Official Report: Tuesday 10 December 2024

Mr Speaker: Before Members' statements, I need to deal with issues that arose yesterday.

During yesterday's debate on the Assembly Commission's budget, there were a number of disorderly exchanges, which included two individual challenges to rulings from the Chair, by Mr Gaston and Dr Aiken, that were of a nature that needs to be returned to this morning. I can confirm that Mr Gaston has written to me directly about the same issue. I am disappointed, however, to see that, before I could respond, he had shared his letter with the media. That is something that is not in keeping with parliamentary courtesy.

I refer Members to the start of Assembly business on 4 November 2024, when I made the following comments:

It is in that context that I will make a couple of reflections on yesterday's exchanges. First, although there may have been the potential to raise issues relating to the Michael McMonagle situation within the scope of the debate on the Assembly Commission budget, that would have needed to be done in a way that was clearly relevant. Mr Gaston, however, did not raise issues in a way that was within the scope of the debate. When the Principal Deputy Speaker gave Mr Gaston the opportunity to adapt his remarks to bring them within scope, as other Members would be used to, Mr Gaston instead went off on a further tangent to make references to the Committee for the Executive Office and to take issue with the Principal Deputy Speaker.

Secondly, Members will have heard me say in the past that, even if I disagree with Members' comments, I will defend, from the Speaker's Chair, their right to make them.

While Mr Carroll made reference to companies in a way that, I think, was unwise, he did so within the scope of the debate and made his comments relevant to the budget.

Having observed the proceedings and spoken to officials, I can confirm that the Principal Deputy Speaker's decisions were in order and in accordance with procedural advice. Whether or not Mr Gaston agreed, the crucial point is that that was the Chair's ruling, which is final and is not open to debate.

What cannot be tolerated is the nature of the exchanges with the Principal Deputy Speaker. It was further disappointing that a Member who serves as a Deputy Speaker also got involved in challenging the Chair in that way. Members who serve as Deputy Speakers should know better than to undermine the procedures of the House, from which they benefit, and I cannot make an exception for a Deputy Speaker.

Today, when we have a particularly significant debate, I remind all Members that Standing Order 1(2) makes clear:

That includes the decisions of the Principal Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Speakers in my absence. Members should accept it in good faith that the rulings from the Chair are based on the procedures of the House. That is why the Clerks are at the Table with us: to allow us to take procedural advice as business proceeds. If I or a Deputy Speaker give an instruction, such as on a Member's time being up or on sticking to the scope of the debate, there is no discussion to be had. Members should adapt their remarks accordingly rather than begin a dispute with the Chair.

Challenges to a ruling of the Chair on a procedural decision would not be tolerated in Westminster or anywhere in these islands, and I will not tolerate them in the Assembly or see the authority of the Chair, the discipline of the Chamber and the smooth running of our business diminished. Members should be absolutely clear on that. In line with similar direct challenges to the Chair during previous Assembly mandates, it is clear to me that a sanction would be appropriate in the case of Mr Gaston and Dr Aiken. In previous cases, when Members have challenged the Chair in such a serious fashion, the relevant Members were not called for some time. However, I am conscious of our business today, and I would be prepared to waive that sanction if Mr Gaston or Dr Aiken were to apologise to the House in the Chamber this morning. In the absence of an apology, both Members will not be called to speak in any plenary business, including debates, questions, interventions and points of order, for two sitting weeks, beginning today.

I will leave that with you. If Members wish to apologise, I will facilitate that.

Dr Aiken: Mr Speaker, thank you for your words. Obviously, considerable issues have been raised about the comments that were made yesterday. I fully accept your ruling, and I apologise to the House. The only thing that I wish to do in the House is ensure that there is good order, good governance and, above all, proper debate. I apologise, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Thank you very much, Dr Aiken. I understand that, in the heat of the moment, things can get out of control. I appreciate your apology.

We will move on to Members' statements.

Ms Ferguson: Housing is a human right and forms part of the right to an adequate standard of living guaranteed by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Under international law, to be adequately housed means having real security of tenure. On Human Rights Day, it is timely to remind us all of our ongoing collective responsibility to tackle poverty and existing housing inequalities across our society, ensuring that no one is left behind.

Key elements that are considered when assessing the right to adequate housing include security of tenure; affordability; habitability, accessibility; the availability of services; location, including access to support; and cultural adequacy. Delivering housing across all tenures is fundamental, but we must also work to prevent evictions and tackle any discriminatory patterns of social exclusion that prevent people from accessing suitable housing. Whilst the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' General Comment No 7 of 1997 is approaching three decades of existence, it is to be commended for its clear and unequivocal commentary on evictions:

being left

With almost 48,000 households on the social housing waiting list at present, we have a duty to once again consider housing as our collective duty, particularly in the context of the fulfilment of human rights, and to reconsider how we will ensure that resources are pooled across the Executive and Assembly to progressively realise that right to the maximum ability of our available resources.

I welcome the publication of the housing supply strategy by the Minister yesterday, but I also ask the Minister to confirm when we can expect the regulations. The regulations will bring forward the work of our predecessors to deliver much longer notice-to-quit periods for those living in the private rented sector. Equally, I again urge the Minister to reconsider his refusal to legislate to end the use of no-fault evictions. While I appreciate some of the challenges that he has raised on the basis of the Scottish case, for example, those challenges are not insurmountable and, arguably, are not an exceptional justification for a lack of legislation in the area. I suggest further engaging on that with the likes of Renters' Voice and Housing Rights, which have already been considering potential proposals for the development of very limited acceptable grounds for exceptions.

Mr Kingston: I commend the work of Westland Community Group in North Belfast and wish, in particular, to celebrate the allocation of Urban Villages funding for a new Westland Community Centre, which was confirmed by junior Minister Reilly in the Chamber yesterday in response to questions for oral answer from Phillip Brett and me. I met the Westland Community Group committee last night. It is, of course, delighted with the allocation of £1·6 million for the new, purpose-built community centre.

Westland is an estate of just over 200 houses. Built by the Housing Executive over 50 years ago, it is now a mixture of social housing, owner-occupied properties and private rentals. The Westland Community Group was started 42 years ago, and, 23 years ago, the group received a second-hand prefabricated community centre from the lower Oldpark area as a temporary measure. With structural supports physically holding up the roof, the group got as much use as it could out of that centre until, five years ago, it was finally condemned and had to be demolished. There have been many efforts over the years to secure funding for a new centre. Now, thanks to Urban Villages, which sits in the Executive Office, that has been achieved.

I congratulate the community group's committee, under chairperson Robert Hollywood, for its dedication and tenacity in reaching this breakthrough moment. Vice chair, Katie Shoukri, who has been a member of the committee since the very start, 42 years ago, and is a former chairperson deserves a special mention. "Well done" to Katie for that long commitment. I also give special thanks to officials from the Urban Villages team, particularly Joe Hinds, and from Belfast City Council, particularly community worker Siobhan Shannon, and to all others who have supported the group in its campaign. I make special mention of councillors Fred Cobain and Jordan Doran and, previously, Harry Smith of Intercomm.

Considering that Westland is such a small area, I have been impressed by the energy and activities of Westland Community Group. Even without a centre, it managed to hold summer schemes, community fun days and pensioners' dinners. I have every confidence that it will make great use of the future centre for the Westland community and others who will benefit from it. In the patchwork quilt of North Belfast, Westland is a predominantly unionist community, but the community group participates in various cross-community activities and is becoming more ethnically diverse. People from neighbouring areas attend its fun days and other activities.

Now that there is a clear pathway to the delivery of the new centre, the relevant agencies must continue to support the Westland Community Group. I trust that the letter of offer will be issued soon. Again, congratulations to all concerned.

Ms Nicholl: On Wednesday 4 December, a much-loved doctor and teaching assistant in our city received the news that they had been dreading. Nineteen members of their family in Gaza had been killed by Israeli air strikes: a mother, a brother, an uncle, cousins and children. Looking for safety, they had been evacuated nine times, and, each time they moved to a new area, they were in danger. They were killed in their tents, burned alive by bombs.

It is important to stress that nowhere in Gaza is safe. People cannot be evacuated; the borders are closed. Nothing has been done.

When I spoke to Omar, whose family members were killed, he said that he wanted his family to be remembered, because every human being has importance, value and worth. Therefore, I will read out the names of his family members who were killed on Wednesday 4 December: Akram Wael Akram Al-Masry; Julia Osama Muhammad Barhoum; Abdullah Musa Abdullah Al-Astal; Haitham Muhammad Abdullah Abu Mustafa; Muhammad Ahmad Hussein Juma; Yahya Muhammad Ahmad Juma; Bassem Abdullah Youssef Hassanein, who was Dalal's mother; Fawqiya Abdul Rahim Diab Lafi; Israa Muhammad Suleiman Al-Astal; Jouri Osama Muhammad Barhoum; Sham Ali Younis Shurab; Shaima Muhammad Fathi Al-Majayda; Wafaa Ali Younis Shurab; Ahmed Muhammad Ahmad Juma; Mahmoud Muhammad Ahmad Juma; Layan Bassem Abdullah Abu Hassanein; Khalil Hussein Khalil Lafi; Osama Afif Abdullah Ghanem; and Latifa Bassem Abdullah Hassanein. Four people remain unidentified because of the devastation.

Every life has value. Every person has value. The international community has to do something. People cannot keep dying. There were children in that family who were killed. It is an outrage and an atrocity. My heart goes out to every member of our Palestinian community today who feels that devastation and is worried for their family members.

Mr McGrath: I rise to congratulate the Downpatrick Dramability group, which is a mixed-ability group that puts on various performances throughout the year and has a pantomime at Christmastime, which I attended on Saturday past. MLAs get the opportunity to do lots of things during their tenure, but I wonder whether I can top it all, because, at the weekend, I got to save Christmas. As the show progressed, it became apparent that one person in the audience did not truly believe in Christmas. In fact, that one person in the audience, who was unknown at the time, was referred to as a Grinch. This caused Santa Claus to be locked in a dungeon and not able to do his duties. As the show progressed, it became apparent that the Grinch was me, and I was brought onstage to take part in the performance. In so doing, I was able to unlock the present that was on the stage, which enabled me to become an elf and, therefore, believe in Christmas. That meant that Santa Claus got out of jail, so he will be able to perform all his activities on Christmas Eve.

I thank the group for its performance. As I said, it is a mixed-ability group. Under the guidance of Bette Liddell, it has been working for years. It practises every week for its performances. It puts its heart and soul into its performances. The members have an opportunity to come together to socialise, to learn from each other and, especially, to grow in confidence and be very welcomed, loved and cherished members of our community. I absolutely love the shows. They are enjoyed by the hundreds who attend them each year. At the end of each show, the members take great relish in telling the audience that we were "absolutely average". I was proud to be part of their "average" pantomime at the weekend to assist them in saving Christmas. I am absolutely delighted, through the work of the Downpatrick Dramability group, that I believe, and that I can be that elf this Christmas.

Mr Speaker: I remind Members that props and displays are not to be used in the Chamber

but, in the spirit of Christmas, I will let the Member away with it on this occasion.

Ms Sheerin: Ár gcearta, ár dtodhchaí anois díreach.

Inniu Lá Idirnáisiúnta Chearta an Duine. Is inniu a dhéanaimid ár machnamh ar an dul chun cinn a rinneadh agus a aithnímid go bhfuil bearnaí ann go fóill.

Déanaimid comóradh inniu, nó is ar an lá seo tá sé bliana is seachtó ó shin a síníodh Dearbhú Uilechoiteann Chearta an Duine. Sa 1948, bhí an domhain faoi léan i ndiaidh ar fhulaing sé d’uafáis bharbartha. I ndiaidh chrá agus phian an Uileloiscthe, tháinig ceannairí domhanda le chéile lena rá: "Choíche arís". D’fhógair siad na cearta doshannta a bhfuil gach neach daonna ina dteideal, beag beann ar chine, ar reiligiún ná ar náisiúntacht. Rinne siad é sin i ndúil is nach mbeadh aon ghrúpa daoine faoi leatrom choíche arís.

Bheadh comhionannas, dínit agus saoirse ag gach duine.

Ar an drochuair, níor chomhlíon an domhan na gealltanais a rinneadh ag an am sin, agus is maith is eol dúinne an dochar a dhéantar nuair a shéantar cearta an duine. Tá easpa ceart sa Tuaisceart: níor comhlíonadh na gealltanais a rinneadh sa bhliain 1998 go fóill, agus tá an beagán ag séanadh bhille na gceart ar an mhórán.

