Official Report: Monday 14 September 2026

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Emma Little-Pengelly has requested to make a statement on the summit on the break-up of the United Kingdom that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should do so by continually rising in their place. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes in which to speak on the subject. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted and that I will take no points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We face many challenges across Northern Ireland, not least in relation to our education sector, driving down health waiting lists, growing our economy and supporting a better, brighter future for every person in Northern Ireland, yet, today, the nationalist leaders of the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Féin are meeting in Cardiff not to talk about those important issues but to push for the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Over the weekend, those attending briefed that it was a meeting of the First Ministers. That caused significant concern, not least when it was said that they would be signing up to a charter to chart a pathway to the destruction of the United Kingdom — a wreckers' charter. It is therefore incredibly important that we clarify in absolute terms that it is not a meeting of the First Ministers. Michelle O'Neill is not attending as First Minister. She had and has no authority to sign anything at the summit on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. Michelle O'Neill has not sought or obtained any agreement to attend as First Minister.

When called out on what they were attempting to spin, the parties clarified that it is indeed a meeting of the parties and not of the First Ministers. I give a commitment to the people of Northern Ireland that, in my role as deputy First Minister — a joint role, jointly leading the Executive and equal in every way in legislation and in what we do — I will never allow the role of First Minister to be used, misused or weaponised in a way that pushes for the abolition of Northern Ireland and the destruction of the United Kingdom.

We are much stronger together when it comes to our economy, defence and future.

Let us be very clear about what this is: it is a summit of separatists, arguing from a minority position and pushing forward a wreckers' charter, focusing on constitutional issues and the destruction of the Union, at a time when the people whom we serve want us to work together to deliver change in health, in education, to our roads and to our infrastructure — working to actually deliver for people. I am here, determined to deliver for everyone across Northern Ireland, when others are away pursuing narrow political agendas.

Mr Sheehan: I suppose that, when the First Ministers of the North, Scotland and Wales organised that meeting, they did not anticipate the level of meltdown among unionists here, but there you go. I suppose that Donald Trump's utterances have added to that. I noticed that Jonathan Buckley got his photograph taken down at the golf. Golf is an enjoyable affair; you looked as though you were sucking a lemon, but anyway.

Today's meeting in Cardiff marks an important moment for the future of these islands. The election in May provided an opportunity. For the first time, there are three nationalist First Ministers. That is a clear and powerful indication that people demand a different political direction. That is because Westminster is failing the people of the North, Scotland and Wales. The leaders who are meeting today are calling on the British Government to prepare, plan for and facilitate constitutional change in Wales, Scotland and the North of Ireland. Our parties have much to gain from working together where we share common interests and where cooperation can deliver real improvements for the workers, families and communities that we represent. We will work together on energy, the economy and our relationships with Europe, building stronger and fairer societies.

The future of Scotland is a matter for the people of Scotland. The future of Wales is a matter for the people of Wales. The future of Ireland must be decided by the people of Ireland. For Ireland, that principle is not simply an aspiration; it is a democratic right that is embedded in the Good Friday Agreement. We have the means to decide our future. The responsibility now is to prepare seriously for that choice. Irish unity is no longer a distant aspiration; it is a serious contemporary political project. The debate is already under way. A referendum on Irish unity is not something to fear but something for which to prepare. Today's meeting is another important step towards that, breaking the political shackles of Westminster and building an Ireland that is founded on fairness, equality and opportunity for all.

Mr Tennyson: The debate tells us more about the priorities of some parties in the Chamber than it does about the priorities of the people whom we represent. The Executive face a huge in tray as we return from summer recess. Public services are limping on, five months into a financial year without a Budget. A raft of draft legislation still awaits scrutiny and debate. People across Northern Ireland are worried about hospital waiting lists, special educational needs provision and housing pressures. They are worried about paying their bills, caring for elderly relatives and getting their children the support that they need in school — all challenges that are being made worse by the absence of an agreed Budget — yet here we are.

We have seen this script before when it comes to Drumcree and manufactured culture wars. Now, we have the latest choreographed row between the First Minister and deputy First Minister. The Assembly has no shortage of genuine crises to address. What we do have, however, is a shortage of time — time that is, once again, being squandered by focusing on manufactured grievance rather than agreeing a Budget and getting on with the jobs that we are all elected to do.

It has to be said that there is also a certain irony in the contribution from the DUP, given that that party supported the changes in the St Andrews Agreement and the diluting of the joint nature of the roles of First Minister and deputy First Minister, and has refused, even in recent months, to support calls from Alliance, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists to make the First Minister roles joint in nature and title. Having championed the changes, it now comes to the Chamber to bemoan, once again, the consequences of its own actions.

The public can see through it. If they were writing the script for this Assembly, it would be one whereby we agree to accept diversity and difference when it comes to the constitutional question and one in which we are laser-focused, not on point-scoring but on fixing our public services, reforming Stormont, balancing the books and delivering a better future for all the people whom we are elected to serve and represent. Frankly, the public do not see that, and they are scundered by what passes for politics in this Building.

Mr Burrows: The event in Cardiff is a charade and a circus. It is not three devolved nations gathering for a conference on the break-up of the United Kingdom; it is three nationalist politicians signing each other's manifestos. It counts for absolutely nothing. It is just the same as Donald Trump's loud voice. He has a loud voice but zero votes. Zero votes because the people of Northern Ireland are in charge of their constitutional future — not the leader of Plaid Cymru or the leader of the SNP or Donald Trump but the people of Northern Ireland. Of course, the Members across the Chamber used to call the principle of consent the "unionist veto" or "British veto" when they tried to bomb Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and overturn that principle of consent. However, that is now enshrined in law.

It is a disappointment that Sinn Féin is the party of failed promises and failing Ministries. They promise that a united Ireland is just around the corner, and Michelle O'Neill said today that we are in the Union's "final days". In 2003, of course, Martin McGuinness said that there would be a border poll by 2016. In 2020, Mary Lou said that, by 2025, we would have a border poll. Some Members have said that it is just around the corner, over the next bend and within reach. "Touching distance" was one term that was used. Now, it is the "final days". Those are false promises, because here is the reality: the republican movement blew 2,000 people —. I see the newest Member of the Assembly grinning there. It was not funny that your colleagues in the IRA blew 2,000 people to smithereens and shot them in their homes, leaving bereaved mothers and families and orphaning children for a united Ireland that has not come. Now you are having to promise your base that it is just around the corner.

Do you know what the people of Northern Ireland want? They want to heal from that and move on, and now it is your Ministries that are destroying the place. There are potholes in the roads and a waste water system that you will not fix. He is still grinning. Families cannot build a home, and that puts rent and house prices up, but he thinks that it is funny. The Economy Minister actually wants to drive jobs away from Northern Ireland and cannot welcome the 3,000 jobs that the Bank of America is bringing. I am told that they say that the staff here are the best in the world.

Here is the reality: you can head to Cardiff and sign whatever you wish. It does not change an iota. You can say that Donald Trump is wrong about everything but, suddenly, is right about this. Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom because the people of Northern Ireland want to keep it there. We are stronger together. We are protected by the fifth- or sixth-largest military in the world and part of the fourth- or fifth-largest economy in the world, and we have record levels of peace. Despite your best efforts, Northern Ireland is in the UK, and that is where we are staying. Get on and do your jobs.

Mr O'Toole: The first thing to say is that I am not sure whether the DUP has heard of a thing called the Streisand effect. If it has not, I encourage it to look at that. It is where you attempt to drive attention away from something but inadvertently create more attention on it. However, that may actually be the point of today's intervention from the deputy First Minister.

It is entirely fine and right for political parties to engage with one another. The First Minister is in a party that believes in Irish unity, as does my party. She is entitled to engage with other political parties on that basis, and it is true to say that there are now nationalist First Ministers in all devolved jurisdictions. There are different rules, and we are at different stages when it comes to independence or, in our case, unity. That is important.

I will say this in relation to some of what we have seen from the DUP today. The idea that political parties do not engage with one another outside and outwith their official capacities is, of course, totally negated by the decades of engagement between the DUP and the hard right of the Conservative Party, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Reform, the Brexit campaign — How did that go? We all know. — and, most recently, a bromance with Donald Trump, which went very sour for the DUP this weekend.

In addition to their official roles, political parties will engage when they have shared interests, and that is pretty much to be expected.

The SDLP also believes in a new Ireland. This weekend, at our conference, we were engaged in exactly that conversation about how we want to build a better North — a better Northern Ireland — in the here and now through our work as an official Opposition, but also in our campaigning on a whole range of areas, and to bring people from non-traditional unity-supporting backgrounds into a conversation about a new Ireland in the future. It is a positive and inspiring vision that we are really proud about. Claire Hanna has led that as the leader of our party. Do you know what? I say to the DUP that some of the miserable way in which politics proceeds in this place, and the dysfunctional nature of Stormont, is exactly why more people from non-traditional nationalist backgrounds are engaging in the conversation about a new Ireland. If you want more people to become depressed and demoralised about the status quo, which is the thing that you are supposed to be protecting, crack on, guys; keep going, because, sadly, from your perspective, all you are doing is making more people engage on the idea of a new Ireland.

The Executive need to function in the here and now. The fact that this is the first thing that the deputy First Minister is prioritising today is not particularly encouraging, when the Executive are without a Budget and public services are in crisis. There is no contradiction between thinking that you need to do your job in the here and now — taking responsibility for governing the North — and pursuing your constitutional aspirations in future, as we are doing, because we want to build an inclusive new Ireland. The DUP, as it is with Drumcree, is engaging in distraction and deflection, not just because it knows that the Executive are not delivering —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: — but because it has nothing else to offer its electorate.

Ms Sheerin: I am delighted to get the opportunity this afternoon to speak about what has been a truly historic event. It is a summit of celebration, which we all have cause to celebrate. This is what happens when you elect a nationalist First Minister and when you have nationalist First Ministers from across the devolved regions working collaboratively and cooperating with each other on what is best for all our people. I am sad to see how it has been framed by some others. You want to call it a break-up, but I would call it a formation of new relationships, hopefully culminating in the restoration of the most natural relationship for anybody on the island of Ireland, which is the reunification of all our people, North and South.

On that, I remind the deputy First Minister and the DUP that no Irish republican or Irish nationalist needs permission from the DUP or anyone else to aspire to Irish unity. The days of 'Croppies lie down' are over. It is 2026, and we have the right to aspire to self-determination and Irish unification. That right is enshrined in law. We do not take direction from the harshest and most regressive elements of unionism. We do not react to dog whistles from bins. I say to the DUP that, if you want to advocate for the Union, you have the right to do so. Get involved in the conversation, make your arguments and advocate. Last week, you stood with us to argue with the British Government that they fund this place below need and that they serve our people here like they are second-class citizens. We get scraps from the table; we are an afterthought. You worked with us to deliver more for the people whom we all represent. If you want to advocate for the Union, you have the right to do so, but every backward step and every reaction to this from the sidelines show people that you want to take us backwards. People here do not want to go backwards; they want progress and prosperity, and they want to live a normal life. They do not want to be dragged back to the days of Drumcree and people being taken off the streets with batons. [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms Sheerin: We have the right to look towards the future and to look to progress and prosperity. That is a future that Irish reunification can offer us all. It is our right to make that case and to work with others to deliver it. I ask you to join us in that.

Mr Buckley: Let us serve a reality check. Michelle O'Neill is not meeting with Welsh and Scottish separatists today as the First Minister but as Mary Lou's deputy.

The intention is clear: it is a gathering of people plotting the destruction of the United Kingdom. It is a tale as old as time when it comes to Sinn Féin, given its increasing obsession with destruction.

Mr Sheehan referred to a few bitter lemons in my pocket. Mr Sheehan's problem was that he had too many bitter lemons: his failed hunger strike might have gone on a bit longer had he not had a few in his pocket. Mr Sheehan, your comments are telling. We know what it is all about. The obsession with hunger strikers, with commemorating terrorism and with border polls is all about distraction: distraction from failure on the home front, whether it is an Infrastructure Minister who cannot build roads; an Economy Minister who cannot pass her own charter for trade unions; or whether it is a Finance Minister who, one day, tells us all that we should sign up to a draft Budget and, the next day, comes out to say that it is not enough. It is typical Sinn Féin distraction and bluster, but you need that type of bluster. When you are championing wacky policies such as wee girls can be wee boys or wee boys can be wee girls, or issues such as that of Irish unity, it is all bluster. It is distraction from the party opposite's failed open border policy. All those issues feed into the distraction. Then, President Trump throws the dead cat on the table and, just like that, hook, line and sinker, up line the SDLP and Sinn Féin. Who would have thought it, folks? Sinn Féin was actually out protesting against President Trump's arrival at the weekend, possibly the first Irish republican party to make such a protest.

I take Sinn Féin's position on Irish unity and that of President Trump as seriously as Canada's becoming the fifty-first state, Greenland's becoming the fifty-second and Venezuela's becoming the fifty-third. I was half surprised that he did not offer up Northern Ireland as the fifty-fourth state, but we will see how he goes with the fifty-first. It is distraction. I have confidence in the people of Northern Ireland, and I have every faith that unionists across this country will realise what the game is, get behind unionism and deliver a message to Sinn Féin and other separatists across the UK very soon.

Mr Gaston: It should come as no surprise to anyone that Michelle O'Neill joins her fellow nationalists today to call for the break-up of our United Kingdom. She cannot come before the Executive Office Committee, but she can scurry away to Cardiff with her fellow nationalists. That shows you the contempt that she has for this place.

I remind all sides of the House that it was not that long ago that unionism could have, in unison, pointed out that the First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister of Wales diminish themselves by standing beside the deputy leader of Sinn Féin. As much as I have profound differences with the SNP and Plaid Cymru, I cannot point to a pile of bodies that they had to step over to get to where they are today. That is not the case for Sinn Féin, no matter how many smiling and nodding dogs it has on its Benches.

I think today, for example, of RUC Reserve officer John Proctor, who was shot in the car park in O'Neill's constituency as he was outside the Mid Ulster Hospital in Magherafelt after visiting his wife and son 45 years ago today, all in the name of "freeing Ireland". Shame, too, on those unionists who have stood alongside Sinn Féin time and time again out there in the Great Hall. What has that done? It has sent a message that standing with those who continue to justify and defend the likes of the murder of John Proctor is acceptable. Not in my name.

This morning, I heard our deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, on the radio bemoaning the fact that O'Neill is First Minister. What our deputy First Minister forgot to go on to say was that her party changed the rules and allowed Michelle O'Neill to become First Minister.

The DUP changed the rules, meaning that it went not to the largest designation, which, to this day, is "Unionist", but to the largest party. That opened the door and allowed Michelle O'Neill to come in. Why? It was because the DUP wanted to blackmail the unionist people come election time.

At the previous election, my party went to the public and made it crystal clear that we would not serve under a Sinn Féin First Minister. Had others taken the same approach or even kept to their principles and commitments that there would be no Stormont or Executive while the protocol remained in place, today's meeting would not have taken place. The political stunt —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Gaston: — would not have been given the airtime —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. I call Gerry Carroll.

Mr Gaston: — that it has been given. Not in my name.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The myth that was sold for centuries was that the Union would be better for people and improve their lives, but, when you look at crumbling public services in Cardiff, Glasgow and Belfast, you see that nothing could be further from the truth. That is why today's event — the conference of First Ministers in Cardiff — is important and absolutely welcome. It shows the growing support for constitutional change and the break-up of the United Kingdom, which would be an important and positive thing.

Today is not the first or last step, but it should and, hopefully, will rejuvenate the conversation about what is possible in the years ahead. It is a case not just of having proper public services and defending what we have but of taking a position on the border. It is not "either/or", as some suggest. Unionists say that constitutional change will not happen or is not popular, but they have gone apoplectic about a meeting in Cardiff, which shows that, beneath their bluster, they know what is really going on.

Whilst there are many shades of unionism, it has to be said that unionism was an ideology and a political movement carved up by the British Establishment in cahoots with industrial and capital representatives in the North. It has nothing to offer working-class people of any religion or none. Division and sectarianism were used not only to divide the working class but to drive down wages to make sure that those in Belfast were paid less than those in Liverpool or elsewhere.

Often, unionists say, "What about the NHS and the economy?" when giving some of the reasons to defend the Union. What about them? The NHS has been completely stripped of funding, mostly by unionist parties and Ministers, while people struggle to get operations, beds and proper treatment. We have a cost-of-living crisis. If you talk about being the sixth or seventh biggest economy in the world, people who are struggling will laugh in your face. The cost-of-living crisis is strangling people. Unionists need to be challenged on those points.

Far be it from my job to defend the First Minister, but it is rich for the deputy First Minister to criticise Michelle O'Neill for going on a solo run. She is the same deputy First Minister who went over to Washington with her party colleagues to kiss the boot of Donald Trump — what is good for the goose and all that — who is not an ally for a united Ireland and is, it should be said, a genocidal maniac. He should be protested against at all costs.

My party calls on Andy Burnham to change his position and name the date for a referendum. A vote to end the border is a democratic right —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: — despite what the people to my right may —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Carroll: — shout in your ear.

Mrs Mason: What is happening in Cardiff is significant. Right now, the First Minister of the North, Michelle O'Neill, is sitting down with the leaders of Scotland and Wales with one democratic message: our future is ours to decide. Think about how far the North has come. We now have an Irish republican First Minister. Our First Minister for all represents a changing North and is leading the conversation about what comes next.

Let us be clear: no British Prime Minister can take the issue of Irish unity off the table. The Good Friday Agreement belongs to the people. It gives us the democratic pathway to reunification, and now we need to prepare for that. It is about building a better Ireland with better healthcare, a stronger economy, a thriving education system and opportunities for our young people where all identities are respected.

There are still those who seek to downplay the significance of the election of a nationalist First Minister, but today shows just how misplaced such comments are. Michelle O'Neill is in Cardiff as an equal alongside the leaders of Scotland and Wales discussing our shared belief that people must have the right to determine their future. Make no bones about it, that is hugely significant.

Today's summit comes as the conversation on Irish unity is growing as never before. We have heard interventions from the American president that have clearly rattled and embarrassed the DUP. Fine Gael is talking about a blueprint for Irish unity. Even the Taoiseach has spoken about the need for greater clarity on the criteria for a border poll.

The direction of travel is clear. Irish unity is no longer a conversation for some distant day but a political reality. The conversation is happening right now, so we need to prepare for it. Today, our First Minister is demonstrating something powerful: our future will be decided for us not at Westminster but by the people of Ireland.

Mr Brett: Before I get into my contribution, I have to respond to some of the remarks that have been made here today. The Member for Mid Ulster Ms Sheerin said that the people of Northern Ireland want to see progress and move forward, yet she is the very Member who went to celebrate and speak at a commemoration of Thomas McElwee, a man

who burnt an innocent woman to death. [Interruption.]

All that Sinn Féin does is glorify terrorism. The Member does not like being called out on her hypocrisy. [Interruption.]

I have had the misfortune of reading the so-called declaration by Sinn Féin, the SNP and Plaid Cymru. It is quite an achievement. Three political parties, four signatures, several logos and a trip to Wales have somehow produced absolutely nothing, although, apparently, if they sign the bottom of the declaration, the United Kingdom will disappear. Well, well. We are still here. We are not going away, you know.

Let us look at the declaration. It begins by telling us:

Well done for stating facts. It goes on to state that the break-up of the United Kingdom is just around the corner. We are all used to Mystic Meg, but Mystic Mary Lou McDonald has taken on an absolutely cracking role in the matter. The year 2016 came and went; 2024 came and went; and 2028, which, the First Minister said, was when there would be a border poll, was soon replaced by 2030. I have no doubt that I will be standing here in 2030 listening to another Sinn Féin promise of yet another border poll date.

The important thing about the declaration, however, is that it undermines Sinn Féin's own argument. The declaration states that each nation:

democratically. That is absolutely right. Scotland has already decided its constitutional future, having voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. The people of Northern Ireland have that democratic right, and they have expressed it continually at elections. In 1998, pro-Irish unity parties received 38% of the vote; in 2026, the percentage still sits at 38%. All their bluster and false claims to blag people into voting for them have not moved their agenda of Irish unity forward one iota. What was it all about? Despite all the graves that Sinn Féin made and all the terrorists that it celebrates, it still proudly lives under British rule.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That finishes the Matter of the Day.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should indicate by continually rising in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes in which to speak. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted and that I will not take any points of order until the item of business has finished.

Ms Murphy: I rise to express my deep concern about the decision of the Education Authority (EA) to permanently close the kitchen at St Joseph's Primary School in Donagh. The decision has caused significant anxiety amongst parents, staff and the wider community, who rightly value the role that the kitchen plays in the life of that rural school.

I welcome the fact that, following a recent meeting, the EA has now agreed to carry out an assessment of alternative costings, based on the previous, and successful, three-school model. However, the development raises this fundamental question: why was an assessment of alternative costings not completed before the decision was taken to close the school kitchen permanently? Any decision of that significance should have been informed by a full assessment of all viable options. How did the EA reach a definitive conclusion if alternative models were not even looked at? The fact that that work is now being carried out reinforces concerns that the decision-making process was premature and lacked any credibility. Communities have every right to expect that all viable alternatives are examined before permanent decisions that affect their children and their local schools are made. What makes the situation even more frustrating is the lack of transparency surrounding the entire decision-making process. Parents and governors have sought answers on the rationale for the closure: the assessments undertaken, the alternatives considered, and whether the full implications for that rural school community were properly evaluated.

Such decisions further undermine the confidence of our rural communities. School kitchens are far more than just workplaces in which meals are prepared; they are part of the fabric of our school communities. They support local employment, provide flexibility in meeting pupils' needs and contribute to the sustainability of rural education. The EA must now get its act together, fully reassess its decision and ensure that proper equality and rural needs considerations are applied. My Sinn Féin colleagues and I will continue to stand with parents and the wider community of Donagh in calling for full transparency and accountability. Most importantly, I will stand with the pupils of St Joseph's, whose interests must remain at the centre of every decision that is made about their education and well-being.

Mr Buckley: There is nothing like the approach of an election to make some populist parties pay attention. Surprise, surprise, bang on cue, up pops Mary Lou; she has woken up and smelled the coffee about Sinn Féin's disastrous, harmful approach to illegal and uncontrolled immigration. She said:

It did not take a statement from Mary Lou for the people of Northern Ireland — unionist, nationalist and other — or the people of the Republic of Ireland to catch on to the fact that Sinn Féin was on a very different track from the people of this proud country on the issue. However, it is too little, too late: people do not look for election slogans, which Sinn Féin is so keen to put out as bluster and distraction; they look at the record. There is quite a substantive record of Sinn Féin's calling those who oppose uncontrolled immigration and those who want to speak up about illegal immigration as racist, far right and wrong. Sinn Féin's record in the European Parliament is clear: it voted against a motion to establish return hubs for those arriving into countries illegally. It described it as a racist policy. In the Assembly, it voted against a motion that called on the UK Government to implement strong border control. At Westminster, its Members do not even turn up to shout and make their voices known when it matters.

More duplicity, more hypocrisy and more cover-up from Sinn Féin. That should not be lost on anybody, and I argue that it is not lost on the voting people of Northern Ireland. Whether it is protests in Newry against illegal and uncontrolled immigration, the disturbances and agitation in west Belfast over illegal and uncontrolled immigration or farmers across the breadth of Northern Ireland saying that the party has lost its way, that conversation is happening, and Sinn Féin's approach is too little, too late. The people of Northern Ireland will not be bluffed by those who have championed open borders since their establishment when it comes to dealing with illegal and uncontrolled immigration.

Mr McReynolds: As someone who lives with multiple sclerosis and as chair of the all-party group on MS and neurology, I thank the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance for its report 'Left Behind: The Price of Inaction on Neurology Reform', which was launched just last week. The report estimates that neurological conditions cost Northern Ireland £2·72 billion every year, with delays to reform potentially costing our economy up to £869 million annually. It also estimates that an investment of £13 million — just £13 million — a year over five years could deliver significant economic benefits that could transform not only part of our health service but the lives of the patients who rely on it. Alliance has consistently raised the point about savings versus efficiencies in discussions about reform — we have done so time and again. If we refuse to invest strategically in reform, we risk continuing to absorb much greater costs in the long term, and that is before even considering the human cost, which is very real. There is a need to invest strategically in our health service and to focus on better health outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland.

Neurology has the longest waiting times of any specialty in Northern Ireland, with 28,188 people currently waiting for a first neurology appointment, and some waiting for more than seven years. The report warns that "inaction is not a neutral position" but a political choice. Delays in diagnosis and treatment can lead to worsening health, greater demand for emergency care and fewer people being able to remain in work.

The regional review of neurology services was commissioned in 2018, and its final report was published in 2025. Last year, Alliance responded to that consultation to outline the serious and systemic challenges in neurology services and support the four priorities set out in the review, which are: a person-centred service, developing additional workforce capacity within neurology, addressing gaps in existing services and using current resources more effectively. We strongly supported the vision but urged that the focus needed to be on delivery. Person-centred, evidence-based care cannot simply be a recommendation in a report; it has to be reflected in how services are designed and delivered, with the needs and lived experience of people with neurological conditions at the centre.

The issues faced by people with neurological conditions go well beyond waiting lists. People living with conditions such as multiple sclerosis also deal with barriers to accessing services and wider support, including concerns with the personal independence payment system. Those issues have a direct impact on people's ability to manage their conditions and live independently. We need to move from review to reform and from short-term savings to better outcomes for patients and our health service as a whole.

Mr Burrows: At the most recent meeting of the Policing Board, the Chief Constable stated that PSNI officers here — men and women who serve us across society — are more likely than those in any other part of the United Kingdom to allow themselves to be assaulted before using force, for fear that they will not be supported if they protect themselves. Those are mothers, fathers, sons and daughters who are being injured because of the scandalous lack of support that they have received.

There are a number of reasons why we are where we are. The first is that the Police Ombudsman, as an organisation, has been dysfunctional and punitive. It has subjected good officers to years of investigation. In air-conditioned offices, it has examined young men and women who grapple with violent criminals and make split-second judgements. It judges them for weeks and months instead of dealing with the bad cops. That is why the Ulster Unionist Party is pushing for serious reforms of the Police Ombudsman that would deal with vexatious complainants and the lack of accountability in the Office of the Police Ombudsman.

Of course, the Policing Board has failed to spot those trends and cultures. That is why reform is also needed there. A lot of the fault — not exclusively, but largely — lies with the Members opposite, in Sinn Féin. Time after time, they have condemned outright snippets of social media clips of an officer using force.

They were straight on to police commanders — I was one of them — saying, "Suspend him. Suspend him. Throw him out". Time and time again, it was a young officer, sometimes a Catholic officer, who was trying to serve their country.

Of course, at Ormeau Road, Michelle O'Neill herself rang the Chief Constable and Gerry Kelly rang the Deputy Chief Constable, demanding that an officer be suspended. That kind of kangaroo courtism that they operated in the backstreet alleys in the areas where they used to have strongholds through the IRA has been, in many ways, extended to try to get summary punishment for police officers. The media have lapped it up. You have created an environment where officers in this country are worried about protecting themselves and worried about protecting everyone else in case you jump on the bandwagon, in case the ombudsman drags them over the coals and in case the media report them. Wrong —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Ms Hunter: Endometriosis, polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS), premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) and adenomyosis are ongoing women's health issues in the North that are not being treated effectively. Women's health issues are being overlooked, and women feel unseen and unheard. I held an event last week on those issues in my constituency, and what I heard was the definition of scandalous, particularly how women in the North are being treated on the issue of endometriosis. It is truly nothing short of a scandal. In years to come, we will look back at this moment in time as a dark chapter in our history, horrified by our lack of action for those women. I will share a few stories, and, by the end of that, I think that you will agree.

One of the most horrifying stories that I have heard is one that is beyond belief. I spoke with a woman who waited years for surgery to alleviate her pain. She had botched surgery and now bleeds from three areas in her body during her menstrual cycle, one of which is her belly button. In the year of 2026, the complete lack of dignity for a woman in Northern Ireland with endometriosis experiencing bleeding through her clothes at work is an absolute scandal and an absolute disgrace. Another lady with whom I spoke received surgery in her trust area from a surgeon who was not trained in gynaecology surgeries. She now lives in more pain than she did in the years waiting for her surgery. Another woman who had endometriosis and who had got her period for the first time at the age of eight was later discriminated against when it came to her care. She was in a same-sex relationship and was told not to worry too much about her reproductive system because of that. She is now married to a man and struggling to conceive.

While all of those are horrific experiences, I am pleased today to share those stories to really honour the experience of those women, who deserve to be heard. Another young lady, recently married like me, who works in the arts, dreams of starting a family, but, because of negligence in her trust area, she fears that that dream will never come true. She is self-employed in the arts. She said, "Who would want to hire me? I do not get any sick pay, and I fall ill regularly". Another woman said that at, the age of 15, she felt coerced into a very uncomfortable internal scan. She was told by the doctor, "If you do not get this done today, you are wasting my time, you are wasting your time and you will not know what is wrong with you".

I say this passionately as a woman on the Education Committee. Another young lady who started her periods at eight is now 12 years old, and her attendance at school is just 22% because she lives in chronic agony. That is shocking stuff. It has really stuck with me over the weekend, particularly because the number of women who have said that they feel acutely suicidal because of their never-ending pain was clear.

We cannot give back the years that those women have lost in their lives to endometriosis, but we can make sure that the next generation will not have to lose theirs. Let us be the generation of elected representatives who stop normalising the chronic pain of women in our communities. Women deserve to be believed, women deserve to be diagnosed and women in Northern Ireland deserve to be treated.

Mr Sheehan: Sciurdann éan as gach ealta agus is fíor sin i gcás Yuval Abraham agus Rachel Szor, beirt iriseoirí as Iosrael. Rinneadh scannán de chuid na beirte sin a léiriú den chéad uair ag Féile Scannán na Veinéise an tseachtain seo caite. ‘NAZA’ an teideal atá ar an scannán acu. Baineann ceannairí míleata in Iosrael úsáid as an téarma NAZA le cur síos ar líon na sibhialtach a mharóidh siad ina gcuid ionsaí míleata. Féadann ráta an NAZA sin bheith thart ar 20 duine i ngach ionsaí, nó líon is scaoilte ná sin, má tá siad ag iarraidh sráidbhaile iomlán a scriosadh.

Is minic a leabhair mé sa Teach ar an chinedhíothú atá Iosrael a dhéanamh in Gaza. Is minic a luaigh mé Jews for Justice for Palestine, agus is minic a mhol mé do na Comhaltaí sa Teach seo a bheith ag léamh na dtuairiscí atá ag an ghrúpa Iosraelach do chearta an duine B’Tselem. Ach ní haon tuairisc ó ghrúpa do cearta an duine é seo, ach scannán atá bunaithe, go huile is go hiomlán, ar agallaimh le saighdiúirí agus le hoifigigh faisnéise in arm Iosrael. Agus ní chuireann siad fiacail ann: "Rinneadh ár coiteann," arsa oifigeach Iosraelach amháin sa scannán. Is furasta sin a chreidbheáil, nó mharaigh na hIosraelaigh breis agus 73,000 Palaistíneach san ár seo. Déanann na hoifigigh faisnéise cur síos sa scannán ar an dóigh a n-úsáideann siad an intleacht shaorga le teacht ar na Palaistínigh atá le marú. Bailíonn an intleacht shaorga sonraí ó ghutháin phóca in Gaza. Is leor teachtaireacht ó pháiste á rá, "Tá daidí sa bhaile", is leor sin le haer-ruathar a chur ar obair. Déanann saighdiúirí Iosraelacha cur síos sa scannán ar na limistéir le seachaint thart ar na háiteanna a mbíonn cabhair dhaonnúil á tabhairt amach. Ní chuireann na hIosraelaigh na limistéir sin in iúl do na Palaistínigh, áfach ach scaoileann siad na Palaistínigh a théann isteach iontu agus iad ar lorg cabhrach. Mar a dúirt saighdiúir Iosraelach sa scannán, "Cheannaigh siad an chiall sin lena gcuid fola". Is furasta sin a chreidbheáil fosta, nó, dar leis na Náisiúin Aontaithe gur mharaigh na hIosraelaigh 400 Palaistíneach a bhí ar lorg cabhrach.

Níl leithscéal ag duine ar bith as bheith dall ar an chinedhíothú atá ar obair in Gaza. Tá an t-eolas ar an chinedhíothú sin á chur ar ár súile dúinn ag Jews for Justice for Palestine, ag B’Tselem agus ag iriseoirí cróga as Iosrael. Bíodh sin mar atá, tá an tAontas Eorpach, na Stáit Aontaithe agus barraíocht tíortha eile ina dtost faoin ár go fóill.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sin é, a Phat.

Mr Sheehan: Mar a dúirt Yuval Abraham agus Rachel Szor, "fúinn féin uilig atá sé an tost sin a bhriseadh".

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sin é, a Phat.

Ms Forsythe: Again, I rise in the Chamber to speak up for life. On Friday past, in Westminster, our UK Parliament chose life. The assisted suicide Bill was defeated by 286 votes to 270. The DUP welcomes that result. I am grateful to the parliamentarians for voting in that way, as it was not the majority position previously. Parliament has chosen the protection of vulnerable people. Our DUP MPs have shown up consistently on the issue and have consistently opposed assisted suicide, because the answer to suffering must be better care, not a pathway to death.

I am especially proud of my colleague Carla Lockhart MP, who has led on the issue. She spoke with power and dignity in the debate on Friday. I have no doubt that her work and her words made a big impact on those who were undecided before the marginal vote on Friday. Carla set out our clear opposition to the Bill from a strong Christian and conscience perspective, as well as outlining how dangerous the Bill was. It was dangerous for those who cannot not speak for themselves, for the vulnerable and for the elderly.

The defeat of the Bill is welcome and significant. Our focus should be on giving people reasons to live; ensuring that everyone who faces terminal illness has access to high-quality palliative and end-of-life care; and protecting those who may feel that they are vulnerable or a burden on others. Once the state crosses the line from protecting life to facilitating its ending, the consequences are profound. Parliament was right to reject that course. The Bill was not about easing the excruciating pain of someone who is nearing the end of their life by increasing a dosage; it was about allowing the administration of lethal drugs to end lives — to go against the very grain of the NHS, which saves lives every day.

Terminal illness and deep pain come to every family. We have all lived through difficult times and shared in the devastating experience of the suffering of a loved one. There needs to be better healthcare as an answer to that.

We really need now to see the same determination to improve hospice and palliative care so that dignity and support are available to every person and family that need them.

Friday was an emotional day in Parliament, with many powerful stories shared. It was emotional to see the Bill defeated. It is a testament to those who stood firm on their principles, holding their minority position, often feeling despair but continuing to stand up for the right thing. It paid off; the Bill was defeated. That was a welcome day for life in the United Kingdom.

Ms Nicholl: Twenty years ago, 17-year-old Jane McVeigh died after she ate a piece of food that was contaminated with nuts. I did not actually know Jane. I was in the year above her at a different school, but I had lots of friends who did know her. The impact that her death had on them and on the community was profound, and I think about her often.

A few years ago, a mother came into my office whose daughter had some of the worst food allergies in Northern Ireland. She was highly allergic to so much. Her mum, Carol Anne, said to me that childhood was meant to be magical — it was when you could be a child — and she spent summers wiping down the slides in play parks to make sure that there were no ice cream drops on them and being paranoid at birthday parties. The more that I worked with Carol Anne and her daughter and came to know other allergy parents, I realised how much they were fighting against a system that does not recognise what is at risk. What they fear is what happened to Jane and what her family went through.

The more work that you do and the more people who work in that allergy space to whom you speak, the more you realise how far behind we are in Northern Ireland, and I do not understand why we are not talking about this more. The Benedict Blythe Foundation, which does amazing campaigning work, succeeded in changing the law in England but that has not happened here. We need to make schools safer for children with allergies. It is not just about education; it is about health, transport, workplaces and every aspect of our lives, and all of that falls on the parent to make sure that their child is safe. I cannot imagine anything more debilitating than wondering every day whether your child is going to survive, and we are not having the conversation as a society about what we need to do to make life safer for them.

In June, the national allergy strategy was launched, and we hosted an event in Parliament Buildings. There is a clear need, however, for cross-departmental working to put in place what the national allergy strategy is calling for because provision is fragmented and under-resourced. I recommend that every Member in the Chamber reads the national allergy strategy and thinks about how our portfolios relate to it, because 39% of children in the UK are affected by allergic disease. That is increasing, and we are not doing enough to make sure that those children are protected. I pay tribute to Dr Caoimhe Glancy, the National Allergy Strategy Group, Food Allergy NI, and all the parents who are doing so much to champion the issue, which is something that we really have to get behind.

Mr McCrossan: Last week, I stood in the House and raised the disgraceful and shocking conditions faced by patients and staff at Altnagelvin Area Hospital emergency department. Since then, I have spoken to and heard from hundreds of people about the horrendous and horrific experiences that they have faced in our health service. What they told me should absolutely shame the Sinn Féin/DUP-led Executive who have spent more time poking holes in each other about flags and marches than they have in putting the interests of our people first when it comes to access to our health service.

One man told me that he spent 73 hours in a chair in the emergency department — 73 hours, that is three days, sitting there waiting for care. He told me that the man sitting beside him had died while waiting for care. Another man told me that his 93-year-old mother spent 47 hours sitting on a chair waiting for a hospital bed whilst in extreme pain. A woman spoke of sitting on the floor caring for her 99-year-old grandfather who was left sitting on a chair with a wound to his head for 12 hours.

A family told me that their 87-year-old mother had spent three days in the emergency department, during which time she could not even access the toilet because there was only one there. Another patient described spending more than 60 hours in the emergency department, unable to get a bed and thus unable to sleep for three days while suffering severe pain, surrounded by people who were struggling with mental health issues and others with an alcohol addiction or other addictions, who were intoxicated.

What more evidence do the Executive need? Those are real people. They are our parents, our grandparents and our children. They are elderly people, sick people and frightened people. They are people who have worked all their life and paid into the health service, who, at their most vulnerable moment, are being left to sit on hard chairs and to lie in corridors for days seeking care. People are promised a modern healthcare service that they can access, but ours has become a Third World service.

People rightly praise our doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants and support workers, all of whom are holding the system together, but staff are exhausted. They are trying to care for seriously ill patients and then trying to deal with people who are drunk or heavily intoxicated. One person described to me the moral injury suffered by staff, who know the standard of care that patients deserve but who simply do not have the beds, space or capacity to look after them.

For many years, we have been promised a new emergency department at Altnagelvin. Every time that the matter is raised, there is a new excuse given, but the truth is that the hospital can no longer cope and that people are dying while this place —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Daniel.

Mr McCrossan: — is dithering.

Mrs Mason: I make this statement following contact from victims and victims' families after they watched the Westminster Northern Ireland Affairs Committee meeting on 9 September. They contacted me after hearing Mark Thompson of Relatives for Justice challenge the DUP leader, Gavin Robinson, about his party's links to Ulster Resistance. What struck victims and victims' families was that direct questions about Ulster Resistance and senior DUP figures' role in it were simply not answered, so I will raise them here.

