed organisations that are evident in public places, including paramilitary flags and the many shrines to terrorism that blight towns across Northern Ireland. Instead, the Bill seeks to attack legitimate, community-led expressions of cultural tradition and national identity with regulation and prohibition and to place them on a par with support for illegal groups. That is disappointing and hinders attempts to move this place forward.

The Bill presents more questions than answers. The lack of detail creates significant ambiguity in key areas of policy and procedure regarding how such legislation would be enacted. As an example, the process to be followed by the Department is fraught with operational ambiguity and therefore presents serious concern. The views of communities are to be sought, but there is no indication of the weight that the Department would place on representations or, indeed, any aspect of the considerations that the Bill's provisions would require it to take into account.

The burden of proof is placed on communities to demonstrate the legitimacy and proportionality of a display. Therefore, the presumptive position is that all displays are prohibited unless otherwise permitted, which presents an outrageous situation with immense financial and legal implications for the governing authority. Indeed, the governing authority for such a process is also unclear. The Bill refers to "the Department", raising serious concerns about the transparency, integrity and neutrality of the proposed decision-making process. Are we, therefore, to assume that the process will be by way of a ministerial decision? Given the lack of safeguards or direction provided in the Bill, that seems to be highly likely. Again, that would be a totally unworkable position. It is worth asking whether the Alliance Party wants the Bill to benefit community relations or to hinder them.

The reference in the Bill to a future code of practice, with the House not having had sight of it, is totally unacceptable. The Alliance Party needs to present how, it believes, communities would engage with the legislation, as opposed to an attempt to create a further suite of conditions over and above the Bill at a later date.

I could go on, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I shall leave any critique of individual clauses to the further stages of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Peter McReynolds. Peter, depending on the length of time that you intend to speak for, that will be —.

Mr McReynolds: I cleared it with one of the Clerks that I would not speak because I would be cut off. It was established that, after Harry had spoken, we would probably end the sitting.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In that case, I will not argue with you. [Laughter.]

Steady, everybody. Just before you all rush off, I say that, as we are about to reach the end of the sitting at 9.00 pm, in accordance with Standing Orders, the consideration of business not yet concluded shall be postponed until a time determined by the Business Committee.