Ar fud an domhain, tá cearta daoine leochaileacha faoi ionsaí gach aon lá. Is ar Gaza, thar áit ar bith eile, a smaoinímid agus ar mhuintir na Palaistíne, atá faoi chinedhíothú le níos mó ná 14 mhí. Fiú roimh an 7 Deireadh Fómhair bhí siad faoi fhorghabháil.

Caithfimid bheith ag súil le níos fearr, ach caithfimid obair ar a shon.

Caithfimid ár gcearta dár dtodchaí a bheith againn anois díreach.

Ms Brownlee: I rise to address the issue of derelict buildings in East Antrim, which has been a long-standing source of frustration and concern for the local community, local council and, of course, local traders. A number of properties are in a state of serious dilapidation, which not only undermines the aesthetics and safety of those areas but hinders efforts to revitalise the heart of our town centres.

After storm Darragh at the weekend, a building in West Street, Carrickfergus, was declared unsafe by the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service. That area has been closed to traffic and pedestrians, which will result in further reduced footfall during the important Christmas period. Of course, the weather cannot be blamed; that building has been left to go to ruins with no regard for the domino effect that that has on the area. The council has been left without any real power to take action.

The Northern Ireland Assembly's proposed dilapidation Bill will, hopefully, provide a crucial framework to tackle such properties by empowering local councils to take decisive action on abandoned and unsafe buildings. That proposed legislation could offer an effective tool to compel owners to repair or redevelop those sites. West Street in Carrickfergus and the likes of Dunluce Street in Larne are, of course, prime examples of areas where that legislation could be used to great effect. In its current state, that site is a stark reminder of neglect and how that adversely affects surrounding businesses, residents and, of course, Carrickfergus's image as a key tourist destination.

I urge the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to update the House on progress on the introduction of the proposed dilapidation Bill, work alongside local authorities to fully embrace the powers that that dilapidation Bill could provide, and prioritise properties and areas such as those I mentioned. The residents of East Antrim deserve a clear plan and a clear timeline for action, whether through enforcement mechanisms, cost recovery mechanisms, broader powers and, of course, clarity. Action must be taken before it is too late, or someone will be seriously injured.

Mr Dickson: As others have mentioned, today, we mark Human Rights Day. On 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was pledged to the world at the United Nations General Assembly in Paris. That historic document provided the fundamental rights for every human being as we know them today. The pledge established that people deserve to have their humanity protected at a baseline level, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, colour or status. It is a promise to respect other people, transcend our differences and strive for a better world.

The year 2024 also marks the 75th anniversary of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom was a founding member and which is the custodian of the European Court of Human Rights. For the 76th anniversary, the United Nations has called for an acknowledgement of the importance of human rights in our daily lives. That requires us to tackle misinformation, counter disinformation and seek to mobilise human rights as a global movement. As Deputy Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, I mirror that sentiment and highlight the need for an equality Act in Northern Ireland similar to that in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is past time that we brought legislation that consolidates human rights, protects them as a singular entity and ends the disjointed systems that we currently have.

In Northern Ireland, no legislation protects us from age discrimination in accessing goods, facilities and services, yet there are protections for those on every other equality ground. Whilst disability discrimination is technically legislated for, there is no law against indirect discrimination. That shortfall was addressed in the rest of the United Kingdom by the Equality Act 2010, 14 years ago. We need to look at Northern Ireland's harrowing shortfalls in its ability to protect women and girls from violence. It is horrifying to think that we have one of the most dangerous places in Europe for a woman to live. We must continue to press that issue and support the framework for ending violence against women and girls completely and undeniably.

I paint that picture to show that, whilst we have come a long way in the past 76 years, there is still progress to be made in Northern Ireland. As we look back on our accomplishments on this historic anniversary, I urge us all to turn our attention to the future and a Northern Ireland that is fair for all.

Mr McAleer: Members, we were all saddened last night to learn of the passing of Tyrone GAA football legend Jody Gormley. I extend my sympathy, thoughts and prayers to his wife, Deirdre; his children, Aine, James and Niamh; and the wider Gormley family circle.

Jody had a distinguished football career with his beloved club, Trillick St Macartans in Tyrone, as a footballer and as a manager. He also had huge success with Tyrone GAA and London GAA, and he won a County Down junior championship with Bredagh GAC. He showed great grit and determination on the field. Any of us who follow Gaelic games will remember when he scored the winning point in the famous victory in the 1995 Ulster semi-final against Derry; indeed, I was one of the many people who were there to cheer him on. He was a distinguished coach with the County Down and County Antrim teams. He won the Tommy Murphy Cup with Antrim, which was the last silverware that was won by the Antrim county footballers. As a teacher, he led Abbey Christian Brothers' Grammar School to win its first MacRory Cup in 19 years, and it went on to win the Hogan Cup. I extend my thoughts and prayers to his pupils, who are also feeling his loss.

When Jody announced his illness a few months ago, he faced it with incredible inspiration and bravery that inspired us all. Anyone who has heard Thomas Niblock's podcast episode with him will know his bravery and the love that he had for his family. He did not fear death coming at all, but he regretted that he would not live to see his children blossom and share in their life experiences, such as his son, James, playing football for Trillick.

On that podcast, Jody said that he wanted to be remembered as a:

That is exactly what he did. He was truly an inspiration, and he will be for ever remembered.

Mr Speaker: That concludes Members' statements.

Mr Speaker: Before we move to the next item of business, I inform Members that, as the Business Committee is not meeting today, there will be no lunchtime suspension. Business will continue until 2.00 pm, when Question Time will commence.

I also wish to inform Members that I have been notified that the proposer of the Adjournment debate topic relating to South Belfast, Ms Paula Bradshaw, will not speak to that topic, so there will be no Adjournment debate.

Mr Gaston: In light of the business that we are considering later, I accept your ruling, Mr Speaker, on the matter that you brought to our attention at the start of business. I apologise for my part in yesterday's proceedings.

Mr Speaker: Thank you for that, Mr Gaston. I have been on the wrong side of the Speaker on many occasions in my career, and it is part of life. I appreciate you doing that.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your earlier rulings on business in the House. May I seek your ruling? The Principal Deputy Speaker devoted her Member's statement yesterday to me, and I am happy to be debated. However, I was not prewarned by the Principal Deputy Speaker that she would use her Member's statement to reflect on me. Will you rule on whether a Member should give advance notice when they are going to name another Member of this place?

Mr Speaker: I will consider that, Mr Brett.

Mr Speaker: The Minister for Infrastructure has given notice that he wishes to make a statement. I call the Minister for Infrastructure.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister for Infrastructure): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Before I formally introduce the statement, I add my sympathies to the friends and family of Jody Gormley. He is a great loss to them and to the entire community.

With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle

and in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following statement to the Assembly about the British-Irish Council (BIC) planning and places ministerial meeting that I chaired on 8 November 2004 in Derry and at which junior Minister Cameron was also in attendance.

Members will be aware that the British-Irish Council, established in 1999, is a forum for its members to discuss, consult and cooperate on matters of mutual interest that are within the competence of its member Administrations. The British-Irish Council planning and places work sector is chaired by my Department on behalf of the Executive. The group provides a constructive forum for sharing best practice on issues of common interest and promotes practical collaboration.

The ministerial meeting held on 8 November 2024 in Derry focused on the work that the planning and places work sector had taken forward between 2021 and 2024 in key areas of planning, particularly around the revitalisation of towns and building better places in the context of the COVID recovery. Ministers commended the work that had been done and endorsed both the work sector report and a 'Placemaking in Practice' report, which was compiled following a symposium held in Cardiff in September 2023.

Ministers agreed the forward work programme for 2025-27, which focuses on two themes: climate change and the biodiversity emergency; and skills and capacity for the public-sector planning profession.

Member Administrations face the urgent challenge of addressing climate change and the impacts on biodiversity, with limited resources and within a context of continuing planning reforms. The planning and places work sector will identify key challenges and share and learn from examples of best practice. Among the focuses will be managing flood risk; the loss, promotion and enhancement of biodiversity; and delivery of greater carbon efficiency in new developments.

Attracting and retaining planning staff in the public sector is also a growing challenge, at a time when many public-sector planners face ever-increasing workloads and continuously changing policy contexts, especially in relation to complex biodiversity and nature issues. The work sector will explore ways to attract people and build capacity in the planning profession, with an emphasis on the sharing of knowledge from Administrations that have developed successful approaches to those issues.

At the meeting, Ministers also heard from Mark Hand of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), who gave a presentation on tackling the climate and nature emergencies: opportunities and challenges across the Administrations.

As I said, the Executive were represented at the ministerial meeting by myself and junior Minister Cameron. The Government of Guernsey were represented by Deputy Victoria Oliver, President of the Development and Planning Authority. The Government of Ireland were represented by Mr Paul Hogan, assistant secretary for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The Isle of Man Government were represented by Diane Kelsey, Member of Legislative Council and political member on the Cabinet Office Board with delegated responsibility for planning policy. The Government of Jersey were represented by Deputy Steve Luce, Minister for the Environment. The Scottish Government were represented by Ivan McKee, Minister for Public Finance. The British Government were represented by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Lords Minister for Housing and Local Government. The Welsh Government were represented by Rebecca Evans, Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning. I place on record my thanks to those ministerial colleagues from across the BIC member Administrations who attended the ministerial meeting, and I look forward to seeing how the forward work plan develops.

I am happy to take questions from Members.

Mr Durkan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

The urgency with which we must act to address climate change cannot be overstated, and planning is a key component of that. Has the Minister identified any approaches elsewhere that, if adopted here, would allow for swifter decisions on renewable energy applications and help us to meet our climate obligations?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said in my statement, the forward work programme was agreed. The meeting was interesting, both in the formal setting and at the bilaterals that took place. Although the challenges may be of different scales across the jurisdictions, there are many common themes to them, of which climate change is one. The forward work programme will look at climate change and at how we, as planning authorities, ensure that there is a more effective and efficient planning regime going forward. My officials will continue to engage with other jurisdictions on the matter to ensure that, in planning, which is often a contested space, each side of the debate has a fair hearing, that we are able to reach decisions in a more efficient and effective way and that we are able to meet the climate challenge that is coming at us.

Mrs Erskine (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I thank the Minister for his statement. He said that attracting planning staff to the public sector and retaining them is a growing challenge and that the planning and places work sector will explore ways in which to attract people and build capacity. We can learn from Administrations that have successful approaches, so can the Minister provide some examples of measures implemented elsewhere that have been successful? Will they be considered here? Can he also confirm whether any measures will be aimed at the wider public sector, including at councils, given their importance to the planning system?

Mr O'Dowd: That issue is a forward work stream for the British-Irish Council. It has been placed on the agenda because there is a recognition across the Administrations that recruiting planners to the public sector and retaining them is a challenge. There is a focus on planning, which, at times, is understandable, but everyone has to be encouraged to approach the issue in a respectful and courteous manner and ensure that those who work in the public sector are respected. They have roles to carry out, and, as politicians, we set the policies. It is not the civil servants or planners who set them. They have to administer those policies in a fair and equitable way. I look forward to learning from examples from other Administrations, and, yes, we will share best practice with councils.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, an important part of placemaking, for connectivity purposes, is our roads. Was tackling congestion discussed during the meeting, and what best practice did you hear about?

Mr O'Dowd: Spatial planning and how we connect people forms part of that. There was no specific discussion about traffic congestion. We perhaps have to look at roads in a slightly different way than we did 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Roads are no longer simply for cars. Roads are for pedestrians, cyclists, taxis and public transport, and that brings with it its own challenges. As we move forward with our spatial planning strategies, all those matters will be integrated into them. In fact, they have already been integrated. Look at our transport plans. The eastern transport plan, for example, will cover the greater Belfast area. We also look towards Fermanagh and Omagh and towards Derry. We are therefore at an advanced stage with our transport plans. How we use our roads, who uses our roads and why we use our roads are crucial elements.

Mr Boylan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, can you expand a bit on the conversations that you have had with other jurisdictions and whether there has been any sharing of learning or ideas that we can incorporate into our plans?

Mr O'Dowd: I found the engagement, both in the formal setting and at the bilaterals, very useful. It is interesting to note the common opportunities and the common challenges that exist, but, as I said earlier, the challenges are of different scales. Such gatherings are also vital for enabling our officials to get to know one another so that they can establish contact with officials from elsewhere. Those officials can then learn best practice from one another.

Mr Chambers: Minister, what specific initiatives were discussed to support the revitalisation of towns in Northern Ireland as part of the post-COVID recovery?

Mr O'Dowd: We looked at how we use our towns differently, not only by supporting retail in town centres but by opening them back up so that they can become areas where people live.