Ulster Resistance was publicly launched in the Ulster Hall in November 1986. DUP figures were present. Ian Paisley publicly expressed support for the organisation, while Peter Robinson was associated with its formation. Rev Ivan Foster, himself a DUP Assembly Member and a Free Presbyterian minister at the time, subsequently described Ulster Resistance as, "a DUP-sponsored — parented — movement."

Within a short period, Ulster Resistance was involved in procuring and importing a substantial consignment of weapons from South Africa in a strategic effort to arm the UDA and the UVF to mount a murderous campaign against the Catholic community, in opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Police intelligence that the Police Ombudsman examined recorded that senior members of the UDA, the UVF and Ulster Resistance met to discuss the purchase and importation of arms, with the weapons subsequently being divided among the three organisations.

For victims, that is not just history but part of a story of how loyalist paramilitaries acquired weapons that were subsequently used to murder their loved ones, including in notorious atrocities at the Thierafurth Inn in Kilcoo and the Heights Bar in Loughinisland. Those who were murdered are not simply names associated with the conflict but loved ones.

Fundamental questions therefore remain. What did senior DUP figures know about Ulster Resistance, and when? What did they know about the procurement and distribution of the weapons? What information remains that could assist victims, families and the authorities in establishing the truth? There is another question, particularly for the PSNI, and it is this: where are those weapons now? The DUP speaks about challenging the glorification of terrorism, but the same standard must apply to everyone. It is not about collective guilt but about accountability and the right of victims to know what happened.

The families who contacted me deserve to know why those questions were not answered. There must be one standard of truth, one standard of accountability, no protected history —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Cathy.

Mrs Mason: — and no hierarchy of victims. Victims deserve the truth.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Apologies to the other Members who put their name down. Every Member who spoke took three minutes, leaving no time at all for anyone else, and those from the smaller parties in particular, to get in. I will leave that with you.

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

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

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

Mr O'Toole, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Welcome back after the summer to all those who are elected to represent the public in Northern Ireland. Whether they are unionist, nationalist or neither, whether they are working in the public sector or the private sector or whether they are young or old, whatever their status, all people here rely on public services, and all of them have a fundamental right to expect that their devolved Government — the people who are elected to office and who accept the office, the salary, the ministerial car and the Civil Service support that go along with it — are willing to do the most basic thing expected of any Government: set a Budget. However, thus far, the Executive have completely failed to do so. In fact, they have refused to do so.

We will come on to discussions about the quantum of the Executive's Budget and the financial settlement, because, as I will say repeatedly, and as, I know, other Members will raise repeatedly, the Executive have a legitimate argument in seeking the maximum possible funding, but we have to start from this premise: it is a profound failure of our politics to refuse to set a Budget; it is not a negotiating strategy, a tactic or a consequence of a little political difficulty. It is a profound failure by the two big parties in particular, who have run this region for 20 years and who, based on the evidence of today and, I am sure, the increasing evidence of the weeks and months to come, cannot or will not govern together. In fact, they have a structural political incentive to refuse to get along with one another. All the while, our public services slowly suffer.

My colleague Mr McCrossan just mentioned the gravity of the situation at Altnagelvin Hospital's accident and emergency department, and that situation will be replicated across the hospital estate in the North. We are, as we all know, 10 years on from the Bengoa report, which was supposed to herald significant reform and improved services for people. We also have multiple other big structural challenges in the immediate and long term in our public services, but there is literally no way to address those problems without setting a Budget.

Just the week before last, the SDLP Opposition asked public servants, those who deliver public services and members of the general public who use the public services to get in touch and explain the impact of there being no Budget on their day-to-day work and lives. The responses were wide and broad because they are not just the big things that relate to the health service. We all know the crisis that is being created; we all know the challenge around public-sector pay and wages if a Budget is not set. Someone who works in environmental governance got in touch with me to say that a key project is not proceeding because there is no Budget. A student teacher got in touch with me to say that their bursary for STEM teaching cannot proceed. A retired person got in touch with me to say that the adult art class that they had enjoyed for some time at the local tech is being discontinued because there is no Budget.

It will be said that it is because the British Government have not funded this place, but here is the problem with that argument: I agree, the British Government have questions to answer about the funding of this place. The next question is this: is refusing to set a Budget six months into the financial year a legitimate or appropriate way to secure better funding? I do not think that it is. I will preempt all those who will stand up and say, "The SDLP wants us to accept a terrible Budget. The SDLP this, and the SDLP that". I can already see Mr Kingston nodding in agreement. That is fine. I have already made the point for you, lads. I know that you are going to say that because you have said it multiple times before, but here is the thing: you have had two and a half years to agree a multi-year Budget. You could and should have agreed on a set of key priorities for the public in the North, Decisions should have been made about reforming the health service, decisions about investment in our waste water infrastructure so that we can build social homes, and decisions about our schools estate. Some of those will be difficult decisions, but they require political leadership. They require the people who accept office to say, "The situation is not ideal. We want more money from the British Government. We think that there is a structural funding problem" — the Opposition have never disputed that, by the way — "These are the choices that we — Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionists — want to make collectively as the Executive. We challenge the official Opposition to support us in making an argument for investment and structural change in our public services, and this is how we want it to be funded".

The Executive did not do that. That has not happened. The Executive have drifted six months into the financial year and pushed all the responsibility for cuts on to the public services and ordinary public servants. The people who run our hospitals, schools, community groups and the community and voluntary sector are being forced to make the cuts because politicians, who accept power and wages, will not take responsibility. We have never said that the UK Government fund this place properly, and I have never used any of the offensive or stupid language about the "begging bowl". I have never said that, and I would never say that. I understand how cynical and disinterested the UK Government are; I understand it well. Not only am I the Chair of the Finance Committee, but I was a UK Government civil servant. I know that this place does not really matter over there. Here is the thing: that reality underlines the importance of taking responsibility here and not letting them off the hook because irresponsibility here breeds cynicism there. The UK Government can simply say, "Look, those guys are just fighting as usual. They are not about the public and delivering public services in Northern Ireland; they are just fighting." That kind of cynicism from London is pernicious. However, when the Executive refuse to agree a plan; it makes it worse.

It also makes it worse when a draft Budget is published without agreement, and the Finance Minister tells us that it will be transformative although there is no agreement from his Executive colleagues. They immediately fall out with one another, rather than saying, "Let's come together and make a plan to take to the United Kingdom Government that shows the investment that we want to make to improve health, waste water and the key priorities for the public of Northern Ireland". That has not happened either. We have been blamed for holding the Executive to account for failing to set a Budget.

We have also held the UK Government to account for their lack of seriousness in this. An exercise was done some months ago called the "open-book exercise". I was clear that that was not a good idea, and I said in the Chamber that it was an exercise in Treasury cynicism. The Finance Minister agreed to it. He said that it would be an opportunity for the UK Government to see the pressures. I was fairly certain that it would be a high-level, cynical attempt to simply throw things back in the faces of the local Executive, and so it proved.

I genuinely do not think that these decisions are easy, but simply refusing to take responsibility makes them worse. The Fiscal Council has made it clear that there are differences in how Northern Ireland is funded versus Scotland and Wales. I want to be clear: the Finance Minister has a case, and I assume that the First Minister will make those arguments in meetings with her counterparts in Scotland and Wales today — whatever the status of those meetings, before the DUP gets too excited about that. For the record, I accept and agree with that, as I have done on every occasion when I have had the opportunity. However, I do not accept that a correct way to deal with it and to get a better financial settlement for this place is to simply refuse all responsibility.

We have a problem here with Executive Ministers who want to take office but refuse responsibility. They want power but no accountability. That cannot go on. It is one of the reasons why trust in politics here is so low. I want ordinary people to feel that, whether they like this place or not — few people do, I am afraid — and whether they are unionists and want to stay in the UK or, like me, believe in a new Ireland, people here are doing their best for them in difficult circumstances and making decisions to improve their lives. I cannot, hand on heart, say that people believe that right now. That is not me being opportunistic and oppositional for the sake of it; that is the official Opposition holding the Executive to account for not doing their job properly and holding the UK Government to account for their cynicism about it.

The UK Government need to get real in their engagement with the Executive. I encourage them to produce the best possible financial settlement, and I commend the fact that some slow, belated progress has been made. It is not unreasonable for me to ask why it could not have been done six months ago or last year; it should have been. If the Executive, particularly Sinn Féin and the DUP, were more focused on the public good rather than constantly poking each other in the eye for their own electoral advantage, there might have been a joined-up plan. Drumcree and all sorts of other nonsense that comes up is all distraction from the real issue, which is public services and doing right by the people who send us here. We will keep pressing the Executive to do their job and agree a Budget. We want the best possible financial settlement, and we encourage the Executive in those discussions, but we really should not have got into this situation. It is a failure for the people of Northern Ireland.

I commend the motion to the House.

Miss Hargey: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. You will have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much. I welcome the opportunity to move the Sinn Féin amendment. It is important, as it gets to the core of the Budget challenges and the fundamental issue, which is that we have not received a fair and sustainable funding package. That is a fact recognised not only by the Executive parties but by the independent Fiscal Council, and it is conclusive evidence that confirms that we should be funded fairly and to our level of need.

While an Executive Budget is ultimately about choices, the choices are made within a financial framework that has been imposed on us from Westminster. We need to be absolutely clear: the people of the North should not have to pay the price for a funding model that does not properly reflect the needs of our population or the pressures facing our public services. Our health service is under immense pressure. Our schools are dealing with rising costs and growing demand. Public services and communities struggle with the consequences of years of underinvestment and austerity, and families feel the impact every day through the rising cost of living.

The Executive have a responsibility to make the best possible use of the resources available to them. Sinn Féin will always support responsible budgeting, transformation and meeting need. That is why our Ministers negotiated the fiscal framework and the transformation fund with the support of the Executive. The British Government have repeatedly presented the funding settlement for the North as generous, but the reality on the ground tells a different story. The current arrangement includes a 24% needs-based factor in the Barnett formula, reflecting the independent assessment that the North requires around 124% of comparable spending per head because of its particular circumstances. That principle is welcome. However, it comes only after the Executive have been pushing for that change.

We know that more needs to be done, particularly in the area of reflecting our need. This is just the beginning. It cannot be the end of the conversation. We need a funding model that is fair, sustainable, transparent and, importantly, based on our need, one that recognises the North's particular demographic, social and economic circumstances and provides the Executive with the resources necessary to deliver quality public services.

The British Government cannot simultaneously recognise that the North has greater relative need and expect the Executive to deliver more with less. That goes to the heart of the debate today, and it was, I feel, a secondary issue in the motion. We have seen the consequences of that approach before: short-term funding packages, uncertainty from year to year and financial pressures being pushed from one Budget cycle to the next. That is not sustainable. It is not a sustainable way to run our public services.

The draft Budget would represent a step towards a multi-annual Budget and, importantly, allow the ability to plan from year to year. Ultimately, however, those Budgets need to be underpinned by the finances that allow the Executive to manage public-sector transformation while ensuring that services can continue to run in the interim. The British Government know that. They have a responsibility to properly fund the commitments that they have made. It must also be done fairly. When we look across these islands, the disparity becomes even clearer. Scotland and Wales have access to significantly greater public investment and, crucially, have greater certainty over their funding, a position that has seen them receive in the region of between £1 billion and £3 billion in additional funding compared with what the Executive receive.

That is where I take issue with the SDLP motion. It reduces that fundamental issue of adequate funding to this comment:

Additional funding of £1 billion and £3 billion to Scotland and Wales is not just a discrepancy; it is a fundamental flaw in how we are funded. We should not be in a position where people here receive poorer public services because the British Government have failed to provide the funding and the model that properly reflect our need.

The principle is simple: funding must be based on what is fair and not on political discretion at Westminster. It must also recognise that the North has suffered from decades of underinvestment. We cannot simply start the clock again and pretend that the accumulated infrastructure deficit and pressures in our health, education and social care systems do not exist. The Executive need certainty. They also need a fair funding settlement. They need a long-term fiscal framework that allows Ministers to plan, invest and, importantly, transform public services rather than constantly managing crisis.

That means maintaining a genuine needs-based approach, reviewing the assessment of need and ensuring that the funding available to the Executive keeps pace with the real pressures on our services. The British Government have the resources to do that. Unfortunately, however, they choose to fund war over public services. We believe that they need to reverse that political choice. At this time, what is required is political will. Sinn Féin will continue to argue for a fair deal for the people of the North and have their backs in pursuing a fairer funding model — one that is based on objective need and fairness, not political discretion — because our public services should not be treated as an afterthought. Our people should not be treated as second-class citizens.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. As my colleague said, we take the point about a better funding model from Westminster. Will the Member acknowledge two things, however? First, her party, with the DUP, has been in government for 20 years. There has been huge mismanagement and wastage of public funds across all Departments that has been highlighted continually by the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO).Secondly, we have benefited from substantial investment from the Irish Government through the Shared Island Fund and other projects.

Miss Hargey: I will point out that, for a good section of that, the SDLP was also in the Executive. You often leave that point out.

It goes to the fundamentals. If you do not have the proper funding envelope in the first place, you will, of course, jump from crisis to crisis. That is the fundamental issue and one of the reasons for tabling the amendment. We believe that that needs to be front and centre. Why should citizens here receive less than citizens in Scotland and Wales get? It is dressed up by the British Labour Government that, somehow, we get a generous deal. We do not get a generous deal. Thankfully, after a long time of us shouting about it, others have now come onto the page, and hopefully we are all united on that approach. Our people deserve the same opportunity as people anywhere else on these islands to access properly funded health, education and public services.

In closing, I must also mention the significance of the joint meeting that is taking place today in Cardiff between the leaders of my party — Sinn Féin — the SNP and Plaid Cymru. That meeting and the discussion among the First Ministers illustrates that our future lies in independence from Westminster and its financial constraints. The meeting also shows what we can do by working together across these islands. Independence would bring full financial powers and the ability to use those powers to invest in and transform our public services for the better and to create a truly healthy economy that is judged not on people who just cannot afford the basic necessities but where we have a people who will prosper and thrive. That is the future that I believe in and the future that we should all move towards.

Mr Tennyson: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, the amendments are mutually exclusive, so, if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2.

Mr Tennyson, you will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 2.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Members might be pleased to know that I do not intend to take anywhere near the 10-minute speaking allocation.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion, but I do so conscious that there is now a live process of negotiation ongoing between Executive parties and the UK Government. It is important that we seek to reflect the spirit of confidentiality in respect of those discussions, so I may not spell out my position on the issues in as much detail as I ordinarily would in such a debate. That has not been the approach taken by some Executive Ministers, though, who seem addicted to negotiation via loudhailer. That has the dangerous effect of undermining trust and confidence between the Executive and the UK Government and raises serious questions about just how committed some parties are to the process that is now under way.

Amendment No 2 seeks to acknowledge the scale of inequity in how the funding formula operates in respect of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As has already been referenced during the debate, if we were funded on the same basis as Wales, that would mean an additional £1 billion for the Executive. If we were funded on the same basis as Scotland, that would mean over £3 billion of additional investment for public services here. Therefore, we cannot approach the debate from a position of asking people in Northern Ireland to pay more for less. Our constituents, who work hard and pay their taxes, deserve to get a fair deal from the Treasury, as their counterparts do in other parts of these islands, and it is welcome that all parties in the Chamber have made that case and that argument.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will, yes.

Mr O'Toole: The Fiscal Council set it out in black and white. Whether you call it a "discrepancy" or "unfairness" is slightly academic; there is definitely a difference, and we have acknowledged that. However, it is also true to say that the Executive had failed to set a Budget long before that report from the Fiscal Council was published. I think that it was published either just before the start of the financial year or just into the financial year.

Mr Tennyson: The Member is correct that the issues predate the publication of the Fiscal Council report. However, the Fiscal Council confirmed a position that the Executive were already well aware of and had been communicating. It added weight and strength to the argument with Treasury, but it was not a surprise or a new argument to those of us who had been dealing closely with those issues.

It is important, as the amendment outlines, to be honest about the drastic consequences of agreeing the draft Budget as proposed earlier this year.

The Department of Justice, for example, has been a particularly frugal Department. Its spending has consistently been brought within budget, despite its share of the block grant falling from 11% to 8% over the past decade. The gap at the end of that multi-year Budget period would have been equivalent to £215 million. That accounts for the budgets of the Prison Service, Forensic Science, the Probation Board and the Youth Justice Agency. To have signed up to and legislated for the Budget proposed at the time would therefore effectively have meant defunding the Prison Service. That it is not a responsible position for any politician in the Chamber to take.

Fundamentally, the challenge with our finances is twofold. First, we have a boom and bust system, whereby a Secretary of State will ride in on a white horse and write a cheque to get us through a couple of years. Those sugar rushes to our finances may put us above the level of need for a short time and have us at the level of need in some financial years, but they will inevitably see us fall below the level of need, thus creating a cliff edge. That is not a sustainable way in which to do business, and it breeds cynicism amongst the public, amongst parties in the Chamber and in the Treasury itself. We therefore need a sustainable funding formula or, at the very least, a pathway to get us there quickly. After the previous financial package, we called for the establishment of an independent commission on Northern Ireland's funding and fiscal framework. Positive soundings were made by the previous Government about the prospect, but it was never followed up on, and, inevitably, the cliff edge that was warned about presented itself and caused the present issues.

There is also the question of credibility, which cuts both ways. In effect, we have a Pavlov's dog mentality, whereby the UK Government incentivise the position in which every financial and political issue must be elevated to crisis point before negotiations are launched and solutions found. We need to change that culture in our politics.

Secondly, as our amendment seeks to address, we also need to acknowledge our own responsibility in this Building and on the Executive. There are structural issues from the cost of division and segregation. There is potential for us to have more fiscal devolution so that we can raise revenue in a progressive way that does not unfairly burden families and so that we can do the transformation and reform of public services that we have been talking about in this Building for decades. Any agreement therefore needs to enable the Executive and tie them to taking serious decisions in those areas.

Most fundamentally of all, however, the question of sustainable public finances cannot be divorced from the question of sustainable political institutions. Far too much time and energy has been wasted and far too many opportunities squandered as a result of the institutions having been in abeyance when the public needed them most. Public services cannot be transformed from a burning platform of crisis and collapse. Rather, sustained political leadership, which has been lacking over the past 28 years, is needed. That is why our amendment refers to the need for reform of the institutions in order to remove the vetoes and the dysfunction, to remove the culture of blame-shifting and to empower the Executive to take the difficult and necessary decisions for which the public are crying out.

Alliance is committed to, and is serious about, the process that is under way with the UK Government. We are equally serious about taking the difficult but transformative decisions that would make a difference to our finances, to our public services and to people's lives.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Brian Kingston.

Mr Kingston: Do all other contributors have five minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Yes.

Mr Kingston: Thank you. The SDLP motion captures very well its predictable and often contradictory approach to the politics of opposition. Here we have it criticising the Executive, as is its wont, while at the same time arguing for both sides of the issue. That suggests that the SDLP is criticising just for the sake of it. It agrees that Northern Ireland is underfunded compared with the other devolved regions of the United Kingdom. We now know that, unlike Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have been funded well above their stated level of need. It is totally reasonable to expect Northern Ireland, as the smallest devolved region of the UK, to receive the highest per capita funding for its public services, as we do not have the same economy of scale, yet the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council's report shows that we currently receive less public funding per person than Scotland does. Indeed, Scotland is funded at 20% above its assessed level of need, and Wales is funded at 8% above its level of need, whereas Northern Ireland is funded just at our level of need. We argue that our funding level should be higher. Our four-party Executive have been united in campaigning on the fact that Northern Ireland needs more and that, for a whole range of reasons, including our lower density of population and our higher rate of public-sector employment, we cannot live within the current block grant.

In the motion, the SDLP says that it:

yet calls on the Executive and the Finance Minister, in particular, to agree a Budget based on our current block grant.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will, yes.

Mr O'Toole: I am genuinely intrigued. This question is for any Executive party MLA: do you genuinely think that the official Opposition should just sit here and say, "That's grand" about a Government not setting a Budget? I genuinely want the answer to that question.

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

Mr Kingston: I accept that you have the right to criticise and the right to challenge the actions of Ministers and all parties in the Executive. We have the right to challenge you also, and that is what I am doing in my address. You are saying that you want to see more funding come to Northern Ireland, but, at the same time, that we should plan to live within the current block grant. I am saying that you should be honest with the public on what you are calling for. If Executive Ministers were to agree on an inadequate Budget for their Departments, as the SDLP wants, those Ministers would be required to live within that Budget and to plan and act accordingly. In effect, the SDLP is calling for savage cuts to be made to public-sector jobs and services in health, education, policing and justice, infrastructure, housing and across the whole gamut of government. Those would be the consequences of agreeing an inadequate Budget, and that would, of course, seriously undermine the efforts of the Executive to secure a greater settlement from Treasury.

I appreciate that the SDLP probably tabled the motion some time ago, but it is bad timing for the SDLP that significant progress is now being made. Our Executive's holding the line has resulted in Treasury's offer of an additional £1·5 billion over three years after talks with the new Prime Minister and the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland — that is an extra £500 million each year for public services in Northern Ireland. Those negotiations have not yet concluded, but, if the Executive had taken the SDLP's advice, that would have seriously weakened their position in those negotiations. The prospect of an increased settlement to Northern Ireland from His Majesty's Treasury certainly undermines the proposal put forward by the SDLP in the motion. We can support the wording of the Sinn Féin amendment, but we will not support the SDLP motion nor the Alliance Party amendment.

Mr Burrows: It is a basic responsibility of any credible Government to have a Budget. It is disappointing that one has not been agreed. There have been too many years of stop-start Government and single-year settlements, and we badly need a multi-year Budget.

We are still the only Administration that is underfunded. Wales and Scotland are funded at least at their need, but we are not. We should be funded at around 128%, if we look at the best figures. It is imperative that we continue to negotiate hard with the UK Government and get the settlement that the people of Northern Ireland deserve in order to have sustainable public services. We in the Ulster Unionist Party will continue to negotiate, and I am pleased that the Government have moved — not far enough yet — to offer roughly £1·5 billion. However, we have to accept that this place lacks credibility when we look the Secretary of State or anyone in the UK Treasury in the eye. We have failed to upgrade and optimise our Assembly in its institution and operation. We have continued to waste money. We have continued to fail to deal with transformation. We have continued to fail to deal with waste as regards changing things such as procurement. Vast sums of money go down the drain. Too often, we are penny wise and pound foolish. As much as we need to press the Government to give us the appropriate funding settlement, we have to look in the mirror and accept that we are part of the problem as well.

There is a good case for saying that Northern Ireland has particular problems because of the legacy of the past. There are histories of mental health issues and trauma, victims and all kinds of litigation. We have a divided society. Were we starting with a fresh piece of paper, we would not design the delivery of public services in the way that it is, but we are where we are, and it will be a long time before we address the underlying issues. Therefore, we need that additional support. We need pay parity. It is simply not acceptable that we face uncertainty, meaning that our front-line workers may not get their pay awards and may have to consider going on strike.

I come back to this point, however: the First Minister is in Cardiff today, signing the manifesto of Plaid Cymru and the SNP. Even if no public funds were used to pay for that trip — I asked a question for priority written answer today to that effect — there is an opportunity cost, because Ms O'Neill is paid by the taxpayer. She should be here, not away on a party political stunt. It goes to the very essence of our problems that someone who is paid a wage to be here and deal with the issues in Northern Ireland is signing the manifesto commitments of two other separatist leaders. It shows where the priorities are all wrong.

In essence, let me say this: the SDLP is right to raise issues about how dysfunctional this place is and how much waste there is. I get that the Opposition should have motions on Opposition day, but look at the vast waste of money that this place spends on other kinds of motions that are tabled by all parties, because they are there to bring them. There is hour after hour of fanfare for non-binding motions on all manner of things, with Hansard staff typing away, Ministers being brought away from their day job and MLAs sitting here despite the fact that they could be doing all kinds of other things. They then go out and say, "We agreed a motion", and the public, who pay our wages, think for a moment, "Oh, will something change?". The answer is no. It is a sixth-form debating society, albeit a rather grand and nice one. What a waste of time and money.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. At the Business Committee meeting last week, we proposed that the Tree Protection Bill be debated next Monday, but his party colleague said, "No, we have a non-binding motion slot". Which is it? Do you prefer non-binding motions or legislation?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We are moving away from the Budget. I appeal to Members that we return to it.

Mr Burrows: Let us be quite clear. Non-binding motions are here, and we will use our fair share of them for the most appropriate things. By the way, that is a non-binding motion on aversive training tools. The Alliance Party, through its Justice Ministry, could have banned those tools, but, no, it has not done so, meaning that dogs can get electric shock therapy —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Can we return to the motion on the Budget?

Mr Burrows: Yes. It does not cover that.

Here is the reality: we use those motions, but they are a waste of time. We need to negotiate hard with the UK Government, get a multi-year Budget and move this place on to fixing things. We must stop paying for pothole repairs and, instead, start putting down proper road surfaces the first time. We need to stop being penny wise and pound foolish so that we can look the Government in the eye and say that, if they give us that money, we will spend it wisely and reform our Government. Therefore, I agree, in essence, with what the SDLP is trying to do, but, of course, it will make no difference because it is a non-binding motion.

Ms Forsythe: The Budget is such an important issue. Matthew O'Toole is the Chair of the Finance Committee, and we all work very well at Committee together. He very much knows the detail of what is going on, but, obviously, in the Chamber, he has a role to play, and he is in character, making angry attacks upon others. That is shining through once again.

Earlier today in the Chamber, he mentioned the Streisand effect, which is when attempting to hide or cover up things sometimes backfires. Perhaps we can see the SDLP's response to elements of the Budget in the same frame, because the notion of criticising everything but offering nothing serves nobody.

Earlier this year, when John O'Dowd brought forward the draft Budget, which Sinn Féin supported at the time, the DUP held firm. We were out quickly. The Education Minister very quickly set out what it would mean. The Budget was inadequate for special educational needs; it could lead to the redundancies of 6,700 teachers and some 3,100 non-teaching staff; it did not prioritise social housing; and it had no money for the anti-poverty strategy. For the Department of Justice, by the end of the multi-year period, it would equate to the combined annual budgets of the Prison Service, the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency and Forensic Science Northern Ireland being cut. It was a Budget that we could not support, and we held firm. As we moved forward, the Executive agreed collectively that they could not operate within it. It was the right thing to do to push back on the issue of funding, because we need to secure the right package for Northern Ireland. It needs to be a right, fair, equitable and sustainable long-term funding settlement that enables us to deliver public services while working to transform them rather than one of the repeated cash-cow sticking plasters that are used to cover up the shortfall.

Much has been said about the fact that Wales and Scotland are funded well beyond their need while Northern Ireland is funded to its need. An important point is often missed, however. When it is reported that Northern Ireland is funded to its level of need, that includes the retrospective cash-cow sticking plasters. Northern Ireland is not funded to its need in a way that means that we know what is coming over the next three to four years to enable us to plan and spend on public services. We need a proper, sensible solution. Ultimately, that is what we hope to get.

Matthew O'Toole talked about the responses from the different groups that have fed back to him. Well, many of the rest of us got those responses from groups earlier in the year. When the draft Budget came out, we got them immediately from people whom we engaged with. Mr O'Toole talked about adult art classes and people in the voluntary and community sector. Yes, they cannot move forward because the Budget is not in place, but, if the Budget had been imposed with £1·5 billion of cuts, all those things would certainly have been cut long before now. Those decisions would have been made immediately. The arm's-length bodies, the community and voluntary sector and some of the most vulnerable in society would have been hit hard and would have continued to be hit by the Budget. It is the right thing to do to get a Budget that works for people.

As I said, the Opposition criticise that position and criticise where we are but offer nothing. I have not seen a shadow proposal for a draft Budget come through from the Opposition. Perhaps I missed it. I would love to know what their proposal would be for a Budget under the current terms. During the talks in December 2023, the DUP leader, Gavin Robinson, highlighted the fact that there would be a cliff edge. We approached the cliff edge, and in October 2025 he was out again. Talks took place this year, and they are ongoing. We have recognised the need for long-term, sustainable and fair funding for Northern Ireland, and we will continue to push for that.

We will support Sinn Féin's amendment today. We need to have a Budget in place in Northern Ireland. I know that, and I agree with the Opposition's sentiment, but it must be a Budget that our public services can be delivered within, is not catastrophic for the people of Northern Ireland and does not decimate our public services and drive people out of work. People in Northern Ireland are struggling. The DUP has held firm on its position on this and will continue to do so.

Mr Gaston: The most basic duty of any Government is to agree a Budget. Any serious Government will also need to set a tax rate, but thankfully, in Northern Ireland, we are spared the Northern Ireland Executive's having fiscal powers at their fingertips and the devastation that that would cause to people here. The Executive parties spent last week on our TV screens saying what they did not want, but I never once heard any of them come forward with a formula for managing their budgets and living within their means. We are funded to the Treasury's definition of need. What I want to know today from the Opposition or some of the Executive parties is this: what is the uplift that you crave? What is the uplift that would cover your bloated Civil Service and pet projects each year? The fact that this place cannot even slice up the cake that it gets from Westminster is a testament to the failure of Belfast Agreement devolution.

Of course, the truth is that Sinn Féin can never have enough money, because that would go against its united Ireland fantasy and defeat its argument that the UK does not work. A Stormont headed by Sinn Féin will always have that 'Oliver Twist' mentality of asking for more, regardless of how generous London is. However, there is a case to be made to His Majesty's Treasury. The basic point that needs to be hammered home is that, for two years, Northern Ireland was not funded to the Holtham definition of need. Our Secretary of State knows that. As a Welsh MP, he is well aware that Holtham was applied to the Welsh budget after years of campaigning. He has the advantage of being able to blame the historical shortfall on the Tory Administration that preceded his time in office. I have a suggestion for our Secretary of State as he does so: why does he not get on with the job and set the Budget that the Executive cannot? He should not give money to individual pet projects; rather, he should allocate money to the different Departments and then, if he must, let this place get on with it. I say this to the House, including all those who sit in the Executive: when you look at the waste for which they are responsible — there is no greater example of that than the £200 million on the A5 — you see that Stormont is no great advert for devolution.

My final piece of advice to the Secretary of State is that he could find an additional £500 million by simply abolishing the Irish Sea border. That colossal waste of money is scandalous, yet it is supported by those who brought the motion to the House today.

There is a need because, for a number of years, we were not funded to the definition of need. There is a case to be made in that regard. However, given the examples of waste and the legacy that this place has, it is no wonder that the Secretary of State is reluctant to provide any more money to be wasted here in Stormont.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, the next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. This debate will continue following Question Time, when the next Member to be called to speak will be the Minister of Finance to respond to the debate. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 11 has been withdrawn.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Earlier this year, I met the Minister for Infrastructure and NI Water, and we are meeting again tomorrow to discuss water and waste water infrastructure and NI Water's proposals to address issues that constrain economic development here. Together, working with industry, we are exploring ways in which we can apply innovative solutions, while continuing to press the British Government for a fair and sustainable funding settlement, the absence of which, over many years, has led to the degradation of our waste water infrastructure. I know that my Executive colleague the Infrastructure Minister is working hard, within financial constraints, to improve waste water infrastructure and the planning system and that she regularly engages with Executive colleagues to advocate for an increase in waste water investment to modernise our ageing waste water system in order to facilitate housing growth and economic development.

Ms K Armstrong: Newtownards is the largest town in my constituency of Strangford and has the most economic impact in the area. It is in a closed capture area, however. What action is the Minister for the Economy's Department taking to support businesses that have been negatively affected by waste water infrastructure, where that has created barriers to economic growth and investment and led to two businesses in my constituency potentially closing?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. She has corresponded with me previously on issues to do with the waste water infrastructure in Newtownards. As an Executive, we are collectively focused on the issue and are working with NI Water. The Infrastructure Minister has lead responsibility for that and has been trying to identify ways in which to free up capacity and to target investment at where it will have the most impact. We continue to work alongside Invest NI as we try to support businesses to navigate the system. We all agree that more needs to be done on investment, freeing up capacity and allowing economic development to take place. I am happy to take up with the Infrastructure Minister the issues that the Member has highlighted, and we are working together to try to find a way forward.

Mr Martin: Minister, the Construction Employers Federation (CEF) has recently stated that over 6,000 homes cannot currently be built in Northern Ireland. The Wastewater Infrastructure Group (WIG) reports that, if constraints continue, Northern Ireland's economy, based on GVA, will be a quarter of a billion pounds smaller over the next three years. How concerned are you about the figures that I have just presented to you? Are you content with your party colleague the Minister for Infrastructure's three-pronged approach, which you referenced, given that the industry has called it wholly inadequate?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I said, the Executive as a whole have a focus on the need to invest in our waste water infrastructure. We do consider it a constraint to building houses, to which he referred, and to economic development. We are therefore focused on that. I support the Infrastructure Minister's three-pronged approach. She has set out, as her predecessor did, an approach that will help unlock capacity and deal with the water that is going into the system in the first place. There are challenges at both ends. We need to look at how we can do things more innovatively, and the Infrastructure Minister and I, along with NI Water and Invest NI, are currently working on doing that. We are looking to see whether there are things that we can do to support business in order to free up capacity. I assure the Member that we have a focus on the issue and that the Executive as a whole have a focus on it.

Mr McGlone: Minister, can you tell us whether Invest NI records every investment opportunity that is lost owing to planning delays or waste water constraints? If it does not, how can your Department claim to understand and measure the true economic cost of those failures?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I am not sure that there is a dataset that captures what he set out. When businesses and investors make decisions, they make them based on a range of measures, so, of course, Invest will interrogate the various issues that any investor identifies, and it will have a record of that. I am happy to correspond with the Member on the detail of how that information is captured and the exact dataset that Invest NI captures. The chief executive of Invest NI has identified some of the constraints, with which we are all very familiar, as a challenge. Certainly, I have been working with him, as I have with my Executive colleagues, to try to find a way forward. The Infrastructure Minister and I are putting a focus on what more we can do from an innovative perspective to try to free up capacity, allow economic development to take place and, importantly, allow houses to be built.

Mr Gaston: Minister, planning red tape is one of the biggest obstacles to growing our local economy. Devolving planning powers to councils in 2015 moved us from having one set of policies governing planning to having 11 localised plans. Any reform of planning must ensure a return to one set of Northern Ireland-wide policies. Has the Minister considered the impact that having multiple planning policies is having on attracting foreign direct investment or allowing our local businesses to grow?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you are not responsible for planning. You can answer that question whatever way you feel.

Dr Archibald: Thank you, a Phriomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I have been fairly generous in not pushing back at Members in relation to who has responsibility for these particular areas, because I very much recognise the cross-cutting impact that planning and waste water infrastructure have on the local economy. I assure the Member that I have engaged regularly with my colleague the Infrastructure Minister, who does have a particular focus on the planning improvement plan, to address some of the challenges — with which we will all be familiar through our constituency offices — when it comes to businesses seeking to invest, develop and grow. It is important to recognise that, over the past couple of years, there have been improvements in the time taken for planning applications. We work on that across Departments, as well as across agencies with different responsibilities. We will continue to place a focus on it, because we all want to achieve the same outcome.

Dr Archibald: With your permission, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle,

I will answer questions 2 and 9 together.

I have engaged with the Minister of Education on a range of issues relating to learner pathways, curriculum reform and participation in education and training. While officials from my Department and the Department of Education engage regularly, engagement on the draft framework has been limited to date. The Department of Education is consulting on the draft framework, and my officials are working with the further education sector to help inform my Department's response.

I am aware of, and share, some of the concerns expressed by teachers, parents and students regarding aspects of the TransformED agenda. Those concerns warrant careful consideration. I support efforts to encourage young people to remain engaged in education, skills and training. However, significant questions remain regarding the practical implementation and enforceability of proposals to extend participation to age 18. Further work by the Department of Education is required before implementation can be considered.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that answer. A lot of concerns are being raised about the distinct shift in the draft curriculum framework from a curriculum that is focused on skills to one that is very much focused on a knowledge-rich approach. Given your responsibilities around the skills agenda, how will you continue to engage with the Education Minister to ensure that our young people leave the education system not just having received knowledge but equipped with the skills that they need to go out and contribute to the economy and workplace?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. My officials will continue to engage with Department of Education officials on that wider piece of work. Although we have not been involved directly in developing the proposals, I and my Department have a focus on ensuring that we have the skills that meet the needs of the economy now and in the future. It is important that what we are doing in my Department and the Department of Education is joined up across government and also across the community and voluntary sector. I will continue to keep a close eye on that as it progresses, and my officials will continue to work with their colleagues in the Department of Education.

Mrs Guy: Minister, my question relates to the proposed legislation, which would mean young people staying in employment, education and training until the age of 18. That will require the right pathways and opportunities being available to all those young people. Are you confident that the infrastructure is in place?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I have engaged directly with the Education Minister on the legislation, and my officials have engaged with their colleagues. As I said, I support the principle. I want young people to stay in education or training, but, as the Member said, it has to be the right pathway for the young person. Having the structures and frameworks in place is one thing, but we need to be able to fund them, and we are facing particular challenges.

We are actually doing really well when it comes to engaging young people in training pathways, and we have seen significant increases in the number of young people taking up traineeships and apprenticeships. That is hugely welcome but comes with additional costs, and we have to make sure that we properly resource whatever we put in place. I have emphasised that in my engagement with the Education Minister, and I will continue to engage with him as this progresses.

Mr Delargy: Minister, I appreciate that you have already answered this question in part, but how will curriculum 2028 affect learners going into further education?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. In the type of qualifications that young people obtain, the subjects that they study and ensuring that a range of pathways is available, it is important that the curriculum, as it develops, recognises the value not only of academic pathways but of technical and vocational pathways, that there are pathways for everybody, regardless of their ability, and that there is support for young people, in particular young people with special educational needs. We need to plan for transitions and ensure that there is suitable flexibility so that learners can progress from academic pathways into further education or employment opportunities with suitable support. As I said, we will continue to engage with the Education Minister on that, and it is important that any revised curriculum framework supports the pathways in further education as well.

Ms Brownlee: Does the Minister agree that, by ensuring that the curriculum matches the needs of the economy, the Education Minister is doing the right thing?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As I said, it is about making sure that we are meeting the needs of all learners. We will continue to engage with the Education Minister. I think that we share the aspiration that what we teach young people, in school or further or higher education, meets the needs of the economy in not just the here and now but in the future as well. We are equipping them with the appropriate digital skills and other skills that they require, which will support us in developing the economy but also in developing the type of society that we want. Education is not just about the economy, of course. It is about opening minds and raising aspirations, which is important, and we need to capture that in the curriculum.

Dr Archibald: Ensuring that electricity grid capacity does not act as a barrier to economic investment is a priority for me and my Department. Through the grid development monitoring group, my Department brings together key stakeholders to drive progress on strategic transmission and distribution projects and to identify barriers to delivery. In addition, my Department is working closely with NIE Networks, the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI) and the Utility Regulator to support major network investment, including the £2·27 billion RP7 programme to increase network capacity and resilience. I have also introduced reforms to electricity connection charging arrangements, making it fairer and more affordable for homes and businesses to connect to the network. Together, those actions will help ensure that the electricity network can support business investment, economic growth and job creation across the North.

Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. ABO Energy is a major European renewables company with headquarters in my constituency of Lagan Valley. It has £1·1 billion of investment to come here but cannot realise it, half because of constraints on the grid. That is not just an energy problem; it is a problem for our economy. Does the Minister agree that it is one thing to have meetings and talk to all the stakeholders, but it is her Department's responsibility to produce a plan for moving forward that gives the outworking of how NIE Networks, SONI and the Utility Regulator will realise that, in much the same way as the Department for Infrastructure —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Thank you, David.

Mr Honeyford: — would do for roads?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question and for his considerable interest in energy policy, which I really do appreciate. We have discussed the issue on a number of occasions. Later in the year, I will publish the energy strategy policy statement, which will set out the key milestones for delivery to 2030. The statement will recognise that we need to be smarter and have a stronger and more flexible electricity grid for the exact reasons that the Member has laid out: supporting economic growth, attracting investment and increasing our renewable electricity generation. We will look at how the various pieces of work by the stakeholders across the energy system fit together, because alignment is important to achieve the outcomes that we are all collectively trying for.

Mr Kearney: Minister, businesses in rural areas already have to contend with many more obstacles than businesses in urban areas. How will you ensure that rural businesses specifically are not disadvantaged when seeking grid connections?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. One of the key reasons why we took the decision that we did on connection charging policy was to address the unfairnesses in the existing system, particularly for rural businesses, which often faced much greater costs. Under the previous arrangements, customers in areas where the grid was weaker could face significantly higher costs where reinforcement of the wider network was required. The new arrangements that are now in place spread those costs more fairly across the customer base and make it easier and more affordable for homes and businesses, particularly in rural areas, to connect to the grid. They help remove that unfair geographic penalty and deliver greater fairness regardless of location. As I said, that is particularly important for making a more level playing field for rural businesses. We have had positive feedback, but obviously it takes time to see the impact of some of the changes. The investment by NIE Networks in the grid will play an important part in addressing some of the challenges that we face.

Mr Harvey: Minister, when do you intend to publish the long-duration energy storage policy?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. We will publish the storage policy before the end of the year. I cannot give a firm date — I will check with officials — but it is being finalised, and we will publish it before the end of the calendar year.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Doug Beattie is not in his place.

Dr Archibald: Ulster University has announced the commencement of a process inviting applications under a voluntary redundancy scheme. Ulster University is an autonomous institution, and decisions relating to staffing are a matter for it. My Department continues to engage with the university on the issue. I encourage the university to continue its constructive engagement with trade unions, and I hope that any compulsory redundancies will be avoided.

It is still too early in the process to fully assess or quantify the impact on any individual campus, including the north Belfast campus. I recognise that this will be a worrying and uncertain time for staff. I remain committed to securing a sustainable future for our higher education sector. That is why, along with my Executive colleagues, I have consistently highlighted the unsustainable nature of our current funding arrangements and continue to press the British Government for a fair and sustainable funding settlement that protects public services and supports economic development, including investment in higher education.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister. I appreciate that it may be too early to assess the impact, given that we do not yet know whether there will be compulsory redundancies.

It has been acknowledged and reported that the higher education funding review has lost the confidence of some of the key stakeholders. Minister, will you commit to a reset in those relations so that we can progress that review?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The first stage of the higher education funding review was an independent financial needs assessment of the different higher education institutions. That was completed, and a summary report was published earlier in the year. Officials are engaging with the sector on the next steps for the wider review, and I expect proposals to be brought to me very shortly. In the meantime, I have taken some steps to try to support the sector where possible. I know that the Member will appreciate the challenges in trying to achieve that in the current budgetary context. We have allocated some additional funding to St Mary's University College and Stranmillis University College in recognition of the challenges facing them as small institutions. The Department also commissioned specific work on Ulster University's multi-campus model, and that has been completed.

Despite the budgetary challenges that we face, we have sought to prioritise funding for skills and specifically for our further and higher education institutions. Over the past couple of years, we have been successful in advocating for additional in-year funding. That is not a replacement for having a sustainable baseline for our further and higher education institutions, which is what I, personally, am working to achieve in the context of the current Budget negotiations. Work is ongoing with our higher education institutions on how we take forward the higher education funding review. It is important work, and we need to ensure that we have the budgetary capacity behind it.

Ms Hunter: Minister, given that we share a constituency, you will know that many of our constituents are staff or students who feel that they are paying the price for years of underfunding in higher education. Will you expand on the urgent discussions that you have had with Ulster University to protect jobs and safeguard teaching and research and with those impacted on to ensure that campuses outside Belfast and in our constituency are not disproportionately affected?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As I said to Miss McAllister, my top priority in the ongoing Budget negotiations is to achieve additional funding so that we can invest in our further and higher education institutions. As skills, which include further and higher education, make up 75% of my budget, we invest significantly in our institutions, including our higher education institutions, but it has been a challenge over recent years.

Between 2016-17 and 2024-25, the Executive's Budget as a whole increased by 58%. The budget for my Department in that time increased by only 1%. That is because of the investment that we have made in Health and Education, but it has had an impact on other Departments and made it really challenging to keep up with the inflationary costs that we are experiencing. I want to invest more in our further and higher education system. It is worth noting, however, that, of the two campuses outside Belfast, Magee has seen a 22% increase in student numbers since the Executive returned, and Coleraine has seen a 12% increase in student numbers since the Executive returned. We see good progress, but I recognise that we have more to do and that we need to stabilise our higher education funding system.

Mr Carroll: A few months ago, in this Building, I hosted a delegation of Unite, UNISON and University and College Union (UCU) workers who outlined their concerns about job losses at Ulster University. There was also a huge concern about the impact of job losses, compulsory and voluntary, on students and workers. Minister, have you or your officials raised those concerns and objections to the job cuts directly with the university?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Likewise, I have met the unions that represent workers at Ulster University, and I have continued to engage with the trade unions and the university. There are particular financial challenges that face our universities, and that is why we continue to engage to try to get a better funding settlement for the Executive as a whole. I will seek to get my fair share of any settlement as part of the Budget negotiations because we need to rebalance what we invest in our economy and our further and higher education system. It is important that that is reflected in the time ahead, because we want to ensure that our institutions are sustainable and that our young people get a good experience in college. We need to invest, and I recognise that that has been a challenge in recent years.

Mr Boggs: I commend the measures that the Minister has already taken to better support our universities right across the North. In previous answers, she mentioned the proposed redundancies. Does the Minister agree that it demonstrates that more funding is required? Will she reconfirm her commitment to making that case?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Yes, I certainly agree that it is clear that more funding is required. The proposed redundancies very much highlight the financial pressures that face our universities. It creates challenges for the institutions and for the staff and students. As I said to other Members, it underscores the importance of the Executive securing a fair funding settlement that enables us to invest in our public services, including higher education institutions. My Department, as I have reflected, like all Departments, faces an extremely challenging financial situation. There have been difficult decisions to make and things to do as we navigate the current situation. In that context, we have also been able to do some good things that I have already mentioned. However, working alongside my Executive colleagues, I will continue to make the case for a better and fairer funding settlement for the Executive and, as I said, for my fair share of it for my Department.

Mr Nesbitt: Minister, has there been an assessment of the impact of the job losses on the number of courses being offered at third level? What is the potential consequential impact on the economy of fewer courses?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member. As I have mentioned in previous answers to Members, we do not yet have the full details of the impact of the redundancies and where exactly they might have an impact specifically. Therefore, it has not been possible thus far to determine any potential impacts on courses or qualifications. Obviously, it is for the institutions to determine how they organise and deploy their resources and what they offer. It is important, however, for the Economy Committee and the Department to have a view of and to oversee that, because, as discussed, it is important that we ensure that the skills and qualifications that people leave our universities with meet the needs of our economy and society more widely. We will continue to work with the universities on that, in the time ahead, as we navigate the challenges of our finances, while making the case for additional funding to better invest in our further and higher education system.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Áine Murphy. Minister, you have less than a minute.

Dr Archibald: Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann 2026 was a landmark event, bringing together communities to celebrate Irish music, language and culture. I was pleased to be able to support it with an additional £1 million this year. It strengthened our international profile, supported local businesses, encouraged future tourism and created a lasting legacy.

The success of the 2026 fleadh was built upon close partnership working. Belfast City Council, Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, Tourism NI and many others worked closely together to deliver a successful, inclusive and safe event. It was projected to attract more than 700,000 visitors, with almost 40% coming from outside the North, and it is estimated that it will exceed the original estimate of £54 million in direct economic benefit.

Tourism NI is working closely with Belfast City Council to assess the impact of the fleadh, and initial indicators are extremely positive. Recent statistics show record sales in hotels across the North for July, as the fleadh approached. Belfast City Council's initial economic impact report should be available before the end of the year, and I look forward to sharing the findings once that work has been completed.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Áine, but time has run out. We will now move on to topical questions.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. It is unfortunate that we are in the position that we are in with the Bill and that it continues to be stuck in the Executive. That achieves nothing other than to obstruct the open, transparent consideration of important legislation.

I reject the Member's characterisation of the process. A very strong consultation and engagement process led to the Bill being drafted in its current form. I believe that it strikes the right balance between delivering for workers and businesses. People will have their own view of that, but it would be much better if they were able to express it with the Bill having been published and progressing through the Assembly.

It is important to stress that the Bill is not focused solely on workers' rights. Rather, it is about trying to deliver a more balanced economy, while recognising the needs of businesses, workers and the broader economy. I have continued to work with Executive colleagues and others, including the business sector and trade unions, while the draft Bill has been with the Executive. We have since made some tweaks to it, and we will continue to engage as constructively as we possibly can in the time ahead. The Member will appreciate that there is a short time left in this mandate in which to introduce the Bill, but, from my perspective, there is still time for it to come to the Assembly.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, the public spat between you and the business community has been unedifying. A part of political leadership is finding consensus in difficult situations, yet the delayed 'good jobs' Bill did not reach the Executive until April. In the meantime, workers across the North have fallen even further behind their counterparts in Britain. Employment rights here —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question.

Ms McLaughlin: — are not moving forward. Do you regret taking so long to bring the draft Bill to the Executive, and do you regret the fact that the delays could set workers' rights back years?

Dr Archibald: I reject the characterisation that there has been a spat between me and the business community. That is not true. We have a difference of opinion on particular elements of the Bill. I work really closely with the business community on many issues. I work constructively and positively with it on many things and have achieved a considerable amount by doing so.

Let me knock on the head the Member's point about the time taken for the Bill to come to the Executive. A proper process had to be undertaken. We are in a shortened mandate. Legislation has to be consulted on and drafted. If I were to bring forward legislation that had not been properly consulted on, I would be criticised for rushing the process. The legislation has not been rushed. Rather, it has been carefully balanced in its consideration of the issues. It has been constructed through partnership working with the various partners involved, including trade unions and businesses. What has come out the other end is better for the time that was taken to get it to this point. The unfortunate reality is that our shortened mandate means that we have more compressed timelines. As I have said repeatedly, however, there is plenty of time for the Bill, like a number of other Bills that have recently been introduced, to be considered and progress through the Assembly before the end of the mandate.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Regional balance is one of my Department's four priorities. We have done considerable work to advance regional balance within the mandate. The key plank of that has been the subregional economic plan, which saw the formation of local economic partnerships (LEPs) across all 11 council areas. All the LEPs have now got their action plans in place and are starting to deliver their programmes.

At a higher level, we have the city and growth deals that are progressing across the four particular areas. They are at different stages of delivery, but we are beginning to see their benefits rolling out, particularly in the Belfast region city deal and the Derry and Strabane District Council city deal, where the DNA Museum is at an advanced stage of construction. Those are important elements in progressing our regional balance.

There are other pieces of work, including the tourism vision and action plan and the social enterprise action plan, where we have particular sectors of our economy that are really strongly distributed across the region, and we seek to build upon that. I am under no illusions, however, that regional balance is a long-term project to redress the imbalances that have been caused by decades of underinvestment outside greater Belfast, and that it will take time for us to see other areas uplifted. We have already begun to deliver on that progress.

Mr Nesbitt: The Minister is aware of the economic benefit of clustering. Clustering and regional balance are not mutually exclusive. How does the Minister see them gelling together to best effect?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. We have been developing a policy on clustering with Invest NI. There has been a significant focus on certain clusters in particular. The Minister — the Member will be aware from his time as Health Minister of the health and life sciences cluster the Health Innovation Research Alliance (HIRANI), which is probably one of our most well developed clusters. We also have a very well developed advanced manufacturing cluster.

We are seeing further progress across different clustering areas through the Shared Island enterprise fund. There is also a focus on all-island clusters and how we can develop those across the island to support the strengthening of businesses, north and south. They bring together industry, academia and various public bodies. They are collectively stronger than the sum of their parts and can see real benefit from clustering. Clustering can be either geographical or sectoral and pertain to different business types. There are opportunities to grow different sectors of the economy and to focus on that at a regional level. As I said, investment is being made into that by Invest NI and also through the Shared Island Fund. It is an area of work that will continue to progress and deliver good results.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. She will be aware — as, I know, all Members will be — of some of the particular challenges that face our hospitality and tourism sectors, not least of which is, of course, the VAT differentials that are now in place across the island and have widened over the course of recent months. We have collectively been making the case around that, and I and the Finance Minister have been engaging with Treasury in support of Hospitality Ulster and other bodies that have been leading that campaign. I think that there is a really strong case for what we are proposing. I know that it has the support of hospitality businesses across Britain, and the British Government should pursue that. I have raised that with the new Secretary of State. I have also made the case that we need to look at what other things the British Government can do to support our hospitality sector, because, at the end of the day, they hold the levers that will have the most impact.

From my perspective, one thing that I can do to support the hospitality and tourism sector is invest in skills. We have been working with the hospitality sector on a skills plan for hospitality, and we are looking at other measures such as, for example, the aviation policy, which is another one that will help support our tourism sector. We also have the tourism vision and action plan, in which the aviation policy is one of the actions. We have a number of pieces of work that, collectively, are designed to support our tourism and hospitality sector, but, as I say, if we could all keep the focus on the VAT ask, that could be a shared priority that could potentially deliver for our hospitality businesses.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Minister, for that response. You will be aware of the recent closure of the historic Dobbins Inn in Carrickfergus; I have written to your Department about it. That is a major blow to Carrickfergus town centre, and it will have a ripple effect on city deals or further down the line. Therefore, Minister, what can you and your Department do to support businesses like Dobbins Inn that fear closure? Can you intervene and support them, or, in the case of closure, how can you negotiate and support other interested parties to allow businesses like that to continue and town centres to thrive?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As she indicated, she has written to the Department about that business. I always encourage businesses to engage with either Invest NI or their local council on what support might be available and what might be most appropriate. I am always happy to engage and to facilitate any engagement. Obviously, it has been a very challenging time for businesses, which are facing inflationary pressures across the board, and there are significant challenges when it comes to cost pressures, many of which are, unfortunately, beyond our control. Through the local economic partnerships in particular, we are trying to ensure that we have the local conditions that will support businesses. There may be some streams of support coming through those that could also be beneficial to businesses.

Dr Archibald: Let me see if I have that information in front of me. I am not sure that I have the figures, but I am happy to write to the Member about the specifics.
The capital funding that was available through the local growth fund in the last financial year was quite small. For this financial year, my Department has received £13·29 million, and we have announced what some of that will support. Some of it will go to Invest NI, with £7·1 million to support innovation and R&D and, in particular, to support the development, design and feasibility work for the Mandeville site in Craigavon. There is £1·7 million going towards Go Succeed, and I am sure that the Member will be familiar with that from his constituency. That programme has been key in supporting businesses. That is specifically regarding capital grants, and the Member will be aware of the challenges that we have faced with the local growth fund and the split between resource and capital, which has been far from ideal. Projects are currently being developed, and I encourage Members, as well as businesses in their constituencies, to engage with Invest in that process.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for her answer. I know that she had meetings recently with Mallusk Enterprise Agency and Antrim Enterprise Agency alongside her constituency colleague. Mallusk Enterprise Agency has had issues with a lack of development support from Invest NI. It has identified a site that may be of use currently. Minister, what support are you going to give it for the development of that site, which will allow it to grow and continue the good work that it has been doing in South Antrim?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, Minister; time is up.

Dr Archibald: Maybe the Member wants to write to me about that. I have that information.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): The Education Authority (EA) is currently considering the potential future use of the site for the provision of SEN accommodation. The EA has completed a desktop site assessment and is progressing a feasibility report on the proposed use of the site. It is one of a number of sites in North Down that are being considered in order to address SEN pressures in the area. The outcome of those findings will determine the future use of the former school.

Mr Chambers: Minister, has any housekeeping been carried out at the site just to tidy it up a little, or is any planned to take place? It really looks very derelict, and it does not serve the interests of the local residents to have to look at it every day.

Mr Givan: That is a not unfamiliar story when sites are derelict. If there is a specific health and safety concern, that is something that the EA will look at. Obviously we do not want people getting access to a site with the potential for antisocial behaviour. I am happy to raise the specifics with the EA on the Member's behalf to see whether anything needs to be done to secure the site. Obviously, where there is dereliction and dilapidation, that is a result of a site not being utilised. I want to see the EA taking quick decisions to determine whether a site has an educational purpose. There are many sites across the Province now that are no longer being used as a school or for another educational need. That assessment needs to be carried out and expedited, and, if there is no further public use for the site, it needs to be disposed of to the private sector.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate the update on the former Cotton Primary School building. There is scope for it to be further secured and for some maintenance around it. The former St Anne's Primary School building in Donaghadee, which is just five minutes from the site that has been mentioned, closed in 2023: is the Minister able to provide an update on any plans for the future use of that building?

Mr Givan: I do not have information on that site. There is a process to be followed, however, for the disposal of a site. First, does it have an educational purpose? Once that is ruled out, is there another public-sector use for it? It can then be transferred accordingly, following the proper processes, or you look at disposing of it into the private sector. Not all of those processes are being expedited as efficiently as they should be, not just in education but across other public-sector bodies. It is important that, if there is no longer a future use, the taxpayer gets receipt of that funding, which then can be deployed elsewhere, and those often derelict sites can be brought into use for another means.

Mr McCrossan: We are talking about vacant sites, and the Minister has referenced a number of sites across Northern Ireland. Does he have an update for the House in relation to Milltown House, on the site of the former Strabane Grammar School, which has been lying vacant for a number of years? The historic building on that site is at risk of being totally destroyed as a result.

Mr Givan: No, I do not.

Mr Givan: Decisions on the purchase of resources and equipment, including items such as mobile phone pouches, are operational matters for individual schools and their boards of governors, which are responsible for ensuring that any expenditure represents an appropriate and effective use of public funds. That delegation of responsibilities enables schools to plan and use resources in accordance with their needs and priorities and makes schools more responsive to parents, pupils, the local community and employers.

My Department's guidance on the use of mobile phones in schools and education otherwise than at school (EOTAS) centres, which was published on 27 August, sets out that those settings should be mobile-phone-free environments by default. It does not require schools to purchase mobile phone pouches, nor does it prescribe them as the preferred approach; rather, the guidance sets out a range of options that schools may wish to consider in supporting a mobile-phone-free environment. I have been clear that it is for each school, working with its board of governors and the wider school community, to determine the most appropriate arrangements for its particular circumstances, taking account of factors such as pupil needs, staffing arrangements, the school estate, behaviour management and safeguarding considerations. That approach allows schools the flexibility to adopt solutions that are effective in their context while supporting the shared objective of creating environments that maximise learning and minimise unnecessary distraction.

Mr Baker: Minister, are you saying that schools with leaky roofs or broken windows can spend tens of thousands of pounds on mobile phone pouches? Seriously? Do you not listen to young people? For £1, they can buy a magnet from Amazon that can open those pouches. It is a pet project. It is a waste of money. Could you enlighten the House on how many millions of pounds from the Education budget will be spent on your pet project? How harmful will that be to education? The cost of any repairs that are being done will be passed on to parents. Considering the cost to education, it is absolutely shameful.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Danny, is there a question?

Mr Baker: Your Bill on school uniforms was a disgrace, and this is another pet project.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Minister?

Mr Givan: I am not sure what planet the Member is on; it is certainly not planet Northern Ireland. I do not know what the funding of "millions of pounds" relates to. No such funding is being provided. None has been given to any schools. One school has not — [Interruption.]

The Member does not want to know the answer to his question, which was not based on any evidence. Millions of pounds are not being spent on mobile phone pouches. If he is being critical of — [Interruption.]

If he is being critical of a school's decision on how it spends its money, that is an attack on that school.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Minister needs to be heard. [Inaudible.]

Mr Givan: The Department is also reviewing its behaviour policy: maybe Mr Baker could be part of a pilot scheme on how to be better behaved in the Chamber. The Member has been critical of something for which there is no evidence. He cannot substantiate it. Coming from Mr Baker, that is not a surprise.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I think you will be on the list for the behaviour policy too, Minister, if truth be told.

Mrs Erskine: I am interested in the harm that is caused to our children and young people via the likes of social media on mobile phones. That causes severe mental health and well-being issues. I have heard that from parents and schools in my constituency. I have engaged with a local group of the Smartphone Free Childhood movement.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question?

Mrs Erskine: Yes, there is.

Minister, there was an independent evaluation by King's College London. What did it find that allowed you to move to the consultation on proposals for mobile-free schools?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for posing a serious question, one that is based on the now indisputable evidence of the harmful impacts of smartphone technology on our entire population but particularly on young people as they are developing and in our schools.

King's College London carried out an evaluation of the eight participating schools in the pilot scheme and other schools that have already taken the initiative to invest in this kind of approach. The evaluation demonstrated that there was a clear benefit in removing smartphones from our schools. Pupils were less distracted, so they paid more attention to the subject matter. Behavioural issues in the schools reduced. Issues of concern from a welfare perspective, including in the teaching profession, were reduced. Conflict that was happening outside school settings and spilling into school settings was reduced. We did not have walk-ins — parents coming in to deal with issues in reception areas. Overall, the evaluation found that smartphone technology creates anxiety and has many drawbacks.

It is the right policy that our schools should be smartphone-free. All of the evidence suggests that that is the approach to take, but we have not been prescriptive as to the best method by which the guidance ought to be implemented. I am consulting on whether legislation should be introduced so that the guidance is placed on a statutory footing to ensure that we have consistency of application of this clear policy across our school estate.

Mr McNulty: Minister, your Department's evidence identifies the impact of mobile phones on pupil well-being, behaviour, development and safeguarding, as well as the insidiously destructive nature of cyberbullying. What specific measures, beyond restricting phones in schools, is your Department taking to address those wider harms? Will social media companies be taken to task with regard to their responsibilities to protect and shield children?

Mr Givan: The Member raises the side effects and symptoms that come from smartphone technology, which include all the things that I outlined in response to Mrs Erskine. That is why we have to treat the root cause of the problem, not just bring in the support that is needed to address all of the mental health challenges in our schools. Not all of those are attributable to smartphones, as people may need help for many reasons. Smartphone technology is one of the root causes of a range of challenges that we face in school settings. The approach is universally popular across our teaching profession. In the schools that have implemented a much more rigorous approach to smartphones, many pupils have welcomed its introduction because they have been able to see for themselves how it has improved outcomes in their school setting. Investing in that policy and ensuring that it is applied will have a much greater benefit than just treating the symptoms of the problems. We have got to the root cause, and that should be supported across the Assembly.

Mrs Guy: Minister, we are all persuaded of the need to restrict mobile phone usage in schools, but, given the significant capital funding associated with mobile phone pouches and the current pressure on the Education budget, what measures in that area has the Department explored that do not require such significant capital spend?

Mr Givan: I accepted the finding in the King's College report that being non-prescriptive was the best means of implementation. We have not said to schools that mobile phone pouches ought to be provided. That is why funding will not be provided to schools for that. The pilot scheme was helpful, as it provided the evidence base for it, but there are other technologies, such as apps that can disable phones, which would not cost schools. In some areas, schools already remove phones at the start of the day and provide them at the end.

Ultimately, the King's College London report found that success was determined by the consistent application of the policy across the school, whether that involved withdrawing phones physically or using pouches or apps that disable the ability to utilise them. The policies that were consistently applied were the most successful. That requires the school, from the principal to every staff member, to ensure that the policy is applied consistently. That will achieve the outcomes that, I believe, we all want to see: a smartphone-free school environment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Mr Givan: I am not directly involved in the engagement with teaching unions, following the recent ballots in favour of taking industrial action. There has been substantial engagement by my officials and the management representatives on the Teachers' Negotiating Committee (TNC) with the five recognised teaching trade unions through the Labour Relations Agency, and further negotiation meetings are scheduled throughout September. I am, however, very closely involved in and informed about those discussions.

Significant progress has been made to date through negotiations to resolve issues that the unions have raised regarding the teacher workload action plan, which was published on 28 April 2026, and further meetings between the management side and the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council (NITC) are scheduled to reach a resolution on those outstanding issues this week.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that answer. The Minister referred to the progress that has been made and the ongoing discussions, but it seems clear that teachers are set on taking industrial action. How can he assure us that those are not just warm words from him and the Department and that he has clear, concrete proposals that will address the concerns that teachers have raised?

Mr Givan: The Member rightly raises those issues of concern. I recognised them when I came into this role over two years ago. As part of the outworkings of a pay settlement, I commissioned the independent review to identify the issues, and it made 27 recommendations. I set about an implementation process to take that forward. As part of that process, trade unions have been working through that. We have had agreement with them on many areas, but it is an ongoing process. We need to get to the point at which we can implement the action plan to address the workload-related issues.

As long as we continue to talk about the issues, we will delay the ability to get on with working through the challenges. Doing so would have a positive impact.

Trade unions and management side are scheduled to meet the Labour Relations Agency this week. I asked for that to happen in an attempt to find some reconciliation in the process. I welcome the engagement with the trade unions and the fact that they have not taken immediate industrial action but have continued to make space to find a positive resolution. I hope that we will be able to reach that point.

Mr Sheehan: The teachers engaged with the Minister's workload review. They then responded to the so-called action plan. They have now voted overwhelmingly for industrial action. When will the Minister accept that the problem is not that teachers have not made their views clear but rather that he is not listening to them?

Mr Givan: It is quite the opposite. I am listening. That is why I have acted. I commissioned the independent panel that identified the 27 recommendations. I approved the departmental response by way of the action plan to implement the changes that are needed. I engaged constructively with the trade unions, whose executive bodies have been supportive of the way in which we will take the matter forward.

The ballot was held when the engagement with the Labour Relations Agency had not taken place. That is an ongoing process, and it needs to be given the opportunity to reach its conclusion. We will then go about implementing the changes. Nobody should be advocating industrial action in our education system. Nobody should be advocating action short of strike. All of that creates instability in our school settings. I therefore trust that all Members will encourage a positive resolution to be reached rather than move people to the point of engaging in strike action. I am determined to avoid that happening. I believe that the leaders of the trade union bodies are in the same place. Let us see whether we can get that outcome.

Mr Wilson: Minister, what percentage of teachers voted in the recent ballot for action?

Mr Givan: Four of the five union bodies provided the figures. There was a wide range. The Irish National Teachers' Organisation had a turnout of fewer than half its members, at 46%; the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) had a turnout of 64%; the Ulster Teachers' Union had a turnout of 37%; and NASUWT had a turnout of 55%. Those were the turnout figures. People obviously voted in different ways. The ballot took place during the summer in order to encourage teachers to participate. Let us hope that, as the unions reflect on their members' concerns and we engage with management side, as we are doing, we will reach a positive outcome at the end of the process. That is what we all want.

Mr Givan: As the Minister of Finance, John O'Dowd, announced in his oral statement of 3 March 2026, the Executive will receive an additional £380 million of resource departmental expenditure limit funding over the next three years, following announcements that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer made in her spring statement. In his statement, Mr O'Dowd clarified that £361·2 million of that funding related to the UK Government's decision to provide a £5 billion package to help address the debts that local councils in England had built up in recent years through providing special educational needs support.

Although the Executive have yet to agree a Budget for this financial year and beyond, following the announcement of that additional funding, the Finance Minister revised his proposed Budget allocations to provide only an additional £115·8 million, or just 32%, of the £361·2 million of additional funding to my Department.

I fully appreciate that Barnett consequentials are typically unhypothecated, but SEN provision in Northern Ireland has suffered similarly to elsewhere in the United Kingdom from historical underfunding, which is why the Barnett consequential was made to the Northern Ireland Executive in the first place. Given that SEN provision is a Programme for Government priority, and that, in an Assembly debate, every political party voiced significant support for the children and young people who require SEN support, I find it remarkable that the Finance Minister proposes to take the vast majority of that funding away from the very children whom it is supposed to support.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his answer. It is disappointing, if not surprising, that, once again, it seems as though Sinn Féin is paying lip service to our SEN students. It is happy to bring to the Education Committee proposals for extra spending in education, but it is not happy to furnish the Minister with the finances necessary to carry out his key responsibilities for our SEN students.

What is the financial position facing the Department of Education in 2026-27?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments. I share the sentiment. When the Assembly was recalled, I listened to Members who were outraged about SEN provision saying that SEN ought to be a priority for the Executive. Sinn Féin Members were the most vocal. However, when £360 million of SEN funding was provided to the Assembly, Sinn Féin wanted to spend two thirds of it in other Departments; only a third of the funding for SEN came to my Department when the allocation was redistributed by the Finance Minister. That is why I did not support the initial Sinn Féin Budget that was published in January, and it is why the Executive have not supported that draft Budget. The issue was compounded when two thirds of the redistributed SEN funding from the United Kingdom Government was not allocated to my Department. Sinn Féin's approach to that issue is outrageous.

Some Members: Shame. [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Givan: Obviously, every Department is facing very difficult financial challenges. We are engaged in a process with the UK Government, the Secretary of State and the Treasury so that we can all get the funding needed to meet the challenges and provide public services to all our citizens. However, regardless of the amount of funding that we secure, I will not stand by and have Sinn Féin pretend to care about SEN, given that it wants to spend SEN funding elsewhere.

Mr McGrath: Minister, you have described SEN as one of the greatest pressures facing your Department. Parents across my constituency of South Down and others face long delays in getting assessment and the right services in place. Aside from the argy-bargy and the back and forward in the Chamber for social media, what will you do with the extra money that you have been given? What will that deliver on the ground, and when will it happen? Parents want help for their children now.

Mr Givan: I do not do argy-bargy for the sake of social media; I do it on behalf of the constituents, children and young people who need me to be their voice and champion their case.

We know that increasing numbers of children are presenting with additional challenges. The Member and I have visited a number of special schools in his constituency, and we have sought to provide support to those schools. It is unquestionable that much more support needs to be provided. We also secured funding of around £27·5 million for transformation, which is allowing us to do some things differently, but we need to look long term at the best way in which to support our young people through SEN provision. The EA is assessing over 150 schools that are now utilising that resource more flexibly to identify how effective that is and whether we can roll it out across other schools. This will not change overnight; it will require long-term investment in schools and the capital estate. That is why I have a paper before the Executive seeking £70 million of ring-fenced funding for each of the next 10 years. We also need to spend the current resource more effectively than is the case at the moment.

Mr Gaston: The additional £380 million spend for Northern Ireland over the next three years was due to the UK Government's investment in special educational needs in England. Some £231 million of that money was earmarked to be spent in this financial year. Special schools are at capacity —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr Gaston: — SENCO units —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr Gaston: — cannot cope with the overflow and post-19 provision is a disgrace. Why will the Executive and the Sinn Féin Minister in particular not give those SEN children —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Mr Gaston: — the education that they richly deserve?

Mr Givan: I agree with the Member. That is why I am putting it out there, clearly, that £361·2 million additional funding was provided to the Executive as a result of the £5 billion bailout of local authorities in England for SEN pressures. The Sinn Féin Finance Minister allocated only £115 million of that funding to my Education Department. We have literally robbed children with special educational needs of that funding, giving it to other Departments rather than putting it where it ought to be spent in my Department. That is why we still do not have agreement on the draft Budget. Let us work towards getting a final resolution for the totality of the Executive's financial pressures, but I will unashamedly fight for every child in our education system to get the best deal possible.

Mr Givan: The Education Authority (EA) is responsible for the operational delivery of school transport. It reviews services annually as pupil demand changes with children joining, leaving and transferring schools. In doing so, it must ensure the effective use of public resources across a network that provides transport assistance for more than 90,000 pupils each day. Parents of children starting primary school are encouraged to apply for transport assistance as soon as school placements are confirmed in March. Over the summer, the Education Authority plans transport services based on the applications that were received and assessed at that stage.

In the case of Dunseverick Primary School, the EA reviewed the service and identified six pupils who were entitled to transport assistance. Given the significant disparity between the level of demand and the 33-seat bus that had previously been assigned to the route, the EA concluded that a smaller vehicle could meet pupils' needs, while ensuring the effective use of public resources. The EA advised eligible families of their transport arrangements in August, once the annual review had been completed and provision confirmed for the new school year. The EA has informed me that additional applications have since been received. As with all transport services, provision will remain under review should additional capacity is required.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his answer. Families should not be left scrambling to find alternative transport, particularly in rural areas of North Antrim or with only six days' notice from the Education Authority. Does the Minister think that six days' notice from the Education Authority is acceptable? Will he apply pressure on the Education Authority to reverse the decision for the families of Dunseverick?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for raising that issue. He raised it with me over the summer, which is why I stated that the EA received additional applications and the particular issues around Dunseverick Primary School are under review.

The Member raised the wider point of parents being notified of transport arrangements for their children. It may well be, as I have said, that not everyone applied for their transport when applying to get into the next school to which they will move. The review of costs associated with taxi provision has been ongoing, and there has been a re-tendering process for a lot of that work. I am not satisfied of the effectiveness of the Education Authority on the issue. There ought not to have been that number of children and parents left in the position of transport not being in place and secured for them. I formally communicated to the Education Authority that I am not satisfied with how it has handled the issue. My officials are engaged with the Education Authority to review how it got to that position.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, I am relieved to hear you say that you also feel that it is unacceptable. Last week, my colleague Timothy Gaston and I attended a meeting at that school, where we heard from the parents about the impact. Will the Department be mindful of, and potentially flexible in relation to, the rural context when analysing safe routes and eligible mileage? There are students in that school who simply do not have a safe route by which to walk home but who live just outside the eligible mileage zone.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have less than a minute, Minister.

Mr Givan: Thank you. Members rightly raise the issue of the three-mile distance rule for post-primary schools and the two-mile rule for primary schools and whether pupils have a safe route to walk to school. That will be reviewed by the EA, and, if evidence can be presented that there is not a safe route for a pupil, the EA will take that into account.

The two-mile rule and the three-mile rule are underpinned by legislation, and amending those would require a change in the law. I know that EA does apply the provisions, which I can understand in the financially difficult space in which we operate. I have often referred cases in which there is no safe route to the EA for it to review, and I will be happy to do that on behalf of the Member if she has any cases to raise.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We move to topical questions

Mr Givan: No, I do not think that the outcome is acceptable, not just for Maisie but for a significant number of other children. Yes, I expect the Education Authority to deliver value for money and to interrogate the tendering processes of the various transport routes. However, I expect it to carry that out in a timely manner and, where there are gaps in provision, I expect efforts to be made to fill those gaps. I do not believe that the process was carried out in a timely manner. Parents should not have been advised, right at the point at which children were going to school, that provision was not in place. The EA has been working through that, and there has been a significant reduction in the number of children without provision in place. The way that this was handled over the summer months fell well short of what should have been expected from the Education Authority.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister. I respect your response. The level of significant distress that the matter causes parents cannot go understated in this House. Minister, being solution-focused and working together, will you commit to a conversation with community transport to potentially find some kind of answer? Will you engage again with the Education Authority to make sure that, next year, this does not happen again?

Mr Givan: We are reviewing how the current process was managed. My officials are engaged in that process with the EA, but there should not be a repeat of what has happened with transport provision in the next academic year. My focus at the moment is to make sure that every single child has that provision put in place.

There is also a challenge for the Education Authority, and it is one that I can understand. On some of those routes, there have not been any tenders or, where there have been some, the amount of cost associated has been very high. Therefore, it is left in a difficult position in which, although it knows that it does not meet value for money, awarding a contract to a parent or a pupil is the only option to get the child to school. There has to be a better way to reach the point at which the decision has to be taken. There are also alternative means, including community transport. How can we utilise that? As a backstop, and although it is not always the most applicable way for some parents, direct payments are made to families for them to be able to secure transport or as a way to meet the costs of transporting children who are entitled to it. That is an area where the provision ought to be looked at, but it is a last resort.

Mr Givan: There are a number of pieces of legislation that I wish to take through. I secured Executive approval for the council for controlled schools Bill by way of a policy to be publicly consulted upon. That was presented as a draft Bill to the Executive in June and is waiting for the First Minister to allow it to come onto the agenda. I hope that it will be prioritised as soon as possible, given where we are in the mandate.

The education and training post compulsory school age Bill was shared with Executive colleagues in March 2026. Following a number of comments, an unchanged paper was reissued to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. Again, I am waiting for the First Minister to allow that to come on to the agenda so that we can introduce it. It is a Bill that would help to provide greater support for young people, post 16, by way of further education and training. It would require mandatory participation and force other providers to put in place the provision of higher education or greater accessibility to apprenticeships, but it is still being blocked.

Obviously, there is other legislation before the Committee, including the Education Inspections Bill. We await Committee deliberation on that. There are, therefore, a number of pieces of legislation that I would like to take through, but two of them are being blocked by Sinn Féin.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, will you inform the House why the controlled schools paper has not yet received Executive approval?

Mr Givan: One can only speculate as to why Sinn Féin does not want to have a managing authority for controlled schools — a sector that caters predominantly for the Protestant community, albeit its schools' enrolments are becoming increasingly diverse. One can only speculate on why it wants to make provision for the continuation of the Catholic Council for Maintained Schools (CCMS) — a managing authority for Catholic schools — but does not want the controlled sector to have a managing authority. Most people can see through why Sinn Féin does not want the controlled sector to get the support. I believe that it is infected with a sectarian bias when it comes to this issue, given that all that we are asking for is equality. To those who championed equality for many years, I ask this question: where is the equality for controlled schools? We have a Bill that has been blocked: Sinn Féin is blocking it. Alliance has indicated that it would allow it to come forward to the Assembly for scrutiny, so there is not an issue with it coming out of the Executive, but one party — one alone — is blocking the Bill from coming forward. People can see what the motivation is and why that has been the case.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. Obviously, that issue is one that has been discussed in relation to "reasonable numbers", primarily within the integrated sector. It is clear that many schools that have already transformed and are now controlled integrated schools do not satisfy the "reasonable numbers" criterion to the extent that was envisaged by the current policy, on which the Assembly voted in 2022. The policy legally requires a reasonable number of Protestant and Catholic children to attend those schools. Most of the six post-primary schools that have been transformed to integrated status did not meet the year 1 target of 10% minority community representation, and none approaches anywhere near the 40:40:20 aspiration articulated by those in the integrated movement. The position in the primary sector is similar. Many of the 25 transformed schools, including those that transformed many years ago, continue to exhibit a significant imbalance between Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils. Some schools have fewer than five pupils from the minority community, and many remain well below the aspiration of a balanced intake. Those findings suggest that, although individual schools vary, transformation has not consistently resulted in the balanced religious demographic associated with the statutory definition of integrated education.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his answer and those stark statistics. Will the Minister set out his approach to what would constitute "reasonable numbers" in a new school rather than in a transforming school?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. That has been very much informed by the legislation and by two recent court judgements, both of which the Department was successfully able to defend. That is because we want to ensure that the integrated sector is exactly what it proclaims to be — integrated. If an integrated school is not there to ensure that a reasonable number of Protestants and Catholics attend it, what is it there for? Many schools that are not formally integrated, particularly within the controlled sector, have a higher level of diversity than some officially integrated schools, so we ought to encourage all schools to be integrated in that they are attractive to their local community and that there are no barriers to their local communities. If you want to be ascribed the official status of integrated, however, you need to comply with the legislation and those court judgements.