There are areas where there is not only a daytime economy through retail but a night-time economy through socialisation and so on. There are also living towns, where people live and where there are community facilities. People go into those towns late in the evening, not only to socialise but to use the community facilities. It has been an interesting conversation, and it is one that will continue.

Ms Dolan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you mentioned the need to resource the planning system. What plans do you have to increase funding in that area?

Mr O'Dowd: The past number of inflationary increases in funding to the Planning Service have allowed it, particularly in councils, to recoup more of its costs so that it can invest in its planning system. I am looking at other ways in which I can support planning, and I have mentioned the transformation fund, which the Executive have made available, a number of times in the House. I have made a bid to that fund to recruit independent examiners for the planning system. That bid is at the final stage, and I am hopeful that it will be successful. If it is successful, it will allow us to address the backlog of planning applications that are before the Planning Appeals Commission.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. What role does the Minister see planning play in addressing climate change and the nature emergency?

Mr O'Dowd: I think that planning is crucial in that. Planning will set out how, where and why we live in certain locations and how we connect with each other, what type of buildings we live in, what the infrastructure is around those buildings and how we use our places around us to improve the environment and improve biodiversity. So, planning is a crucial part of tackling climate change. It is a crucial part of tackling the biodiversity crisis as well.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, will you consider offering planning apprenticeships to get more people into planning?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for his question. That is a useful suggestion. We have introduced apprenticeships for our engineers in the Department, which have proved to be quite successful in terms of recruitment. We have to look at all options to make planning an attractive career option to school-leavers and others. It is a very rewarding career. You are, quite literally, shaping the future. You will be involved in the drawing of plans and the approval of plans that will be with us for generations to come, so it is a very rewarding career in that way. It brings its own challenges and it is front facing with the public, but, as I said earlier, we all have to engage with our planning service, whether it is on a one-to-one basis or in public, in a more respectful way and in a way that acknowledges that planners have a very difficult role. They have to, and they do, adhere to the legislation that we, as legislators, put before them.

Mr Blair: Can the Minister give us any examples of lessons that have been learned or conclusions that have been reached about managing flood risks, and will those impact on the prioritisation of flood alleviation plans such as those for Antrim town, which are long-awaited and have been requested by me and other reps?

Mr O'Dowd: All jurisdictions face similar challenges to me on the financing of flood prevention matters. Interestingly, all areas are looking at how we work with nature on flood risk. There will continue to be a need for hard infrastructure, including concrete defences, albeit they will be put behind much more pleasant facades so you do not just have grey concrete looking at you. All areas are looking at how we work with and use nature to prevent flooding in the first place.

Ms Brownlee: One of the PAC reports recommended that planning authorities regularly review their past decisions to understand the real-world outcomes and impact on communities and the quality of the completed developments. Minister, what review has taken place, and if it has, what actions will be taken from it?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member may be aware that we have a planning improvement programme in place, on which there have been regular meetings since the publication of the PAC's report into planning. We are beginning to see improvements based on a number of the recommendations. Better resourcing of planning was a recommendation, and we have done that. Another was to introduce, through legislation, validation checklists when a planning application is submitted, and we have done that.

My officials are currently — now — out meeting council planners to discuss their experiences and our experiences of the planning process and how we can learn from and pass on best practice from one council to another and, indeed, my Department. There has been significant improvement in the planning process. A lot of work is still to be done, but we are on the right trajectory.

Mr McGrath: Given the conversations about flooding, did the Minister pick up any tips about any speedy interventions that could be made? We are one year down the road from the flooding in Downpatrick, with little to no evidence of any interventions that could help to prevent a recurrence of flooding. Local residents and businesses are exceptionally nervous. Was there anything from the meeting that could help those businesses and residents?

Mr O'Dowd: One thing that I picked up is that speedy solutions to flooding are not a good idea. Putting in defences or rushing at an issue is not a good idea. You could create a more significant problem not only for the people whom you wish to protect but for other residents who live further downstream or near the area. I am sure that that is frustrating — understandably — for businesses and residents, but we have to get the answers right when putting in physical defences for flooding. I note, however, that my officials were heavily engaged with businesses and residents in areas that were previously affected by flooding in the run-up to Storm Bert, and resilience groups were on standby in areas of south Down as well. They ensured that a supply of sandbags was in place in case flooding occurred. The measures taken thus far by my predecessors and others prevented thousands of homes and businesses from being flooded at the weekend and during other flooding events. Yes, there is a lot more work to do, but a lot has been done in that area.

Mr Donnelly: Given that there are many renewable energy projects in the planning system and that our planning timelines are significantly longer than those of other UK nations and the Irish Republic, how will the Minister work to accelerate renewable energy developments?

Mr O'Dowd: I am finalising a policy that I hope to bring to the Executive before the end of this calendar year. I have worked closely with Executive colleagues, particularly the Economy Minister, on that green energy policy and how planning deals with it. When that policy is introduced, it will be of huge benefit to the green energy sector, but it will be balanced with the rights and entitlements of citizens who live in the area where structures may be constructed, because, at times, it is a contested issue. I believe that the work that we have done with Executive colleagues and the Minister for the Economy will pay benefits.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement.

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

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make a statement today on the publication of the health and social care three-year plan.

When Professor Bengoa visited Northern Ireland in October, I was clear that I intended to publish a plan setting out my ambitions until the end of this mandate. The publication today of the strategic three-year plan does exactly that. I recognise that our health and social care system continues to be under severe pressure, and, with the onset of winter, the coming weeks and months will not be easy. Despite that challenging context, I believe that it is important to rise above the day-to-day and embrace the opportunity for reform.

We continue to face many interconnected challenges, which have been widely rehearsed, not least during the Bengoa event in October. Our waiting lists are simply unacceptable, and we continue to experience high and persistent levels of health inequalities. I have been clear on many occasions that it is for everybody, including my Department, the health and social care system, the Executive and the wider public sector to support people to stay well and live healthy lives. That is because our population’s health is, to a large degree, impacted on by factors such as housing, education, employment and the broader socio-economic environment. Of course, behaviours and health and social care interventions also play a part, but these issues need a robust cross-government approach.

Before I go into the detail of the three-year plan, I want to acknowledge the fantastic effort and commitment of our staff. They really are our health and social care service. Without the excellent care that they provide on a daily basis, we would not have a service at all, nor could we bring about the changes that we need to improve services for the benefit of all. That is why I have remained fully and absolutely committed to resolving the pay award for this year. Stabilisation is one of the key pillars of my three-year plan, and central to that will be ensuring that staff are properly recognised and rewarded for the great work that they do. I shall retain a major focus on the recruitment and retention of our staff. I advise the Assembly that I will be meeting unions later today as part of ongoing work to secure pay settlements for the 2024-25 financial year. I go into those discussions committed to stabilisation, to getting a good deal over the line and to fair and equal pay, which, I hope, remains the policy position of the entire Executive.

With progress on that important issue, I turn to the detail of the plan. It is structured around commitments in the three key areas of stabilisation, reform and delivery. With the incredibly challenging budget position, stabilisation is inevitably a strong immediate focus, not least in minimising the impacts of the £200 million-plus of savings that have been delivered by trusts this year. As I have mentioned, a critical plank of the stabilisation agenda will be to continue to deliver the pay awards that our health and social care staff deserve. That extends to staff working in the independent adult social care sector. My ambition is to make that sector a real-living-wage sector. I am determined not to be found wanting in that regard, especially given the importance that that has for our ability to successfully recruit and retain sufficient levels of staff.

Progress on the reform agenda continues. Despite the pandemic and the difficult budgetary environment, we have made tangible progress across multiple areas. There is, of course, much more to do, and the plan published today sets out my reform ambitions. It is important to be clear that reform is not a silver bullet that will solve everything. It is, however, what is needed to give our staff and the public hope that there is a bright future for our health and social care service. I am determined to support people to live healthier lives and to tackle health inequalities. That is why I intend to embed the Live Better initiative into our mainstream way of working; develop a new obesity strategic framework; implement the Northern Ireland provisions in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill; and introduce proposals for minimum unit pricing for alcohol. Subject to funding, I also intend to put in place a new lung screening programme and an expanded bowel screening programme.

A lot has been said about the "shift left", meaning to provide services closer to people's homes. A number of measures in the three-year plan will support that shift. First, by April of next year, I will publish a plan for the completion of implementation of the multidisciplinary team model across all areas of Northern Ireland. Subject to additional funding being secured, we will be much closer to that objective by April 2027. By that point, phased implementation will be under way, with anticipated investment of £19 million to expand the model to a further five new GP federation areas with a combined population of 670,000 people. That will mean that approximately 50% of the population will be covered, compared with about 30% today. The rest will follow as a priority.

Secondly, again subject to funding, I am keen to invest a further £15 million in our community and GP pharmacy services and an additional £17 million in our mental health services to support greater integration with the voluntary and community sector. Thirdly, I plan to implement within this mandate — again, as far as funding allows — new models for delivery of home or domiciliary care services, learning disability services and children’s social care services and a regionally consistent contract for care home placements. Finally, I want to see reform of dental services progressing in the coming years.

Turning to hospital services, I have launched a public consultation on a new network approach, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that consultation next year. Good progress has been made on implementation of the elective care framework with the roll-out of elective care centres and rapid diagnostic centres. Whilst the day procedure centres and elective overnight stay centres have had a positive impact on waiting times, as a result of our wholly intolerable waiting-time position, it is essential that we drive through further improvements in productivity levels to maximise the number of patients being cared for. The Department has been driving forward targeted measures to ensure that trusts are delivering 100% of all commission sessions and that efficiency and productivity across the elective care centres are maximised.

The most recent published statistical information, as of 30 September 2024, for inpatient or day-case treatment waiting lists across the Northern, Southern and Western Trusts shows that there has been a 20% decrease in numbers waiting since the same month last year. That is 12,115 cases in real terms. Taking into account the data available for the Belfast and South Eastern Trusts, that represents a decrease of 5·5% in the number waiting since the same month last year. However, whilst there are some areas of improvement, I am mindful that, overall, our waiting times remain unacceptable. There are still far too many people waiting for far too long for outpatient assessment, for example.

As I have said, reform is necessary, but it is not sufficient to address the many deep-seated issues that are impacting on our health and social care services. Therefore, in addition to significant additional funding, we need a relentless focus on performance and productivity. To that end, I have challenged the health and social care trusts to deliver 46,000 additional outpatient assessments and 11,000 additional treatments annually by 2027.

One in two of us will receive a cancer diagnosis in our lifetime. That is the harsh reality that we face today. Currently, cancer services cannot meet that level of need, and the cancer strategy clearly outlines the need to transform the way in which we deliver cancer services for people throughout our community. We must deliver new and innovative ways of preventing cancer, supporting early diagnosis and delivering better care for cancer patients. Over the past two years, we have seen good progress on the delivery of a wide range of key cancer strategy actions. Key examples of progress to date include the development of services to provide genomic testing for cancer patients, investment in an oncology and hematology implementation plan and work to review patient pathways. Also, we have established minimum standards for adolescent and young adult cancer services. The rapid diagnostic centre model will ensure quicker access to red-flag services, and it will increase the survival chances of those patients. I have commissioned strategic reviews of breast cancer and radiotherapy services. The reviews will inform how those services should be delivered in the future, allowing equity of access for all patients across the region.

The actions identified in the next phase of cancer strategy implementation, which is for the period 2025-28, provide a real opportunity to deliver positive change and service outcomes that everybody expects and deserves. That, along with the actions emerging from the strategic service reviews, will provide the basis for cancer service transformation. I am confident that that will provide a more sustainable approach for the delivery of cancer services and ensure that the early detection and treatment of cancer are at the core of our future response.

The implementation of the Encompass programme should help to enable those improvements in productivity. I am determined that the health and social care system maximises the benefits that can be had from digital reform. That will include making full use of the rich data that will be available to us.

I anticipate reform of neurology and stroke services, the outcome of which will be subject to consultation and funding availability. There is a need to reform pathology services, and I intend to have a single management structure for all pathology and blood transfusion services. I also intend to deliver a regional imaging academy to increase the supply of suitably trained clinicians.

I will continue with the important implementation of the urgent and emergency care review, and I will move ahead with strategic initiatives on quality and safety. Those will include bringing forward a consultation on replacing the current serious adverse incident process, and that will happen early in the new year.

Today, I am pleased to launch a 14-week consultation — slightly extended to take account of the Christmas break — on a new Being Open framework, and on the issue of duty of candour in Northern Ireland.