We have provided a programme for schools in a three-year pathway to assist them on that journey but have also published what reasonable numbers would look like with regard to the question of what a new school would look like. In relation to newly established integrated schools, historically, departmental policy has been that a new integrated school should attract 30% of its pupils from the minority community in the area where the school is situated. Newly established integrated schools have generally exhibited a strong balance of pupils from both religious backgrounds. As with all proposals, though, each case must be considered on its own merits and against the statutory requirement that the school is likely to provide an integrated education.

Mr Givan: I outlined the direction of travel on that issue right from when we first debated it, which was to allow schools to take decisions based on respecting their autonomy but also to enable a much greater level of pupil participation. That requires schools to consult on their policy with pupils and parents and to reflect that consultation process as part of the final outworkings of their uniforms policy, which at its core has affordability and practicality.

Any time that the issue was raised, I always made it clear that I supported the rights of girls and young women to wear trousers in schools, and I enabled through this process a much greater voice in the campaign for that right to which schools ought to listen. Therefore, my position has been clear, and I challenge any Member to find where I have said that girls should not be allowed to wear trousers to school. That is not the case. [Interruption.]

Therefore, the direction of travel for me on this issue has been clear. We carried out a process to review the guidance over the summer, and, as I indicated when the legislation was passed, having guidelines, and a Minister who was then able to amend or add to them, was the most effective way to reflect any changes that would be taken forward. Having listened to the voices of young people, therefore, I decided that the guidance would be changed, and it now has been changed.

Ms Mulholland: It is really disappointing and unfortunate, Minister, that that happened after public money was spent on the drafting of the Committee Bill, given that we talk about affordability. With regard to the choices, has your Department received any data on affordability and the school uniforms change, because we are hearing on the ground that parents are not seeing any difference? What data does your Department collect?

Mr Givan: What I say to the Member and to other Members who seem to be a little bit sceptical, is this: rejoice, rejoice. We are on the same page. You got what you wanted, so why are Members saying that they are disappointed? You have a Minister who listened. The arguments were convincing. The pupils raised their concerns, and I responded. Therefore, Members should not be so miserable when it comes to this issue. One would have thought that they would be exuberant at the fact that this guidance was now in place. Ultimately, the feedback that I got from young people over the weekend was to endorse the decision that I took. I thank all those Members who campaigned on this issue. I made it clear right from the start that I supported the direction of travel, and I am delighted that I have been able to bring them to their destination.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends questions to the Minister of Education. Members, take your ease, please, while we move to the next item of business. Thank you.

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

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate on the motion. Public services continue to face significant pressures; Departments continue to operate without the certainty that an agreed Budget would provide; and the Executive continue to face the challenges of securing a funding settlement that properly reflects need and supports the delivery of sustainable public services. Although many of the challenges remain unchanged, the context in which we have been seeking solutions has not.

Since the Assembly last debated these matters, we have seen a new Prime Minister, a new Secretary of State and two changes of Chief Secretary to the Treasury. There have also been wider changes in ministerial personnel across these islands. Such developments are clearly outside the Executive's control, but they have inevitably affected the pace of engagement at a time when progress is urgently needed. That loss of momentum has been far from ideal in making progress on fair funding, Budget sustainability or the wider discussions about a full fiscal framework. Nevertheless, I have continued to engage at every opportunity. The Executive collectively met the Secretary of State on Monday and Friday of last week, and, later today, I will meet the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Mr Deputy Speaker, if the debate goes on towards 4.00 pm, I may have to leave the Chamber, so I apologise to Members, but I have been waiting a considerable time for that meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

The Executive are committed to playing their part in undertaking the reforms and transformation needed to help place our finances on a sustainable footing. Indeed, that work is already under way, as has been communicated through our extensive engagement over recent months, but the British Government must also play their part. The proposed funding package represents progress in discussions but remains insufficient to address the financial challenges facing our public services and to secure a sustainable Budget. The scale of the challenges facing public services here cannot be addressed through a limited, short-term package alone.

The Executive have been calling for a fair and sustainable longer-term funding framework that reflects need, provides stability and enables the delivery of high-quality public services for people here. The pressures are urgent and real. There is clear disparity of treatment compared with that of other devolved Administrations, and that is compounded by funding losses, inflation, demand pressures and costs stemming directly from decisions that the British Government have taken. Given the seriousness of the situation, urgent progress is now required. The dither and delay from the Government must end. They urgently need to step up and deliver a fair funding settlement.

The motion expresses concern at the Executive's failure to agree a Budget. In agreeing a Budget, it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the Budget that is agreed is affordable, sustainable and capable of supporting the public services on which our citizens rely. I will point out to the Opposition and other Members that there have been calls in recent times to agree a Budget. I note that the SDLP's party conference was held at the weekend, but I am still waiting for an alternative Budget from it.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way?

Mr O'Dowd: I will in a moment.

The SDLP has lambasted me, the only person who has produced a draft Budget to date. At the time that I produced that draft Budget, I said that I was in listening mode. I met my Executive colleagues, the challenges were outlined to me, and we moved to the position that we are in now. To date, the official Opposition have not produced an alternative Budget. I therefore put this to them: if you are suggesting to me, as Finance Minister, that I should produce and deliver a Budget, where is your Budget?

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. Of course, I did not say that I was 10 out of 10 confident that the Budget would be agreed. That was you, Minister. I do not know where you got that from, but I am not going to take your tips. Listowel Races is coming up next week — no, thank you for your tips. However, I will say this: we have published a whole range of alternative Budget proposals, but, in relation to a specific alternative Budget document just like the one that your colleagues, led by Pearse Doherty, produced in Dublin, if you give me the same rights to cost my alternative Budget that Pearse Doherty and his colleagues have in Dublin, I will produce an alternative Budget document. Will you give me those rights?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member is confusing himself and probably others. The Member is the Chair of the Finance Committee: you have access to every document and paper that is required to produce a Budget. The costings for Budgets that my colleagues in the South require are to do with taxation matters. We do not collect taxation here, other than the regional rate. The Member has the figures; he has the breakdown of the figures; he has every piece of information that he requires. If he is lacking in information, feel free to write to me and ask questions. Your Members pride themselves on the quantity of the questions that they ask. I suggest that, in these circumstances, quality would be more beneficial than quantity.

The SDLP, as the official Opposition, not only has not produced an alternative Budget but has not even responded to the consultation on the draft Budget, which is a damning indictment of the SDLP's commentary. I understand that, over the summer, the Member, who is Chair of the Finance Committee, bought himself some expensive fountain pens at public expense. Your colleague who is muttering behind you bought himself a very expensive coffee machine at public expense. [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Dowd: I thought to myself, "Here we go. Matthew is supplying the ink. His friend is supplying the coffee. There'll be some work done now". I am still waiting on something; I am still waiting.

Mr O'Toole: Are you waiting for us to write the Budget for you, Minister?

Mr O'Dowd: Well, I am waiting for you to write the Opposition's Budget. I have already produced a Budget. I consulted my Executive colleagues; I consulted the public; I consulted stakeholders. I listened. I said at the time that I was going to listen, and I listened. Since February 2024, when Dr Archibald became Finance Minister, until now, we have challenged and collectively secured an additional £1·3 billion for the Executive. We have continued our research and engagement with our officials, and we have identified serious flaws in our funding package. We intend to secure more money for the Executive so that we can invest in public services and the economy. That is the task of a Minister. That is my job. I have to get on and do it.

The Members beside me appear in the media and tell us what we should do, what we need to do and what we must do. I hope that, some day, a journalist will ask them, "And what would you do?". That is the normal course of action. I watch political shows elsewhere and see engagement with official Opposition spokespersons, and, after they have finished criticising the Government or the Executive, the next question usually is, "And what would you do?". That question is missing.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. He exchanges blows in good part. I will tell you what I would have done first of all. If you had agreed up front a plan that involved decisions, trade-offs and clarity with the public on how much you wanted to spend on the health service and on the decisions that you were going to make on waste water, and if, when that plan had been agreed between you and the DUP, who fall out with each another every single hour of every single day, you had gone to London long before the financial year had started and said, "Let's fund this properly", we would have supported you. You did not do that, Minister. It is not our fault.

Mr O'Dowd: You say, "I would do this; I would do that; and I would do the other", but you have not done any of it. That is the point that I am making. Where is your alternative Budget?

Mr McGrath: Alternative to what?

Mr O'Dowd: Where are all these costings? [Interruption.]

How much would you spend on the health service? How much would you spend on waste water infrastructure? How much would you spend on housing? How much would you spend on economic development? All those things should be laid out rather than your standing up and saying, "I would do this; I would do that; and I would do the other".

Mr McCrossan: There is no Budget. We have been writing Sinn Féin manifestoes for years.

Mr O'Dowd: Well, — [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, just a moment. Minister. Exchanges that take place through interventions are one thing, but, when there is chat behind and alongside that, it is quite another. Everyone else here, including me, needs to hear what is being said by the Member who is speaking.

Mr O'Dowd: We will move on to the real world, where people have to make decisions, do things and be held to account for what they do. Let us see what we have done, despite the financial challenges that the Executive face. More than 27,000 children are in childcare who were not previously, and 20,000 households have benefited from that. Waiting lists are down; in fact, there were, I think, somewhere in the region of 260,000 additional appointments last year, despite the financial challenges faced by the Executive. On housing, more homes will be connected to waste water infrastructure than NI Water had planned. Those are just three examples of what can be done when you sit down and make decisions in difficult financial, political and other circumstances.

When I ask for alternatives, it is for a reason. I would like to know what others think about the Budget, what the priorities should be and how they can be achieved moving forward. All of those things are important to me, as the Finance Minister, in trying to meet the objective of a sustainable, long-term Budget settlement for this place that allows for the transformation of sustainable public services to ensure that we deliver those services to the public, support our economy and make the real difference that people want to see across the board.

There are real changes happening across our society. Are there real challenges? Of course there are. How could there not be real challenges, given the financial constraints we are under and the political circumstances that we operate in? However, you cannot constantly simply say, "Everything is awful".

Mr McCrossan: It is.

Miss Hargey: Will you take a point, Minister?

Mr O'Dowd: You need another cup of coffee, Daniel, to keep yourself going.

Mr O'Dowd: Go ahead.

Miss Hargey: It is easy to go down the dark tunnel to nowhere. However, over the last year or two, we have seen the public-sector transformation board established with £235 million; public sector pay given £688 million; and a Budget sustainability plan achieved with savings of £113 million. Also, there is a fiscal framework, as you have said, with a 24+% need factor that, in total, when you look at the work that has been done, brought in £1·3 billion of additional funding. Unlike others who have no plan, no extra money and no hope, by working together, we can hope for additional funding from the British Government over the next period.

Mr O'Dowd: The Member has set out good examples of changes that have happened, despite all the challenges we face, financial, political and otherwise. If you get into the mindset that you can achieve nothing, you will achieve nothing. I think that, unfortunately, that is sometimes where the heads of the Opposition and some others in this place are: if you think you can achieve nothing, you will achieve nothing. Every day when I come into this Building and into my Department, my mindset is this: what can we achieve with what we have? That is how I will continue to approach my business, my role as Finance Minister and my role in the Executive.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes.

Mr Gaston: That was interesting to hear. Over the last week, I have watched the Executive debate in the media what they do not want. Can the Finance Minister set out to the House today what he is asking for? We are currently funded to 124% of need by the Treasury. Holtham said that it was a level of need of 123% minus agriculture: if we add in agriculture, it is 128%. What would satisfy you to cover and provide a Budget that would be acceptable to the Executive?

Mr O'Dowd: We are currently funded at 123%. Holtham recommended anywhere between 124% and 128%, so we are currently funded around £173 million less than we should be. That might be corrected as part of the normal autumn statement announcements, but we are currently underfunded. I will not give a figure that would satisfy me here, because I am in ongoing negotiations with the British Government. I want a fair, sustainable funding package for this place, and, more important, I want it baselined. I do not want to experience crisis after crisis, where other Ministers and I have to sit down with the British Government to discuss proper funding for this place.

Mr Gaston: Well, tell us what it is.

Mr O'Dowd: We need the baseline.

Mr Gaston: Finance Minister, what is your baseline?

Mr O'Dowd: We need the financial baseline going forward. I am not going to negotiate here with you, Mr Gaston, or online with the British Government. We are perfectly aware, as has been stated in the Chamber today and at other times — I think that you stated it as well — that Scotland is funded £3 billion above its level of need, Wales is £1 billion above its level of need, and we are funded below our level of need. What will I be asking for? A fair, sustainable funding package that is baselined.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Paula Bradshaw to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. You have five minutes.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you say, I second the Alliance Party's amendment. As the proposer of the motion said in his opening remarks, we are frequently criticised for holding out the so-called begging bowl, which is why it is important that we put on record, as others have today, reference to the independent assessments of what would constitute a fair and sustainable settlement, as described in the motion. I accept that this is a complex discussion, but it is not seriously in dispute that Scotland in particular and, increasingly, Wales have more favourable Budget settlements than Northern Ireland. There are various reasons for that, ranging from population growth to the timing of different assessments of need. We could add that there are genuine particular circumstances to consider here in Northern Ireland. No one disputes that, but what is in dispute is exactly how those are literally accounted for.

Our amendment leaves in the section of the motion that notes that failure to agree a Budget renders "effective planning, investment and reform" impossible. However, having an inadequate Budget also renders those things impossible. We absolutely do not kid ourselves — I do not think that the Opposition is suggesting it — that the budgetary situation is the only reason why effective planning, investment and reform does not take place. As we note in the amendment, effective planning, investment and reform will also require stable government. That will require Ministers to be able and willing to take decisions that may not be immediately popular. My party colleague Eóin Tennyson also mentioned that in his speech.

Our amendment adds that we should not only go to the UK Government with a case for a fair and sustainable Budget based on other devolved Administrations but that the Finance Minister should set out how he plans to secure agreement to tackle the various crises facing public services. We have frequently noted one way to address the very real socio-economic and blatantly financial costs of segregation and division, and we are seeing the beginnings of that. Just recently, we saw another peace wall come down, and there is increasing recognition that sharing is not a moral imperative but a financial one. However, a clear package on how to speed up an end to the costs of division would surely make it easier to argue for a fairer and more sustainable Budget settlement from the UK Government and for agreement across parties on how to maximise the efficiency of the money that we spend on public services and economic development locally.

Our amendment calls on the UK Government to "engage constructively". To be fair to them, under the new Prime Minister and Secretary of State, we are seeing that. It is recognised not only that Northern Ireland needs that fair and sustainable Budget settlement but that we need to maximise the efficiency of how it is used to reform these institutions. That is a very welcome development.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Áine Murphy to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. You also have five minutes.

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

I thank Members for contributing to today's debate. There is clear agreement across the Chamber that the absence of an agreed Budget for 2026-27 is creating uncertainty for Departments and is having an impact on public bodies as well as community organisations. However, we must acknowledge the wider financial reality. For years, the Executive have been expected to deliver public services with funding settlements that have failed to reflect the need — a point repeatedly highlighted by the Fiscal Council. The consequences are clear in our health service, schools, infrastructure and pressures facing communities right across the North. Those challenges did not arise because a Budget has yet to be set or agreed; they are the result of more than a decade of chronic underfunding and austerity. That is not to absolve the Executive of responsibility. Ministers must work collectively, agree priorities and ensure that resources are used effectively. However, we should be honest: sustainable transformation cannot be delivered on the basis of inadequate funding settlements.

In my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, as in many rural constituencies across the North, people see those pressures every day. Transformation cannot become a euphemism for withdrawing services or expecting workers and communities to do more with less. The debate has reinforced the point that it is not a simple question of local allocations or one Minister acting alone: it requires collective leadership from the Executive and meaningful consultation with and engagement from the British Government to secure the fair and sustainable funding settlement that our public services need.

I will refer to some comments that were made by Members during the debate. Mr O'Toole opened the debate on the Opposition's motion. He stated that irresponsibility here breeds cynicism in Westminster and that Executive parties want power but not the responsibility that comes with it. My colleague Deirdre Hargey emphasised the need for a fair and sustainable funding model to ensure that public services can be properly funded going forward. Mr Tennyson, who, unfortunately, is no longer in the Chamber, expressed similar sentiments, highlighting the fact that people here pay their taxes and deserve fairness when it comes to funding. He mentioned that the Department of Justice has had to be frugal, given the challenges with its current Budget allocation. He also made the link between public service transformation and the need for reform within these institutions.

Diane Forsythe said that the right thing to do was to push back on funding with Treasury. She also mentioned that we need a Budget that works for people; one that cannot be catastrophic for our public services or drive people out of jobs. I noted that Mr Burrows — I cannot remember where I put my note. From memory — he is no longer in the Chamber — he said that the Executive were correct to push for and engage with the British Government on more appropriate funding levels. He went on to question Michelle O'Neill's whereabouts. He then went on to talk about aversive training tools for dogs and a number of other issues that were not too relevant to the debate.

My party's amendment reflects the balanced position. It recognises the urgency of agreeing a Budget, the shared responsibility of Executive parties to achieve that and the responsibility of the British Government to provide the resources necessary to support public services and deliver better outcomes for our people.

I just want to note Mr Gaston's contribution. It is quite clear that the TUV is happy for our people here to be treated as lesser citizens than citizens in Scotland, Wales and England.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Murphy: I will quote James Connolly to the Member:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Colin McGrath to conclude the debate and make the winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Well, isn't the Budget process that we are talking about just bonkers? Here we are, on 14 September, eight months after the Finance Minister brought forward his supposedly transformative three-year Budget, which the Executive could not agree. We are five — nearly six — months into the financial year and the Executive have still not agreed a Budget at all. It is five months into the financial year, and the people charged with governing this place still cannot agree how to allocate nearly £20 billion. That is not normal government, nor is it responsible government: it is bonkers.

As expected, throughout the debate, Members from Executive parties came forward with their prepared defences of what the Executive are doing — or, rather, failing to do. We could have written the script before the debate: "The Brits aren't giving us enough money"; "We are being subjected to austerity"; "We need to protect public services", and so it goes on. Here is the thing, however: there is truth in some elements of the Executive's argument. The financial settlement is incredibly difficult. The draft Budget proposed an increase in non-earmarked day-to-day spending this year of just 0·8% in cash terms against pay awards, inflation and increasing demands for services. Therefore, yes, of course we should press the British Government for a better settlement. Nobody disputes that, but this is where it becomes bonkers: a difficult Budget does not become less difficult because you have refused to agree one. All parties sought power on the understanding that they would work to deliver better public services for this place and that they would put in the hard yards and take the hard decisions. Operating without a Budget does not remove those decisions; it delays them, and that delay makes things harder. That is the central point that Executive parties simply cannot answer. You cannot protect public services by refusing to budget for public services. You cannot give certainty to workers by refusing to make decisions about their pay. You cannot transform services while denying Departments the certainty that they need for transformation. You cannot seriously tell voluntary organisations, community groups, schools, health trusts or businesses that refusing to take a decision is somehow an act of responsible government.

The reality is that the Executive just cannot, or will not, agree a Budget, and so Departments are currently relying on emergency arrangements that ultimately permit spending only up to 95% of last year's starting point. The Fiscal Council is explicit that, once that limit is reached, the options are stark: the Assembly passes a Budget Act, Westminster legislates for one or Westminster changes the legal framework. That is about as bonkers as it can get.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Of course.

Mr O'Toole: We have been consistent in saying — anybody can check the records — that we want to see more money to fund this place, but it is also true that, if the Executive do not agree a Budget, they are, legally, imposing a 5% cut on last year's Budget. That would be the most brutal Budget cut and would far, far outstrip any austerity that has ever been seen here before, so there is a real dilemma and a real issue about creating more austerity.

Mr McGrath: Absolutely. It will create more austerity because it will deliver an even bigger cut. Running in at the end with a big pot of money does not solve the problems. If you go to an organisation six months into the year and say that you are cutting its budget by 50%, it will have nothing left for the rest of the year. It is irresponsible to try to govern in that way.

We restored these institutions so that locally elected Ministers could take decisions. We have a functioning Assembly, and we have an Executive, although I do not know whether I would call them "functioning". We have a Finance Minister and departmental Ministers, yet we are drifting towards circumstances in which Westminster may ultimately have to legislate because the Executive here cannot perform the most basic function of government. That is an abdication of responsibility. What is really going on? Have the Executive suddenly coalesced in some great united front against the big, bad Brits? I am not buying that, and I do not think that the public are buying it either. The failure to set a Budget has become a fig leaf for something much deeper: the Executive are entirely impotent when it comes to reaching agreement and are now prepared to lay public services and people's financial futures at the altar of disagreement. What a disgrace.

Miss Hargey: Will the Member take a point?

Mr McGrath: Yes.

Miss Hargey: I find it bonkers that the SDLP is choosing to protect its sister party at Westminster rather than protect the public here. You are proposing for us to agree a Budget that will see huge cuts built into the baseline. We are saying that the baseline is not enough and needs to be enhanced. There are now negotiations at play that are looking to rectify that. Why would you show your hand at this point? There will be more than a 5% cut baked into the baseline; that is what the SDLP is asking for. I find that extremely bonkers.

Mr McGrath: That is about the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard. You refuse to set a Budget, which means that —. Take health trusts as an example: how can they plan? Are they employing any new staff at the minute? Probably not, because they do not know whether they have money or not. Why not give them the budget for this year and, at the same time, ask for the extra money? Nobody is saying, "Do not ask for the extra money".

I remember as a kid getting my £1 pocket money. If I had wanted £1·50, however, I would have asked for the extra money. I would not have said, "Don't give me the pound". That is a silly way in which to do things.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: Yes, but I am well into my allotted time.

Mr Kingston: In the time remaining to him, will the Member tell us what cuts the SDLP is proposing to make in order to live within the inadequate Budget that we have had since the start of this year?

Mr McGrath: We do not need to. The public sector is having to do it anyway, because you will not take the decisions that you have to. It is being left to have to make cuts. In health, the trusts have had to put together a plan to slash investment, because you will not give them any money. It is not about their not having money for the future but about the uncertainty that they face today. That is why we say that the responsibility for that lies at the door of Stormont Castle, where the Executive sit and refuse to find agreement.

I will run through some of the things that other parties mentioned. Miss Hargey made some reasonable points about responsibility. Responsibility needs to be taken for the implementation of our finances. If we are serious about having a new Ireland, we must show, and prove to, the people of this island that we can take responsibility and make decisions. Setting a Budget on time is crucial to displaying that we can be serious and take responsibility.

The DUP mentioned supporting the Sinn Féin amendment. Of course you will. When it comes to delivery, you are two sides of the same coin. You can have all the sham fights that you want for your social media accounts, but when it comes to the fiscal management of this place, there is barely a paper's width between the two of you.

In its amendment, Alliance suggests that agreeing to the Budget would have resulted in drastic cuts, but it is missing the point spectacularly. Not agreeing a Budget does not make the cuts disappear. Rather, it simply leaves Departments trying to manage them without having certainty, without the ability to plan properly and without the ability to make long-term decisions.

Making the UUP's contribution, Mr Burrows, who has been a native of this parish for the past number of months, took to telling us how this place works. Thankfully, my 10 years' experience of this place has helped me understand what happens here. Yes, a non-binding motion is, of course, non-binding. It is meant to be used simply to raise awareness of issues. As a legislature, however, we should be dealing in legislation. In an open and transparent democracy, an Opposition day motion is a pillar. It allows a Government or an Executive to remember that they cannot take unilateral decisions without there being accountability and the awkward and difficult questions that can be asked in public. As an Opposition, we will make sure that we ask those questions.

Several references were made to our not having alternatives. We do have alternatives, and we have published them, but let us not let the truth get in the way of having a good dig at the Opposition. As the leader of the Opposition said, however, we do not have access to the full, detailed costs, because, unlike what happens in other parts of these islands, the Executive will not give us access to the figures and costings. Openness and transparency, anyone?

I will now turn to the Minister's remarks. He is a Minister who has not delivered a Budget. He is in a situation in which public services are threatened with being slashed. As a result and a consequence, we have a fiscal landscape that is totally uncertain. His reply to all of that is, "Well, where's yours?". [Laughter.]

Seriously, how can we have an alternative to a Budget if it does not exist in the first place? That is why we are asking for one to be delivered.

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

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Gaston: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Ayes have it, with one dissenting voice that has been noted.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Take your ease for a brief moment, Members, before we move on to the next item of business.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

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

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is with real pride and joy that I am able to move a motion about the Fleadh Cheoil na hEireann and allow the Assembly the opportunity to reflect on what was, I think, for many of us, one of the most remarkable successes that this city and region has ever had.

In the previous debate, there were various accusations that the SDLP Opposition were being negative etc. Of course, it is not the job of any Opposition to cheerlead the Government whom they hold to account, but I hope that people will see in our motion about the fleadh that we are using Opposition time to debate constructively something that is happy.

The debate also offers us the opportunity to reflect on something positive. We can learn lessons about specific public policy questions that are mentioned in our motion, such as those about pedestrianisation and how we use the spaces that we share in Belfast and other town and city centres; and how we approach things such as liquor and entertainment licensing in a way that promotes festivals and communities coming together and allows hospitality businesses to put their best foot forward to showcase our world-class offer.

Most critically of all, the fleadh demonstrated that what we call "culture" — things that make life worth living through giving us joy and a sense of belonging and purpose, including language, music, dramatic performance and literature — does not have to be things that divide us. All too often in the Chamber, and increasingly so, there appear to be political parties that want to use those things to divide us, but it really does not have to be like that. In this part of Ireland, we can not just accommodate one another but celebrate one another. We can take joy in our diversity. Not every SDLP speech has to involve a quote from John Hume, but most of the best ones do. Hume said:

If you can allow yourself to believe that and become comfortable with that, a whole world of human experience opens up to you. We in this part of Ireland have often closed ourselves off from the experience of taking joy in one another.

The fleadh was a milestone for people who have seen this city change over the years. I have not seen it for as many decades as some in the Chamber, but I have known it for a little bit longer than others. I am now in early middle age, so I remember the 1990s and what was called the ring of steel. Our old pal and former Assembly colleague Pat Catney remembers the ring of steel because he used to be a publican inside it. People had to enter this city — a major European city and the second city on this island — through a gate and have their bags checked in order to go into a shop, let alone go to a concert or a pub. Of course, as we know, people did not go to concerts or pubs very much in Belfast city centre for about 30 years. The fact that not only has the ring of steel gone — it went a few decades ago, which is great — but we have totally re-imagined the idea of what Belfast city centre could be is why the fleadh was so remarkable and joyful.

I, as, I am sure, lots of people did, had the opportunity to walk around the fleadh. Lots of Belfast city centre is in my constituency, so I lay a bit more claim to it than others. It really was for everybody. As I walked around the fleadh, there was a sense of joy in Irish traditional culture, music and dance — everything from the competitions organised by Comhaltas through to the random and sometimes hilarious busking on the street and the sense of people coming together. One of the most striking things was walking around and seeing people of a certain generation look around themselves and almost catch their breath, a bit like in the Heaney poem about the heart catching someone off guard — I think that I have misquoted Heaney, which I should not have done. It was striking to see people being slightly surprised to be walking around Belfast city centre with a sense of freedom, joy and lightness, and enjoying one another. That is new to our city and is why the fleadh was so special.

I should pay tribute, formally, to the statutory agencies responsible for helping to deliver the fleadh — primarily to Belfast City Council and its officers. Departments helped to facilitate it. The Departments for the Economy and Infrastructure played a role, with Belfast City Council in the lead. Of course, there was the Ards branch of Comhaltas, which came to the Great Hall here about a month and a half ago, just before Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann got started in earnest, to give us a flavour of what we would experience, and I thank the Speaker for facilitating that.

Lots of us anticipated that there would be lots of visitors, great culture and a bit of craic during that week, but — I do not wish to be too melodramatic in saying this — I certainly was not psychologically or emotionally ready — I do not think that others were ready — for how extraordinary an experience the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann in Belfast city centre would be. It really was extraordinary. It reimagined the city centre and allowed people to experience culture in a new way. Yes, that was Irish culture in particular, but the space that was opened up included not just traditional Irish culture — music, dance, literature and language — but, importantly, band culture from the Protestant/unionist/loyalist community (PUL) tradition, although PUL is a clumsy phrase, I think. Bands from the unionist tradition from the Shankill and the Newtownards Road put their best feet forward and inspired people with their talent, ability and culture, which is a rich, valued and precious part of the cultural heritage of this part of the island and the whole island of Ireland, and I really mean that. I went down to the Titanic slipway on the night of the bands' showcase, and I have to say that I was inspired by it. The flags that were there are not my flags, and I did not grow up playing those instruments, but I felt connection and pride when I saw those people putting their best feet forward. I do not expect that I will get all that many votes from them next year, but I was nevertheless proud to see them doing their thing, and the sense that we could share something was important to me. That is the kind of society that I want to live in now and the kind of new Ireland that my party and I want to build. I am not trying to co-opt those people into a new Ireland by saying that, and I do not expect them to support it, but that is the kind of spirit with which I want to live.

Having done the soft stuff, I will get on to the main purpose of the motion. There are specific lessons that we can learn, and we need to get on with learning them. The first is that pedestrianisation, opening our streets up to festivals and other forms of community gathering, does not have to be the end of the world. Sometimes, we hear from people talking about people not being able to park outside their shop or premises at exactly the right moment. There will always be legitimate questions from traders who want to understand how such things will work, but what we in fact saw at the fleadh was huge footfall and a transformative experience for people in Belfast city centre. We will not have Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann in Belfast every year, although we will have it next year and lots of us want to have it the year after as well. At some point, other cities in Ireland will say, "We want it back" or, "We'd like it, too". My colleague from Derry is here. For anyone who was in Derry in 2013, that was a brilliant fleadh, too. I was there for one day, and it was terrific. We need more flexibility around pedestrianisation. We need the DFI to take lessons from Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann. Think about the fact that we still do not have a fully pedestrianised Hill Street. That is remarkable. The battle to get Hill Street pedestrianised has been Pythonesque, but we were able to do it for the fleadh like me clicking my fingers, and it worked.

I have talked consistently on the subject of licensing. We have a very inflexible licensing system. I will not talk about all the issues around the surrender principle, because it is complicated and challenging, but there are flexibility issues when it comes to occasional licences and entertainment licences. As with pedestrianisation, those issues were addressed quickly and with goodwill and energy by Belfast City Council, other statutory agencies and businesses. That was seen not just in the sense of people walking around a former conflict space that became a brilliant festival space but in event spaces such as the Electric Light Station, which opened on Chapel Lane.

I probably should not be naming individual businesses — there are lots of great pubs in Belfast — but I believe that there was also a place called the Donegal Bar at a derelict premises on Donegall Street. I am not endorsing those specific businesses other than to say that they are examples of how opening up and reimagining our city can be facilitated by having more flexible licensing.

Overall, I pay tribute to an extraordinary week in the history of this city, this region and this island. The Fleadh Cheoil had a record number of visitors, and we can all be proud of it. It just shows that this place does not have to be defined by division and dysfunction. Some parties want to make it about that. I am trying not to be too party political, but I want to say —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: — that we can deliver amazing things when we put our minds to it. Let us learn lessons and take inspiration from the fleadh.

Miss Brogan: This year's Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann in Belfast truly was a transformative event for the city and the wider region. In just eight days, the fleadh generated a massive economic boost, estimated to be in excess of £65 million, for the city. It showcased the city not only to the rest of Ireland but to the rest of the world, recording 1·65 million visitors to the city centre.

The true success story of the fleadh, however, was the incredible atmosphere that it created, which was one of inclusivity, safety and equality, as well as a real sense of optimism for the future. I have spoken to lots of people who were at the fleadh, including people from Belfast, people from my constituency of West Tyrone and people from all over Ireland. The one phrase that I heard again and again was that it was the best thing ever to happen in Belfast, and you could see that on the faces of people in Belfast throughout the time of the fleadh.

It truly was a music festival of Ireland: a fleadh cheoil na hÉireann. In addition to hosting the best traditional Irish music talents in the world, the city danced to the tunes of artists and bands from the unionist tradition, as well as of those from further afield who brought their cultures and traditions with them when they made Ireland their home. It showed that we are at our very best when we come together as one nation and one people in mutual respect and celebration of one another's traditions and identities. In fact, Belfast was a city of sound this summer, with Féile an Phobail and TradFest taking place in the run-up to and during the fleadh. Belfast has never felt so vibrant, exciting and alive.

Of course, the fleadh did not just happen on its own. I thank Belfast City Council for its massive efforts in bringing the festival to the city. I also thank the thousands of volunteers and workers who made sure that the city was as open, welcoming and accessible as possible to the huge numbers of visitors that it received. My experience of attending the fleadh was that we got the public transport bus from the Eikon centre into the city. The service was flawless. Buses ran every five minutes, and I was really impressed by the excellent service. Translink deserves credit for that.

I thank our Executive Ministers, who not only rose to the challenge of facilitating one of the biggest festivals in Europe but have been keen to learn lessons from the event. The Minister for Infrastructure, Liz Kimmins, is already looking at ways to increase pedestrianisation in the city after the fleadh showed that it was possible and successful. I am hopeful, given the huge commercial and cultural success that the fleadh was, that our Minister for Communities will see the value of investing funding in it for next year as well. Our Minister for the Economy, Caoimhe Archibald, must regard the £1 million that she put into the event for a £65 million return as a solid economic investment. Finally, I thank the leadership and members of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann for trusting Belfast with their flagship event and for their efforts in making it such a huge success.

The really exciting thing is that it is not over. We are only at the halfway mark. The fleadh will be back next year, bigger and better than ever. Let us not squander the opportunities with which it has provided us. Let us all work together in the spirit of the fleadh to ensure that Fleadh Cheoil 2027 not only is a successful event and a great week for Belfast but leaves an economic, cultural and cooperative legacy for generations to come.

Mr Brooks: I join others in congratulating those behind the fleadh that took place in Belfast this summer. Whatever your politics or cultural background, it is not difficult to recognise that the fleadh was a tremendous success for the city. It was great to see Belfast buzzing. I was there on a couple of afternoons, including on one occasion alongside my colleagues Phillip Brett and Jonny Buckley. I was at the marching bands showcase by the Belfast Bands Forum, which I will come on to later. Hundreds of thousands of people came to Belfast, and our streets, venues, pubs and public spaces were filled with music and with families, young people and visitors from across these islands and much further afield. As has been touched on, it was a massive economic opportunity for Belfast and Northern Ireland. It was also a demonstration of what Belfast can do when we have the confidence to work together and allow different traditions and cultures to flourish.

It is important to say that I understand the resistance, at times, of some in my community and tradition. For some, their experience of Irishness in recent times has been of something that they have seen others seek to impose. For others, the event with a similar-sounding Irish name, the féile — a rather despicable event — offered a contrast in the week across the city and coloured their view. However, it is important to state clearly that there is no relationship and that the two events could not have been more different. The more I heard from those directly involved in the discussions and planning of the fleadh with Comhaltas, the more comfortable I was. I hope that, having seen the proof of the pudding, many more will feel comfortable representing our community's cultural heritage next year, as the fleadh comes to Belfast again.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that there are lessons to be learned by the organisers of the féile from the success and positivity of the fleadh?

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

Mr Brooks: Absolutely. The fleadh was a feel-good event and was embraced by all. Of course, there is room for celebrations that are reflective of one community or another — not everything will be shared — but there were events at the féile, such as the Kneecap concert, that were particularly despicable and not something that I could ever endorse. The fleadh was not flawless. If you went looking at the fleadh for something to be offended by — someone wearing or playing something that you did not appreciate — you may have found it, but they were out of place, unwelcome and out of kilter with the inclusive spirit of the event.

Comhaltas has had the fleadh as a celebration of folk and traditional music for 75 years and did not come to Belfast to make a political statement. It navigated the choppy waters of Northern Ireland's identity politics about as well as could have been expected. It is right that we acknowledge its efforts in that regard. If we as politicians can learn anything from this year, it is that keeping divisive politics away from an event allows space for an inclusive celebration of music and culture. There is a narrative for us all to spin from the event — we, obviously, speak for our people and our communities — but perhaps our contribution is that we should not overindulge in that unnecessarily.

Even Irish traditional music is not the preserve of one tradition. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of hearing Caubeen, the trad band of the Royal Irish Regiment, during its concert of pipes and drums. There is a significant overlap with elements of Ulster-Scots traditional music and instruments. Even without those ties, trad music is enjoyed by many with a British and unionist identity. Not everything has to be defined by our political division or in a negative or adversarial way. Indeed, if I listened only to modern music of my own identity and political outlook, I could probably save on the need for Spotify.

People from a unionist and Ulster-Scots background showed a willingness to engage and the confidence to showcase our culture. Whether that was through the Belfast Bands Forum on the slipways or the Ulster-Scots pipes and drums at the Cathedral Quarter, I was proud to see my culture represented on such a large stage. Ulster Scots is part of the story of this place. Our bands, marching tradition, music, poetry and heritage are entitled to be visible in any celebration that seeks to project a cultural picture of the city. Comhaltas understood that, and its engagement went far beyond tokenism, with music, dance and cultural events forming part of the wider programme, not only in the places mentioned previously, but with flute bands on the main Gig Rig and integrated into events at the Ulster Hall.

I say "Well done" to those from my constituency: the Parkinson Accordion Band; the Church Flute Band, Belfast; the Loyal; and the Imperial Guards Flute Band. There was also the Shankill Road Defenders Flute Band; the Ballylone Concert Flute Band from Ballynahinch; and a number of Ulster-Scots dance schools, drum majors, Lambegs and others. That is exactly the approach of which I want to see more. Often, our diversity is seen as our complexity and division, but the fleadh showed that it can also be our wealth and our strength.

We are a city that is shaped by the Lagan; agriculture; the shipyard; industry; migration; common, if rocky, histories of Great Britain and Ireland; Protestant and Catholic traditions; and Ulster-Scots and Irish influences. We should not try to simplify or whitewash that story on this cultural platform. It is not politics, and it is not a zero-sum game. We should celebrate it. The fleadh showed what happens when Belfast is presented to the world as an open, confident and culturally vibrant city. It also showed that we can not only tolerate but celebrate other cultures when they are not imposed or used to threaten. Someone else celebrating their heritage does not diminish mine. If Orange flutes and Orange tunes are welcome at the fleadh, they should not be regarded as offensive elsewhere on our streets. I congratulate the organisers, musicians, performers, volunteers, Belfast City Council, the businesses that benefited and, most important, all who made visitors feel welcome in our city.

Ms Mulholland: Before I start, can I just say how lovely it was to hear Mr Brooks's contribution? That, for me, is the spirit of the fleadh. That is what that sort of culture has meant to me in a non-imposing, non-threatening way. It is really lovely to hear the Member say that someone celebrating their culture does not impact his, because that is the entire essence of the arts. That is why I am so passionate about the arts, so I thank you for your contribution, Mr Brooks.

The fleadh was a truly brilliant week for Belfast but also for Northern Ireland. There was music everywhere on the streets. As Mr O'Toole said, I was one of those walking around agog at what I could see. I want to share a tangible outcome for my family. My nine-year-old is involved in the Comhaltas. He got through to the Ulster fleadh but, unfortunately, did not make the cut for the all-Ireland with his accordion. As we walked through the streets, however, he was able to see young people his age and younger playing instruments. That bolstered his confidence to the point where, two weeks later, he busked for the first time at the Lammas Fair. I will say that the money he made for the amusements definitely encouraged him, and he will to do it again next year, but, genuinely, it was seeing children his age and younger on the street playing music. That had such an impact on his perception of what is possible for musicians and artists, even at his age.

Like others, I pay tribute to Belfast City Council, the Ards Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, the artists themselves and the staff and volunteers who made it happen. As others have mentioned, the most encouraging aspect of the fleadh was the spirit of inclusion and connection that it created. The involvement of bands from the unionist tradition and the Belfast Bands Forum was particularly important. I had a powerful moment, standing at the Gig Rig in the grounds of City Hall, listening to the Parkinson Accordion Band play "The Sash" and people cheering and clapping, because I think people — those around me anyway — understood the significance of what they were experiencing.

That positivity was infectious, and seeing the Irish fiddle and the Lambeg drum sharing a programme sent a powerful message about Belfast and Northern Ireland. It showed that culture can bring pride and connection rather than division, and we in the Alliance Party have talked about that for an awfully long time when it comes to our arts community. In so many ways, our arts community is far ahead of our politics.

As the motion suggests, the question is not whether the fleadh was a success — it clearly was — but the challenge is what comes next. The benefits of the fleadh this year and next must extend beyond Belfast. For the people in my community in North Antrim and in rural communities, success cannot mean simply travelling into Belfast for gigs and events. It has to mean investing in grassroots community arts, local workshops and schools programmes. When we think about the arts, we are too often city-centric, and we need to move beyond that. Too often, the arts are talked about as an optional extra, a luxury. The fleadh reminded us that it is part of the social infrastructure of our communities.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member giving way. You are chair of the all-party group on the arts and, like me, were engaging a lot with the arts campaigners who were here last week campaigning for funding. I should have said what they said, which was that the fleadh did not happen by accident, and, if we do not fund them, then —.

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

Ms Mulholland: Well, the Member will know that in my next paragraph

I literally say, "The fleadh did not appear from nowhere, and it did not happen by accident". It is nice to see that we are on the same page.

Artists, freelancers, technicians and community organisations have spent decades building the skills, audiences and relationships that made it possible, so, if we are serious about building on the success of the fleadh, we need long-term investment and for the Department for Communities and the Arts Council to be on the same page. We need multi-year funding, and fair pay and conditions for those who create our culture. Fleadh 2026 showed us what Belfast can do. I really hope that, in 2027, success will not be measured just by visitor numbers or the number of bus journeys.

It has to be measured by how many more people feel that events like this are for them; how much more fairly and adequately we support the people who make those events possible; and how many more nine-year-olds look around and think that they can achieve what was achieved during that week in August. The arts community has shown us again and again that it has moved ahead of politics. It is now time for our politicians, our Departments and all involved to catch up. I support the motion.

Mr Allen: It is fair to say that the fleadh was a success not only for Belfast but for the wider region. There is a great deal to be proud of, and we congratulate everyone who contributed to its success. The organisers, Belfast City Council, the Departments, agencies and local businesses all deserve credit. So too do the hundreds of volunteers who gave up their time to help visitors and make them feel welcome. Much of the work behind an event such as this goes unseen, and it is right that we acknowledge it.

Mr Chambers: Will the Member give way?

Mr Allen: Yes.

Mr Chambers: I thank my colleague for mentioning the volunteers, and I take the opportunity to congratulate my North Down constituent Niall McClean, who is a member of a renowned Bangor traditional music family. Niall was pivotal in bringing the fleadh to Belfast. He was also pivotal in helping the council organise a fringe event on the Saturday before the fleadh started in Belfast. It was a huge success and a welcome boost to local businesses. It was certainly a day of pure joy in Bangor.

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

Mr Allen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for his intervention and concur with his remarks. I extend my thanks to Niall and, again, to all involved in making sure that the fleadh was such a success. We particularly welcome the involvement of bands from the unionist tradition, which has been highlighted by other Members. Belfast Bands Forum deserves credit for its work with Comhaltas and Belfast City Council to make that happen. As we know, those relationships take time and effort. We know that culture can, at times, be a difficult subject in this place, but there should be room for all of us to celebrate what matters to us in a respectful manner and to appreciate what matters to our neighbours. That does not require anyone to step outside their identity; it requires openness and a willingness to take part. The fleadh showed what can be achieved when that happens. The question now is what we learn from it.

The motion touches on pedestrianisation, of which we can see the benefits. Giving people more space to walk around, if they can, enjoy music or sit outside a cafe can make a real difference to a city centre. The only caution that I raise is about access. For someone with limited mobility — I have experience of that — a longer distance from a car park or bus stop can be the difference between being able to come into town and having to stay at home. Some people depend on accessible parking or on being dropped off close to their destination. Concerns were raised about access during the fleadh. We need to hear directly from those who had difficulties and make sure that their experience shapes any proposal from the outset. Disabled people, older people and others who depend on vehicle access must be properly considered alongside residents and businesses. What might work during a major festival needs careful consideration before we seek to make it a permanent arrangement.

We should ask what else Belfast could host. Can we build on this experience to bring more large outdoor concerts, cultural festivals and other events into the city throughout the year? The council, Departments and event organisers should look together at suitable spaces, transport access and the support needed to make that possible. That should include looking at how vacant or underused spaces could be brought back into use. There may also be opportunities in other towns and cities across Northern Ireland. We should use the experience gained from the fleadh to help bring those forward. Local musicians and arts organisations should benefit too. They keep our cultural life going throughout the year, often with limited resources, as Members have highlighted. If we want more events of this quality, we need to support the people who make them possible.

We are also open to looking at greater flexibility in licensing. Extended hours were provided for under a major events order during the fleadh. With input from businesses, residents and those responsible for public safety, we should assess how those arrangements worked before deciding what further changes are needed. With the fleadh returning to Belfast next year, there is an opportunity to put what we have learned into practice. Let us build on the success, support more events and make sure that everyone has the opportunity to take part. We support the motion.

Ms Reilly: As with my Member's statement on the fleadh last week, my remarks will be as Gaeilge

Ba mhaith liom, ar dtús, buíochas a ghabháil leis an SDLP as an rún seo a chur faoi bhráid an Tí inniu le gur féidir linn uile labhairt ar an fhleadh agus ar an dearfacht agus an maitheas a ghabh leis an fleadh agus í anseo i mBéal Feirste. Mar a dúradh cheana féin, ní ar dhroim na gaoithe a tháinig an fhleadh. Blianta fada oibre a bhí i gceist le Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann a thabhairt go Béal Feirste, agus tá sé tábhachtach aitheantas a thabhairt do na daoine uile as an obair sin.

Bhí ról lárnach, mar a dúradh, ag brinse na hAirde de Chomhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, ag Comhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste, ag oifigigh agus foireann na Comhairle, ag Ranna an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin, agus ag ár ngníomhaireachtaí agus ár gcomhpháirtithe. Agus níos tábhachtaí ná sin, bhí ról lárnach ag na hoibrithe túslíne agus ag na céadta oibrithe deonacha a bhí ar fud na cathrach ó cheann ceann na seachtaine. Iadsan a chuir fáilte roimh na cuairteoirí agus a thug na treoracha amach; iadsan a stiúir lucht na fleidhe agus a chinntigh go raibh na cuairteoirí ag baint sult as an tseachtain. Tá buíochas ollmhór tuillte acu uile. Tugaim aitheantas ar leith do Róis Máire Donnelly, Ardmhéara na cathrach. Ambasadóir den chéad scoth do Bhéal Feirste a bhí inti i rith na fleidhe. Tá a fhios agam cé chomh bródúil agus a bhí sí ag cur fáilte roimh dhaoine as gach cearn d’Éirinn agus i bhfad níos faide i gcéin chuig ár gcathair. Agus nach iontach an chathair í?

Ba í an fhleadh ba mhó riamh í. Bhí na sráideanna plódaithe le daoine, bhí na hóstáin, na tithe tábhairne, na bialanna agus na gnólachtaí uile iontach gnóthach, agus tháinig na céadta mílte cuairteoirí isteach chuici gach lá.

Is cinnte go raibh rath cultúrtha uirthi, mar fhleadh, ach rath eacnamaíochta a bhí ann do Bhéal Feirste agus don réigiún thart timpeall air chomh maith. Ba léir do lucht na Fléidhe an t-athrach ollmhór atá ar Bhéal Feirste. Bhí réamhthuairim ag daoine ar Bhéal Feirste riamh anall de dheasca stair na cathrach. Bhí deis againn Béal Feirste an lae inniu a chur ina láthair le linn na fleidhe. Nuair a bhíonn muinín againn as ár gcultúr, agus an cultúr sin a thabhairt isteach go lár na cathrach, is é rud a thagann as ná fleadh den scoth. D’éirigh leis an fhleadh toisc an pháirtíocht a bheith ann: ní fleadh go cur le chéile.

Tá deis eile againn é a dhéanamh arís in 2027. Ní mór dúinn machnamh a dhéanamh ar gach uile ghné d’fhleadh na bliana seo - bheith ionraic agus amharc ar na rudaí maithe agus ar na rudaí ar féidir snas a chur orthu - le fleadh na bliana seo chugainn a dhéanamh níos mó agus níos fearr arís. Tá daoine ag iarraidh tuilleadh. Tá siad ag dúil leis na mothúcháin agus na radharcanna a bhí ann an tseachtain sin a bheith acu arís. Tuilleadh infheistíochta sna healaíona agus sa chultúr againn. Tuilleadh deiseanna do na daoine óga. Agus tuilleadh deiseanna le teacht le chéile agus muid féin uile a cheiliúradh. Léirigh muintir Bhéal Feirste cad é is féidir a dhéanamh. Anois, níl le déanamh anois ach cur leis sin.

Ms Nicholl: I welcome the motion and the leader of the Opposition's positivity. I share in much of what he said. The fleadh was amazing. There was maybe only one day on which I did not go into Belfast while it was on. The shared spirit spoke to all of us about the society that we really want to create.

I will not reiterate the points that have been made, because there is so much other business today, but one thing really struck me. I grew up in Zimbabwe, so I did not have much interaction with the GAA, the Irish language and such things until I met my husband. My son has started playing Gaelic football, and, as a mum, I am sometimes quite conscious of his wearing a GAA jersey in places where he may not be accepted or may be treated differently, because we have experienced that before. However, as I walked down Royal Avenue, I saw throngs of people in GAA jerseys and Northern Ireland jerseys. That shared spirit in the city was so moving and special, and it was a sign of where we could be.

It felt like a real turning point for this place; it felt like the hope that we needed after a summer of fractures.

I echo the thanks to Niall McClean and his family for bringing that wonderful thing to our city and to Belfast City Council, Translink, the volunteers, the arts groups and all the people who brought music, life, dance and song on to the streets and inspired so many people. A constituent of mine, the Belfast artist Niall Conlon, has started an Instagram music session where people are frantically trying to learn music so that they can perform next year, and that is wonderful. It is not just young people; it is older people as well. The point about funding the arts is important because it gives meaning and makes life richer and all the better, and it is something that must be celebrated and enhanced.

One thing that we learned from the fleadh is that, when you build a city around people, it brings life. Therefore, pedestrianisation should be looked at seriously, and I welcome the work that the Infrastructure Minister is taking forward. That work must be done with accessibility at its heart, because a city that is not inclusive is not a city for everyone. We must make sure that those who will be impacted on are at the heart of that work.

It was a wonderful week for our city, and I look forward to next year. Going by the number of people who have said that they will take the entire week off next year, I do not know what productivity will be like in the city, but it will be one big party. I am very much looking forward to it and to seeing how we enhance it across Northern Ireland.

Mr Kingston: I thank the leader of the Opposition for tabling the motion, which has brought to the Chamber harmony and agreement, and that is good to see.

Certainly, the fleadh that took place in Belfast last month was a great success overall. It brought great numbers of people into the city centre. I am not sure how well all retailers did, and I heard some say that their numbers were down. Just because people are on the street, it does not necessarily mean that they are in the shops. I heard that some businesses closed for the week because they thought that they would not have access for their customers. It will be interesting to hear an analysis of that. I assume that, in particular, the hospitality sector did very well.

I understand that the fleadh is primarily a competition for Irish traditional music and, to some extent, dancing. Participants qualify through their regional heats to get to the final in the fleadh. As a cultural event, it overwhelmingly succeeded in keeping politics out of it. There were some negative exceptions, but, to my knowledge, there were very few such incidents. For those of us in Belfast who hear about the West Belfast Festival, including and justifying young people being led from the stage in pro-IRA chants in a council park every year, it was refreshing to know that Irish cultural events do not have to resort to the promotion of terrorism. The fleadh showed the féile how it can be done.

It was a pleasure for me to attend the Belfast Bands Forum’s event on the Titanic slipway. It was a credit to the Belfast Bands Forum and the fleadh to demonstrate that the Ulster-Scots and Ulster-British tradition could take its place in the fleadh’s programme. Likewise, the fleadh demonstrates that Irish traditional music, culture and identity are an important part of Northern Ireland's culture and, indeed, the overall culture of the United Kingdom in all its diversity.

For me, inclusion, not imposition, is the key. That is in stark contrast to Belfast City Council's disastrous Irish language street-sign policy, which was forced through by the Alliance Party and the nationalist parties. I hear Members tutting, but the problem with that policy is that, when streets are proposed for an Irish language street sign, residents are consulted, and, in many cases, the views of the majority are ignored, because Irish language street signs can be added with just 15% support. Indeed, in some cases, councillors add the signs where there is less than 15% support.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Kingston, the matter that you are addressing at the moment has absolutely nothing to do with the motion in front of us. I ask you to return to the motion, which does not relate to council policy on street signs in any way. The motion is about the fleadh.

Mr Kingston: My remarks are relevant because it is about not imposing culture. That is what causes a reaction. Culture has to be something that people can share, that is inclusive and that does not cause resentment. I hope that that council policy will be changed.

The motion also refers to a push for greater pedestrianisation of Belfast city centre. I understand that a certain populism is involved there. There is a case to be made for pedestrianisation, but it is important to recognise that access to the city centre is very important. Belfast city centre is a very important place in Northern Ireland. It is the centre of our capital city. It is the centre of our transport network. It is a major centre for retail, hospitality, hotels, education and entertainment, and it is a preferred location for many businesses, particularly international businesses, because they know that they can draw on the widest geographical range of employees travelling from their home. Ease of travel in and out of the city centre is therefore essential.

Cars should certainly not travel through the old security zone, which is restricted. I support greater enforcement in order to prevent cars from driving through that restricted zone, unless they have special permission to do so. I will always advocate that north Belfast buses be allowed to travel up Royal Avenue and Donegall Place to City Hall in order to enable people with limited mobility to get off and access Castle Court, Primark, Boots and Marks and Spencer. If all the buses had to travel via Millfield, it would greatly reduce the frequency of the bus service.

I welcome the fact that the fleadh was a positive experience for Belfast and a positive example for other events.

Miss Hargey: I had not intended to speak until I heard Matthew and other Members speak. I have a six-year-old niece called Banbha. My mummy was an Irish dancer and always wanted her to get into Irish dancing. She had always said no, but, one week after the fleadh, she joined an Irish dancing school and is now dancing. That shows the power of the arts, music, dance, culture, language — all those things — if they can have that impact on a six-year-old. She also made 30 quid when she threw her coat down and danced with a group of other young ones in Verner Street during the Féile na hAbhann fleadh fringe event. That shows what is possible for next year.

Pedestrianisation is an important issue, but it needs to be much wider, with a rethink of our urban planning and our public realm. If Members look at Belfast planning maps from the 1960s and 1970s, they will see that Belfast once worked as a connected system, which was then segregated because of defensive planning and a containment strategy. Our neighbourhoods and our city centre are still feeling the impact of those regressive strategies.

Inner-city communities, which are mostly working-class, such as the Market area where I live, Donegall Pass, Sandy Row, the Shankill Road, the Falls Road, Carrick Hill, Brown Square, among others, really feel that disconnect. The fleadh has shown all of us how we can rethink public spaces and look at having a restitching and reconnectivity strategy for those communities and for communities beyond the inner city.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Miss Hargey: Yes, of course.

Mr Brooks: There will be different views about any plans that come forward, but, in general, does the Member agree that we must make sure that we do not end up in a situation in which working-class, inner-city communities become car parks for those going on to use public transport?

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

Miss Hargey: Part of pedestrianisation is about encouraging the use of public transport. Those communities suffer high levels of asthma, for example, and that is because of the air pollution in the city. If we can therefore rethink what the city looks like, create greater connections and allow greater pedestrianisation and more cycling, that will hopefully improve health outcomes in those very neighbourhoods. That is what the Belfast agenda and, hopefully, the emerging eastern transport plan will start to do. There is a serious discussion to be had, and if there is unity of purpose, we can achieve that over the next period.

It was unfortunate that David used this opportunity to attack the féile. That was despicable, to be honest. Féile an Phobail is Ireland's largest community festival. It was borne out of the community — one of the most socially deprived communities, I have to say — in the 1980s. Since then, hundreds of its events, including this year, have brought people together from across the city and beyond. This year, it gave a platform and space to people from the unionist community, minority ethnic communities, women and the LGBT community. It also had a social media reach of 78·5 million when it came to people's retweets of those events and the different festivities.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Miss Hargey: Allow me to continue.

This year, again, we saw no bonfires across nationalist areas in Belfast. That has been a huge achievement by Féile an Phobail, working with corresponding festivals in south, east and north Belfast. Of course, we saw thousands of young people attend the different events, including concerts and other music events. I know that there were young people there from the Newtownards Road, the Shankill Road and Sandy Row, as well as areas in my own community, such as the Market and the Falls Road. I also know that Féile an Phobail has worked with the likes of Woodvale Festival, because it wants to see other community festivals happen. I know that because I have first-hand experience of what they were trying to do in Woodvale. Féile was also very supportive of that organisation. It is unfortunate, therefore, that there was an attempt to demonise that community. That community overcame demonisation in the '80s and '90s, and it will overcome it again in 2026. I am delighted to say that Féile an Phobail, just like the fleadh, will be back next year, bigger and better, for everyone to enjoy the craic agus ceol.

Mr Nesbitt: I first became aware of the broad plan for the fleadh many months ago. I was still in my second term as party leader, and members of Ards Comhaltas came up to brief me along with John Walsh, chief exec of Belfast City Council. It was a really interesting briefing. I had two takeaways, and both were about a measure of success. It was clear to me that their intent was to be incredibly successful in terms of numbers but also in terms of diversity. They were clearly totally determined to be as diverse as possible and to celebrate difference. It was going to be a "John Hume-style" eight days — I declare an interest as a trustee of the John and Pat Hume Foundation — and so it was.

I am sorry to say that I made only two forays into Belfast city centre. The first was an official one. I was Minister of Health at the time, and I wanted to visit and thank the St John Ambulance volunteers. They were headquartered at the old Ulster University arts building in north Belfast — the one that is nearest to the cathedral. They had converted part of the ground floor into an actual field hospital. What they had done was incredibly impressive. They were also monitoring on screens, in live time, people who were calling for medical help. By the Wednesday, they were able to show me the peak hours, such as 5.00 pm to 6.00 pm, when people were coming out of work. People were sustaining minor injuries at that point. By the early afternoon of the Wednesday, they had kept several dozen people out of our emergency departments, so they took an awful lot of pressure off the EDs in our acute hospitals. I believe that there were over 100 St John volunteers in Belfast during the eight days of the fleadh.

I met some of the others on my second foray in, which was just as an individual, on the Saturday. I visited their tent at the side of Belfast City Hall, where I saw proof that some of the volunteers had come from Great Britain. There was a man and a woman in uniform outside the tent. They were looking at me funny because they were thinking, "I don't see blood, a bruise or a black eye". They had no idea who I was and were wondering what I was doing there until a surgeon from Craigavon let the cat out of the bag. That St John effort was absolutely massive. I want to put on record my thanks to those volunteers and also to the volunteers of the SOS Bus, which was beside the City Hall. As Members know, that was there for people who get themselves into a bit of trouble with substance use, whether that is narcotics or, as my friend often likes to call it, being "over-served", which is his euphemism for having a skinful. Those people do a fantastic job as well.

On the Saturday, I went to one of the Glider stops just down the road from Parliament Buildings. Just after lunch, the first Glider was so rammed that there was not even standing room only. I waited seven or eight minutes for the next Glider, and it was rammed. Seven or eight minutes later, the third Glider was rammed, so I went home, waited for an hour and tried again, and guess what? The fourth Glider was rammed, so I thought, "I will drive in, but I am sure that there will be gridlock". I got straight into the city centre and got parked in Montgomery Street car park, which I had got the impression was either closed or inaccessible. I got parked on the second floor, which is closer to planet earth than I have ever been in that car park. Something needs to be done about transport, because there were so many people coming from the east and, no doubt, the Ards peninsula. That is a takeaway lesson for next year.

The fleadh was a truly remarkable thing to watch. What I got a lot of joy out of was not the planned stuff or the gig rig; it was the young people who were out on the streets Irish dancing, playing music, busking and, like Deirdre's relative, collecting money. If you are speaking to her, Deirdre, you can tell her that I never told her to keep the change. [Laughter.]

Ms Hunter: When growing up in Northern Ireland, it can, at times, feel like quite a depressing place that is quite bleak and still very deeply divided, but the fleadh offered us an opportunity to really share each other's cultures, learn something new and move forward to the future. This Building can sometimes feel hopeless. I feel that, often, we regurgitate and reiterate the same lines about the same problems and same challenges with the same divisiveness that we have had for decades. However, the fleadh gave us a moment in time in which we had a shared understanding of what can be.

What Belfast achieved when hosting the fleadh was genuinely something special, particularly for young people who come from parts of the North that are still deeply divided and where they may not meet people who are different from them. It was an opportunity to witness the best of us, because it was such a positive event. If you look online at comments sections, you will see that Northern Ireland still appears to be a place deeply divided by race, colour and creed, but the fleadh was about gathering and sharing traditions. It was about the people who keep culture alive across the North and South and across village halls and city pubs. On the very streets where violence took place a number of decades ago, we saw people gather to enjoy a bit of craic and some incredible music.

When Belfast played host this year, it was clearly a very magical moment for people of all ages. Belfast City Council, alongside hundreds of volunteers, managed to get right something that is genuinely very complex to host. That is so admirable, but what really struck me was that, while, yes, we saw Irish traditional music celebrated, we also, as others have mentioned today, saw bands from the unionist tradition feature prominently. Not to be cheesy, but that is the North of Ireland — the Northern Ireland — that I believe in: not one of tokenism but one of genuine respect and of understanding each other's cultures. Different communities shared the same stages, the same streets and the same sense that something good and positive was happening, and they understood that they could be part of it. It matters that we can celebrate the things that define us culturally without it becoming a zero-sum game and without it meaning that someone else's traditions get diminished. That is a lesson that is worth learning, not just for one event but when it comes to how we think about Belfast and the wider North moving forward.

The fleadh showed us what happens when you invest in culture and hospitality. Visitors came from all over and realised that Belfast is a place worth visiting and a vibrant city with things to do, places to gather and different communities that can very much do things together. Those visitors supported our businesses, and we know that many will come back. It is a win for so many people in so many ways. If we are serious about building on that, we need to think differently about our policies here. Other Members have mentioned pedestrianisation, which is important. Accessibility is really important to inject a bit of life back into our towns and cities, because, over the years, we have seen a true decline.

As other Members have mentioned, arts and culture funding is not a luxury. Arts and culture are literally what make life worth living, and they give our communities a sense of identity and pride, which is really powerful.

Over the years, my party has spoken passionately on the issue of flexible licensing. There are a number of breweries in my constituency, so I am well aware of the issues. The fleadh worked because the hosts in the area had room to breathe and put on spontaneous sessions that made it feel special. At a time when the cost of living is consuming so many of us and so many of our constituents, with the burden on families, the uncertainty of jobs and futures, ongoing division and all of those negative things, the fleadh was a form of escape. It reminded us of the importance of art and solidarity with one another in our right to express our culture.

At a time when the world feels bleak, it has been powerful to see how our culture can be shared and how it can be a bridge. Pride in our traditions does not have to mean the dismissal of anyone else's. Belfast is a city that celebrates all of its diversity and not just one version of it. I believe that it is a city that will thrive and go from strength to strength; it is almost as good as Derry. It is worth affirming the importance of a sense of togetherness, of cross-community working and of demonstrating to our young people that the place that they come from is a place that they can be proud of. My timeline has been inundated with TikToks of young people in America and Australia saying that they cannot wait. They wish they could have got home for the fleadh, and they are coming next year. That speaks to how important it is.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Members who tabled the motion. There is no doubt that this year's Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann was an impressive and wholesome event for everybody. As somebody who usually traverses Belfast city centre with a double pram and a dog lead tied round my waist, it was great to be able to move around the city relatively easily and freely. I do not know whether anybody counted, but a world record was probably set for the greatest concentration of double prams. I saw hundreds of them every day, and it was fantastic to see. Obviously, the pedestrianisation allowed people to get about.

It has been mentioned that we live in a car-dependent society, and Belfast is obviously a very car-dependent city. Rather than seeing sections of the city centre being closed off, we should see them as having been opened up, which is what happened for the fleadh. It was good to see people walking and wheeling in the city centre, as well as people with bikes and wheelchairs and those with other mobility issues. There needs to be proper consideration and implementation of the pedestrianisation of Belfast city centre, with some provision for people with disabilities.

As I understand it, Translink had record numbers of passengers; certainly, the numbers exceeded what Translink had planned for, which is a positive. However, as the former Minister to my right said, a lot of people could not get access to trains and buses. In some ways, that is a good problem to have if you have invested properly in trains and buses, but it is not a good problem if we do not have that investment. That should be a wake-up call for DFI, its Minister and Translink, and it hammers home the point about the need to protect and invest in public transport, rather than going down the path of Translink, which is proposing to cut midweek services past 10.00 pm. If the services do not exist all year round, people will not use them even when it comes to big events such as the fleadh. I call on the Minister for Infrastructure to intervene in that regard.

Members may recall that, earlier this year, I proposed an amendment to another party's motion concerning the fleadh to say that action should be taken to stop price surging in accommodation for the fleadh. Unfortunately, no action was taken by the Executive or any Minister, and we saw prices for hotels and other accommodation surge. People were also charged extortionate amounts for camping. People cannot continue, nor is it acceptable, to be ripped off or to have a financial barrier put in place, preventing you from attending a fantastic event if, in theory, you do not have the money in your pocket.

We also have to mention the fleadh workers who delivered the event. I do not think they have been mentioned. Members mentioned Belfast City Council and its chief executive: they are all important to the project, but there is no fleadh without the council workers, the street cleansers or the hospitality workers. There is no fleadh if you cannot walk in the city centre or it is full of plastic cups and pint glasses. The people who cleaned the city centre should be commended for that. There is no fleadh if you do not have hospitality workers or people working in bars, pulling pints and serving wine and gin or whatever else people are drinking. They do not deserve only thanks; they deserve a cut of the £100 million extra revenue that came into Belfast and beyond, because they brought that money in. It would be a big mistake not to mention them and not to fight for proper payment for them. The thousands of volunteers in Belfast and beyond who helped with the fleadh essentials should also be given a payment in recognition of their work.

I also pose this question: if a fleadh can be this good without a single penny invested by the Communities Minister, just think how good could it be if he — he is also Minister for arts, culture and leisure — alongside his Executive colleagues, could invest a bit of money in it. It could be properly transformative, but the will, seemingly, is not there from this Minister.

I must mention the appetite that exists in the likes of Deirdre's niece and others to learn the Irish language and learn to play musical instruments — Irish and others. The access is there in some quarters, but places are oversubscribed.

Time is against me, but I warn against the juxtaposition of the fleadh and the féile. That is not right or proper. I attended both: some were party events, and others were family events. It may shock the Member to my right, but I also attended the Kneecap and Bob Vylan gig, which was a tremendous musical event and the best one that I have been to in a while. Musically, it may not be the Member's cup of tea, but he cannot dismiss tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people going to an event just because he does not like their politics.

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

Mr Carroll: I warn against that kind of sanitisation.

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

I call Mark Durkan to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

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

I thank everyone for their contributions today. I join them in congratulating Belfast City Council at every level; Comhaltas; Translink; the performers; businesses and, of course, the workers who are the lifeblood of those businesses; community organisations; and the thousands of volunteers who helped to make the 2026 Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann such a resounding success. It is refreshing to be able to celebrate something positive and talk about culture as something that unites us rather than divides us.

The fleadh showcased the very best of the massive talent that this place has to offer. It demonstrated the extraordinary contribution that music, culture and hospitality can and do make to our economy, our international reputation and our shared sense of identity, whether it is a bodhrán or a Lambeg drum that makes our shared place home. The fleadh showed that traditions do not need to compete with each other; they can be celebrated side by side. That is an important lesson, particularly for the Assembly.

If we are serious about building on the success of the fleadh, we have to be prepared to look beyond Belfast. We must recognise the enormous potential across the North, including, of course, Derry and the wider north-west. Derry has already demonstrated that it can host major cultural events, and thanks to Mr O'Toole for reminding people that, in 2013, we hosted the fleadh on the first time that the event had ever been held north of the border. It attracted hundreds of thousands of people and was a landmark moment for the city and the island as a whole. I still remember the huge excitement when we first heard that the fleadh was coming. I got a text from a friend, saying, "Tiocfaidh ár bhfleadh."

The energy of that wonderful week was unparalleled. Derry has a creative sector that has consistently shown ambition far beyond the size of the city. Whether it is in film, music or on screen, we have a story to tell, and it is one that people across the world want to hear. The question now is whether the Executive are prepared to match that potential with the investment and infrastructure required to sustain it.

As others have said, the success of the fleadh did not happen overnight or by accident. It was built over many years by artists, performers, technicians, community groups, volunteers, cultural organisations, statutory agencies and bodies and countless others.

That brings me to the current situation facing the arts sector. Last week, artists and arts organisations stood outside the Building or sat upstairs, demanding action to save the sector.

For years, the sector has been promised an arts policy. We have been told repeatedly that it is coming, that the framework is complete and that everything possible will be done to put it in place, yet, to date, there has not been that delivery. Failure to fund the arts adequately threatens not just tens of thousands of livelihoods or the substantial socio-economic benefits that the sector generates but the very infrastructure that made the fleadh such a success and has helped this small place to become such a big player on the world stage.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: Certainly, go ahead. Make it quick.

Mr Carroll: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. According to the Arts Council, the average income that is derived directly from arts activity in the North is under £12,000 a year. Does he agree that that is completely unacceptable?

Mr Durkan: Absolutely. Artists have to be able to live, to dedicate their time and efforts to their chosen career and to share their undoubted gifts with a wider audience. We can all reap the benefits of that.

We cannot celebrate the success of the fleadh while allowing the sector that made it possible to struggle for survival. From music to fashion, film and television, the North has consistently punched far above its weight. We have extraordinary talent and ambition, but talent alone is not enough. The sector needs a proper arts policy and sustainable long-term funding that allows organisations to plan, employ people, develop young talent and build audiences. It needs more than the political am-dram between the DUP and Sinn Féin that we see so often here — thank goodness that we got only a wee trailer of that this afternoon — it needs delivery.

Miss Hargey: Will the Member take a point?

Mr Durkan: I am running out of time. I will not get extra time for doing so. Sorry, Miss Hargey.

The same principle applies to licensing legislation. Where is the further licensing Bill that was promised within this mandate? Our hospitality sector needs a flexible and modern licensing framework that supports live music, festivals, cultural events, venues, restaurants, bars and hospitality businesses while maintaining appropriate safeguards, of course. We cannot ask businesses and venues to deliver world-class hospitality while forcing them to operate under outdated rules.

We should also look at the distribution of cultural events across the North. Historically, the vast majority of arts funding has been concentrated in Belfast. Almost 80% of the annual funding programme has gone to Belfast. Other places are sometimes expected to be grateful for the crumbs. Take, for example, not Derry but Enniskillen and the broader Fermanagh area. That place, with its beautiful landscape and rich heritage, received just 1% of that funding.

We also need to make sure that major cultural initiatives are genuinely accessible to people across the region and are not concentrated in Belfast. That is yet another area in which I hope that my colleague Sinéad McLaughlin's Regional Balance Bill will help to promote fairness and opportunity.

We also need a more coordinated response from Departments. We have seen some great examples of that, which made the fleadh such a success. DFI has rightly received plaudits for the flexibility and agility that it demonstrated even during the week itself, but, in that same week, roadworks on the Glenshane Pass caused significant disruption and delay for people who were travelling from the north-west. It is frustrating that, sometimes, so little thought continues to be given to the impact on people travelling from and around the area outside Belfast. That requires proper planning between DFI, Translink, councils, tourism bodies and event organisers. We need better communication about roadworks and diversions, and we need transport planning that recognises the regional importance of major cultural and sporting events.

Mr McNulty: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: I do not really have time, Mr McNulty.

Andy Allen underlined the importance of improved accessibility so that those events are truly for everyone. Mar a dúirt Aisling Reilly,

it is important that we learn lessons. I am not criticising anyone, but it is important that we learn lessons about how to make it even bigger and better next year.

We have to learn more from the fleadh than simply the lesson that Belfast can host a major event. The lesson should be that the entire region can benefit when we all work together. People are sick and tired of the rhetoric of division. They want to showcase a place that they are proud to call home. They want a region that looks to the future, not one that keeps picking at and reopening the wounds of the past. Let us build on the tourism growth that is already being recorded. Let us invest in our arts sector before even more organisations disappear. Let us deliver the licensing reform that has been promised. Let us ensure that the power of art reaches every corner of the North. Let us remember the central message of the fleadh. So often, because of identity politics here and the ongoing efforts of some to stir up tensions and exploit difference, culture can feel like a dirty word. We need to flip that notion on its head. Our culture is our treasure trove, an asset and what makes this region so rich. Our diversity is not a weakness but one of our greatest strengths. As a very wise man once said:

Another wise man repeated that today in proposing the motion. We should respect difference, not fear it. Let us therefore invest in venues, organisations and artists who make that possible. Let us ensure that culture is accessible in every part of the North, not just concentrated in one city and certainly not confined to one tradition. The SDLP wants to build something new, as do the majority of people here, so let us celebrate our differences, learn from one another and use the power of the arts and culture to bring us together and move us forward.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members should take their ease for a moment to allow for a change to be made at the top Table.

Mr McGrath: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have three minutes. As there will be no ministerial response to the motion, I will call the Member who is making the winding-up speech five minutes before the end of the time for the debate or after all Members who wish to speak have done so. If that is clear, we will move on.

Mr McGrath: Artificial intelligence might operate in the cloud, but there is nothing weightless about it. Underpinning every AI system, every image generated, every answer produced and every calculation made are physical buildings, servers, cables, electricity, water and land.

This debate is about the strategic direction of AI, not individual data centres or where they will be sited. This is a legislative Chamber, not a planning committee meeting hall. We know that centres will be needed in the future, but we must get right the context of the landscape that they sit in. It is important that the debate does not become a simple argument about whether you are for or against artificial intelligence. Whether we like it or not, AI is here.

Some people's experience of AI might still be fairly harmless, such as asking it to tidy up an email or to produce a poster for a local club. For others, it might be about generating one of those slightly terrifying photographs that reminds us all of what we looked like in the 1980s. If that were the extent of it, we probably would not need to have this debate. However, that is not the extent of it; AI is becoming more powerful, sophisticated and accessible by the day.

We should be ambitious about what AI could mean for the North. There are enormous opportunities. AI can help businesses to become more productive and help to grow our economy, and it could help us to deliver better public services. We already have almost 200 companies here developing AI solutions and employing more than 1,300 specialists. Nobody should leave the debate thinking that the SDLP is against AI, technology or investment in centres; we are not. However, there are challenges with AI. Some of the starkest warnings about AI have come from not the people who are opposed to the technology but those who have helped to develop it. Leading researchers and figures in the industry have warned that sufficiently advanced AI could ultimately pose an existential risk to humanity.

There are profound questions to consider. What happens to someone's job when a machine can suddenly do the work for them? What happens to our privacy when enormous amounts of information about us can be analysed almost instantaneously? AI might live in the cloud, but that cloud has to live somewhere. Data centres require huge amounts of electricity. They need connections to the grid; they need land; and, depending on their design, they can require significant amounts of water for cooling. Consider that in the context of Northern Ireland. We already know about the pressures on our electricity grid. We already know about the pressures on our water and waste water infrastructure and the lack of progress from the Infrastructure Minister on addressing them. At the same time, we have legally binding climate targets and a requirement to dramatically increase the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources.

Before we approve swathes of data centres, it is surely sensible to understand their consequences. We do not need to speculate about what happens when data centre growth races ahead of infrastructure; we have only to look across the border. In the South, data centres accounted for 23% of metered electricity consumption in 2025. A decade before, that figure was just 5%. Ireland's Climate Change Advisory Council has warned that increasing demand from data centres has offset some of the gains that have been made through renewable generation. That should be a warning to all of us. That is why we are proposing a measured approach to the development of those centres, and that such permissions be set against the backdrop of a coherent strategy that monitors the development of the sector.

We are simply saying that, before we build many of these centres, we should understand how much electricity those developments will consume, where that electricity will come from, what investment in the grid will be needed, how many permanent jobs they will create and, crucially, what benefit they will provide to the communities that are asked to host them. Technological progress should serve people. Being ambitious does not mean saying yes to everything, however, and being pro-investment does not mean abandoning our responsibility to ask whether an investment is right for this place.

The question is not whether artificial intelligence will change Northern Ireland, because it will. The question is whether we will shape that change or allow that change to shape us.

Mr Delargy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. As we all know, AI is moving quickly. The motion rightly raises concerns about data centres, particularly the pressure that they can place on electricity, water and wider infrastructure. My colleagues in the 26 counties and Europe have raised similar concerns. In the Dáil, Pa Daly TD is bringing forward a Bill that focuses on prioritising connections for homes over those for data centres. In Europe, Lynn Boylan has championed this through FOI work and public commentary that shows how data centres constrain the electricity grid, compete with housing for capacity, raise energy costs, increase gas dependence and deliver relatively few direct jobs.

Data centres should produce their own energy or finance the production of additional renewable electricity to meet their energy needs at any given time. That is critical to maintaining capacity for homes and businesses to be connected to the electricity grid. The construction of data centres should never be at the expense of housing or critical transport infrastructure.