I am determined to advance proposals for an organisational duty of candour as well as considering proposals for an individual duty of candour in the coming months. Being open and honest is critical to safe and effective healthcare. We want to create a culture in which our health service staff feel safe, supported and empowered to speak up when things go wrong in the certainty that their concerns will be listened to and acted on. We want to create a culture in which the public can have confidence that, if mistakes are made, they will be informed quickly and accurately about what has happened. The Being Open framework seeks to put in place the necessary support and systems to enable and nurture a truly open culture and help to prevent patient harm. I encourage the public to get involved and have their say.

The three-year plan is realistic and ambitious. Of course, the pace of progress will depend on future Budget settlements and, indeed, on successful partnership working in the Executive. If we all work together, we can meaningfully improve population health, support people to live healthy lives and provide the conditions for our health and social care system to thrive. I commend the three-year plan to the Assembly.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for your statement.

Mr McGrath: We have a three-year plan that is packed with statements such as, "opportunities to reform", "I am committed to", "There is more I can do", "I will publish", "I will review", "I want to see" and all of it subject to funding that is yet to be allocated. Does the Minister agree that we need a concrete, tangible, fully funded, time-bound programme that is supported by the whole Executive to make the changes that we need and to save our health service? Regrettably, this statement is not it.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the spokesman for the Opposition for his comment. He is clearly living in the ideal world. I live in the practical world, where we have a four-party mandatory coalition. I am doing what I can.

As for definites, you will notice that I said that I have set a target of an additional 46,000 outpatient assessments and 11,000 treatments by 2027, so there is some concrete, time-bound detail in the plan. Of course I would like more — everybody would like more — but this is the real world.

Ms Kimmins (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I thank the Minister for his statement. It is certainly ambitious, but it is very welcome. There is so much in it that we have been working on in the Committee, so I am pleased to see that the Minister is listening. Thank you for that.

I turn to the piece on cancer services. We would all agree that improvements are much needed and much welcomed. It would be remiss of me not to mention the formidable Jody Gormley, who, sadly, lost his life and his battle with cancer just last night.

Minister, you alluded to the cancer strategy in the statement, so will you indicate whether that is based on full funding of the strategy? If possible, will you elaborate a bit more on the lung screening programme? We have been speaking about that recently in Committee, and we had the event in Stormont on it.

Mr Nesbitt: First, I join in offering condolences to the friends of Jody Gormley, who, as you say, has tragically passed away in the past 24 hours.

Full funding is one of the major challenges that we face. You have heard me say it before on the mental health strategy: we have about one eighth of the money that, we thought, we would require to implement the action plan for this year. Red flag and critical is where we are, and where we are is talking about sustainability, because the budget is not where we would like it to be.

I welcome the fact that you think that it is an ambitious plan, but it is also a realistic plan. I hope that my officials and I can continue to work with the Committee through some of that detail, because we are listening and you have that statutory ability to assist and advise the Department and me in our work. I hope that we can continue to do that in delivering on the plan.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his statement today. Minister, in your statement, you say that you have challenged the health trusts to carry out an additional 11,000 treatments a year by 2027. Will you provide more detail to the House? Is that for cancer treatment, or what area of healthcare are you referring to?

Mr Nesbitt: That is a broad ambition, and the outworkings are still to be developed. What you will see in the coming weeks and months will be detailed annual plans, the first of which should be published shortly after the Budget for 2025-26 is agreed.

I will make a more general point, if I may, on something that I alluded to in Question Time yesterday, I think: challenging the trusts. We have commissioned scheduled lists of surgery in our acute hospitals, and we are monitoring those. A few months ago, I put the trusts on notice that I wanted to see them make a strenuous effort to achieve 100% delivery. As of a couple of days ago, we have, for the first time, told trusts that we are taking money back for elective surgeries that were on the lists but not performed. To my mind, that is the vision of the future over the rest of the mandate. If the Department of Health is paying for and commissioning services, those services either get delivered or we take the money back and use it for some other service. A pound wasted in one area is a pound that could be devoted somewhere else, not just within Health. It could be devoted to tackling the social determinants of bad health in education, housing and all the rest.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for the statement. We respect the fact that there is a difficult budgetary environment, but we also recognise that, since 2003, our spending in health per head has risen faster than it has in any other nation in the UK, so, clearly, something is going wrong, because we are not having better outcomes. Unfortunately, the statement reads full of contradictions. The Minister says that he wants to implement greater lung and bowel screening, subject to funding, but, later in the statement, he says that he wants to move more towards preventative measures. What is the priority? It costs us more to do nothing or stand still; it costs us more when we do not put the money into prevention. Will the Minister outline his current priorities and what he can do to give a bit of hope that health inequalities will be tackled by way of preventative measures?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question and comments, but I see no contradiction. You need to do both. As I said in my first comments here as Health Minister, if you took a blank map of Northern Ireland and asked yourself, "Do you want to design a health and social care system?", the answer would, I think, be yes, but then you get into judgement calls about whether it is about prevention or cure. Of course, it has to be both, because, no matter how good you are at prevention and early intervention, people will still get sick. Therefore, you still need your acute hospitals and the screening programmes that she referred to.

My ambition is clear: it is that shift left and getting care away from acute hospitals and delivering healthcare in the home, ideally, or, if not in the home, as close to it as possible. That means investing more in GP surgeries, Community Pharmacy and community health initiatives such as my Live Better initiative. That has always been my ambition and where I want to shift to, but that does not mean that we will be closing acute hospitals because we do not need them. I just hope that we would need them less and that people would stay healthier for longer.

On health inequalities, look at the difference between two women growing up maybe a mile apart in this city — one in the area of least deprivation and one in the area of most deprivation. Their healthy life expectancy varies by 14·2 years. Those are my ambitions; that is where I am trying to get to.

Mr Chambers: My party and I welcome and support this timely plan. Our Health and Social Care (HSC) workforce will be critical in the delivery of many of the ambitions set out in today's plan. I wish the Minister well in his discussions later with the trade unions. Does the Minister hope that, moving forward, it might be possible to avoid the constant uncertainty and destabilising effect that delays in honouring the annual pay awards inevitably contribute towards?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I am meeting unions later today. We have had previous discussions about how I would hope to honour the national pay parity awards, and it was made clear to me by the unions that my language, which included such words as "ambition" and such phrases as "using best endeavours", was not acceptable. When I meet them later today, my language, I hope, will be more pleasing, or agreeable — let me put it that way.

The Member referred to future activity. It is my ambition — rather, it is my intent — that, all things being equal, when the pay bodies make their pay recommendations for the 2025-26 financial year, I will accept them and begin implementing the awards with immediate effect.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, there is much in the statement that will be beneficial to all genders in our community, but I am a bit concerned that there is no specific mention of women's healthcare. We know that we lag way behind in actioning women's healthcare. I would like a bit more detail on that.

Is the single management structure for pathology services a recommendation that came out of the serious scandal in my area — the Southern Trust area — where 17,500 women had to be recalled for smears? Will doing that give confidence to women that, when they go for a smear — I encourage everybody to go for one — they will get the right result at the other end?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the questions that she poses. Is having a single authority a product of that? To an extent, yes, it is. As the Member alluded to, it is very important that, among women, we restore confidence in the service and in its ability to deliver. She will be aware that there has been a move from cytology to HPV screening, which is a much more robust assessment.

Having that kind of single authority sits with my idea that, although we have five geographic trusts regionally, I look at them as one. I am looking for regional excellence by taking best practice wherever we find it and making it common practice so that we have that kind of consistency and get away from a postcode lottery.

On women's health, the Member will be aware that we are bringing forward a women's action plan. That is where the detail will be. I hope that that action plan will eventually inform the creation of a women's health strategy. I know that we are not doing one at the moment, but is a strategy that does not have the funding to back it up really worth anything, if we cannot deliver on it? We are starting with a action plan, but I support, in principle, the development of a strategy in future times.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for his statement. I have so many questions that it is hard to pick which one to ask. First, however, I welcome the announcement about lung screening. Along with colleagues, I sponsored an event here at which Cathy Brokenshire really adequately made the case for the need for lung screening in Northern Ireland. I am keen to see the detail on that.

What does the Minister mean by "dental reform"? We have a crisis at the minute because of the number of dentists who are moving from NHS to private work. Will that reform look at the funding models? Will it look at dentists' pay? In my area, we do not have a proper out-of-hours emergency dental service, so that needs to be looked at. I want to see detail on what "dental reform" means.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for bringing up the subject, because it is raised with me daily, not least by Members on behalf of their constituents. She will be aware that my predecessor, Robin Swann, put several million pounds into dental treatment, but we still have a problem with dentists deciding that they will focus on private work. The issue is therefore becoming very challenging and extremely difficult.

When I talk about reform, I do not want to scare the horses, but we may need to do something radical, because dentists have a lot of power within their grasp to decide whether to do NHS work or private work. We can presume that the private work is very profitable and agreeable to them. The reform therefore has to be something really fundamental that encourages that shift to reverse so that there are more dentists and more time being spent on NHS dental work. The detail remains to be worked out. I am simply identifying the issue as a large challenge that has to be tackled, because so many people need the service to change.

Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his statement. There is a lot to digest in it and, like Mrs Erskine, I have a lot of questions. The Minister will be aware that the number of people in Northern Ireland recorded as waiting for an appointment with a hospital consultant recently reached its highest ever level. As of the end of September, 506,612 people were waiting to be seen. The statement mentions a decrease in waiting times, but the trajectory appears to be going in the opposite direction. How many of the people mentioned in the decrease in the statement have left the lists altogether in order to go private or for some other reason rather than being seen? When will people in Northern Ireland who are on those waiting lists start to see a difference in waiting times?

Mr Nesbitt: Some of the waiting times have improved. I emphasise again that, overall, the picture is not acceptable and needs a lot more work. However, when we talk about specific numbers and we say that the total number of people who are waiting for an appointment is x, that is not necessarily accurate, in that I could be on three different waiting lists. Disaggregating that might make a difference, but it might only be marginal, so I only mention it in passing. Some of the lists are getting better.

Our direction of travel includes rapid diagnostic centres, mega-clinics and the separating of elective and emergency care. Those are all going to help. However, we still need to have a laser-like focus on efficiency and productivity. When I go to the trusts, I am very aware that I am asking them to do two things at once: save me a lot of money and be a lot more efficient and productive. In the next financial year, I hope that the focus will be on being efficient and productive. As I said, we are looking at the funding model. If we are doing the equivalent of ordering 10 items online and only seven arrive, we will only pay for seven. Currently, we are paying for 10, so that has to change. Addressing that will help with the waiting lists.

Mr Crawford: I very much welcome the publication of the Minister's plan. How important will certainty and clarity on future funding levels be for the delivery of today's commitments, and does the Minister believe that there is now a greater recognition around the Executive table that, compared with multi-year funding, the worst way to plan and deliver a health service is through short-term and constantly shifting in-year settlements?

Mr Nesbitt: It has certainly been a remarkable year for in-year shifts. We started the year by voting against the Budget because we anticipated the problems that were going to arise. I acknowledge that there have been two major investments through the June and October monitoring rounds, but we are still left with a very challenging position for the rest of the financial year, and that is having an impact on the speed with which we can try to settle the outstanding pay parity issues.

Everybody around the Executive table would very much welcome a multi-year Budget, and I believe that we are going to get there, not in the next financial year but in 2026-27. We are, of course, dependent on the UK Government taking a lead in that regard, but I feel confident that that is what is going to happen. With a multi-year — let us say a three-year — Budget, a lot more is possible, not just around stabilisation but in producing the reform that we need. We should bear in mind that, in October, Professor Bengoa warned that if we do not reform, Health will absorb the entire Northern Ireland block grant by 2040, which is not that far away. That would be the opposite of sustainable.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I want to pick up on your point about the anticipated reform of stroke services, the outcome of which will be subject to consultation. You will be aware that there was a pre-consultation in 2017 and a public consultation in 2019, and that an action plan with key actions was published in 2022. Your predecessor said that we did not need a strategy and that we needed an action plan. We know what needs to be delivered, yet there is no real progress on delivery. Are you able to provide us with an update on that matter?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for raising that point, which is an area of some frustration for me. You detailed the long and, to some extent, winding road that we have been on. We should be at the point where we are making ultimate decisions on the reform of where stroke services are delivered and which hospitals will become areas of specialism. I will certainly take that away. If it can be done without consultation, it should be, because speed is now the critical factor.

Mr McNulty: I begin by paying respects to my fellow Gael Jody Gormley, his wife, Deirdre, daughters, Aine and Niamh, and son, James. In recent weeks, we were all blown away by the heroic bravery and strength that he demonstrated on 'The GAA Social' podcast with Thomas Niblock and Oisín McConville. I measc na naomh go raibh sé.