We have to look at the wider context: the pressures facing our communities already. Under the Department for Communities, we are dealing with a serious shortfall in housing. In this year alone, fewer than two thirds of the social homes that were committed to in the Programme for Government were delivered. That cannot be delayed further. Similarly, with student numbers at the Magee campus now at over 6,000, with a clear ambition and road map to have 10,000 students, we need to continue to focus on projects that are truly transformative and on the educational and social opportunities that such projects bring. The same is true of business development for strategic regeneration of sites across the North.

The Renewable Electricity Generation (REG) Bill, brought forward by Minister Archibald, is an important step in showing how we can move towards cleaner and more secure power. The Bill will ensure that investment must be clear and deliver tangible community benefits. As the proposer of the motion mentioned, that is critical if this is to work. It means lower bills, stronger local infrastructure and a more reliable energy network for homes, businesses and public services. That is how energy policy should be done and how it can create tangible change for people.

As the motion notes, the Executive Office consultation on the Northern Ireland AI strategy is open. I encourage people to take part in that consultation: have your say, put your views forward and ensure that the strategy is developed in a clear, fair and ethical way. It is important that decisions are based on evidence and that development cannot allow further pressure on water or energy or limit our climate commitments. We need to understand its full impact.

Mr Brett: Normally, the SDLP says that it is those of us on these Benches who do not want to look to the future, but perhaps they are taking on that mantle today. It is not a new phenomenon, but I struggle to understand the point of the motion. We are calling for the introduction of a moratorium on something that is not, as far as I am aware, currently before any council, nor is there any proposition before the Department for the Economy to develop large-scale AI data centres. I struggle, therefore, to understand the relevance of or need for this discussion.

The fact that Northern Ireland will not meet the 2030 climate targets that were set by the House will not be as a result of the creation of AI data centres but will be the clear result of the fact that the targets were always unattainable. Unfortunately, we continue to have made-up reasons, and this must be the next made-up reason: because we have AI data centres, we will not meet the targets. Perhaps, one day, Members will finally admit that, when they voted for legally binding targets, they got it wrong.

Ultimately, we want to ensure that AI is done in the best possible manner, and we should warmly welcome the fact that the Executive have agreed a draft strategy on how it can be best used in the public sector. There is nothing in that strategy that says that Northern Ireland must adopt a new economic policy or strategy of growth being based on trying to attract AI data centres; it is the very opposite of that. I am sure that the Members proposing and winding up on this motion have read that strategy, but, if they have not, I can guarantee them that it is clear that the strategy does not say that.

I am happy for this non-binding motion to go through, but, ultimately, we need to ensure that we get the AI strategy right. I do not think that any of us believe that, in the public sector, we are currently maximising our efficiency and our resources. AI offers that opportunity. Indeed, Members of the House take advantage of AI. You only need to look at some of the expense claims from Members to see that they claim for AI through their expenses. Our party will support the motion, but there are questions about the limits on our infrastructure and our ability to connect to the waste water network that are more fundamental than the questions about an AI data centre that currently does not even exist.

Ms Nicholl: I welcome the opportunity to talk about the AI strategy. I do not think that any Member has asked more questions about it than I have. I think that it is something like 80 at this point, and that is not because I am evangelical about AI or because I am frightened by it. It is just because AI exists and because, as the proposer of the motion quite rightly said, our choice is whether we help to shape it or whether we allow it to shape us and happen to us. I am really glad to see the strategy and the values and principles that underpin it.

As the chair of the all-party group on artificial intelligence, I have been particularly struck by how different the conversations are. When you are talking to people in the tech sector, they are really optimistic, ambitious and enthusiastic about the opportunities that it presents. When you talk to people in the creative industries, there is a lot more fear and a sense of not being protected. Over the past week, we have seen a lot more fear and panic on social media about the potential impact of super intelligence. They are serious issues, and they require a serious response. As a party that really values international engagement, we strongly believe that that challenge has to be dealt with in international cooperation and stronger global regulation. Turning it off, as some have suggested, is not realistic. Dame Wendy Hall, who is one of the world's leading AI experts and a member of the UN high-level advisory body on this, has made exactly the case that governing AI for humanity requires a global framework. That is where we need to focus.

To be more specific, we support the motion. There is something slightly contradictory about welcoming an ambitious AI strategy while calling for a moratorium on the infrastructure that may be needed. We have only a handful of data centres in Northern Ireland, not hundreds, and the culture war that we are currently seeing across the world does not map on to our reality. We should not import fear that is not grounded in facts.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms Nicholl: Yes.

Ms McLaughlin: I want to be absolutely clear that what we are talking about is that, before large-scale development takes place around data centres, we need to entirely understand and be reasonable. What are the consequences, and will there be economic benefits? Today, modern data centres can be built on a green policy and a very sustainable footing, but we need to ensure that that is really bedded down and that we do not see some of the destruction that there has been, for example, in the Republic of Ireland, where energy is being pumped into data centres.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Kate, you have an extra minute.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you. It is a pity that it is a one-hour debate, because I need far more than three minutes to talk about this. I agree in part, and there are two things that I will say. First, we need to start with data centre policy and an energy strategy, as opposed to calling for a moratorium on something that we do not have.

At the moment, there is only GreenScale, which is for hyperscale, at the Foyle port. I would have started with policy. We see that being developed in other jurisdictions. We do not yet know what the need is or whether it is to service local or wider markets, so I would have started with a policy.

A lot of the information and discussions on AI in general are founded on outdated information, albeit not in this debate. Cooling technology is evolving very fast, with closed-loop systems, water use being cut and waste heat being used. The Queen's Co-Centre for Climate + Biodiversity and Water is using AI for its biodiversity work.

Mr Martin: When I read the title of the motion, I thought that Mr McGrath was going to be talking about Cyberdyne or Skynet systems or, perhaps, that he might even get on his feet and say, "I'll be back". Perhaps he is too young to know that cultural reference.

I welcome the motion's acknowledgement that there could be significant benefits in the expansion of AI. I happen to agree with that. Northern Ireland definitely needs more FDI and jobs to make it successful. Data centres could deliver those. AI is very much like the internet: it has positive and negative aspects. I will make my position on it clear to the Assembly. There are two aspects to AI. First, there is what we might call "domain-specific", which is discrete and does one task very well. It can be used for interrogating health waiting lists, for example. Secondly, there is "superintelligence" which is more akin to Skynet — I referred to it earlier — which is probably what the head of Anthropic AI was talking about over the weekend. Ms Nicholl made reference to it. I certainly have my concerns about the latter. At the weekend, Dario Amodei said:

There is plenty of evidence, particularly from such foreign Governments as China's, that they could use superintelligence AI, not domain-specific AI, to target our defence systems.

I agree with what has been said about the waste water challenges that have been highlighted, but, in that regard, I do not believe that AI is the hill to die on, as my colleague just referenced. We need to solve our waste water problems. As I mentioned to the Economy Minister earlier, we are about to lose about a quarter of a billion pounds of GVA over the next three years due to waste water connection problems. The motion includes a concern about the use of water. As Ms Nicholl said, there are two types of systems — closed-loop liquid cooling and evaporative cooling. The system that she referred to is where water is recycled round and round. That is highly effective in minimising water use, but its use of electricity is extremely high. Evaporative cooling is very, very different: it uses a lot of water but its electricity load is less.

I do not agree with having a moratorium on new data centres. As my colleague referenced, we want to encourage FDI into Northern Ireland. That is exactly what we want to do. It encourages well-paid jobs and tech into Northern Ireland, and that is what we need for Northern Ireland to flourish.

Mr Dickson: It is a somewhat curious debate: we want it; we do not want it. I will start with a quote that might put people off. Donald Trump said:

He said that on Air Force One when leaving Ireland last night.

As an Alliance member of the Executive Office Committee, I am pleased to be able to speak on the motion. Artificial intelligence is here, and it is already having a significant impact on our economy, society and public services. Members will be aware that I have a passion for health, particularly life-saving outcomes for cancer patients. There are important lessons to be learned about how AI and data can lead to better health outcomes. A couple of weeks ago, in an interview on 'Good Morning Ulster', Michelle Mitchell, the chief executive of Cancer Research (UK), said that we are in a "golden age" of cancer research. She also noted that data and AI will be able to accelerate our understanding, identify drug targets more quickly, deliver better diagnostic tools and help us in clinical trials more effectively. That research is also happening in Northern Ireland. Just one example is the work of Professor Iain Styles and his colleagues at Queen's University Belfast. They are undertaking pioneering research that is already having an impact on their work, which includes developing AI-powered diagnostics to improve detection.

Within our own health service, AI is being used in a specific circumstance to enhance delivery, including through fracture clinics in Northern Ireland. Indeed, in response to a question from my colleague Kate Nicholl, the Health Minister noted that, between January and March 2025, pilot tools of AI increased diagnostic accuracy, reducing missed fractures from 6·7 to 1·2 compared with the pre-go live evaluation stage, potentially saving up to three days for specialist radiology staff performing second readings of X-rays. However, safeguarding guard rails and transparency are crucial. Our healthcare is deeply personal. Our data has to be protected and privacy maintained throughout. That is what will give people confidence and build trust in AI. It must never replace the human in our healthcare system, and that is the clear message that needs to go out from the Chamber today. While we can work to deliver all the benefits of artificial intelligence, what we must never do when it comes to healthcare is to take the human out of it.

Mr O'Toole: I will speak relatively briefly. We are all speaking relatively briefly because it is a short debate.

As my colleagues said, this is one of the first opportunities that we have had to debate AI in any detail. Our motion calls not for a junking of the construction of data centres — as has been said, Northern Ireland has a relatively limited selection of data centres — but is important that we have the opportunity to debate the issue because we are going to be debating it a lot more. We make no apology for saying that we would like to pause and examine the risks and benefits of widespread construction while acknowledging that there clearly have been and will be benefits from the introduction of AI, whether that is simply the use of large language models to improve bureaucratic tasks or some of —.

Mr Honeyford: I appreciate the Member giving way. I am confused about your position regarding the large-scale stuff. There is one data centre planned in Derry, and your council team supported it. If you want to pause that, will you talk us through your position?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have an extra minute, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We are in the situation where, in the past couple of days, the boss of Anthropic has said that AI should be delayed. We are all going to have to be very serious about the debate and the gravity of what is going on with AI. There are the ecological impacts and the impacts on society in security and humanity. This debate is one part of that.

I understand that people want to have a little pop at how we have described data centre development, but I make no apology for the Opposition bringing forward a debate on AI when we have Musk and Altman talking about the need to delay and slow the development of some of those models. Today's motion is not specifically about AI security, but I am intrigued by some of the response, which is that we are being a doomster or slowing this down.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I do not have enough time to give way, but I will say this: clearly, AI exists in the same way that the internet and calculators exist, and it is a technology that can be harnessed for human benefit. I will be honest: we all stand here and talk and have to pretend that we are experts in all these subjects; I am not an expert on this subject, and, frankly, none of you is an expert on this, and that is the bit that we are going to have to be honest about.

I welcome the fact that the Executive have published a draft AI strategy, but I am also not simply going to be a booster about technology and technological change that is already having quite serious downsides. That is not me being doomsterish, but it is me being realistic. There are real concerns about some of the ecological impacts of data centres, but we are not, as my colleagues said, down on investment in any and all circumstances. Changes are needed regarding data centres.

I recognise what has been said about how data centres are powered and positive developments in that regard, but we are in a situation —. You are shaking your head, but —.

Mr Martin: It would be better to have a debate on AI, Matthew, rather than one on data centres.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Martin: Sorry, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr O'Toole: OK.

Mr Martin: That would be good.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for making his comment.

We started with the subject of data centres, because that is one of the bits that is most immediate and in front of us, but, genuinely, I say this: as dysfunctional and disreputable as this place is, there is no place for us, as legislators, simply to say, "We can't talk about this stuff" and then wave it all through. Data centres will, of course, have their place, but we need to be honest about some of the downsides. Tonight's debate is just the beginning. I am sure that we will be talking about this a lot —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: — more, including when we discuss the draft strategy.

Mr Carroll: I support the motion and welcome it, particularly its call for a moratorium on large-scale data centres. Nine such centres are reportedly now operating in the North, and I have asked the Minister for the Economy about them. Each one apparently has a power capacity of between 1 MW and 5 MW, but a hyperscale data centre uses more than 100 MW. At Foyle port, as has been mentioned, permission is already in place for four hyperscale data centres that each have an estimated capacity of 100 MW and will run 24 hours a day. That is the equivalent of powering 400,000 homes, which is a mind-boggling use of energy.

Grid and water capacity that is handed to Amazon and Microsoft is capacity that does not go to housing in a region — the north-west and across the North — where developments are already blocked for lack of waste water capacity. Square this circle: there is not enough waste water capacity for homes, but there is such capacity for data centres to be expanded.

I asked the Minister for Infrastructure in a question for written answer how many data centres have been granted planning permission and how many are awaiting it. Her Department does not collect that information, and I was told, "Go and ask the councils". That is a completely unacceptable lack of regulation, and perhaps even interest. When the Member for Newry and Armagh Justin McNulty asked the Minister in a question for written answer how much water data centres consume, the answer was that NI Water does not use the term "data centre" to bill customers, so she could not possibly say, but everybody else uses that term, so something has gone awry there.

We therefore do not know how much electricity data centres will draw, do not know how much water they will take and do not know what they will do to our carbon budgets. Decision makers are being asked to consent to something that no Department can quantify, which is a ridiculous position to be in. As the proposer of the motion said, in the South, we have seen 23% of all electricity be used by data centres. Is that where people really want to go? Grid capacity has been hoarded, with costs being pushed on to ordinary households. We are told that we will be different because our natural resources will make us a pioneer of green data centre provision, but the South was sold the same pup. Data centres in the South pay half the electricity costs that homes pay. Will it be the same in the North? Who knows? Nobody is counting, and nobody is watching.

The Members opposite know it. The Member for Foyle mentioned his MEP colleague's role in challenging data centres, but, in Derry, the party has taken a different position. Sinn Féin cheered the GreenScale development at Foyle port without proper scrutiny and dismissed campaigners who brought their concerns to the Guildhall. Perhaps that is why the Member is by himself: I do not know. When Derry City and Strabane District Council asked for policy guidance on data centres, the Infrastructure Minister told councillors that it was a matter for local government. Sinn Féin cannot protest against data centres in Dublin and green-light them in Derry. Doing so is inconsistent and partitionist. The grid does not recognise the border, nor does the climate crisis.

We should not lose sight —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: OK.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, but you had only three minutes.

Sinéad, I will hand over to you to wind on the debate on the motion. I remind you that you have five minutes.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank Members across the House for their contributions to what has been a short debate but an important conversation.

I make it clear that the motion is not anti-AI or anti-investment. Artificial intelligence has enormous potential. Stewart Dickson outlined, and other Members mentioned, the advancement of diagnostic accuracy by AI in medicine. It will also improve productivity, help us deliver better public services and create entirely new industries and jobs. Northern Ireland should absolutely want to be part of that.

We also, however, need to have a much bigger conversation about what AI will mean for our society. The technology is developing at extraordinary pace, and we are already asking what it will mean for people's jobs and for the future of work. There are really serious questions to be asked about privacy, misinformation and how AI could affect our democracy.

We also need to think about inequality. Will the technology create opportunities for everyone, or will its benefits become concentrated among those who already hold enormous wealth and power? Those are not questions for the distant future; they are questions that the Government need to start answering now.

Increasingly, the warnings about the pace of change are coming from within the AI industry itself. Peter Martin and others mentioned that Dario Amodei, chief executive of Anthropic, recently warned that, over the summer, AI has been "advancing drastically faster" than even he envisaged. Just this morning, Angela Rayner, when she was pressed, said that she is pleased that AI companies are now talking openly about the threats as well as the opportunities. We should listen to that. Matthew O'Toole said that, if the people developing the technology are telling us how quickly it is advancing, Government cannot simply stand back and hope that regulation and public policy will eventually catch up. We need to decide what we want from AI and ask, "Where can it make people's lives better? Where can it improve our public services? How do we protect workers whose jobs may change as a result of it, and what safeguards do we need to make sure that people remain in control of the technology rather than the other way round?".

That is why we welcome the Executive Office consultation on the AI strategy. We should be ambitious, but, as most Members indicated, that ambition cannot simply mean adopting as much AI as possible as quickly as possible. It means making deliberate choices about how we use it and making sure that the public interest is at the heart of those choices. Part of that is about understanding the physical consequences of AI. For all the talk about AI existing in the cloud, the infrastructure behind it is very real. Large-scale AI data centres require significant amounts of electricity, water and grid capacity. However, as I said, modern data centres are getting genuinely greener. As Kate Nicholl indicated, liquid cooling and heat reuse cut energy waste, and on-site solar, wind and battery storage reduces pressure on grid systems. Fundamentally, we need to push for greater sustainability in the area. It is not anti-investment; it is absolutely about positive policy. We should be driving the policy rather than letting the big AI companies dictate what is required here. That really matters, because Northern Ireland already has serious infrastructure concerns and legally binding climate targets to meet.

Before further large-scale development takes place, it is entirely reasonable for Government to understand what the consequences will be and whether the economic benefits justify the costs. We should demand that any new facilities increasingly pair solar, wind and battery storage systems with their primary power feed. That is not unreasonable at all. It is not about closing Northern Ireland off to AI or technological investment; it is about giving Government the space — just the space — to understand what the technology will mean economically, environmentally and socially before development races ahead of public policy, and about ensuring that any development is balanced against a range of other objectives. AI will be one of the most significant technological changes that any of us sees in our lifetime. There is enormous opportunity in that, and I want Northern Ireland to benefit from it, but we should not get confused and, in embracing innovation, abandon our responsibility to shape it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Sinéad.

Ms McLaughlin: Government have a responsibility to protect the public interest and prepare our economy and workforce for the future.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Sinéad. That is much appreciated.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next debate.

Mr McReynolds: I welcome the opportunity to continue the Second Stage debate on the Flags and Emblems Bill. I thank the Bill's sponsor for bringing it forward, and for her tireless work in that area over the last decade.

Last week's debate was largely useful in that we all agreed that flags that promote proscribed organisations should come down immediately, and we all acknowledged that engagement in the spirit of respect, openness and transparency is fundamental to addressing the erection of flags, emblems and banners across Northern Ireland. Contrary to some of the views that I heard last week, the current legislation achieves none of that, and that is precisely why the Bill's sponsor has put forward pragmatic legislation that starts the conversation and attempts to plug a gap that our constituents want to see filled.

I say that as someone who has been elected in some capacity in and for East Belfast since 2017. As I said when we debated the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) report in 2024, I have dealt with messages, notifications and phone calls over the past nine-plus years in politics from residents who are upset by unknown people erecting flags in the dark of night for an unspecified time and for uncommunicated reasons. I have also seen those who claim never to erect flags direct others in broad daylight from their cars. Equally, I have heard from residents who feel frustrated at people who are not from the area coming in and impacting their local community.

The basic principle of the Bill is that, if you want to fly flags or emblems for whatever reason, you can notify the lamp post's owner that you are the responsible organiser, why you want to fly them and for how long. It means that 99 times out of 100, the flags will stay there, the organiser will be happy and residents will be happy because they know who put them there, why and, crucially, for how long. Enforcement of the proposed law only becomes necessary when that has not happened for whatever reason, and the flag should then be removed by DFI. That is currently not happening. A recent freedom of information request to the Department for Infrastructure from the residents of an area in East Belfast, who had three flags imposed on them for the first time this year, confirmed that DFI has taken down zero flags across Northern Ireland from its street property in the last three years. I imagine that there would be a similar statistic for other constituencies or if you were to go back further into history.

A theme that came up during the last debate was that the PSNI should remove the flags and not DFI officials. As a Policing Board member, I am well aware of the pressures on the PSNI, and that was laid bare during the recent 'Peelers: The PSNI for Real' programme, when we saw that they should also be first responders, social workers, paramedics, responders to antisocial behaviour (ASB), health visitors and support workers, and the list goes on. Now there is an expectation that the police should climb ladders to remove flags from DFI's property without the training or tools to do so safely. At the same time, I see the PSNI stepping up as much as it can, and more so because of the recent Crime and Policing Act, to remove the flags of paramilitary and terrorist organisations. The PSNI is there to support, and DFI's staff need to be confident that they will not face hostile reprisal.

Lastly, self-regulation needs to be roundly rejected as a solution. It is precisely because it does not work that the Bill has been introduced. Earlier in the debate, my constituency colleague Mr Brooks mentioned the flags near Ballyhackamore. He stated that the flags go up and many of the residents in that street are not happy about it. Let the record show that residents on the street are overwhelmingly against the erection of flags, which have been erected there for the first time since 2022.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Member for giving way. Particularly for the last number of years that I have been in the Assembly but, indeed, for most of my elected life as a councillor, I have had requests from residents about flags that they do not want in their streets and areas, and there is no proper mechanism available to formally channel those complaints. I do not think that people object to flags to celebrate particular events, but they object when they turn to rags on lamp posts and when they are erected in places where people clearly do not want them.

At the end of the day, there is no clear line of authority to have the flags removed. Many residents in my community spend a lot of time making quiet phone calls to certain people in the community to plead with them to take flags down, often at the end of a particular season. That is no way to regulate the community in which you live. The reality is that we need a form of regulation that has the appropriate teeth to deliver enforcement.

Mr McReynolds: I thank the Member for his point. That is why I am such an advocate of the Bill: it would create a system where people would feel heard and would give them a voice.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr McReynolds: Yes.

Mr Brooks: The Member spoke about the street in Ballyhackamore, as I did during the previous iteration of this discussion. Is that an example of what he wants the system to be used for: to take those flags down? In those circumstances, that street hosts probably the biggest parade of the year in east Belfast — the Somme commemoration parade. It is my understanding that it is lined with Union Jacks and only Union Jacks for a set period in a way that flags around east Belfast are not. Is that the kind of instance that, you think, the Bill should target? To be honest, it sounds like exactly the kind of example that your colleague was pointing to and saying that it would not be threatened, as it is time-bound, the flags come down before they are ripped and shredded, and it is for the purpose of a parade. If the Bill comes in, would you like to see it being used to bring those flags down?

Mr McReynolds: Mr Brooks, you will remember the initial meeting that we had on the Sandown Road with the people who had put up the flags. I was engaged in conversations with them throughout the next number of months, and the situation was repeated the following year and the year after that. The residents do not know who those individuals are. The system being proposed by Ms Bradshaw would give the names of the individuals doing it. It would be time-bound and say when they would be taken down, rather than people guessing, hoping and wishing. It would also give certainty to the residents.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr McReynolds: Yes.

Mr Brooks: My understanding — I am happy to be corrected by you or by the people whom I am going to mention — is that the lodge organises it. At that stage, we met the lodge involved, which is based in that area. It asked for the flags to be put up for the Somme commemoration parade, which is a relatively inoffensive parade for an inoffensive reason, and it is time-bound.

It goes back to all the things that we talked about. If that is the bar that we are using to say that flags must come down, it concerns me what would be targeted beyond that, because that is by far not the most offensive. I understand that there are some people in that street with particularly strong views. There is a spectrum. Some have a very strong opinion that they should come down and never be seen. Some do not want them, and there are people who clearly do want them and enjoy the parade. There is a spectrum of belief there. If that is the kind of example that will be targeted by the legislation, it leaves me with grave concerns about how low the bar is in that regard.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Peter, I remind you that you are entitled to take interventions, but, if people who have their names down to speak ask for continual interventions, it is at your discretion.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I will start again. Let the record show that residents on the street mentioned are overwhelmingly against the flags that have been erected there for the first time since 2022. Dialogue was sought with those who put them up. None live in the immediate area, and people were told that, if Union flags were not erected, others would step in and the flags would be worse.

Following on from the conversation with Mr Brooks, I spoke with the residents yesterday and informed them about today's debate. I sent them a screenshot of Mr Brooks's comments from last week. They said in response:

The Bill will give them that voice. I welcome the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill, and I welcome the fact that the Alliance Party is once again prioritising residents across Northern Ireland who want nothing —.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr McReynolds: Yes.

Mr Burrows: I understand the idea of having a voice. What would happen if the residents wanted something taken down, the Department was of the opinion that it should come down, but the PSNI would not support them in taking it down, as it considered it too dangerous to take down? What, practically, would happen then?

Mr McReynolds: I am not aware of what would happen in the specific, hypothetical example that you posed just now. It is about having knowledge, awareness and clarity for residents, which they do not have at present.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr McReynolds: No. I will not give way again.

Across Northern Ireland, people want nothing more than to be respected in the local communities where they have chosen to make their home. That is crucial if we are to create a shared and respectful society for all. I look forward to working on the Bill in Committee, should it pass Second Stage.

Mr Kingston: I rise as a DUP representative to speak on the Member's Bill from the Alliance Party, the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill. I want to make my position clear at the outset: this is a very poor Bill. When you read the detail of it, you see that it is ridiculous and totally unworkable. I have to conclude that the Bill has been designed by the Alliance Party for the optics. The solution to sensitive matters such as this is community engagement. Yes, it might have to be backed up by statutory action in certain cases, but the main solution is community engagement.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for giving way. The previous Member to speak would not allow an intervention. Does he agree that, while the whole thrust of the Alliance argument seems to be that the Bill gives people a voice, it gives a voice only to those who want to object? There is no consideration in the Bill of someone who wants a flag to fly. It all seems to be geared one way: to the objector.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Brian. On a wee point of information, the previous Member did take interventions. Mr Clarke, you were not in the Chamber.

Mr Clarke: He did not give me an intervention.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Maybe he did not give you an intervention, but he certainly gave your party colleagues several interventions. I just want that to be clear for the record. Brian, will you continue, please?

Mr Kingston: Yes, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I certainly agree that the Bill is written in a way that would make it very hard to fly any flags, including our Union flag, anywhere. You can go to any country, such as America, France or elsewhere in the UK, and, at times, people want to be proud of their national flag and fly it. The Bill would make it almost impossible to fly it anywhere. It is very clear — Alliance denied it last week — that the Bill is trying to pass all the responsibility on to Department for Infrastructure officials. The responsibilities and judgement calls sit properly with the Police Service for Northern Ireland. Of course, the PSNI is an arm's-length body, when it comes to its management, of the Department of Justice. I wonder therefore whether this is about distancing the Alliance Party's Justice Minister from responsibility for these matters.

Look at the actual wording of the Bill. Clause 1(1) states:

of Justice —

That is not just DOJ street furniture but all street furniture in any public place, the criterion being if:

Clause 1(2) explains what the "public interest" is and how that is defined. It states:

so, already, we are expecting Department for Infrastructure officials to draw up their opinions on those matters —

We can all agree that the flags of proscribed organisations should not be flown. There is unanimous support for that in the Chamber. However, as I said last week, a decision on whether a flag or emblem is intimidatory or threatening, stirs up hatred or arouses fear is a matter for the police. You are actually saying that it is a criminal offence. If it is intimidating or threatening somebody, that is not for Department for Infrastructure officials to address. They are too busy looking after their duties, such as clearing gullies, filling in potholes and looking after our roads and water infrastructure.

In clause 1(3), we get a wider definition of "in the public interest". It states:

we will hear more about that shortly —

Again, it is about creating a DFI police force that will go around making judgement calls on flags — not just whether they are considered to be intimidating or threatening but whether they are offensive. Offensive to whom? That means that, if anybody considers a flag to be offensive, they can put in a request to have it removed. That is a very low threshold, and that is why I say that it is utterly unworkable.

The Bill talks about a flag or emblem being:

Then, in clause 2, we are given a definition of a "sensitive place". It states:

we get a definition of that shortly —

we get a definition of that shortly —

Clause 2(2) states:

includes:

A "shared communal place" is a:

By way of example, would flags be allowed on the Shankill Road? Every year, the Shankill Road has Union flags and streamers along it from the middle of June until the end of September, but it is a main arterial road and has shops along it and a public park. It has a school, a medical facility, a leisure centre, a library and other places where public services are provided. Presumably, if anyone objected, according to the wording of the Bill, Union flags would have to be taken down along the Shankill Road.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Brooks: The Member will remember the example that I gave last week of an area of the greenway in east Belfast. That greenway goes literally right at the back of a loyalist area and has houses either side of it that are part of the loyalist working-class area around the Newtownards Road. That is pretty well known as a loyalist area. Based on the logic that was given to us, that area would have to be almost penalised in expressing its own culture, which would have been normal to it before the greenway was put in, because that greenway is now for the use of all communities the length of the greenway. Essentially, those middle-class communities along the way have their right to not be offended being imposed on an area that has always had a particular identity and has always expressed that identity in that area with no intention of offending anyone else because the area is largely populated by people who are from a loyalist working-class background.

Mr Kingston: There is no consideration of areas where flags are traditionally flown and have always been. I said last week that location is the key matter, and the police will tell you that. What is considered a problem in one area will not be considered offensive or a problem in another area, so location is key, but there is no wording in the Bill to reflect that.

The Bill talks about a flag or emblem demarcating:

I get a small number of letters each year from people complaining about flags. They are usually complaining that they have been left up for too long, and I do not support flags being left to become tattered. Indeed, at election time, I usually find myself taking down some tattered flags from lamp posts, usually at the request of a resident who is fed up with the remnants of a flag flapping after it has been up for a year. I do not support flags being left. They should go up and then be brought down in a respectful manner, not least in respect of the flag itself. I get a small number of complaints each year, and that includes from areas where people say, "I do not want flags flown at all". Usually, I do not know who has put the flag up, but, if it is considered a problem, I do not mind speaking to people to ensure that flags are brought down at the end of the marching season, so to speak.

What I receive much more regularly, however, are letters about Irish language street signs that have been imposed on residents against their wishes. Earlier today, I said that that is causing real resentment. Where we can build cultural appreciation, we do not do so by imposing things on people against their wishes, thus culturally branding their area. It is up to those parties on Belfast City Council that brought in that policy to change it, because it is up for review in the coming months. I am talking about the Alliance Party, Sinn Féin, the SDLP, People Before Profit and the Green Party.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Brian, Irish language street signs are not part of the Bill.

Mr Kingston: I am finished with that point.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Move on, please. Thank you.

Mr Kingston: I have said what I needed to say on that matter. That is the cultural branding that is causing offence.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member agree that what is relevant is that the Alliance Party was the enabler of Belfast City Council's 15% threshold for Irish language street signs? Some may rightly ask whether that is the kind of threshold that it is looking at having through this legislation.

Mr Kingston: Indeed. I will come on to that clause now. I heard the Alliance Party last week say, "Oh, we are not talking about a flags commission". If you read the wording in the Bill, however, how else could it be described? Clause 3 states:

People will therefore have to apply to put up a flag, and people who object to it can notify the Department of their objection. What will happen then? The Department will have to have a process in place to consider requests and objections. That is a flags commission. Again, instead of fixing potholes or repairing roads and water gullies, DFI officials will be setting up that whole structure.

I say again that the Bill has been devised by the Alliance Party just for the optics. I know that flags and emblems are an issue of frustration for some residents, but this Bill has all the appearance of saying, "Oh, we tried to do something about it". It is totally unworkable, however. If we want to address the issues, we have to work with local communities, engage with them and listen to their concerns, respect community identity and build consensus.

By way of illustration, over the past couple of years, some interface structures that were deteriorating were taken down in the Twaddell Avenue, Woodvale Road and Crumlin Road area of north Belfast. Last year, an old fence along an alleyway between Twaddell Avenue and Mountainview Park was taken down. In recent weeks, a deteriorating metal grille fence that had been added above the wall at Holy Cross chapel along the Woodvale Road has been removed. It was deteriorating and starting to fall apart, and the credit for that outcome belongs to Department of Justice officials, the Twaddell Woodvale Residents' Association (TWRA), with which they engaged, and those residents who live facing the fence along the Woodvale Road, who consented to its removal. I also liaised with the Department, the TWRA and local residents in order to ensure that they were informed and content. What was not appreciated in that community was Alliance MLAs Nuala McAllister and Naomi Long turning up in the grounds of Holy Cross chapel last week and recording and posting a video in which they took the credit for that fence being removed. They said that the peace wall was removed by Naomi Long, who had been working with residents over a number of years. I have never seen Alliance MLAs on Twaddell Avenue or the Woodvale Road. I am reliably informed by people on the TWRA committee that the Alliance Party has never attended any meetings with Woodvale residents on that or any other local matter. I therefore advise the Alliance Party that that has not gone down well in that community. I have received text messages complaining about the actions of the Alliance Party taking credit for other people's work and taking it away from the community group that did the work to persuade that community.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for giving way. What he is doing here is demonstrating the difference between requiring legislation to do something and community consent to do something. He is quite right to identify the work that has been done in north Belfast, which has been led and agreed by the community, not a determination of the Alliance Party and not because of legislation requiring them to do something. Rather, it is something on which the community itself has led.

Mr Kingston: I gave that illustration as it is all about working with people, building relationships, getting your hands dirty, going to meetings, knocking on doors and respecting people's identities and concerns. The other situation that I described is the antithesis of community engagement.

The Bill is unworkable. It is designed to create an impression of dealing with an issue rather than to be practicable. There are matters that we can all agree on in this debate: paramilitary flags should not be flown; and legitimate flags should be flown for a limited time and not left to become tattered. However, in dealing with those matters, it is necessary and essential to engage with communities, rather than think that the solution is to create a statutory flags commission within the Department for Infrastructure. That is not that Department's primary responsibility; the responsibility lies primarily with the police and with communities.

Mr Burrows: A worthy objective is no substitute for workable law. There is some nobility in the objective of Ms Bradshaw's private Member's Bill. We have too many flags. Often, those flags are too tattered. We have too many areas that are demarcated by individuals. We have the scandal that, all these years after the Belfast Agreement — not that it was ever an excuse before it — we have, across Northern Ireland, murals, emblems and flags of terrorist organisations, and nobody wants to take them down. The PSNI, with all its might and resources, will not take them down. The Royal Ulster Constabulary, when it was backed up by the entire British military through Operation Banner, did not take the flags down because of the potential for public disorder, because the flags might have been booby-trapped and because it knew that, as soon as it took one flag down, another would go straight back up.

The Alliance Party, in its wisdom, thinks that it is appropriate to put the entire burden of dealing with this issue in the hands of civil servants from the Department for Infrastructure. I do not know what the men and women of DFI have done wrong to deserve being given that absolute duty — and it is a duty. We have to be clear: the reason that the Alliance Party and Ms Bradshaw could not put the obligation on the PSNI is that the PSNI cannot be operationally directed in law. No law can tell the PSNI that it "shall do this" or " shall do that", so the Alliance Party has said, "DFI must do it". Of course, the proposed legislation says that the Department may ask the PSNI to support it and that the PSNI can, within its rights, say no. The fundamental flaw in the Alliance Party's Bill is that it would create an absolute duty for DFI to discharge but provides no reliable means for DFI to discharge that duty. It is, simply, madness.

The Bill is not clear. In fact, Ms Bradshaw, the proponent of the Bill, set herself three tests for the Bill: is it clear; is it fair; and is it enforceable? In all three tests, the Bill falls at the first hurdle. Indeed, as regards the very first line of the Bill at clause 1, it seemed to come as a shock to the proposer that the obligation to remove flags or emblems from public property extends beyond property owned by the Department for Infrastructure. It is astonishing: this is an attempt to create criminal law that puts an absolute duty on DFI to act, and the sponsor of the Bill does not understand its very first clause.

I am afraid that it goes from bad to worse. We then get into the fact that DFI would have the obligation to act and the test that DFI would have to apply would simply be its own opinion. DFI's opinion that the flag must come down does not have to be reasonable. The Bill is silent on how the Department should come to the conclusion that something is offensive or antagonistic. Of course, in criminal law, there is a series of tests for that, but the DFI would not be applying those; it would simply be applying its own opinion. What evidence would be required? Whose view would count? How would vexatious, orchestrated complaints be differentiated from genuine complaints in the community? The Bill does not say. A future code might, but a future code is no cure for the absence of any clarity in the Bill in the first place.

We then get on to Ms Bradshaw's second test: is it fair? Demonstrably, it is not fair. Clause 1 potentially groups terrorist flags and emblems with sporting ones. Ms Bradshaw jumped up and objected on that point, but her objection was not warranted, because clause 1 is very clear that it applies to terrorist flags plus any other flag that is, in the opinion of the Department, "intimidatory", "threatening" or:

The national flag could come under those criteria. There is no firewall in the legislation between terrorist flags and sporting flags. Even the mother of all Parliaments, our sovereign Parliament, makes certain that terrorist flags are dealt with only in the Terrorism Act 2000, but, oh no, that is not good enough for Ms Bradshaw. She has fused simple sporting emblems and cultural flags with grotesque terrorist flags.

On a further point on fairness, clause 3 concerns a voluntary notification system. We know how that works in Northern Ireland: the compliant will be catalogued whilst the criminals and intimidators will simply ignore it. At the heart of the Bill is the fact that, in our country, there are flags and emblems to do with people who murdered our citizens, yet the people who will engage with the legislation are the law-abiding majority. They will go to their laptop and type in details of what they want to do and why they want to do it to celebrate or commemorate this or that, and the ghouls who cause us problems will simply ignore it. We will punish the compliant and, as ever, ignore those who are the problem.

Ms Bradshaw: Have you read the Bill?

Mr Burrows: I have clearly read the Bill in more detail than Ms Bradshaw has, because she did not know what clause 1 of her Bill actually referred to. There is no statutory right to receive notice before a flag is removed. If I have missed that, perhaps she can point out that part in the Bill that she has read and that I, too, have read. There is no duty to give reasons before removing a flag, no independent appeal and no meaningful oversight. It all comes down to DFI's opinion. The only remedy would be an expensive judicial review, but is that really accessible to Mrs Smith, who wants to fly a flag to commemorate some local event or charity? If I want to put up the flag of Liverpool Football Club when we get to the FA Cup final, as I predict we will, do I have to catalogue that and give my reasons? I can tell you this: the terrorist sympathisers will not do that. The Bill is not fair. The compliant will be catalogued, and the intimidators will be ignored. It is a recipe for endless political bias.

We come to the third test: enforceability. That is where Mrs Bradshaw's private Member's Bill deserves, I am afraid, to be —.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not go by "Mrs Bradshaw". I am married to a man called Mr Parsley. I am Ms Bradshaw. I had to tolerate it in the previous debate, but if anyone is referring to me, I would appreciate their calling me "Ms Bradshaw". I am not "Mrs Bradshaw"; that was my mother. Thank you.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That has cleared that up, Paula. Go ahead.

Mr Burrows: That is duly noted, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I apologise for any hurt caused by referring to the Member as "Mrs Bradshaw". I will refer to the Bill sponsor as "Ms Bradshaw".

The Bill is not enforceable. It means that DFI must act "as soon as is possible" to remove flags. As I said, it will have an absolute duty. It is not a reasonable duty. It is not that it may consider something but that it "must remove the flag". The PSNI, however, does not need to assist DFI. Let us talk about enforceability and fairness. I will pick an area off the top of my head: the Bogside. Is DFI really going to go into the Bogside and take down flags and terrorist emblems? No, but Ms Bradshaw is now giving it a legal duty to do so, to which the Police Service can simply say, "Nothing to do with us; we are not touching that with a bargepole." What is DFI to do? Should it breach its legal duty? Do we expose its officials to undue health and safety risks?

There is no offence in the Bill of putting up a flag after it has been brought down, unless I have missed it. Ms Bradshaw should know the Bill, because she has read it. I have read it too, and I have not seen that offence. We could have —.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes, Ms Bradshaw.

Ms Bradshaw: You were not in the Chamber for the whole debate. I suggested that the Committee might look at situations in which there had been a determination that flags should come down. The Committee may seek to do that within a reasonable time. I have addressed that.

Mr Burrows: I return —

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that too much is being seen as, "Let's just put down the general idea of a Bill, throw it to the Committee and let the Committee work out the details"? There does not seem to have been an awful lot of thought given to the detail of how this will work.

Mr Burrows: I would say that no thought has been given to the detail of how it will work.

There is no offence of putting up a flag after a perhaps expensive and risky operation to take it down. What will we end up with? It will be a game of whack-a-mole. There is an offence of obstructing a member of the DFI in taking down a flag, but criminals, especially of the terrorist sort, are clever: they will sit back, let the DFI remove the flag, and, if we are spared a riot in which a DFI official gets injured, they will put the flag back up. There is no offence. It will go round and round, and where it stops nobody knows. The cost could be huge.

The Bill has not been thought out. It has been designed in leafy areas over a glass of wine, not tested against the hard realities of life in Northern Ireland. Let us be clear about what will happen under the Bill. The harmless flag will come down; the terrorist flag will stay up. That is absolutely foreseeable. The compliant will be punished; the intimidators will get a veto. The DFI officials and the contractors will be in the firing line. The DFI is already under serious pressure. DFI staff will now be not only at risk of being intimidated or attacked and sparking disorder but spending their time in a game of whack-a-mole and dealing with endless flags going up and coming down instead of clearing the gullies, sorting out the roads and doing all the other things that the public need them to do. It is a recipe for disaster.

Even the recent amendment to the Terrorism Act that gave the PSNI the power to seize terrorist flags left it to the PSNI's discretion, because creating an absolute legal duty to go up to the top of a flagpole and take down a flag does not sit in the real world of community dynamics, of health and safety and of complex and contested societies. Ms Bradshaw, I believe that you can see the error of this. I appeal to you to pull the Bill now. Here is a big, broad offer: I will work with the Alliance Party to produce a Bill that is competent, is common sense and can be enforced [Laughter.]

There is a lot of laughing and giggling at the thought of DFI being put in a really difficult position. Members are laughing at me: that is fine.

Here is the reality: the Bill creates expectations that it cannot meet. There is already a massive gap in the confidence of our society in this place. If the Bill passes, we will bring in a law about which people out there will get a headline that action will be taken, yet we know that action will not be taken. The compliant will be punished, and the lawbreakers will be ignored. Look at the role modelling that happens in this place. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will not rule this as being not linked to the debate, but, when the First Minister goes to an illegal statue — to Bobby Sands —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Jon, that is absolutely not linked to the debate, as you know.

Mr Burrows: I always respect the office.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes. If you would move on to the Bill, I would appreciate it.

Mr Burrows: The reality is that the solution is threefold: a proper justice system that deals with the display of terrorist emblems and absolutely hammers with exemplary sentences those who put them up; the backing of the Police Service by the body politic in the Chamber to deal with terrorist flags and emblems; and a simple and workable code of practice that communities can work with to deal with the proliferation of other flags.

I appeal to other Members in the House. The leader of the Opposition is an eminently educated man. I would say that, as he listens to the debate, he is thinking, "This is unworkable". People in the nicest parts of his constituency would follow the law, but people in other parts of Northern Ireland could decide just to ignore it. It could be enforced in his constituency and ignored in others.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: First, I would not describe any part of my consistency as being nicer than another; I am proud of every street that I represent, whether the people choose to fly flags or not.

As always, the Member is putting in an enthusiastic, spirited performance of his shtick. If you drive from here to my constituency of South Belfast along the A55 ring road, you will pass, just after PSNI headquarters — you are a former PSNI officer — two flags: one for the east Belfast Ulster Defence Association and the other for the UVF. Frankly, with the greatest of respect, I do not care whether it says "1912" or "1914" on the flag; it is still an offensive flag to victims of the UVF. You are nodding. Tell me that we do not have a problem when, literally yards from PSNI headquarters, those flags are allowed to stay up.

Mr Burrows: I said that Mr O'Toole was an eminently educated man. He has posed the dilemma extremely well. Here is the nub: we have got into the habit in this place of saying, "There's a problem" and then saying about something that does not solve it, "Well, there's the solution. You have to vote for the Bill", even though the Bill would not solve the problem.

Mr O'Toole: What is your solution?

Mr Burrows: First of all, I am not proposing new offences. I am not proposing new absolute duties on the Department for Infrastructure. You have just posed a good question. There are terrorist flags in our country that the Police Service refuses to take down. Ms Bradshaw admitted that the problem was not the lack of law but the lack of stomach, resources and capability to take the flags down. What have we done? We have proposed creating a new law that simply picks on a Department and says, "It's all your fault; you sort it out". The PSNI has said, "We're not taking down those flags. We don't consider it safe or operationally viable to do so". It gives a number of reasons, and I often disagree with them. The PSNI should be less risk-averse when it comes to terrorist flags and find ways to get them down. However, who in their right mind would put that absolute obligation on the DFI, backed up with only an optional obligation on the PSNI to assist? We agree on the problem, but we disagree on the solution.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. He talks to the more fundamental point that is missed in the Bill. The Terrorism Act 2000 specifically states that the flags of proscribed organisations should be removed. That was strengthened recently in legislation through Parliament. The Bill would not have the ability to legislate on terrorism affairs because terrorism is a reserved matter. Therefore, regardless of the point that the leader of the Opposition makes, which is well made — I think that everyone in the House agrees that illegal flags should be removed — the Bill is as useful as toilet paper for doing that.

Mr Burrows: It is. It belongs in the wastepaper basket, not the statute book. We should get back to our job. I have been blunt about that because this is serious stuff. This is not a non-binding motion; it is serious stuff.

The Bill would put DFI at risk. It could create offences, and it would create expectations that we simply could not meet. I will give a pledge to each party leader; in fact, I will write to each party leader this week and ask them to write back to me to agree to stand in the Great Hall next Monday, shoulder to shoulder, and say that every memorial, flag, emblem or building that commemorates, orates or eulogises a terrorist should be removed. I doubt that Ms O'Neill will join me.

Here is the rub: the Bill has a degree of noble intent, but it is not clear, fair or enforceable. I am sorry to say so, but it belongs in the wastepaper basket. Let us not put all our collective failures as a society at the feet of the men and women from the DFI, exposing them to unnecessary risk, and let us not create an expectation among the public that we cannot meet. I urge every Member to dispose of the Bill as soon as possible.

Mr Gaston: What we have here is, once again, the thought police on patrol. They are out and about, telling MLAs what they should and should not think and saying to members of the public, "This is good legislation. We're going to police how you think". What I mean by that is that what I think about putting up a flag and the reasons of somebody down the road for doing so could be different, yet this legislation looks at the intent of the person. That creates thought policing, what I would describe as "subjective whataboutery" draped in the title "Display of Flags and Emblems Bill".

I will recap where we are tonight. I go back to an intervention from the Minister. The Minister asked:

— this was to Ms Bradshaw — and continued:

Then the Bill sponsor came back to say:

We are in a situation where the Bill has got to Second Stage, and the Minister — this is no slight on the Minister or DFI — does not even understand the Bill or where its intended purpose and remit place the responsibilities. Is it the case that, if someone were to put a flag on the bandstand in Ballymena town centre — a council-owned asset — DFI officials would be the ones charged with taking that down? The explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) refers to:

but does not say anywhere that it could be the council in the case of such a structure. We have got to this stage in the Bill process, and nobody is even clear who has responsibility for taking down such a flag. Even if it is not on a DFI asset, is the DFI responsible?

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I will happily give way to Mr Frew, if he can clarify.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. The Bill states:

That is irrespective of who is responsible for it or who owns it. The Bill is clear on that, and that is just one part of why it is so dangerous.

Mr Gaston: There we have some clarity. I would have expected the Member who brought the legislation forward to get to her feet to defend her private Member's Bill (PMB), but no.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

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

Mr Clarke: Following from my colleague from North Antrim's intervention and the Member's reference to a bandstand, how can the Bill give legal power for DFI to go to land that is in third-party ownership and take a flag down? Are you as confused about that as I am?

Mr Gaston: I am more confused. I am only a Back-Bencher, co-opted these past two years, but I am learning every day. I am learning that not all legislation that comes to the Chamber is good legislation.

In order to refresh my memory, I noted down a few points from the last time. We have clarified that Northern Ireland Electricity assets are DFI's responsibility. Similarly, Fibrus infrastructure is DFI's responsibility. If there is a banner at a church hall from a pro-life group displaying a botched abortion, that is for DFI to deal with. If there is a mural on the side of a housing association building, that is for DFI. If there is something on any public realm works have been carried out by councils, that is for DFI as well. Ms Bradshaw would give DFI wide-ranging scope to interfere with private property that that Department has no business being on.

To be clear from the start, if it is terrorist-related, it should come down. It is the thought process of subjective whataboutery that I cannot stand. It has driven a coach and horses through the intent that, I believe, was behind the Bill.

Mr Brett is right that policy on terrorism is a reserved matter. What are we really getting at with the Bill? It is clear that the Alliance Party is trying to come for cultural identity and, in doing so, is happy to sacrifice the national flag. It is somewhat ironic to consider where we find ourselves tonight. We are often lectured by the great and the good of the Alliance Party that we need to move beyond flags, yet this is now the second day on which we have been debating flags in the House. It is the Alliance Party that has chosen to create this row about flags. If the Bill were to pass into law, what a holy row it would be. The Member has introduced a Bill that has no support on this side of the House bar Mr Carroll, I imagine; he will speak for himself. In the consultation, unionism was bitterly opposed to it, yet the Bill sponsor pressed ahead with it regardless. The proposal has to go on, because, at the end of the day, the Alliance Party took the flag down from City Hall and will not be happy until it has cleansed the national flag from lamp posts across this country.

At the heart of the Bill is the extension of the state's reach into the lawful expression of national, cultural and, indeed, commemorative and sporting identity. That is where the Bill is headed. That brings me back to the thought police in the Alliance Party. The Bill gives civil servants the power to remove lawful flags because they are considered offensive by some: by some, not by all. It gives that power to the individuals who are making the decision. Where flags are considered to be offensive, insulting, antagonistic, as we hear, or damaging to community relations etc, the decision is down to the thought process of someone in the Department.

Mr Burrows used the example of a Liverpool flag. My goodness, if a complaint came in and it was a Man United supporter who received that complaint, I would have to support him, and that flag would have to come down from your house, Mr Burrows. DFI officials would be sent round to take it down. Terms in the Bill such as "insulting" and "offensive" do not provide narrow, objective legal tests. They are not crafted by a KC; they are broad, subjective and politically sensitive judgements. That is why I say that the Bill is subjective whataboutery. That is why the Bill crosses a very important line. It moves beyond enforcing criminal law that already exists into regulating cultural expression. Many reasons to oppose the Bill have come up in the debate, but, for that reason and that reason solely, I oppose the general principles of the Bill.

Clause 1 highlights the problem. Subsection (2) deals with flags connected to threats, hatred or support for proscribed organisations. Existing criminal law already addresses such issues. I support the police in going into areas to take such flags down. Subsection (3) goes much further, however.

It creates a presumption in favour of the removal wherever, in the Department's opinion, the flag is "offensive, abusive, or insulting" or:

The Alliance Party will drum that up. That is why the Bill includes "a new housing development". Alliance does not want the national flag to fly on lamp posts; it wants to create a problem with that.

We talk about "offensive". Offensive to whom? How many people must be offended? Is it one, 10, 90? Nobody knows. What exactly is meant by "antagonistic"? What constitutes harm to community relations? The Bill does not define any of those terms. It is subjective and depends on how someone interprets the Bill. That "someone" is DFI, where responsibility squarely lies.

The Union flag is the lawful national flag of this part of the United Kingdom, yet the Bill provides no specific protection for the Union flag. That shows the intent of the Bill. It gives no protections either for the Ulster banner; Orange flags; lodge and district banners; military and regimental flags; supporting flags; royal commemorations; Somme commemorations; or traditional displays associated with the marching season. The Alliance Party wants to get rid of all of that. It wants to dial that down and dilute it. Not on my watch, Ms Bradshaw.

If the Bill is primarily about paramilitary flags, that is certainly not evident in its blue pages. Celebration and commemoration are factors that the Department "may" consider. I always love the use of the subjective word "may". It is not "will" consider; it is "may" consider. They are not exemptions, and exemptions will not be conferred, so there would be no positive right for me to display the national flag. Indeed, the presumption runs in the wrong direction. Once one of the factors in clause 1 applies, removal is presumed to be "in the public interest". Let us walk through that. If somebody goes on to the new, fancy portal and puts in their objection to a flag flying down the street or outside their house, the presumption is that, in the public interest, it will be removed. We should not entertain that. It would then be up to the communities to persuade the state why their national flag should be allowed to remain flying. In a free society, the opposite principle should apply. Lawful expression should be presumed legitimate unless the state can demonstrate compelling and clearly defined grounds for interference. We have not seen that in the Bill. It is a case of, "This is a general principle. This is what we are trying to do. The Speaker is closing the deadline. We have to get this in or we're going to miss the boat". There was no thought process as to what would happen once it went into the Chamber. The code of practice? Members will not see that.

Let us look at clause 2. It compounds the problem that I have been trying to set out as a lowly Back-Bencher. Clause 2 compounds the problem through an extraordinarily broad definition of "sensitive place". What is "sensitive" to one might not be deemed sensitive to another. The Bill regards:

as sensitive places and states:

That definition covers the majority of Northern Ireland.

One could say that that relates to any village or town across Northern Ireland, where people will have to abide by the thought police's new law on flags.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

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

Mr Clarke: The other issue, and in the same vein, is that clause 2 refers to "a place of worship" or, indeed, a "school". Quite a number of our schools have flags flying inside. Are we therefore saying that, on the designated days when they are permitted by law to fly the flag, that now becomes an offence because somebody is offended when they go past that school?

Mr Gaston: That is something that I would hope Ms Bradshaw will soon get to her feet to try to defend. Take Cullybackey, for example. We had the mini Twelfth there this year, and it was very well decorated by the local Orange lodge. You are driving along the main street and you see the school proudly flying the national flag. On the one hand, if the exemption is for a school, it is allowed to fly the flag, but, on the other hand, if somebody would dare to put the flag up outside it, on a lamp post, they would be deemed to be in breach of this law, and that is very concerning indeed.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Mr Clarke: My reading of the Bill, unless I am wrong, is that there is no exemption for the place of worship or the school that decides to fly the flag, because clause 2(1) states:

You can presume that to mean outside those places, but it is not specific, so a flag could also be displayed inside at their choice, and someone on the outside could be offended by that. That is the point that I am making.

Mr Gaston: I do not see Ms Bradshaw making too many notes on the questions that are coming up. She must have a better memory than me. I hope, Mr Clarke, that Ms Bradshaw will take up that point. The other troubling thing about that is when the Bill refers to "in the vicinity". "In the vicinity" might be different to me than it is to someone else. Jon Burrows is in my vicinity at the minute, but some might say that it should mean 10 metres, 20 metres, half a mile or 2 miles. There is nothing in the Bill to define what "in the vicinity" is. Once again, the legislation simply provides no answer.

Let us move on to clause 3.

Mr K Buchanan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Mr K Buchanan: The word "offended" is referenced. I have listened to the debate — I did not listen on the previous day — but I am offended that the Union flag is not referenced in the Bill. Does that mean that we in Northern Ireland cannot fly the Union flag because of the Bill. Conversation over.

Mr Gaston: Yet the Alliance Party wonders why I call it nationalists' little helpers. Once again, it has shown by its thoughts, words and actions that that is what it is indeed trying to do.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

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

Mr Clarke: I hear what you are saying about little helpers, and I probably agree, but where are the Members on the Benches opposite in their opposition to the Bill? I find it repulsive that the Irish tricolour flies in certain areas. Although the Bill stops that as well, those Members have remained silent tonight.

Mr Gaston: I imagine that they are treating the Bill with the contempt that it deserves. Regardless of what is passed in this place, they will not care. One of the most fundamental problems with the Bill is that those who will abide by the law of the land will go on to the portal, rightly or wrongly — I would say that anyone who does so is foolish — to put their name to a flag that went up at such and such a time. Nationalism will not care. Do you think that somebody who turns up to give a monologue for Thomas McElwee will try to convince the people of mid-Ulster to fill out a permit to fly a flag?

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way, Mr Brooks.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member agree that there is already evidence of that? A party that does not have any consideration of planning regulations when illegally putting up a statue or that ignores and plays games around the erection of a Sinn Féin billboard elsewhere is not going to have any regard for legislation about a flag.

Mr Gaston: That is a case in point. In its history, the law has not been strongly followed, if that is the right way to put it. Its bedfellows in the terrorist wing will happily stand under and march behind those flags at commemorations, so it has no intention of abiding by any law that would be put in place. You could not even shame them. The brass necks on some of the ones sitting across the Chamber mean that they would lecture unionists on what they have to do regarding the flag of their country. It is all a pawn in the game, and the Alliance Party is once again happy to be that pawn and to move around the chessboard for Sinn Féin and the republican movement.

I hope that, come the election next year, unionists will remember that when Alliance candidates go to get their transfers. They are giggling and laughing in the corner, but time will tell, Mr Honeyford, in Lagan Valley, Andrew McMurray — I do not even know what constituency you are in — and, in East Antrim, Mr Donnelly. In East Antrim, I would certainly not be laughing about trying to take down the Union flag.

I will move to clause 3.

Mr Brett: I appreciate Mr Gaston's giving way. Before he moves to clause 3, it is worth his focusing on the end of clause 2, which is probably the most dangerous part of the Bill. Subsection 3(d) provides that flags cannot go up in:

I do not know of any places in Northern Ireland that are no-go areas for anyone, but perhaps the Bill sponsor knows of places that are no-go areas for people of certain cultural identities or nationalities. That is so broad-brush and sweeping that it effectively, as you have articulated, gets to the point of what this Alliance Bill is about: they do not want the Union flag about the place.

Mr Gaston: I would go a step further than that. If the legislation is enacted in its current form, we will soon see a number of no-go areas appear all over Northern Ireland, in republican areas and nationalist areas, where they will say to DFI, "Do not be coming into my area to remove any emblems". DFI will have no help from the police with that, and the legislation will fall. At the end of the day, what is there at the minute is not being enforced, and new legislation is not going to change anything. All that it will do is cost the taxpayer a fortune for us to have to try to send DFI officials, who will be looking for a risk assessment, into an area. If somebody says "boo" to them, they will say, "Absolutely not". We have seen over years in this country that what starts off with a boo is followed by a more sinister threat.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for giving way again. We have seen an expression of that this year. In Moygashel, there was offensive material: the police moved in. There were offensive flags in Londonderry. The police went in at an early stage to remove a bonfire, but, until the day that that bonfire was lit, a flag on it said, "Kill all cops. Kill all Huns". All manner of other flags were there, but nobody moved in, and they were all burnt. There was an opportunity for them to be removed in a lawful manner, and they did not do it. This legislation will not make the law any stronger to enable them to do that. It is designed purely as an attack on the national flag — that of our country.

Mr Gaston: That brings me to this thought process. There are laws in place at the minute; does anybody know why the Justice Minister is not pushing the button to ensure that those laws are followed? I would have thought that the Members giggling in the corner would be happy to speak to their party leader and ask why the PSNI is not fulfilling its duties in taking down flags with which, time and again, issues have been raised. They are happy to say nothing to their Justice Minister, their party leader, yet they support this Member's Bill to try to force upon unionism the erasure of the national flag in the vast majority of places across Northern Ireland. Bring in this think tank and this portal that people will have to register with to ask for permission, saying, "I want to fly the flag of my country", and provide associated details, but, yet again, nationalists will pay little to no heed, because they do not care about the rule of law in Northern Ireland.

Clause 3 requires the Department to establish a reporting mechanism through which anyone may complain about a flag and submit views regarding its display. Mark my words: that will inevitably invite organised campaigns across Northern Ireland. They have done it with parades, and they will do it with flags if we in the Chamber are silly enough to give them the provision to do that. From what I have seen of the Bill — I stand to be corrected by Ms Bradshaw — there is no requirement for complainants to live in the area that they are complaining about. They do not have to show —.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way? [Interruption.]

Mr Gaston: If I can finish this point, Ms Bradshaw, I will certainly bring you in.

From what I have read, the complainant does not have to show that they have been directly affected or that any genuine harm has been caused by the flying of a flag. While the views of nearby residents "must" be considered, they will not prevail, so anybody from across Northern Ireland could drive past the national flag, say, "I don't like that" and go on to the portal. The Bill does not state that they have to live within a certain distance of the flag or drive past it every day to be offended. I heard it said once that offence is a choice, and there are quite a few in the Alliance Party and nationalism who like to be offended.

I am happy to give way, Ms Bradshaw.

Ms Bradshaw: It is fine. You answered your own question. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: There you go. I must have answered the question that I put out.

I will move on. Even when —.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way, Mr Brett.

Mr Brett: I could not quite pick up the answer from the Member, but I think that I can pick it up from the Bill.

Subsection (2) of clause 1 sets out that, ultimately, there will be a test to assess whether:

The only way in which local residents' views will ever be sought is in determining a rebuttal.

As the Member rightly articulates, any person anywhere in the world could log on to the portal and say that they are offended by a flag, and that would carry equal weight, according to the words in the Bill as drafted.

Mr Gaston: That shows that the overwhelming majority of residents who live in an area could and would support the flying of a flag, yet somebody else or an organised group of people who put in objections could force the issue to get the flag removed. That is, indeed, a recipe for a heckler's veto.

Far from reducing conflict around flags, the Bill risks generating more conflict, more anguish and more community turmoil. The Bill also encourages those erecting flags to notify the Department in advance of what they intend to do, what will be displayed and how long it will be displayed for. I will say that anybody who puts up a flag absolutely has a duty to take it down before it becomes tattered, but this is state overreach into cultural expression. We are told at the beginning that notification would be voluntary, but, if advance notification becomes a weighting factor in a flag's removal by DFI, communities will inevitably feel under pressure to register their intentions with the state in the first instance. Today's voluntary notification could easily become tomorrow's mandatory system.

Clause 4 requires the Department to produce a code of practice, which I have already mentioned. The code of practice would govern the display and removal of flags, including what constitutes an "excessive period" of display. I have not seen the code. As I look around the Chamber, I do not see anybody nodding their head to indicate that they have seen that code. I doubt that the Minister has seen the code, given that she does not realise that the wide-ranging powers in the Bill would apply to her Department. We are therefore being asked to approve extensive enforcement powers without knowing the detailed rules under which they would operate. Will the code recognise the traditional marching season? Will it recognise long-established cultural practices? How many flags would it deem excessive? Will organisers be expected to identify themselves to the Department? I suspect so. I go back to one point: how many flags would you deem excessive, Ms Bradshaw? I imagine that one Union flag would be excessive to many in the Alliance Party, but I do not agree with that. That is what brings this back to the thought police in the Alliance Party. The questions that I have posed are not answered in the Bill. What we have heard, in absolute bucket loads from the Bill sponsor, is whataboutery, but that does not replace the need to place the details in the Bill.

I move to the list of consultees, and that is very telling about the direction in which the Bill sponsor wants the Bill to go. We have the Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission, the Community Relations Council, the PSNI, the Housing Executive, the Executive Office and district councils, but there is no guaranteed consultation with the Orange Order, the Apprentice Boys, the Royal Black Preceptory, marching bands, veterans' organisations, football clubs or loyalist cultural groups. Those are the people who should be consulted, because they are the people who are targeted by the Bill. There will be no consultation with those who are most affected.

Indeed, the enforcement powers contained in the Bill should cause every Member concern. Anyone who obstructs the Department or its contractors during a removal operation commits an offence. The Department may also seek assistance from the PSNI where obstruction or disorder is anticipated. Let us be realistic tonight about what that means: a complaint is made, civil servants apply their subjective criteria, contractors move in to remove the Union flag, the police accompany them, local residents object, and those who obstruct the operation risk the fine and prosecution. That is not a recipe for improved community relations; that is a recipe for confrontation. The Bill will increase tensions, which is the opposite of what is needed in Northern Ireland.

Equally concerning is the absence of basic procedural safeguards. The Bill contains no clear statutory right to advance notice of disclosure or removal. As an MLA, Ms Bradshaw, can I write to the Parades Commission mark 2 — whatever it may be called; we do not have a name for it yet — to ask for a disclosure of complaints? Can I get in writing the reasons why a decision has been made? Can I ask for an internal review from the Parades Commission mark 2 or for an independent appeal before a removal takes place? Will it be the case that, in the dead of night, contractors will be tasked to go into areas and take down flags? Is that the intention? The omission of the right of appeal should give us all serious concerns.

When my party responded to the original consultation, the TUV described the proposals as creating a "Parades Commission-style" system for flags. The Bill sponsor's explanatory and financial memorandum confirms that the Parades Commission was consulted during the development of the Bill. The similarities are obvious to all those who have taken the time to read it. There is a notification that there are objections; there is a code of practice; there are subjective judgements about the location, context and community relations. Does that sound familiar to anyone? There are restrictions on other authorised cultural expressions. There is police-backed enforcement. Does that ring any bells for the discredited Parades Commission?

The Department for Infrastructure may administer the scheme, but many of the defining characteristics are strikingly familiar. Unionists have had bitter experience from what they have seen and where that road can lead to. All we have to do is to think about Drumcree, what has been exposed recently and how unionism has been taken for granted. I can assure the House that it would be a rerun of that scenario for the new body that has been proposed.

I have to touch on the Linfield Football Club flag controversy. It should provide Members with another warning of what the Bill is about. Alliance promoted the Bill using a graphic referring to abusive flags that included a flag bearing the Linfield club crest. Linfield understandably raised concerns and objected to it. The Alliance Party later argued that the flag had been intended as an example of an acceptable cultural display. My goodness, is that the best that the Alliance Party can come up with? Talk about keeping digging the hole that it has landed itself in, but let me fast-forward.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

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

Mr Brooks: Will the Member agree with me that the Linfield flag controversy was particularly pointed, given that Alliance had form there, in that its former MLA Stephen Farry had previously compared a Linfield away shirt to a UVF flag. It is therefore understandable that questions were raised about the issue.

Mr Gaston: Indeed. That added to the embarrassment of the gaffe that the Alliance Party made and that it continually makes. Talk about poking an old wound and reliving past gaffes.

In coming to a close, I say that the Bill would reward intimidation and penalise peaceful communities. It would reward those who register when they put up flags. We do not even know for how long their data would be stored in the system. Nobody knows, because nobody has even thought about it.

The explanatory and financial memorandum acknowledges that the costs "cannot be quantified", but, and this is where a coach and horses were driven through the Bill, it states that it is only the Department, namely DFI, and the PSNI that would incur the anticipated administrative costs. It states that, for the PSNI:

removals alone, as a result of legislation that the PSNI's parent Department had not enacted, would cost close to £30,000 a year. Make no mistake about it, however: the removals that the police do not attend will be the ones that will cause the problem. The ones that the police do not currently attend are the ones that generate big bills. It is not just a matter of the policing operation there and then, in order to hold the hand of the contractor appointed to take the flag down, but of the aftermath: the community fallout that would inevitably result from the legislation.

I therefore caution Members, whether it is the denial of cultural expression or the astronomical costs associated with the Bill —.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Member for giving way, and I agree with everything that he has said tonight. Regardless of the bureaucratic nightmare and the new flags commission that it would create, he has rightly talked about the cost. We have seen some examples in recent months. Birmingham City Council has spent £2·6 million on taking down flags. About 12 other local authorities in England have spent millions of pounds between them on taking down flags. Those flags are in non-controversial areas. Their removal does not require contractors, a police presence and everything else that would go with it. The sheer cost would be in the tens of millions of pounds here. I do not think that the Bill sponsor has even thought that through. It would be interesting to hear at some stage what the anticipated costs are.

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way to Ms Bradshaw if she wants to come in and provide us with costings, but I presume that that will be another question that will be put down for her summing up and to which we may or may not get an answer.

We would have operating systems, investigations, plenty of officials, contractors, removal operations and potentially police deployment. We would have all that, but let us get back to the bread-and-butter issues. At a time when our road network is crumbling, when potholes remain unrepaired, when many constituents are submitting claims, and DFI is refusing to pay them out, can the Department really take this on?

Can the Department do that with its current manpower? Perhaps there is a big wad of money coming here. Maybe the Bill sponsor is talking to the Finance Minister and we can expect the rabbit to come out of the hat in her summing up, but I sincerely doubt it. Resources are scarce, and all that Alliance Party Members want to do, from their leafy areas of Northern Ireland and from their ivory towers, is put more onerous responsibility on DFI. Just last week —.

Mr Martin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to take —.

Mr Martin: You are not even sure who it is.

Mr Gaston: I am not. It is Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for taking my intervention. Does he agree that, as the Minister rightly pointed out, the Department is under significant budgetary pressure when it comes to dealing with the issues that we raise with her in the Chamber weekly, such as potholes and road resurfacing? Does he agree that, if taking down 20 flags cost £20,000, and the opportunity cost of taking those flags down was getting a pothole filled on a road or getting a new or resurfaced road in their area, a lot of constituents would rather get the pothole filled or the new or resurfaced road?

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. All that I have to do is look at the angry emails that I have received today about our road conditions. If the Bill sponsor would like to go on a road trip to North Antrim, I would like to show her where money could be better spent. It could be spent on the Duneoin Road or the Moboy Road. Indeed, I could take her to Clough Primary School, where people are pushing for additional parking. DFI has stated that there is a car park on the other side of the road that they could use to facilitate additional car parking, but that would require people to cross a busy road. DFI says, "We'll not provide any more parking because there's a free car park across the road, but, by the way, we're not willing to put in a crossing to allow the weans to safely cross the road to access it". Those are the bread-and-butter issues that everyday people care about. People in leafy, urban, well-off areas might not care about them, but people in working-class areas certainly do. DFI will not provide the crossing or additional parking in that example in Clough village, but, under the Bill, it would be expected to move in and remove flags from lamp posts.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, you set a context very ably. You have extended the context to quite a bit of your speech. I ask you to move beyond setting the context and return to the subject of the debate.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that I said that I was bringing my remarks to a close. However, since you thought that the context was well set and the point was well made, I will take that as a given.

It is quite clear that the Bill sponsor and the Department are at odds and do not understand who is responsible for what. It is quite clear that the Bill sponsor wants DFI to go into unprecedented territory: to be the thought police and to go on to private property that is not its own and remove emblems that people may deem to be offensive. The biggest shock, however, is that the Alliance Party, not happy at having pulled the flag down at City Hall, now wants, through the Bill, to extend that to other parts of Northern Ireland. If it is willing to say that a Linfield flag as an example of something that is not acceptable and will not be permitted, there is no flag in the country that displays any cultural celebration at all that will be safe from the Alliance Party. On that basis, I trust that Members will go through the Lobby to vote against the Bill.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for showing discretion. The first thing that I will say, to the Member for North Antrim, is this: do not assume because you will make a you-know-what of you-know-who.

I want to put a series of questions to the Member about the Bill because, obviously, it has not been passed and has not been tested on the ground. From my reading of it, I have serious concerns.

Mr Gaston: Hear, hear.

Mr Carroll: Well, hold on a second. [Laughter.]

You have not heard my concerns: you might backtrack quickly on that. If the Member can answer my questions correctly, I will be happy to support the Bill. If she cannot, I will have serious concerns outstanding. As I said, in its current form, it raises a few potential issues. I agree with the Member and others that the likes of the UVF and UDA hanging flags outside schools and around new housing developments to tell families which estates they are not welcome in should not happen. Clause 1 creates a hard duty to remove those flags, and I welcome that.

Moving on from that, as a general point, I want to ask this: where is political expression protected in the Bill? Clause 1(4) talks about "celebration or commemoration". Can the Member tell me which of those definitions would protect the flying of a Palestinian flag in west Belfast or anywhere else in the North? Such flags are not about "celebration or commemoration", but Palestinian flags have been displayed in west Belfast and many other places for a very long time, well before the genocide of the last few years. That would clearly fail the "excessive period" test as well. Does the Member accept that, under the Bill as drafted, a display of solidarity with people who are facing years-long genocide risks being removed, not to mention any other country in the world? I have a serious concern about that, and other people in the community share that concern.

Secondly, under clause 1, can the Member explain what:

actually means and who decides that? I do not think that that is the test. If you mention intimidation or threat, that is fair enough. There is broad agreement on what intimidation or a threat would be, but the wording that I quoted appears to be a test of whether somebody is annoyed or not, and it is not categorised or explained.

Some Members may be aware that, in Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, we heard elected representatives describe Palestinian flags as "aggressive" and "offensive". I totally disagree with that. That is a ridiculous and over-the-top reaction, but would that be enough to prompt the removal of those flags under this legislation? That is unclear to me. If I can get a guarantee that it will not be enough, I will be happy to support it.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member giving way. He raises a very valid point that I will mention in my contribution later. You do not need the Bill sponsor to answer you. All you need to do is read paragraph 45 of the Bill's EFM, which clearly states:

That is because it would limit the ability of people, such as your constituents in West Belfast, to fly flags that they want to fly. The Bill is very clear: it discriminates on the grounds of lawful expression of political opinion.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member. Unusually, I agree with him. Yes, that is correct. Like I said, the —.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will make a bit of progress.

On the example from Fermanagh and Omagh council, the Bill, as drafted, may be enough to lead to the prompt removal of such flags.

Thirdly, where is the provision for the display of a trade union banner, an anti-racism poster or a football club crest? Clause 7 ties national and cultural identity to the Identity and Language Act 2022. Does the Member accept that the likes of a sports club emblem falls outside that definition and that there are problems? Linfield is not my football team, but a Member mentioned Linfield and the Alliance Party publicising that graphic. I ask the Bill sponsor this genuinely: does she believe that a civil servant in DFI would draw the line a bit more carefully than her party colleagues did with that video? There are huge problems, and they have not been addressed.

My fourth question is on —

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Sure.

Ms Bradshaw: I listened to your questions. First of all, I would like to put on the record that I wrote to all the political parties on 7 July, including Mr Carroll's party, and offered a briefing and a sit-down over the summer to allow them to go through such queries. I could have talked them through the Bill. I remind you of that email, Mr Carroll.

On the first day of the debate, I addressed a lot of the questions that you have asked, and I will go back over them during my summation. However, I will not make an intervention on every point, because I addressed them all the first time. I took a lot of interventions to deal with a lot of queries. We could be here until Christmas if Members keep regurgitating the same questions.

Mr Frew: So be it.

Ms Bradshaw: I am up for that, but I will not intervene every time Members ask the same question over and over again.

Mr Carroll: The Member did not answer any of my questions, and, for the record, I emailed her party colleague back suggesting a date for a meeting, but that was not followed up on. Just for the record, I would not have said that if the Member had not started throwing accusations about.

My fourth question is on enforcement. Contractors that come into communities to remove flags sometimes, disgracefully, face threats and intimidation. That is completely unacceptable and out of order and should be condemned by everybody. The Bill's answer, however, is to create an obstruction offence alongside a targeted and prioritised approach. It should be said that the flags that are the most physically dangerous to remove are usually those that are backed by paramilitary organisations that are willing to threaten workers, namely UDA and UVF displays. If the Bill is enacted, the flags that will be easiest to remove are those that armed gangs will not defend, such as a Palestine flag, a strike banner or a housing campaign poster. It is not hard to imagine a resource-constrained, risk-averse Department taking enforcement action against what would be perceived to be soft targets such as those, whilst paramilitary flags stay up. The Minister for Infrastructure will say that her party would not take down a Palestine flag, and I am sure that that is true, but what happens if one of the Members to my right becomes the next Infrastructure Minister and that is in the legislation and those things can be done?

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Brooks: The Member rightly expresses concerns about UDA and UVF paramilitary flags. What is his view of how the unionist community look at the sunburst flag or, for instance, the D company flag that flew quite regularly in west Belfast? I have not seen it recently, because I have not been over in west Belfast that often, but it did fly in recent years.

Mr Carroll: Maybe the Member should go to west Belfast and have a look at what is up on the lamp posts. He said that he has not been there recently. Have a look.

It is vital that the Bill removes paramilitary flags without criminalising protest or political expression. I fear that it does all three of those things together, and I would appreciate the Bill sponsor answering those questions. If she can answer them clearly and assure me, my constituents, the people whom I represent and the people from the Palestine solidarity movement, who have genuine concerns, I will be happy to support it. However, if she cannot answer those questions adequately, I am afraid that I cannot support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I call the next contributor, I point out to Members that if you take an intervention, you remain seated until the intervention is complete. You do not stand up during the intervention, which you accepted, to try to stop it. No such allowance exists; you must wait until the intervention is finished. If that makes you short of time, you should have considered that before you took the intervention. I am sorry to be so blunt.

Mr Brooks: During my interventions in the first iteration of this debate, I said that the Bill was well intentioned. To some degree, I still believe that the intention behind it is genuine and well meaning and that it was an attempt, perhaps, to start the ball rolling and look for a compromise. From my point of view, however, is not good enough to present a Bill with the idea, "Here is what I want to happen. I do not really know how to do it. I do not even have much flesh on the bones of what the structures would look like or the criteria by which decisions would be made. I have not given much thought to it or, at least, those thoughts have not led to any defined solutions or structures as to who would make decisions on a plethora of more challenging or blurred areas, but I am going to throw it into the system anyway, more, I suspect, in hope than expectation that I get something. If not, I can always use the politics in the run-up to the election".

You could sum that up otherwise by using the words of Sir Humphrey in 'Yes, Minister', whose idea was that politicians will decide that, "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, this is what we must do". That is how this seems. I do not mean to be derogatory or insulting, but increasingly, as we listen to the debate, I find myself less and less able to take the Bill as a serious attempt.

My position is clear; I have no problem with the flying of our national flag. As the Bill sponsor and many others have said, and I agree, it is motherhood and apple pie for those of us who care about our nationality and our flags. However, I do not want to see them being left up to be tattered and torn. I hate nothing more than seeing them, late into the year, flying tattered from a lamppost.

If those who undertake to celebrate their culture and express their identity in that way — in my party's case and in my case, it will be to show our Britishness; for others, it will be a tricolour to show their Irishness — are enthusiastic about putting their flags up on a lamp post, they should be equally enthusiastic about taking them down before disrespect is shown to them.

I said when asked previously that I, too, have engaged on behalf of constituents who are concerned about where a flag has been placed or do not like it being near or beside their street. Mr McReynolds has pointed to at least one example of that, and it happens in most weeks every year. Sometimes, people in those streets will have varying views, and it is a complex situation to deal with, but I will always reach out in good faith if I am aware of who has put the flags up. Sometimes, there is the perception that it is always paramilitaries, but it is not. Cultural groups, community groups, lodges and so on put them up for various celebrations. I always try to reach out in good faith and mediate or see whether a solution can be found. Sometimes that is successful; sometimes less so. However, all of us in the House, regardless of our identity, try in good faith to find accommodations among our constituents.