Minister, further to your statement, what would you say to the nurse who contacted me in the early hours of this morning — at 2.36 am — saying that, at present, she works three to four nights a week on a medical ward. She told me, "On a majority of those nights, I can be working with eight-plus agency staff. There is no continuity of care, and patients could have three different nurses looking after them in a day, which means 21 different faces in a week. Tablets can be left sitting in front of patients. They do not check to ensure that they have been taken. Patients who are mainly elderly and hard of hearing struggle to understand what is being said, leaving them unwilling to ask for assistance. Care assistants, again mainly agency staff, are coming from England, yet, when there are extra shifts"—

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr McNulty, will you complete your question?

Mr McNulty: — "none are being offered to trust staff or local agencies".

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr McNulty, will you complete your question and resume your seat?

Mr McNulty: "Infection control is jumping on nurses for having rings or nail polish on while" —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr McNulty, resume your seat.

Mr McNulty: — "they turn a blind eye to patients trying to

"—.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr McNulty, please resume your seat.

Mr McNulty: — "or patients sitting on a commode".

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, if you can recall some of that, go ahead with the answer.

Mr Nesbitt: It was a very emotive start, and I certainly join the Member in expressing sympathy for the loss of Jody Gormley. When we think about the dignity of Sir Chris Hoy, who now faces a terminal illness, it is remarkable how some of our sportspeople give examples to all of us to follow.

As to the Member's substantive point, he should not imagine for one second that the workforce is not an extreme focus. Although we have more doctors and nurses than ever before, we have severe workforce challenges. I assure the Member, however, that, by and large, every day, when somebody has to go to hospital and stay as an inpatient, they are well looked after. I am not sure that what was actually a rant advances anything.

Mr McNulty: It was not a rant.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before we move on, I will address Mr McNulty. What began with a fitting tribute and an appropriate question became something other than that. I have referred to this before, but I want to remind you — this is an initial warning — that Members should not allow their conduct to become disorderly at any time.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister for your statement, which included references to cancer. Do you recognise that cancer patients cannot wait and that cancer certainly does not wait? I express some disappointment that the statement is full of aspirations but short on detail. In respect of cancer services, Minister, can you tell us what you mean by "good progress", given the appalling waiting lists across Northern Ireland? Can you back that up with clear, measured evidence of the outcomes for cancer patients?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. The most appropriate thing that I can do is take that away and get you the sort of detail that you are looking for, rather than trying to recall it on the hoof. I take your point: what you quoted from the plan is a generalisation; you want the specifics. I accept that, and you have a right to request them.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I want to touch on the point that you made about dentistry. A number of dentists are in touch with us regularly, and I stress that the fact that they do private work is about sustainability, because they find that the funding model does not sustain their dental practice. You mentioned radical reform. Will you commit to reviewing the funding model, so that patients who access NHS dentistry are able to do so in a timely and efficient manner?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. Of course, any review will look at the financing. We are very aware of the pressures, and not just in dentistry. We used to worry about nurses or doctors going off to Australia; now we worry about their going to Athlone, because, if you are talking about just salaries, it is very difficult to compete with Sláintecare. However, I gently say this to the Member: your party voted for the Budget. The Budget is a key factor in how much money we are able to devote to dentistry, GPs, rolling out multidisciplinary teams and all the rest.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister, for the statement. I believe that you are genuinely interested in improving services for our constituents. I also believe that you are interested in holding the trusts to account, which is really welcome; it is high time. We have all been concerned about the performance of the cervical screening programme in the Southern Trust. Will you inform the House of whether the Belfast screening lab had its accreditation withdrawn last year, after an unannounced inspection by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS), relating to the years 2013 to 2023? If that was an issue, why did the PHA give the centralised screening contract to the Belfast Trust?

Mr Nesbitt: I am entirely unaware of what the Member is stating, but clearly it is something that, if true, is very serious. I will take it away immediately after this session and ask the appropriate questions.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement. It contains some ambitious targets. He has told us of plans to take money back from trusts that are unable to meet targets. What analysis will there be, or is there, of why trusts are not able to meet those targets? It may be due to staff shortages, for example, in border areas, where the retention and attraction of staff is more difficult. How will the Minister ensure that the approach does not perpetuate those problems and widen the disparity that exists between some trusts and others that are struggling through no fault of their own?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. There will be an analysis. Let us say that there is an elective list that is scheduled for this afternoon. If, for reasons beyond the trust's control, a key member of the workforce, such as the anaesthetist or the surgeon, is unable to attend — perhaps they have been involved in a road traffic collision — it would be unfair to penalise the trust for that situation. However, there are other situations in which the trust has some control. For example, it may have a week's notice that the anaesthetist will not be available next Tuesday. We would expect the trust to take action to try to make sure that that list goes ahead and is completed. We are going to take a very practical and reasonable approach to those things.

I acknowledged to Mr McNulty that the broader workforce challenge is a daily one for us. Although it is up to the trusts to manage those workforce challenges daily, it is up to us, as the Department, to look at a five- and 10-year plan, to anticipate what the needs are going to be, and to make sure that the training place numbers are right and that the universities and the other teaching areas have the facilities and the courses that we need to ensure that we have a workforce for the future and that we future-proof our workforce as much as we can.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I welcome the publication of today's plan, and I am pleased to hear about the "significant progress" that is being made on tackling waiting lists across more and more areas of our health service.

Overall, however, the Minister is clear that there is still much more to be done. Therefore, is he satisfied that trusts have a clear understanding that challenges with productivity and activity levels will be monitored and tackled robustly by his Department?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. Yes, I am satisfied. I meet periodically with the chairs of the geographic trusts — in fact, the chairs of all the arm's-length bodies, including the Ambulance Service. I do not think that anybody in that group is unaware of the need for reform. Part of the measure of success of reform will be increased efficiency and productivity.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his statement and answers so far. His statement commenced by referencing the pressures that are on our health system and the likely difficulty over the winter period. That pressure will be felt particularly in accident and emergency departments, yet I see only a single sentence mentioning the urgent and emergency care review. When an ambulance is parked outside A&E, as well as the ambulance vehicle itself, there is a staff ratio of three, maybe four, people caring for the one patient.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question, Mr Kingston?

Mr Kingston: I just want to mention that I have had experience of that with a family member. What fundamental change — more physical space, staff or beds — is required to address that inefficiency and increase capacity in A&E departments?

Mr Nesbitt: The reason for the lack of detail on winter preparedness in the plan is that a statement on winter preparedness has already been issued.

On the substantive issue, one thing that we are trying to do is provide alternative pathways to EDs. For example, there are ambulatory services in many of our acute hospitals and specific respiratory areas to which people can be signposted without having to go through the ED. There is the same for cardiac services. We are trying to get to a point where a GP who would currently assess a patient and refer them straight to the ED might be able to refer them so that they do not have to go through the ED and have a second assessment if that assessment is not needed. Let us say that a GP assesses that a patient has respiratory problems and there is a respiratory unit that is probably approximate to where the ED is geographically. The GP will refer the patient straight to the unit. That is how you take a bit of pressure off EDs, as well as, of course, trying to make people healthier and keep them healthier for longer.

Mr Allen: The Minister will, no doubt, recognise my regular communication with his Department on behalf of my constituents who are languishing on waiting lists. Indeed, I welcome his comments on waiting lists and the actions and initiatives that he is taking, but it is clear that much more work needs to be done. Can the Minister advise the House how much funding the Executive have allocated to his Department for specific waiting list initiatives?

Mr Nesbitt: None.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the consultation on serious adverse incidents. My constituents report to me that their issue is the fact that they do not feel heard and that it takes years for them to get any response. Will that actually change as a result of the consultation exercise?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for bringing up a very important issue. The serious adverse incident process is supposed to be a learning process. It is far too slow and is not fit for purpose. That is why it is under review. It will be reviewed within the broader context of the introduction of a duty of candour.

The House has debated whether the duty of candour should be organisational or individual and organisational, and, if it is to be individual, whether there should be criminal sanctions where people have not been open and candid. The proposed Hillsborough law that will come from the UK Government will also play into that. They are promising that legislation before the next anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, so by April 2025, which is ambitious.

Here are the opportunities as I see them. There is an opportunity to be open and to have a Being Open framework, which I am about to publish for consultation. It is about looking at a duty of candour that might be placed on all public servants, not just those who are in the health service. Part of that is recognising that, if there is a serious adverse incident and something goes wrong, you and your family deserve to be told at pace what went wrong, why it went wrong and what we are doing to try to ensure that it never happens again. Yesterday, I met a family who lost a loved one to cervical cancer in the Southern Trust. This is my duty, and it is a privilege that those families feel that they can share their experiences with me. I say this to the Member: I would like to get to the position where I never have to meet another family in that situation.

Mr Carroll: Minister, you have said quite a lot about health inequalities in the past few days, which is welcome. Like others, I am very concerned about health inequalities in NHS dentistry. There is a class divide, in that, quite often, wealthier people are able to get access to dentistry while working-class people are literally left to rot. You talked about the reform of dental services. Will that include the expansion of NHS dentistry?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his comments. He will be aware that the Live Better initiative, which will come on stream very soon, has two demonstration areas, one of which is in West Belfast. When we spoke with people in that area about the services that they want, their feedback put dentistry on the list. That will be important, because if we can get better results and show empirically that the Live Better initiative in West Belfast has delivered better dentistry outcomes, we can use that evidence to roll it out further across Northern Ireland. Ultimately, it comes back to this: can we reform in a way that encourages dentists to do more work in the health and social care system rather than to use their time to offer private services, as is the trend at the moment?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement.

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

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on both motions.

Mr Muir: I am grateful for the opportunity to move the motion. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I thank you for agreeing that the debate should be held. It will cover the detail of the draft Climate Change (Carbon Budgets 2023-2037) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 and the draft Climate Change (2040 Emissions Target) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. I seek the Assembly's approval for the two statutory rules.

First, it is important to set out that the regulations are being introduced to deliver on the statutory requirements that the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 placed on my Department. As you know, the Act sets a legal target for Northern Ireland to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which is in keeping with similar net zero targets at UK and EU level and those that have been legislated for in Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Section 23 of the Act requires my Department to make regulations to set carbon budgets. A carbon budget sets a limit on the maximum amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are permitted within a five-year period. Carbon budgets are a key mechanism for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to put Northern Ireland on track to meet our 2030, 2040 and 2050 statutory targets in a planned and gradual way. The first three carbon budget periods are 2023-2027, 2028-2032 and 2033-2037.

The carbon budget regulations should have been set by the Assembly in December of last year. We have a legal duty to set carbon budgets and interim targets, and that has been the case since 2022. The legal deadline for making the regulations has been significantly passed. My Department is in breach of the law and is already facing legal challenges. It is, therefore, vital that we take action now to put the legislation in place. Wasting our limited resources on defending a missed deadline serves no one's interests.

As required by the Act, advice was sought from the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC). The CCC published its advice in a report entitled 'The path to a Net Zero Northern Ireland' in March 2023. The SRs that I have laid in the Assembly, which are being debated today, are in line with the CCC's recommendations.

In summary, the carbon budget regulations will set the first carbon budget at an average annual reduction of 33%. The second carbon budget will be set at an average annual reduction of 48%, and the third carbon budget will be set at an average annual reduction of 62%. The 2040 emissions target regulations will set an emissions reduction target of 77% against the baseline.

I turn to the 2030 target. The CCC recommended that an emissions reduction target for 2030 should remain at a reduction of at least 48% against the baseline. That is the current target in the Act, and, in line with the CCC's advice, I do not propose to amend it. In accordance with the requirements of the Act, I laid a written ministerial statement yesterday, which set out my reasons for retaining that target.

Between June and October last year, my Department ran a lengthy, 16-week public consultation on the emissions reduction targets and the first three carbon budgets. The consultation received 235 written responses. Over 700 people attended the 21 consultation events, including three specifically aimed at young people. In the responses, there was consistently over 70%, and up to 78%, support for setting the targets and carbon budgets in line with the recommendations provided by the CCC. At the events, the consensus was similar to the results of the consultation, with a majority saying that we should trust the science and follow the advice provided by the CCC.

We need to set our targets and carbon budgets to maintain pace with other nations. It is important to be clear that every one of our neighbouring nations on these islands has targets that are not only equal to but, in many cases, more ambitious than what I propose through this legislation. We see a strengthening of the ambition from other Governments and an increase in the targets. Just last month, the UK Prime Minister announced an 81% emissions reduction target by 2035 for the whole of the UK. My counterparts in Wales have a 2050 net zero target that is similar to ours, but, this year, they put in place a pathway to decarbonise their public sector by 2030. We all know that Scotland is changing its 2030 target, but it is important to provide the context that the Scottish 2030 target matches my proposal for Northern Ireland for 2040. Scotland is moving to a carbon budget approach, and I am proposing the same approach today. The Scottish Government have also been clear that they are still working towards their net zero target for 2045, ahead of the rest of the UK.

Members, there is no rolling back from other countries. Ireland — a country that faces the same challenges as us on decarbonisation of the agriculture sector and the need for greater forestation and peatland restoration — has a 2030 target to reduce emissions by 51%: a higher target than we have. Over 139 countries worldwide are working towards a net zero target. That is over 90% of global GDP. We need to set carbon budgets and send a clear message that we will do our part in the global transformation and Northern Ireland will not be left behind.

We run the risk of not even being at the starting line of the race to reduce emissions if we miss out on taking advantage of the economic, societal and environmental opportunities available through net zero action, and that is why today is crucial.

In the discussion about taking the necessary climate action, much of the focus has been on costs. Members will have seen the detailed regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) conducted on the SRs and will note that the CCC has advised that any estimated costs are not solely to the public purse. They would be delivered by investment from the private sector at a UK level and socialised across the UK.

For our first carbon budget period, our estimates are showing a net benefit. It is when we consider more expensive technologies for the third carbon budget that costs increase, but, as ever, technology is improving. The costs are coming down all the time. There is no requirement for us to implement engineered removals. Different and more affordable pathways to reducing emissions are open to us. Fundamentally, it is the cost involved in doing nothing that will put most pressure on our public finances and the wider economy. We have recently seen across the UK and Europe the devastating consequences of climate change. It is vital that we work to improve infrastructure and connectivity and allow our economy to evolve at the same pace as those of our neighbours.

The estimates also do not include all the benefits of climate action, which we term "carbon value". There are significant benefits for all the people here if we fully embrace the opportunities provided by green growth not only through welcome investment in green energy, employment opportunities and the benefits of decarbonisation but through increased energy security. It is also clear that strong climate and environmental credentials are essential if we are to attract inward investment, maximise economic opportunities and compete on an international scale while showcasing the best of Northern Ireland. We can address and improve our productivity problems, increase incomes and, perhaps most importantly, improve the health and well-being of our citizens, particularly the most vulnerable in our society. It is essential that we take every opportunity to provide clarity to investors and businesses here and internationally that we have a stable and long-term commitment to decarbonisation in order to ensure that, as a region, we do not miss out on this generational opportunity.

In determining costs associated with delivering net zero, it is important to recognise that upfront costs represent investments in an improved society for future generations. We have not only a legal duty but a moral duty to do so. We have seen the tragedies in other parts of the world caused by climate change. Some people have lost their livelihood, while others have lost their life. I know that we play just a small part in that global challenge, but let us not be the place that waits for others to step up. Let us not be the people who sit back when we see others suffering. We in Northern Ireland are better than that. We need to listen to the young people here and in every other country who are calling on political leaders to take action and lead by example.

Just as important, however, we cannot allow our economy to fall behind. Across the world, Governments are investing for net zero. They are innovating, building skill sets in the workforce and expanding infrastructure. We cannot allow ourselves to stay on dial-up while all our neighbours work off fibre-optic. As well as being the right thing to do, setting the targets and carbon budgets today is key to realising the many opportunities and benefits for all of society. All the national and international research shows that decarbonisation can bring substantial economic and social co-benefits, particularly for the natural environment and public health. Reducing emissions leads to improvements in people's lives as a result of improved water quality, cleaner air and better diets. The benefits obtained from increased physical activity through the use of active travel can have a positive impact on health and well-being outcomes for our citizens.

Improving energy efficiency, as well as reducing carbon, reduces energy costs for hard-pressed families. Better housing also brings other health and well-being benefits, such as fewer respiratory problems and allergies. More active travel and the move to electric vehicles will reduce congestion and benefit the whole population's health by improving air quality and reducing pollution. Fine particulate matter from the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal or diesel, is among the most toxic types of air pollution, with the potential to cause asthma, cancer, heart disease and premature death. Look at the pressures on our Health budget. Ignore climate change and set aside our economy: many of the investments involved in order to meet our carbon budgets make sense on health impacts alone.

Many of you will be concerned about the impacts of taking climate action. Many, including me, are concerned about the impacts of not taking climate action. I reassure you that, for both of the statutory rules, there has been a detailed regulatory impact assessment; a rural needs impact assessment; equality impact screening; and a children's rights impact assessment. The Act also requires my Department to complete a financial, social and economic impact assessment. Each of those assessments undertaken shows that there will be societal benefits from future policies that Departments develop and implement to reduce emissions.

In addition, the Act requires all Northern Ireland Departments to have regard to the just transition principle when deciding on their emissions reduction proposals and policies. Before any policy or programme is implemented, just transition must be considered. The just transition principle in the Act seeks to ensure that the benefits of a greener economy are shared widely across all sectors. A just transition requires a whole-of-society approach to tackling climate change and its impacts, an approach that seeks to promote inclusion and to respect human rights whilst promoting development and the creation of decent work and quality jobs. There is a level of protection and scrutiny involved in the implementation of the carbon budgets and targets that has never been here before.

As Minister with responsibility for agriculture, I know that the just transition is key. Many people in the farming community have felt under siege, not least from the actions of the Westminster Government over recent weeks. I will continue relentlessly to challenge those decisions by the Westminster Government. I hope that some will take solace from the unity that we have shown as an Assembly in standing together and showing support for them in the face of those decisions by the Chancellor.

Our farming community should not fear the carbon budgets and the targets. The reality is that many farmers see at first hand the impact that climate change is having here already. They can see it in the increased severity and frequency of flooding; the increased number of wildfires; and the increased cost of supplies. They see how farming has become more and more expensive. I reassure the agriculture community that my Department understands those challenges, but I also recognise that we have to change to keep up with the transforming world and to protect our agricultural and rural communities. The just transition principle will be fundamental to ensuring fairness during the transition from a high-emission economy to a low-emission economy and to ensuring that support is provided where it is needed.

It is important that I clarify for all Members that the carbon budgets and targets are set at a regional level. They do not specify what each sector has to achieve. How we choose to reach the targets is up to us. Some sectors are already overachieving, which will allow time for other policies to be developed with stakeholders, tested, assessed for impact and delivered.

On the issue of clarity for business, we need to set targets and the accompanying carbon budgets now. It is important to create a clear signal to businesses and provide greater policy certainty to encourage much-needed investment that will create new opportunities for existing companies to expand and diversify into new markets; drive innovation; improve productivity; and create new, quality green jobs and economic resilience. Setting carbon budgets and an emissions reduction target for 2040 is an essential step towards mitigating climate change, protecting our well-being and fostering a thriving economy that works in harmony with our environment. I look forward to the debate and hope that Members will support the proposed legislation.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for what he has laid out this morning. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Committee on these important draft regulations, which, as we know, will implement the main elements of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which the Assembly passed. The regulations include a 2040 emissions target and the requirement to set five-year carbon budgets to cap emissions. Not every member of the Committee was supportive of the draft SRs, particularly the targets in them. I will go on to highlight some of those concerns shortly.

The Committee understands that the carbon budgets will be set at a Northern Ireland level rather than a sectoral level and wishes to take the opportunity to remind the House that all Departments are required, under the Climate Change Act 2022, to ensure that a carbon budget is achieved but that it will be the accumulative impact of reductions in emissions across each sector that will enable it to be met. The climate action plan is to be the driver to help to ensure that the first carbon budget is achieved, and it would, of course, have been more helpful for the Committee to see the plan alongside the regulations.

We know that the Climate Change Committee provided advice to DAERA in March 2023 on what it considered to be appropriate emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2040 on the basis of its report 'The Path to a Net Zero Northern Ireland'. Those have been set out: a 48% reduction in emissions is the 2030 target in the Act, which has already been agreed, and a 77% reduction in emissions by 2040 against the baseline is the proposed target in one of the draft SRs before us today.

I assure the House that the Committee has been actively monitoring the Department's implementation of the elements of the Climate Change Act, and the Minister and officials have been diligent in keeping us informed of progress through substantial written and oral briefings. The working relationship has been positive, and we wish to continue that. However, on this occasion, the Committee was asked to work to an extremely tight timescale. This has not been the Minister's way to date with us, and we hope that this was an outlier and that, in future, if there are specific reasons why matters of this importance require such a turnaround, we will be provided with better notice and detailed rationale. As Chair, I have been burning the midnight oil to read through the detail and get up to date to ensure that it gets the scrutiny that it deserves. I am sure that every member of the Committee can attest to that. As the Minster is aware, the Committee takes its scrutiny role seriously, and I would not wish to make it appear that we have rushed any part of the scrutiny. In reality, we are trying to assist the Department with a tight turnaround on a very important matter.

The Committee has been particularly interested in scrutinising progress towards the establishment of the just transition commission. We believe that getting the just transition right is the key to ensuring that, during the transition to a net zero society, no one is left behind or disproportionately affected. On a recent visit to the Loughry campus of the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE), we focused our meeting on hearing from a range of rural networks and support groups. Time and time again, we heard the concerns of rural communities, including that their needs will not be considered sufficiently in the sectoral plans.

On 2 May, the Committee started its consideration of these policy matters when it had notification of the publication of the outcome of the consultation on Northern Ireland's 2030 and 2040 emission reduction targets and the first three carbon budgets. The Committee, at its meeting on 28 November, considered the SL1s for both sets of draft regulations. We had a detailed briefing from officials and heard that bringing forward the regulations was a statutory duty, that both SRs would be laid before the Assembly under the draft affirmative resolution procedure and that, as the SRs are cross-cutting, Executive approval had been secured on 21 November.

DAERA intends to make the Climate Change (Carbon Budgets 2023-2037) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 under powers conferred on it by section 23 of the Act. The first carbon budget is to be set at a level that has a 33% average annual reduction in emissions against the baseline; the second a 48% average annual reduction against the baseline; and the third a 62% average annual reduction against the same baseline. The Committee also heard that DAERA intends to make the Climate Change (2040 Emissions Target) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 to set a 2040 emission reduction target of 77% under powers conferred on it by section 5(2) of the same Act.

There then followed a robust question and answer session with officials, as members recognised the tight timescale and had concerns that they wished to see explored. There was no consensus. A range of views was expressed around the Committee table. As Chair, I expressed my concerns that Northern Ireland was well down the league table of moving towards net zero and that I did not wish to see that continue but would like to see the targets progress.

Some members expressed concerns that the carbon budget emissions targets are, like the proposed 2040 target, too ambitious, and that too many moving parts need to fall into place if the targets are to be met. For example, significant investment is needed, but the budget is not there, and input from the private sector has not been pinned down. However, officials reminded members that a lot of money is now being spent from the baseline and that the aim is to spend that baseline with better focus in the blocks of time for achieving the carbon budget targets. Other members were keen to see the regulations proceed at pace, as Northern Ireland is already behind in that regard, but it was accepted that some sectors will move faster than others and that the potential for some sectors to offset other, slower-moving sectors needs to be considered.

In general, Committee members were concerned about the particular challenges for people from rural communities, and the Committee wanted to ensure that the Department takes that into consideration when developing policy and mitigation. A just transition for rural areas is vital, and it is the responsibility of all Departments. Officials said that they were planning for benefits as we strive towards the targets and highlighted the fact that new green jobs and technologies are being created in countries that are pushing ahead with the changes. The Minister has alluded to that, so, in his winding-up speech, perhaps he could point to where some of those jobs and technologies are likely to be created and where they have been identified for Northern Ireland. Officials then described good interdepartmental working and what that looks like in practice to ensure that sectoral plans are moving in the right direction. They added that the strategic oversight group meets regularly and that there are now a sectoral leads working group and a climate change team in every Department.

The outcome of the SL1 consideration was that the Committee noted that the draft SR would be debated in the Chamber and was content that my speech reflect the various views and issues raised. I hope that I have managed to do that, but I am sure that individual members will be happy to add to the issues in their own speeches. At its meeting on 5 December, the Committee considered the draft SRs as laid in the Business Office. The Committee agreed the minutes of the meeting of 28 November, which highlighted the range of views expressed the previous week. As I was on business with another Committee in Scotland on 5 December, I was not able to attend the meeting at which the Committee considered the draft SRs as laid. I thank the Deputy Chair for chairing that meeting, and I thank my Committee colleagues for undertaking the scrutiny of the draft SRs to the timescales needed, hence my need to burn the midnight oil since then.