In the first day of debate, I heard the proposer talk about protocols, which I found interesting. My recollection of the protocol in South Belfast is that the Alliance Party, unlike the Green Party at the time, categorically dismissed it and refused to support it. That protocol made sure that Union flags and Ulster flags, not paramilitary flags, were to be flown and would be brought down at a certain time. It sounds very much like the proposals that the Member is introducing, yet my understanding — I stand to be corrected — is that it did not enjoy the support of the Alliance Party in the way that it did of other parties.

The Member also said either to Mr Gaston or Mr Carroll — I am not sure which; I think it was Mr Carroll actually — that she had answered some of the questions during the first debate. There is no doubt that the proposer kindly took intervention after intervention, but, often, after an intervention, there was a lack of substance to the answer. Those questions were not answered. One such issue is one that I put out there. I have made it clear, before anyone tries to question it, that I oppose the flying of UDA and UVF flags or flags attached to the IRA — any paramilitary flags — in our neighbourhoods. Nevertheless, that does not allow us to dismiss some of the complex issues that the Bill will raise for the Department or for the people on whom we will put those responsibilities — that "absolute duty", as Mr Burrows said.

I heard something mentioned today that needs to be dealt with, and I will give way if the proposer wishes to deal with it. How will we deal with flags that are dated 1911, 1912, 1914 or 1916? We can all think of one iteration that is often used and perceived to be flown as representative of the modern-day paramilitary UVF. There are many other iterations — some of you will have seen them across your constituencies — that commemorate battles and parts of history, but they include what, we all know, is a UVF badge. As someone who, like Mr Buckley, had relatives who served at the Somme and elsewhere in World War I, I am wary of the idea that we should allow modern-day paramilitaries to take those symbols as their sole preserve. Those things matter very much not only to me but to my community. There have been and will be times when those flags — I own some of them — are appropriately flown, such as at the Balmoral review centenary and other events, and I have wanted to buy one as a memento to commemorate that event.

I will give one example. How will we deal with the familiar commemorative flag of the 14th Battalion Royal Irish Rifles, also known as the Young Citizen Volunteers (YCV)? That flag has battle honours on it and features the names of battles such as Somme, Ypres, Messines and Passchendaele. It will, no doubt, be perceived by some in our community as relating to the modern-day YCV, which is seen as the youth wing of the Ulster Volunteer Force of today. How will we square that circle? It does not matter what we think of those flags or what we perceive them to be; what matters is that an absolute duty will be placed on DFI — so we are told, but the Bill sponsor was not sure about it last time — to deal with such flags and make those decisions. Why should we expect other people to make decisions that we are not prepared to make or draw parameters and lines that we are not prepared to draw?

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mr Brooks: Absolutely.

Mr Brett: Does he agree that it is telling that not only does the Member's Bill outsource most of the hard lifting to the Department for Infrastructure but in no way does it put any duty or workload on her colleague the Justice Minister? The Member seems to be OK with legislating for other Ministers to do things, but she does not take the opportunity to ask something of an Alliance Minister, who is in a much better position to deal with such an issue, given her Justice responsibilities. That shows that, as we all suspect, it is more about electioneering and party political point-scoring than delivering a workable solution.

Mr Brooks: Absolutely. That is clear in the Bill. Member after Member has drawn attention to that fact and read out the text of the Bill that shows that to be demonstrably true, yet, on the first day of the debate, the Bill sponsor was unclear. In fact, I am pretty sure — I will give way if she wants to provide clarity — that she suggested that, if an agency owned the property, it would be responsible for it. If it were a Housing Executive property, the Housing Executive would be responsible for it. Presumably, if a flag had been put up on private land, that person would be responsible for it. It gets complex, but the Bill says that it is DFI. The Member is looking at me, and I am happy to give way if she wants to clarify who would be responsible in that case.

Ms Bradshaw: The Bill is clear on public spaces. It lists the likes of the areas and the street furniture that such things are to be removed from. It is not about private property, such as church compounds, school compounds or anything like that. That has all been well established.

Mr Brooks: It may have been established, but anyone in the Chamber who has had to have graffiti removed — I suspect that that may be most of us —.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes, I am happy to give way.

Mr Brett: When we read the Member's Bill, we see that it completely contradicts what she has just said. It has already been read into the record, but clause 2(3)(d) says:

That is not just furniture that is owned by the Department for Infrastructure, and that clause is in the Bill. Were the Member to propose a Bill, would he not anticipate that he would be across the detail of what he wanted people to vote for?

Mr Brooks: I absolutely would. It is concerning. The answer to every question that does not seem to be known by the Bill sponsor is to say, "Look, we will throw it to the Committee, and it will sort it out". That is not the way to bring a Bill to the Floor of the House.

As I was saying, any Member who has tried to get graffiti removed from towns and villages or, as is the case for us in Belfast and areas of Belfast, streets will know that you can follow a merry trail in trying to find out who owns a property or which agency is responsible for it. You can do that for grass-cutting, never mind anything else. How does the Member propose to deal with that?

As the Minister clarified last time, I think, the vast majority of flags might go up on lamp posts, but that is not always the case. The Member drew attention to the Billy Wright flags and "Snipers at Work" signs, which I talked about during the previous debate. Again, I stand to be corrected, but my recollection is that, given their wooden nature, the "Snipers At Work" signs were more likely to be put up on BT wooden beams that could serve as posts than on the metal lamp posts of DFI with which we are familiar. Those things need to be considered. If something were to go up on a property that belonged not to DFI but to a different agency, is DFI still the responsible agency? The Bill says that it is, but the Bill sponsor was unclear on that point in the previous debate. In fact, she suggested that whichever agency owns the property would be responsible, but that is not what the Bill says. The Member can shake her head, but, nevertheless, that is the truth. I will give way if she wants to clarify that.

I return to the flags that I was talking about. How will she ensure that names such as those featured in battle honours from World War I and flags that are the preserve of those of us whose relatives served in those battles are not, through the Bill, labelled as the property and lineage of modern-day paramilitaries?

The Bill sponsor will feel that she is closing loopholes, but I am afraid that she is opening Pandora's box.

A range of issues that the Bill does not deal with have already been discussed in the Chamber. As we have said, it is fine to draw a comparison between a Billy Wright flag and a "Sniper at Work" sign, but the vast majority of cases will not be that clear-cut. We received some assurances last time about the national flag — the Union Jack — but the Bill sponsor's colleague Mr McReynolds seems to think that the Bill will present the perfect opportunity to tear down the Union Jack from streets that are part of the route of the 1 July Somme commemoration parade in east Belfast. Is that the Bill's intention? I am happy to give way if the Member wants to clarify.

Ms Bradshaw: I am happy to clarify. As I have said, we want to support people to celebrate and commemorate things such as world wars. We want to support people to do that and to give them the opportunity, should they wish to do so, to advise people of that. We also need to ensure that flags come down. I read into the record last week the types of flags that need to come down. That will be the Bill's focus. I do not understand why Members cannot see the clarity in that.

Mr Brooks: I do not see the clarity in it because your colleague Mr McReynolds, who sits behind you, seemed to suggest

— sorry, I did not give way — that the Bill would be the answer to that issue. He has raised my comments from last week with some of the residents with whom he is familiar on that street and sees the Bill as an opportunity to bring down the Union flag along the route of the Somme commemoration parade in east Belfast. The Bill sponsor, as well as dealing with the many holes in her Bill, may want to talk to her colleagues to make sure that they are familiar with what it means, because they seem to be confused about it.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Absolutely.

Mr Brett: It is worth making the point that there are other flaws in the Bill. It does not define "commemoration" or "celebration", so those terms would have no legal effect. It also does not state what a reasonable period for a flag to fly is. For example, Mr McReynolds may think that the Somme commemoration flags should fly for only 30 minutes. In his view, that would be reasonable, but others' view, such as that of our party, is that those flags should be up for longer. That is not defined in the Bill, however, which is the point that the Member is making. The Bill is flawed in failing to define what a commemoration is and what a celebration is and, more important, in stating that a flag should not be up for "excessive period of time" without defining what that is.

Mr Brooks: Absolutely. Everything in the Bill seems to be relatively subjective. Certainly, the decision-making powers seem to be subjective. How some of the things are decided would depend entirely on who is sitting in the Minister's chair in the new mandate. They could be decided on in an entirely biased fashion, depending on who it is. The Bill leaves that possibility completely open.

What will the Bill sponsor do with flags of the Ulster Defence Regiment or Orange standards? How will she deal with the Starry Plough, which is perceived by loyalist communities as being associated with republican paramilitaries, particularly the INLA? I am sure that Mr Carroll would draw attention to, as we all know, its historical Irish socialist context. It does not matter whether we are looking at loyalist flags, nationalist flags or republican flags: this is not a simple matter.

The Bill sponsor likely gets emails similar to the ones that I get but, I suspect, gets many more from Alliance voters who want to know what can be done about flags. She needs to be honest with them about the complexity of the issue, however. It is not as easy as just having a flat ban on flags. If the Bill sponsor wants to ban some flags some of the time, she has to draw parameters around what those flags are.

As Mr Carroll said, what will she do about Palestinian or Israeli flags in communities that want to express their solidarity in that way? Again, I am happy to give way. It may be that the Member's view, like that of many people, is that Northern Ireland should stop picking sides in conflicts across the world. That may be the case, but what will we do about the communities that feel that they wish to express solidarity and fly those flags in that way such as Mr Carroll and his community, whose view is very different from mine? That does not matter: what matters is how those flags would be ruled on. How would Ukrainian flags, on which there is more consensus, be ruled on? Is flying them appropriate? Is it time-bound?

How will we do that when a different international context arises and people want to express solidarity in that way? How will we manage impromptu displays that go up not because there is an event or a community celebration coming up but because people want to express something about their views?

It is not simple, and she should be brave enough to explain to those who think that it is, or who wish that it were, or who just want flags to go away that it is not that simple. Unless you have an outright ban or a Parades Commission-type body, which she has told us that she does not seek and which this party would resolutely oppose, it will not be done. Everything that she proposes, including the structures and the huge amount of information that she wants to be submitted for the flying of flags, will sound to people very much like the beginnings of a Parades Commission-type structure. You might be handing it to the Department, but any Infrastructure Minister would have to come to a decision about structures that enable them to adjudicate. You have, very helpfully, as in most things, sidestepped that and want to hand it to the Committee. Unless the Committee were to decide to do that work for you, a Minister would have do it at the other end. I have no doubt that that would look very much like a Parades Commission-type set-up.

Another point that has been raised here today is that legislation is worthwhile only if it is reasonably enforced and adhered to. I suggest that nobody in this place, not even the sponsor — regardless of what they want to be the case or think should be the case and of what demographic of constituents they seek to reach in the debate — truly believes that the Assembly, Departments or the police would be able to sustain any serious attempt to remove flags. All of us will have suggestions of where such resource, if we had it, should be spent. It is completely pie in the sky — Mr Burrows referred to this — to believe that we will have the Department for Infrastructure — to the detriment of its current duties, which it is struggling to fulfil — running round the country, climbing lamp posts to take down flags that will be replaced within hours, likely with several flags. To some degree, it does not matter whether we think that that is right or wrong; can we enforce it? Does our police force have the resource to enforce it? Does the Department for Infrastructure have the resource to do so? That is another question that remains unanswered. I am not sure that the Committee would be able to sort that for you. A significant amount of money would have to be pumped into the Department for Infrastructure for the sole purpose of running around the country taking down flags.

The Member's colleague Nuala McAllister, who is sitting beside her, will know that, when there are controversial bonfires in Belfast, the solution has come to be that we hire, at great expense, top-secret contractors — they are dressed from head to toe in black and masked up so that people do not know their identity — to go in and try to remove a bonfire under police escort and support. Is that what we would have for the removal of flags? Flags would be constantly replaced if they were taken down. She cannot possibly believe that the authorities would be able to identify, across every town and village in this country, the people who put up flags every time that they are taken down.

Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. As a former Belfast city councillor, he will be aware that, each year, the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin vote to spend ratepayers' money — £100,000 this year — on appointing contractors to remove things that they disagree with. Given that, over a two-day period, we spend £100,000 on that in the city of Belfast alone, can the Member guess how much money the implications of the Bill might cost? It is very telling that, in the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum, the Member made no effort to state how much it would cost the public. Members are expected to vote on draft legislation and spend the money of the constituents whom we represent by writing a blank cheque to the Department for Infrastructure, on the whim of the Alliance Party.

Mr Brooks: The Member is absolutely right: not much thought has been given to that at all, or, if it has, it has been dismissed on the basis that the Alliance Party will at least have something to hold up to its electorate and say, "Look, we did something. It doesn't matter that it's not sustainable. It doesn't matter that it can't be enforced. We did something. We made a valiant attempt and failed". The Member is absolutely right on that point. Maybe the Minister will be able to speak to that more when she eventually gets to speak. Maybe there has been some discussion on that, and maybe some research has been done. I suspect that it will number in the millions. It is for the Bill's sponsor to tell the House how much she is willing to spend to try to play cat and mouse around the country when it comes to flags.

I do not intend to go on too much longer, as a lot of my points have been made. However, it is relevant to talk about what the sponsor thinks the threshold should be within a community for a decision to be made for a flag to come down, because her party members at Belfast City Hall were enablers of the 15% threshold and the chaos that ensued from that. Communities in streets in my constituency see the Irish language signs that are imposed on them as being very much along the same lines as someone putting flags that they disagree with along their street, yet the Alliance Party supported and enabled those signs. They enabled the SDLP and Sinn Féin to bring that about. Will we be talking about a similar threshold in relation to this Bill? Will a single person raising the fact that they find it offensive be enough to insist that flags come down, such as the flags around the route of the 1 July parade that, as I outlined, her party colleague raised.

The sponsor may not like that equivalence — I can see her stern face in that regard — but she is arguing that perceptions, feelings and offence matter. My constituents see that as being a cultural imposition and will want to be treated fairly in all of this as well.

Mr Frew: Usually, at this stage of a Bill, I welcome the efforts of the Member in bringing forward a Member's Bill, because it is worth noting that it takes a lot of time to work on a Member's Bill. Anyone who has encountered the process will know the work that goes into a Bill: hours and hours engaging with officials and Assembly staff to produce a Bill — to get a drafter and engage with that drafter to get your thoughts on a piece of blue paper.

That, however, is what scares me about this Bill. We have Ms Bradshaw's thoughts down on paper, and they are horrendous. We have a responsibility to make sure that we bring forward good law. In fact, I would go as far as saying that we have a responsibility to repeal law where we can and should do so. Those are my libertarian values. I see state overreach in every clause of the Bill. That scares me but also gives me insight into the Alliance Party. If they were on the ground, as a party or individually as MLAs, trying to grapple with some of the societal ills around flags and emblems and the harm that they can cause in either putting them up or getting them taken down, they would find that it is tremendously difficult to walk that tightrope. If you get it wrong, sometimes the flag stays up or the flag stays down, nothing happens and people remain frustrated, but, sometimes, it explodes into a plethora of additional flags. That is our experience when we try to deal with those issues in our society, which has been scarred and hurt by terrorist violence. Never forget about that when it comes to the display of emblems and flags. We have been through so much.

What annoys me more than anything is that, when we go to the media with really good issues, such as ideas and amendments that we have used to change law on bread-and-butter issues, such as scooters or child protection, the first thing that the media usually says is, "No, that's not really newsworthy. We want something on flags and emblems. Why not talk about flags and emblems?". I am loath to talk about flags and emblems, yet here we are with a Member bringing a Member's Bill on what? Flags and emblems. We go round this circle over and over and over again. It would be admirable if there were hope in these pages, but I see no hope of rescuing or fixing the problems that we have out there in our interfaces. In fact, I think that this Bill will lead to an explosion of flags and emblems, and I will go into the detail of that in a minute.

The Alliance Party does not have a great track record on this. Stephen Farry attacked Linfield, a football club, because of the colours of its away kit, claiming that it was in some way connected to or associated with the colours used by the UVF. How dangerous and how reckless was that? It is incredible. I am no lover of Linfield, as Members will tell you. I am a sky blue fan; Ballymena United all the way. However, I also know the value of Linfield Football Club and its supporters from that area and, to be fair, right across the Province —

Mr Brooks: Ballymena.

Mr Frew: — because it has such a good support, even in my home town of Ballymena. Thanks for reminding me, Mr Brooks.

That is the party that has introduced this legislation. Even when the Member was promoting her Member's Bill, she had the audacity to use a Linfield flag on material that referred to controversial flags. That is really awful, and that sets the trend for what the Bill sponsor wants to achieve. I think that it is dangerous. This is state overreach, and that is dangerous. It is placing a burden on a Department that should be interested in potholes, road resurfacing, safe footways and making sure that the street lights are working correctly and are adequately lighting up to create a safe place for elderly folk to walk. The Department should be packed with engineers, and this Bill will create circumstances where there is not only a street lighting division and a roads division but a flags division. A flags division in the Department for Infrastructure. What nonsense.

The Bill does not say that the "Department may"; it says that the "Department must". Here we have intolerant liberalism, with its state overreach, reaching into the hearts of our communities and telling them what they should do, what they should display and what they should think. That is exactly the sort of thing that I have fought against all my political career, and I will continue to fight against it. The Department for Infrastructure, filled and packed with engineers, is going to be the police force for flags. The Department for Infrastructure is going to pick good flags and bad flags, and maybe that will change depending on the area that you are in. Maybe in North Antrim, bad flags will be different from bad flags in West Belfast. Who knows? It does not seem to be that the Bill sponsor knows. She cannot answer any of those questions. Maybe she will take note of my concerns as I go through them so that she will be able to respond to me in kind.

The Bill states:

Who chooses what the public interest is here? A bunch of engineers? A bunch of road maintenance engineers? Do they decide what is in the public interest? It is nobody else, by the looks of things. It refers to:

Of course, the Bill sponsor is so kind as to tell us what public street furniture might be. There is not a definitive list, so it:

It also talks about what is meant by a "public place".

Most of the things that I have read out will be in a public place. Clause 7(1), however, states:

When the proposer talks about "public place", she is not talking about public places. She is talking about public places and private places that you can access. The proposer is shaking her head, but why has she placed shopping centres in her Bill? I will give way if the proposer of the Bill wants me to give way. She does not want me to give way at this time. I hope that she is taking notes.

Here we have a public place that is not really a public place; it can be a private place to which a member of the public can gain access. That is really worrying, is it not? What happens if something is in a private place, such as on a mast, but the public can view it? What happens if you can view something that could cause distress or that you did not like the look of? Does the Bill cater for that? I do not know whether it does; it is not clear. Maybe the Bill's proposer will clarify that position. Even if it is a private place that the public cannot access but can see every day, does the Department have the power to go into that private place and take down that emblem or flag? If it has, it is not expressly written in the Bill. There are no powers, only burdens, for DFI in the Bill. We are burdening engineers.

Clause 1(2) states:

— that means the opinion of engineers who like to work on road maintenance, road structures, bridges, street lighting designs —

A Member: And drainage.

Mr Frew: — and drainage — good man; thank you —

They have to make that assessment.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will.

Mr Clarke: That is an awful blight on those engineers. You omitted to talk about the measuring of the depth of some of our potholes.

Mr Frew: That is a very important point. I know that the Member jokes, but how often do we hear in our constituency offices about the state of our roads? However, here we have the proposer of the Bill burdening a Department — a Department that is not coping very well and is probably undermanned, under strength and under budget — placing a financial burden on it and having it create a portal and put resource, manpower and women power into taking the flags and emblems down. Those emblems could be any size of structure. I worry. I worry that those engineers will have to decide what is intimidatory or threatening and what is not.

Mr Brett: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Brett: It is not just that they will have to use their judgement to define what is intimidatory. According to the Bill, they will also have to use their judgement to define what is an "excessive period" for the flag, structure or emblem to be displayed. Most interestingly, they will also have to use their ingenuity to decide:

I am not sure whether the Bill's proposer has outlined to the House her definition of something being displayed "in a disrespectful manner". Roads Service is good at many things, but I do not think that defining the "disrespectful manner" in which a flag or emblem is displayed is one of its strengths.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention, but, oh man, he has got me on page 2 of the Bill already. I have much more to talk about on page 1.

Clause 1(2) continues with paragraph (b):

A roads engineer is going to decide what scares people.

Clause 1(2)(c) states that the flag or emblem might be removed if:

I was an electrician by trade, and I pulled many an engineer out of a hole, and I am sure that an engineer will be able to define what a proscribed organisation is. This is a no-brainer. That should not be included in the Bill. We already have legislation to deal with this. It is terrorist legislation from Westminster. That should be dealing with this, but it cannot; it is not. Why is it not? It is not dealing with the issues because they are so difficult to grapple with. However, here we are, and the promoter of the Bill is going to throw a load of engineers at it. Forget about law enforcement and the people who are trained in law enforcement and public protection. We are going to throw engineers at it now, and is it not a burden too far for those engineers? I worry about those engineers.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Brooks: Will those engineers not wonder why they are being asked to undertake such controversial responsibility for which members of the Parades Commission are very well remunerated?

Mr Frew: That is the thing, too, because let us remember that there have been flags on street furniture belonging to DFI for years, and it probably could have — should have — taken some of that down, but it did not because it knew what the consequences could be. The simple point is this: even if there is not a fear factor or a threat or safety factor, the fact is that, if you take a flag down without having community consent, you will have 10 put up in its place. That is what the Bill will achieve, nothing else.

Clause 1(3) states that:

There is nothing in the Bill about supporting flags.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Clarke: The Member is on a useful vein. Does he agree, however, that the Bill is not required, because currently the property belongs to DFI? DFI does not need a Bill to remove stuff from its own property? It could do that if it wished. We do not need to legislate for that or to have a costly policing operation to do that. DFI could do that if it wished. We do not need this Bill. Does the Member agree?

Mr Frew: Yes, I agree with the Member entirely. He has put something into my head. A street lighting design was done in the village of Broughshane, and, at the time, there were brackets on lamp posts for flag holders. Three flags could be attached to one lamp post in a decorative and respectful way. To be fair to the street lighting division, whose personnel have worked well with me over the years, one of its staff contacted me to say, "We've taken down 10 lamp posts and on each one there was a bracket. I have the brackets all safe in the back of my van, and I will return to your office so that you can return them to the community, and they can be put up again whenever the new street lights go back up". That is the way that the Department has been working with individual MLAs for years. The Bill will jeopardise that relationship.

Clause 1(3) states that:

— why not protect a flag; why not promote a flag? —

— no engineer is going to make that judgement call — or if

That takes me to clause 2, "Sensitive places", which states:

— that is defined —

That is defined, but that shared communal place includes a "shopping centre", which is a private business and is on private land. Even the car parks are usually private land, and parking is not enforced by the Department. You could have a scenario in which you have departmental officials going into a car park that the Department does not control or run to take down flags from a lamp post. It is a bit perverse, and think of that shopping centre and what it thinks of any stir or hurt caused in the community. Of course, "shared communal place" is caveated with:

That is really worrying.

The Bill refers to a sensitive place also being "an interface area". That is really interesting, because I look to my colleagues left and right — Brian Kingston and Phillip Brett — who work in north Belfast where there are interfaces all over the show. It is like a patchwork for them.

They have to work day in, day out with those communities. I maintain that the Bill would make it much harder for them to do so.

What is an "interface area"? Is it defined in the Bill? No. I looked at the interpretation clause, which is clause 7, but there is no definition in there that I can see. Perhaps I am wrong to say — I will give way to the Bill sponsor if I am — that there is no definition of an "interface area" in the Bill. What is an interface area? How big is an interface area? Does it extend for a mile, 2 miles or 10 miles? Is it a town? Is it a street? Is it an avenue? Is it a cul-de-sac? Those questions need to be answered before we can support anything that takes on what is a controversial and sensitive matter.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will, yes.

Mr Gaston: Does the Member agree that, if the Bill proceeds, one thing that the Alliance Party will achieve is the creation of more interface areas? There is a danger that people will look to exploit the legislation by deeming areas that are usually well-natured and neighbourly to be interface areas so that flags can be taken down.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. He adds that concern, about which I am also concerned. Imagine what an interface looks like. Imagine the trouble that people who live on either side of that interface go through in their daily lives. What would happen if DFI were to move into one side but not the other? Imagine the concern in the community there. Imagine Members having to deal with the fallout from that. Imagine that that is because some areas are deemed to be no-go areas.

Let us face it: we have people who do not even pay their TV licence fee because of the area that they are from, and the TV licence man does not go into such areas to get the money. This is the same issue — we are talking about the nitty-gritty — yet I do not think that the Bill sponsor has thought it through at all. Of course we would love to reduce the number of interface areas. Of course we would love to reduce concern and tension in such areas. This Bill would explode that concern and that tension, however. This Bill would take everything out of the hands of public representatives, not just the elected ones but the community ones, who, even to this day, are trying to keep a lid on some of those areas.

Still on the subject of sensitive places, clause 2(2) provides:

A library is a place from which one can borrow a book on flags and educate young people on flags of the countries of the world. In a school, classrooms will be bedecked with flags, especially around the time of a football tournament or the Olympic Games, yet flags would not be allowed to be put up outside or anywhere near that school. The Bill does not tell us how far away from a school they must be. Is it 1 mile from the school? On the route to school? Perhaps the school is at the end of a housing estate, which is the case for many schools in my constituency. How far, then? Where are the limits? Is it to be decided by engineers from the Department?

There are massive issues with where this might go. In clause 1(7), there is the following disclaimer:

There you go. The state gets off scot-free. The state can do whatever it wants. What happens if the state were to make a bad decision and put up something that annoyed folk? The state would not have to abide by this law. It is only the common people for whom it really matters. It is only the common people for whom we should legislate. It is another instance of state overreach. Why should the state get off scot-free? For that matter, why should the Department get off scot-free? There are massive holes in the Bill.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for giving way. I will build on his point about certain people having the ability to interpret the legislation and others not having that ability.

Clause 4 covers the code of practice. There has been much talk in the Chamber about the guidance and various other regulations and regulatory-making powers given to Departments or Ministers and about the scrutiny, or lack of scrutiny, to which they are subject. On reading clause 4, my understanding is that the code of practice would be issued simply by the Department — a single Minister — and not be subject to Committee scrutiny or to affirmative, or even negative, resolution procedure. The substance of clause 4 — such as what "offence" is and what length of time is "excessive" — would be subject to the whims of the particular Minister in that Department at that time. Quite frankly, given the amount of change that we see in Departments, there would be a distinct lack of certainty for those who are designated to operate the code of practice and for those who put up the symbols and flags in celebration or commemoration.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for that intervention. She is absolutely right. I have talked thus far about the engineers who work in the Department. What happens if it is the Minister? The Member is quite right: the Bill refers to "the Department". If that reads across as the Minister, one person would be dictating policy on flags and emblems: what a recipe for disaster — what a cocktail of woe — we would be wedding our people to. That is the dangerous bit. The Bill states:

— not "support" it, not "embrace", not "respect" it —

which we have covered —

If there were a celebration of only one culture, would that be conducive to good community relations? Gerry Carroll is not his place, but imagine a strike involving public workers during which union flags — I mean trade union flags — had been displayed at a certain workplace, such as a depot, and the public turned against that strike, which sometimes happens. Who would make the decision as to whether those flags are "conducive to good community relations"? What would happen if there is a strike that is not popular in the community, with people having eggs thrown at them and all sorts of stuff, and the street that that depot or hospital is on is bedecked with trade union flags? Who would deal with that?

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Mr Clarke: The Member makes a very good point, which has led me to think of another point. If that were to happen and a Minister made a decision, as my colleague mentioned, that decision would then be passed to DFI officials, the majority of whom will, most likely, belong to a union. Those officials would then be asked to take down a flag of the trade union to which they subscribe. How would that work?

Mr Frew: Exactly. That is just one of the issues.

If the Bill were to pass, it could explode community relations and flags would go up everywhere. Remember: there is a two-year lead-in period for a lot of this, which would give groups plenty of time to bedeck the place with flags of one type or another. There would also be all the situations in which the Department's employees refuse to go in and take flags down. The Department, which has a duty of care for its employees, would run to the police, and the police would turn the other way, as they have done in some of these instances for years because they have a bit of wit. It is massive.

Clause 1(4) gives a whole range — the subclauses go right down to (g) — of what should happen and what "the Department must consider". One of those factors, at subclause (d), is:

How long is "excessive"? Who would make that call? Would it be the engineers in a certain depot, or would it be the Minister? It goes on. Most of these are negative:

Again, negative:

Clause 1(4)(e) states:

Is that meant to be a negative or a positive? I do not know. Is the sponsor saying:

is a bad thing or a good thing? Surely, she would have to have a view on that if she has included it in her criteria. Is commemorating with flags a good thing or a bad thing? I suggest that it would depend on the subject matter.

If we were commemorating a battle from World War I or II, or any other scenario for that matter, where people have given their lives in sacrifice for the good of our freedom and our country, that would be really good, but what if it were a terrorist commemoration? What does the sponsor say about that? What does she expect the engineers in the Department to do? What does she expect a Minister of the Department to do in that scenario?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for the points that he is raising. Regardless of the substance of the legislation, it raises genuine and serious concerns about the lack of certainty in the legislation.

In clause 4, it is very clear to me that key decisions on how it will operate rest solely with the individual Minister. Clause 4(1)(a)(ii) states that the code must be reviewed:

There is nothing to stop the code being reviewed every six months. This is a statutory code of practice, and if you cross-reference that, it is a very significant piece of material, but in clause 4(5), the key thing is:

At the heart of the legislation is that one person at any time can set down a prescription in that code of practice and should that say, with the conditions as set out in clause 1, that no flag should be flown from street furniture for more than 24 hours, or seven days or three weeks, or whatever that may be, that comes down to the decision of a Minister, and that decision is not subject to any scrutiny. There is a consultative role, as set out in clause 4(3). However, the consultation responses can be disregarded. There is no requirement to take into account the response to the consultation, but you simply discharge the legal duty by consulting, perhaps disregarding the results and setting this down.

Mr Frew: One hundred per cent. The Member is completely right in that regard, and that is the danger. When you bring legislation to this place, surely it should be watertight according to what you want it to do and should not put the intent into the hands of another individual. It should be the Member's Bill, and it should be clearly defined, but as I have articulated tonight, it is leaving the decision open to the whims of the Minister. The very fact that the code can be reviewed at least once every five years means that every new Minister who comes in can have a different code of practice on the display of flags and emblems. Is that not really dangerous? Is that not really reckless?

Let me come on to that. I have covered sensitive places in clause 2, and I have covered clause 1 at length, so let us move on to the procedure. Clause 3 states:

Who is going to do that? Who is going to notify the Department? It is only the law-abiding people of the country, if they are aware of that burden on them, who will notify the Department. What happens if they do not? There is no offence here that I can see. What you will have is all the agitation and all the terrorist units, gangs and organisations. They do not even recognise the state or the Department. Why would they notify it? They will put things up whenever they want. I am not saying that because I perceive a threat: it is happening now.

I will go back to the point that Emma Little-Pengelly made: who is "the Department"? Is it a local office, a bunch of engineers within a local office, the permanent secretary or the Minister? Is it the Sinn Féin Minister? The emblem at the Egyptian Arch did not have planning permission. Nobody knew who put it up or what was happening. However, there was an email address, and it was sourced back to an MLA's office. Which MLA's office? It was the MLA who just happens to be the Infrastructure Minister.

Some Members: Oh.

Mr Frew: How can no one else see the danger and jeopardy of this Bill? Of course, we know, through bad experience, that terrorist memorials will spring up overnight, glorifying terrorist acts that murdered our people — my constituents — yet you could have a Sinn Féin Minister accepting that through this code. How awful would that be? How awful would it be to allow the Sinn Féin Minister to have the power to approve a terrorist shrine because she can apply a code of practice? That is where we are going here. If the Bill sponsor cannot see that, and if she has not examined the detail on that, I fear for this place.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for giving way again. What he has set out about the actual real-life implications of the draft legislation is very important. As it stands, there is a Sinn Féin Minister for Infrastructure. As it stands, in the Bill from the Alliance Party, it is very clear that key decisions will then lie solely with the Minister because, of course, it refers to "the Department", and the Department is entirely under the direction and control of the Minister. To be clear to members of the public about what the draft legislation will do, it will provide a statutory code of practice that gives a Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister the absolute ability, solely, without scrutiny and without the ability of the House or a Committee to challenge it, to decide:

and

That will be in the hands of one party where there has been significant controversy about those issues. That is what this legislation does. It is incredibly important that the sponsor of the Member's Bill is honest with people about what its impact will be and the potential controversy that it will cause.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for her intervention. Maybe the Bill sponsor would like to clarify this: it looks to me that the Bill sponsor has even given the party opposite a leg up, because the definition of "flag or emblem" includes:

Some Members: Oh.

Mr Frew: Yes, billboard. There you go. Sinn Féin members will be rubbing their hands. Billboards could go up everywhere and anywhere on the Minister's say-so because it would be part of her code on flags and emblems. You see where this is going, folks, and the Bill sponsor is falling right into that trap.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member again. What he and the Member to my left have said actually points to what is happening here tonight.

It is interesting that the Members who are speaking in the debate are mostly from this side of the House. I am sure that the Member will agree that it is probably the case that none of the Sinn Féin Members are getting up in opposition because, although many of us would have thought that the Bill is an attack on their flags as well, given that it will be a Sinn Féin Minister adjudicating on it, it will clearly have no effect — [Interruption.]

Yes, the tricolour. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Clarke, Members know that they should not address each other across the Chamber — from either side. I should not have to remind Members of that, especially not this close to the end of the sitting tonight. Continue through the Chair.

Mr Frew: I have two other points to make, one of which is on the offence of obstructing the Department in the removal of a flag or emblem. Clause 5 states:

Then, clause 6, which is "Request for assistance from police", states:

This is a funny old world. I had to deal with an incident in which a group of workmen got out of their workplace at lunchtime to do exactly what the Department has been burdened with doing: remove flags. They were arrested for a breach of the peace for removing flags. It is a funny old world. The proposer now wants to give the Department the power to take the flags down — something that my constituents were doing — yet, if someone obstructs the Department from taking the flags down, they will have committed an offence. It is twisted in the way that it is written, and I am sure that those people who were affected when they took those flags down will have a wry smile to themselves tonight if they are watching the debate, because it will be flipped right on its head, and you will now be in breach of the peace if you obstruct the Department in the action of taking flags down. You can see how that is twisting into all sorts of connotations.

I have a final point to make on a really serious matter. Have we not lived through the Troubles? Some of us served and fought against terrorism, both in the police and the armed forces. What if a terrorist organisation that is totally opposed to the state does not recognise a Department of that state and uses the legislation as a new front? What I mean by that relates to the "sniper at work" signs and awful signage like that. It would not be the first time that a booby-trap device had been placed on a flag, a billboard or a sign, and such devices took the lives of or injured service personnel, either police officers or army personnel. They lost limbs during the Troubles due to devices like that, yet the proposer wants to place at risk engineers from DFI who will have had no training as service personnel, no training in law enforcement and no training in how to keep themselves secure. You are asking them — engineers — to go into hotbeds of society, such as Crossmaglen in south Armagh, where those "sniper at work" signs were put up, and take such material down. Are you serious? The Bill will lead us to a place where terrorist outfits can use the legislation as a front to attack service personnel.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: It will not only be service personnel; it will be engineers in the Department for Infrastructure. I will give way.

Mr O'Toole: I was not planning on intervening, but I have to once again make the point that I made to Mr Burrows. It is legitimate to ask specific questions, and you guys have had a fair crack tonight at filibustering. The question, however, remains. There are flags on the A55, which, at some point in the next few minutes, I am going to drive down, with UDA and UVF —.

Mr Frew: And they should be down.

Mr O'Toole: How do we get them down?

Mr Frew: Not by this Bill. That is the point that I am making.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will, in a moment.

The Member made a flippant comment about filibustering. This is the man, the leader of the constructive Opposition, who has had an Opposition day, yet he will not sit there and be patient when I express my concerns about this woeful Bill. There is no respect in that whatsoever, and I ask the Member to consider his words.

I will give way to Mr Brooks and then to Jonathan Buckley.

Mr Brooks: Was the Mr O'Toole's intervention just another example of the idea that some politicians have that, "Something must be done. Here is something we can do, so we must do it"? There does not need to be a logic or a line that it will solve anything. It is just that, in the absence of anything else, we must just go ahead and put the legislation through, regardless of how bad it is.

Mr Frew: That is a very good point. It is what I have been fighting against for all of my political career: the need to do something, and the need for the state to intervene, overreach and make things worse. That is what the state does when it intervenes.

I will give way to Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. The leader of the Opposition asked, "How do we take those flags down?". I know that he was here for the debate last week in the House. There is an abundance of legislation in this area: we have terrorism legislation and public order legislation, as well as legislation for local government and for DFI. The problem is not the amount of legislation but the enforcement of said legislation. Would it not have been better practice, as I said previously in the House, for the Bill sponsor to consult her party leader, the Justice Minister, about improving the current legislative remit within the guise of the Assembly, namely public order legislation? Perhaps, then, we could have tackled this issue in a sensible and serious manner.

Mr Frew: I am sure, Mr Buckley, that, when Ms Bradshaw, the Bill sponsor, went to Naomi Long, the Justice Minister, the Minister would have said, "I cannot help you with that; that is an operational matter". [Laughter.]

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will give way.

Mr O'Toole: I want to tease out some of those comments, because there is a contradiction, if I may say, between what Mr Frew said and what Mr Buckley just said about enforcement. Mr Frew, I asked you a question about the flags on the A55 dual carriageway. Obviously, there are other flags that are associated with other proscribed organisations. You mentioned south Armagh, for example, and you said that it would be an awful thing to send an engineer to take flags down in that area. By that logic, it will always be too difficult to get anybody, whether they are [Interruption.]

That is the question that I am asking. How do we end up in a situation where those flags can be taken down? What you have just described is a situation where you are giving those organisations a de facto veto over the presence of whatever flags they want to put up. Recent reporting from the BBC has shown how grave that kind of coercive control is. With respect, whatever the characterisation of this debate, I am honestly interested in hearing an alternative, because it is a legitimate question.

Mr Frew: The Member asks a legitimate question. However, do you think that the people who put up those flags with the face of a terrorist on them are going to apply to notify the Department? Really?

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Does the Member think that that is the case? How do we solve that? The Member made a very valid point. I know that he is sincere about this, as am I. In my experience, the only way to deal with these issues — sometimes it does not work; in fact, 80% of the time it does not work — to get things moving when people are offended is by community consultation. That is the only way. What you are doing here is putting DFI engineers at risk of breaching that community trust.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He is right, because the Bill is all about empowering the Department for Infrastructure. What goes up and what comes down, and how it is taken down, will be subject to the opinion of the Department.

Mr O'Toole said that there was a contradiction, but there is not, because, under terrorism legislation, it is for the police to take down paramilitary flags. The problem that I have been pointing to is that there has been a failure to enforce said legislation when it matters.

Mr Frew: The Member makes a really good point, which I will accompany by saying that, even though we have all the legislation in place, as we do, to deal with this, some of the flags that are still flown cause serious offence to me.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Frew, I apologise, but I have to interrupt you. Hopefully, you will understand.

Members, we have reached 9.00 pm. In accordance with Standing Order 10(3C):

— Members, I will read this —

Mr Frew, you will be the next Member who is called to speak, should you need to, when the debate continues.