The Committee noted the Chair's statement, and the Deputy Chair put the following questions to the Committee. Question one, does the Committee support the draft SRs going to the Chamber for debate next week for the House to have its say and make the decisions? Does the Committee support the content of the draft SRs? The result of the vote was four ayes and two noes, showing that the majority of Committee members present supported the draft SRs being debated today and supported the draft SRs.

That ends my comments as Chair, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. If you will indulge me, I will make some comments as agriculture, environment and rural affairs spokesperson for the Ulster Unionist Party and on my own behalf. As someone who is absolutely passionate about and loves and cares for the very fabric of Northern Ireland, I, and the Ulster Unionist Party, recognise that the decisions that we make today will shape and determine the environmental legacy that we leave for future generations. The draft Climate Change (Carbon Budgets 2023-2037) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 and the draft Climate Change (2040 Emissions Target) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024 set ambitious targets that not only demand the commitment of all sectors and all of society but, in the view of the Ulster Unionist Party, require leadership from our departmental and statutory bodies in particular. It has been said that leadership is not about being in charge but about taking care of those in your charge. Our Departments must embody that principle, leading by example to demonstrate that achieving these targets is not only possible but vital. Departments must prioritise sustainable practice in their operations. Departmental and statutory bodes can inspire confidence and collaboration across all sectors if they lead the way and do not fail.

I must acknowledge the understandable nervousness in the agriculture community. Farmers are being asked to implement significant changes at a time of immense economic pressure. Many feel caught between conflicting demands: the imperative to adopt greener practices and the harsh reality of financial survival. As has often been said, farmers want to be green, but they cannot be green if they are in the red.

It is not enough to ask farmers and industries to bear the weight of change without offering clarity and certainty in return. The reality of a just transition must be more than a principle; it must be a plan. We must articulate clearly how that phase will provide the financial support, technical guidance and practical solutions that are needed to empower those on the front lines of this transformation. Farmers, in particular, need assurances that their sacrifices will be met with tangible support, not vague commitments. Delivering on that promise is the key to maintaining their trust and ensuring their continued participation in the collective effort to meet our climate goals. Failure to do so will risk alienating the very people whose cooperation we most urgently require. That is why it is crucial to ensure that climate policies are accompanied by robust support mechanisms.

Indeed, article 1 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 recognises that by setting a reduced target for methane emissions of around 46%, and not the 100% of other greenhouse gases, which acknowledges the unique challenges faced by our agri-food sector. That demonstrates, within our own legislation, a pragmatic understanding of the vital role that agriculture plays in our economy and food security. However, it must go further. Farmers must have access to tools, funding and knowledge if they are to transition into sustainable practice without jeopardising their livelihoods.

Added to that are the external pressures emanating from trade agreements such as the EU Mercosur deal. That deal, which would open the door to lower food standards and increase deforestation in South America, threatens the viability of farms not only in Northern Ireland but across these very islands. It is a stark reminder of the broader context in which we operate. It is unacceptable that decisions that are made elsewhere, particularly under the auspices of the Northern Ireland protocol, continue to deepen our democratic deficit. The message that we send must be clear: our farmers, and the high standards that they uphold, must come before trade-offs that are likely to exacerbate global climate failures and diminish food quality. We cannot allow deforestation in the Amazon to undermine the commitments made under these draft regulations, but nor can we ask our farmers to compete on an unlevel playing field, where imported goods are produced at the expense of global biodiversity and carbon reductions.

Let us remember that the challenges before us are significant but so, too, are our responsibilities. We owe it to our farmers, our rural communities and our children that our environment is protected, and we need to ensure that the transition to net zero, which is achievable, is also rooted in common sense.

Mr O'Toole: I am going to speak relatively briefly about the regulations. Our representative on the AERA Committee, Patsy McGlone, is unwell, so is unable to be in the Chamber, and we send him our best wishes.

The SDLP broadly welcomes the regulations that have been laid by the AERA Minister. It is important to note a couple of contextual things first of all. Northern Ireland has, frankly, been a shameful laggard for far too long when it comes to climate action. At the very last minute, in the dying embers of the previous Assembly mandate, we did agree a Climate Change Act, which, for the first time, put in place binding targets for tackling the climate emergency, reducing emissions and reaching net zero. We were also the last jurisdiction on these islands to have such targets placed into law.

What matters now is that those targets are backed up with meaningful action that can deliver on them. First of all, we need the regulations that are being laid today. However, we also need, after this, meaningful climate action plans, and I acknowledge and understand that those are going to have to get through the Northern Ireland Executive.

These questions and trade-offs are not easy, but climate change is not easy, either. We are already living with the consequences of climate change. We saw that last weekend with the devastating impact of storm Darragh. On this island, some of the impacts of climate change are, in one sense, less dramatic for us than they are for other parts of the world, where people face loss of life, loss of home and the most profound shift in how they will be obliged to live. On this island, we will face significant disruption, and we need to manage climate change. As the Member who spoke previously said, we also need to ensure that those who are impacted on by how we shift our economy and how we deliver on those climate change obligations are not only protected through a just transition, particularly for agriculture, but, where they are in industry, are helped and guided to deliver on their emissions targets and obligations.

Those are not easy questions. They are not easy for any jurisdiction in the world. They certainly are not easy for a jurisdiction that is addicted to collapse and dysfunction. It calls to all of us to be serious about our job as legislators to confront, in many ways, the most profound challenge that any democracy is facing this century. It behoves all of us to be serious about our obligations and about the targets. That is why we welcome the fact that the regulations have been laid today.

As I said, retaining the 2030 emissions reduction target of at least 48% below baseline and setting a 20:40 target of 77% demonstrates a welcome commitment to tackle the climate emergency. Those are essential steps that align Northern Ireland with a trajectory to net zero by 2050, as outlined in the Climate Change Act 2008. However, as I said, those steps are necessary but not sufficient. They will be, in a sense, meaningless without urgent action to deliver on them and make them real.

As I said, the stark reality is that the impacts of climate change are already here. We cannot afford complacency. The recent storms and the devastating floods that we have seen disrupted livelihoods, damaged infrastructure and illustrated in stark detail the vulnerability of our communities. We saw it in towns and cities across the island and in this region. That is climate change. What happened last year in my home town of Downpatrick is climate change. That is the climate changing and affecting how we live, do business and go about our everyday lives. This is not an abstract preoccupation for lefties or progressives; it is a real, meaningful challenge that will affect all of us and how we live our lives.

As I said, quite rightly, climate action cannot and must not be confined to one Department. In many ways, it is the ultimate cross-cutting issue, and the targets and regulations will be delivered only with meaningful cross-departmental action. We will be robust with the AERA Minister in bringing forward proposals on climate action and on the broader questions of biodiversity, environmental protection and calling for the most robust and urgent action. We have been robust with him at times in the Chamber. We will also support him when he shows ambition and when others are less likely to show ambition.

Climate change demands decisive, cohesive action across the Executive. While the regulations are crucial, these questions remain: what comes next? Are the Executive capable of delivering on that? We need a planning system that enables the rapid and large-scale roll-out of renewable energy projects. We need an economic model that places sustainability at the heart of our prosperity, acknowledging that a thriving economy is intrinsically linked to a stable climate. In our debate later this afternoon, when we will talk about the protocol, I will talk a bit more about the opportunities, which include those to use our dual market access and our position in relation to both markets and both decarbonisation agendas, which are being driven from London and Brussels, to our economic advantage.

Unfortunately, like a lot of the Executive's work thus far, good intentions have not translated into action. We welcome the targets being set out today, but, ultimately, we will judge the Executive on the action that follows. It is, however, a welcome step to see the regulations being laid before us today. It is also important to acknowledge that they are a year late. That goes back to the point about the structural dysfunction that we have in this place and the fact that things like climate action end up being subject to the whims of our political dysfunction.

We also have to recognise the fact that several key provisions of the Climate Change Act, which was passed here with great aplomb in 2022, remain undelivered. Those include the establishment of a climate commissioner, so it would be helpful, when the Minister sums up, for him to talk a little bit about those outstanding actions. The climate commissioner's role is vital to ensuring accountability and driving progress. Let us not delay on this work. We need to get real, and we all need to be serious about making those targets a reality.

That includes reassuring and engaging with all the sectors that will have to feel the brunt of some of the changes but can also benefit from how we adjust the way in which we work our economy. That includes our agri-food sector, which delivers huge economic benefits for this region and wants to be part of the agenda. However, we need to be clear about the targets and how we intend to deliver on them.

As I said, the urgency of climate action, which is, in many ways, the ultimate question facing us for the remainder of the century, demands meaningful and practical action, and it demands that we, as legislators, are serious about our responsibilities. To that end, we welcome the regulations that are being laid before the Assembly, but we hope that they are followed up with more detail on a climate action plan and more practical action, driven by the Executive with honesty and clarity.

Miss Brogan: As Sinn Féin's spokesperson on the environment and climate, I am happy to speak in support of both motions.

Last month, 'The Lancet' countdown on health and climate change report revealed that people in every country face record-breaking threats to health and well-being from the rapidly changing climate. That is why the Climate Change Act is one of the most important Bills that we have passed here. Research found that, last year, people were exposed to 50 more days of health-threatening temperatures than would be expected without climate change. It also found that extreme drought affected 48% of the global land area and that 151 million more people were now experiencing food insecurity. The blame for that was laid squarely at the feet of global Governments, who, 'The Lancet' states, are "fuelling the fire" with persistent investment in fossil fuels, all-time high energy-related greenhouse gas emissions and years of delays in adopting renewable and net zero technologies and practices.

The Climate Change Act was our line in the sand and a commitment to no longer fuel that fire. The carbon budgets and interim targets before us today are crucial parts of that Act. They are ambitious but achievable, and they will keep us on track to meet our net zero goals while ensuring that we have the time and space to build in just transition safeguards to protect people, incomes and industries. Nobody will be left behind. I support the motions and commend them to the House.

Mr T Buchanan: In rising to speak in the debate, I want to make it clear that we will not support the draft regulations. I heard the Member from the Opposition speak about the weekend's storm. He tied it in with climate change. Is it not strange that today, no matter what happens, it is all down to climate change? If we have a hot summer, with no rain or little rain, it is because of climate change; if we have a summer with quite a bit of rain, it is down to climate change; if we have a windstorm, it is down to climate change. I remember from when I was a boy that we had much worse storms than we had at the weekend; we had summer after summer with great weather and little rain; and we had summers when there was quite a bit of rain. It was not down to climate change; it was exactly what was taking place at that time. Therefore, I find it strange that, no matter what happens today, it is all put down to climate change.

I will set out why we are not in a position to support the regulations. The DUP supports the United Kingdom's long-term net zero ambitions and will advocate policy and initiatives that are environmentally responsible and support decarbonisation. We appreciate that there is a role for ambitious and flexible emissions targets in driving forward progress, but we are extremely concerned that recent legislation, including that in Northern Ireland, has been rushed, is poorly drafted and conflicts with the independent scientific advice from the Climate Change Committee.

There is no question that more sustainable policies in such areas as energy, housing and transport can bring benefits for the standards of living enjoyed by people in Northern Ireland and help to tackle deprivation and isolation. Many of our citizens, however, perceive climate action as resulting in higher taxes and increased costs for basic goods and services and a residual threat to jobs and livelihoods, particularly in farming communities. Those of us who are close to farming communities and speak to them hear their concerns about the targets and their implications for their business. It comes at a time when our families face the highest tax burden since the Second World War.

Minister, there must be a fair transition that is inclusive of all communities, households and industries and addresses the looming threat of further costs from changes to emissions trading schemes and the impact of the EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) on trade between GB and Northern Ireland. There is a risk that unfair and unworkable environmental targets that are levied on local farm businesses may lead to conditions, including a reduction in livestock numbers, that usher in a reliance on foreign, cheaper produce that is farmed in conditions and to a standard that we would never accept in the UK. If we are not careful, folks, that is the road that we will go down, should we press on with the stringent targets that are before the House today.

Section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2022 states:

Minister, you will have heard the concerns raised by many respondents on the issue. Some of the proposed targets and budgets are unrealistic and not sustainable, given the impact that they will have on our citizens and on the economy. What about the impact on Northern Ireland's significant agri-food sector and rural communities; the potential detrimental impact on UK food security, including through the reduction of livestock numbers; the potential for social inequalities; the absence of a budgetary breakdown by sector; and the operational constraints of the planning system, which are a real hindrance to the farming community? I am sure that most if not all Members have placed that issue on the Minister's desk, yet there has been little done on it and little movement.

A recent Assembly Research and Information Service (RaISe ) paper, from the end of November 2024, states:

— devolved Administrations —

The paper points out that the draft green growth strategy states:

The total net cost to Northern Ireland of the Climate Change Act's target of achieving net zero by 2050 is estimated to be £13·5 billion. Minister and Members, are you prepared to cripple our people with such a financial burden simply to meet such stringent targets in the Climate Change Act?

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr T Buchanan: Yes.

Mr Muir: I will respond later to many of the Member's points. Will he acknowledge, however, that the Minister who moved the legislation at First Reading, Second Reading and Final Stage was a DUP Minister? You should have a bit more respect for your colleague who introduced the legislation in the first place.

Mr T Buchanan: Yes, but the Minister who has put forward the stringent targets and has refused to step back from them is you. We brought the issue to the House previously and asked you to step back from those stringent targets, but you refused to do so. The targets have therefore been put forward by you as Minister.

In light of what we have said, Minister, it is time to press the "Pause" button. We in the Democratic Unionist Party believe that there is an urgent need to inject a sense of realism into Northern Ireland's climate ambitions. Minister, there would be no shame in you and parties in the Assembly reflecting honestly on the implications of the targets enshrined in the Climate Change Act. Indeed, it would be a sign of maturity, at a time when public services are being pressed from pillar to post because of insufficient resources and a lack of reform, for all in the House to consider changing course.

We are deeply concerned that the SRs have been rushed and did not afford the Committee the proper time to scrutinise what was being proposed. Given the manner in which the Department approached the tabling of the regulations, there are concerns that the process could be subject to future judicial review. Therefore, we urge the Minister to reflect on that and to consider withdrawing the regulations today. The headline commitments in the carbon budgets and the 2040 emissions target are highly aspirational and entirely devoid of a concrete assessment of the policies and proposals that would need to be advanced by Departments and of the cost to Departments. Therefore, there is a real risk that you, Minister, are putting the cart before the horse by pressing ahead with the regulations in the absence of agreement on what represents a fair and sustainable transition for businesses, consumers and Departments, especially at a time when we need to transform and reform front-line services for the benefit of all.

Section 23 of the Climate Change Act requires DAERA to consult the just transition commission and the Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner, both of which were required to be established under the Act, on proposed carbon budgets. Yet, the Department has indicated that, once they are established, there will be an engagement with those bodies on relevant issues, including future carbon budgets. Surely that will be too late: the damage of the aspirational targets, including their impact on public spending, will have been done. That engagement should have been taking place prior to the regulations being brought before the House.

Is the House content to bury its head in the sand on such exorbitant costs, or will it face the stark facts and pause the passage of the regulations to allow sufficient time for proper scrutiny and engagement with the relevant bodies? We do not believe that the targets can be met within the time frame that has been set. They will be detrimental to businesses and the farming community and will have huge and crippling financial consequences. Therefore, we ask the House to give serious consideration to what is before it today and to vote against the regulations.

Mr Blair: At the outset, I want to be clear on behalf of Alliance that I support the two crucial sets of regulations. The first set of regulations will establish the initial three carbon budgets for Northern Ireland, guiding our carbon emissions strategy through to 2037. The second set of regulations will set a definitive emissions target of 77% by 2040, as laid out in the Climate Change Act 2022. Both sets of regulations provide us with essential frameworks for setting the groundwork for our long-term climate initiatives and ensuring that we meet our environmental obligations in a structured and measurable way.

It should be pointed out — the Minister and other contributors have referred to it — that all work thus far has been done in cooperation with the UK Climate Change Committee. The passing of the two sets of regulations will represent a critical advancement in our overall climate strategy and will serve as a testament to our commitment to confronting the pressing challenges that climate change brings for us all.

It is important to recognise that today marks the final sitting of the Assembly until 2025. By then, it will be three years since the Assembly unanimously passed the Climate Change Act, which the previous DUP Minister introduced. Were it not for that party's subsequent boycott of the Assembly, we would have made significant strides in implementing these vital regulations. I am thankful, however, that we now have in place a Minister who is thoroughly dedicated to promoting our environmental agenda. That is important because we simply cannot afford to continue to fall further behind.

I must voice my disappointment that certain members of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, seem to have expressed their intention not to support these regulations. It is utterly baffling. The measures before us are a direct consequence of the Act brought by their Minister just three years ago and passed unanimously by the House, including the Members who now seem to be distancing themselves from it. This is like living in a parallel universe, not just in perception but in reality. It is most disheartening to witness the lack of backing for initiatives that are fundamentally important to achieving our climate objectives and safeguarding the future of our communities and international communities. While the regulations may well be ambitious in scope and their implementation may incur cost, we must also recognise that we are lagging seriously behind numerous other countries and regions that are taking decisive action to combat climate change. Moreover, in the long run, the financial implications of not implementing the regulations would be substantially more burdensome for all the people whom we represent. Meeting the goals established by the Climate Change Act is not just an aspiration, it is a necessary commitment that we made in the Chamber. Today, we are presented with an opportunity to fulfil some of the promises that we made. We have a moral obligation to do so. We also have a legal obligation to do so, as the Minister made clear earlier.

I reiterate what I conveyed in the Assembly just last week. We need actions, not words. I urge all Members to take a moment to reflect on their position, as our shared responsibility, locally and globally, to address the catastrophic impacts of climate change is becoming more urgent by the day. It is simply insufficient to continue postponing these critical issues for future consideration. We must join forces and work collaboratively to reach these ambitious targets and ensure that Northern Ireland actively contributes to the global fight against climate change. The time for small actions has passed. We need to take significant steps towards a sustainable future.

Miss McAllister: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but I want to highlight some points, particularly as I am part of a younger generation that was attuned to the issue of climate change when growing up. We knew that some issues that affected our local communities were man-made and that they had a greater effect on people from more working-class areas but that climate change affected all of us across the region and whether we lived in Northern Ireland, the UK or anywhere on the globe. It is an issue that we cannot escape from.

The risks of not dealing with climate change will continue for all generations, including my children and their children, if we do not grasp the reality of it today. We need to stop burying our heads in the sand when dealing with the mitigations around carbon budgets. My colleague the Minister has already agreed to ensure that mitigations that can be made should be made. However, it is incumbent on every sector across Northern Ireland to get on board and maximise the potential to ensure that we deal with climate change. If we do not, we add to the risks across our community. We add to risks to our habitats; to the changing of our soil diversity and climatic conditions; to our natural carbon stores; to agricultural and forestry productivity; to agriculture and forestry from pests; to freshwater species; to habitats changing; to marine species; and to our infrastructure networks. The list goes on. That list is not unique to us here in Northern Ireland — it is across the globe — but it is incumbent on us, in the society that we live in, where we have the democratic methods by which to deal with climate change, to do so in order to play our part in the global fight against climate change and take the required action.

When the Assembly was down, I stood with many young people across Northern Ireland who were protesting then, before and since about climate change. I made a commitment to them that, if elected to the Assembly, I would do everything that I could to ensure that we tackle the issue. It is incumbent on every single one of us today, by supporting and voting for the regulations, to make that commitment in full today. I am proud to support my colleague's introduction of these regulations. They will ensure that we make progress in implementing the changes that we need here in Northern Ireland.

Mr Carroll: The Member for West Tyrone referred to his recollection of weather as a child. Although it was somewhat interesting, it should not be taken as serious policy direction. It not about having some bad weather here or there; most of the hottest summers on record have occurred in the past 15 or so years. There is a pattern here, and that should inform policy and what Ministers and the Executive do. The pattern is one of a hotter planet, with hotter and more dangerous weather.

The North's per capita emissions are higher than those of other places, such as the UK, and emissions here are falling at a slower rate than the UK average. There has been a 23·2% reduction in the North, compared with the UK average of 48%. The Minister and Executive need to get on with the job and speed it up. The danger is not just shown in the recent storm on these shores, but in Valencia, in the summer, people died, homes were destroyed and communities were ravaged and wrecked by the climate and the planet's heating up. That, and worse, is what our future will look like.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will.

Mr Muir: What happened when those lives were lost is a real concern for me. It is why I have introduced these regulations. Does the Member agree that lives are being lost beyond the places that we know and go on holiday to? We have a duty to citizens across the globe to tackle climate change. People are losing their homes and even their islands. They are not only losing their livelihoods; it goes way beyond that. We have a responsibility to stand up here in Northern Ireland and show leadership.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for his intervention, and I agree. We have seen tens of millions of climate refugees across the world. Although we will be impacted in Ireland, England and elsewhere, it is mostly in the Global South where places such as Bangladesh will be submerged. We cannot be selfish: we have to look at other people across the world and make policies that will help them as well as people who live in this part of the world. However, I challenge the Minister somewhat: the North is not pulling its weight in tackling climate breakdown in the UK and Irish context. We are consuming far too many resources — far more than our fair share — in the global context. There has been a lot of discussion over the past few days about traffic problems, mostly against a backdrop of people being encouraged to spend and buy and repeat that cycle of consumerism every day.

The North is a climate laggard when it comes to reducing emissions. As a society, we need to stay well below the 1·5°C target in the Paris agreement as a bare minimum. However, it highly likely that the North is close to exceeding that carbon budget, if we have not surpassed it already. We urgently need to transition to a zero-carbon society as quickly as possible. There is no space in that society for fossil fuel infrastructure or exploitation. This is where I challenge the Minister — this is an obvious point that should not need to be made, but has to be. His Department is apparently heading to the Supreme Court to assert its right to plough ahead with the destructive gas caverns project at Larne lough. That is a waste of time and resources. There is utter doublespeak on that point from you, Minister.

The Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 contains the reduction target of at least 77% by 2040, as others have mentioned. More can, and must, be done. Minimum targets should not be interpreted as maximum targets. The 2040 target should not be treated as a goal but as a minimum reduction, with a clear intent and concrete plans to go beyond 77%. In reality, we probably need to be looking at net zero by 2030. Business as usual will not cut it when life itself on this planet is at stake.

Mr Muir: I will respond to a number of points that were made in the debate. Hopefully, I will cover them all.

Some of you queried why I have moved to set the targets in the 2040 target, and alleged that it was done too quickly, but I have followed each step of the process. The carbon budgets and the interim 2030 and 2040 targets have been publicly consulted upon. They have been to the Committee and the Executive. They have also been to the Examiner of Statutory Rules. Everyone here can, rightly, say that they have expressed their opinion and have had their say. The carbon budget regulations should have been set by the Assembly in December 2023. That is yet another example of the consequences of stop-go government. We have a legal duty to set the carbon budgets. That has been the case since 2022. By not setting those SRs, my Department is in breach of the law. Any further delay only adds to staff resourcing pressures and the legal costs of defending a missed deadline. It is hard to stand over that continued diversion of public-sector budget and resource when our public sector and departmental budgets are under so much pressure and we have the solution in front of us today.

I have also heard the concerns around scrutiny. I remind Members that the CCC published its advice to Northern Ireland in March 2023. That was 21 months ago. It was when we did not have an Assembly. In the absence of the Assembly, my Department undertook a public consultation for over four months on the CCC's recommended figures. It provided illustrations of what those targets might mean so that people understood what decarbonisation means for each sector. Those who responded supported each of the pathways, consistently by over 70%. For some of the pathways, such as those on waste and recycling and improving the energy efficiency of houses and buildings, that support was over 80%. In May, the Department published two detailed reports analysing and presenting the findings from the consultation.

Since I came into office, I have, in response to repeated questions from Members, provided updates on my progress on delivering the statutory requirements of the Act. I have been clear, and it is no surprise to anyone, that I will take advice from the CCC, just as my counterparts in the UK have done. No one should be surprised about that today.

Mr Irwin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: Yes.

Mr Irwin: The CCC gave clear guidance to the Committee on a number of occasions that it would be seriously damaging to try to reach net zero by 2050. The Climate Change Committee gave that advice to the Committee on a number of occasions and it has not been listened to. Does the Minister accept that Northern Ireland's contribution to global warming is 0·04%? It is a twenty-fifth of 1%. Are we to damage all our agricultural industries and import from regions that are contributing to global warming?

Mr Muir: I am aware of the CCC's advice. It is clear, and it will put out a further statement tomorrow, about the urgent need to transition towards decarbonisation. If we go down the road of saying, "Sure Northern Ireland is quite small, so we can pass on that", that is a complete abdication of leadership. The Assembly voted unanimously for that legislation at Third Reading. I am doing this not only out of a moral responsibility to future generations in Northern Ireland and people across the world who are facing the consequences of climate change but out of the desire to grasp the opportunities. At the British-Irish Council last week, it was clear that people everywhere else are getting with this. We face the real possibility of losing that race. What does that mean? It means that we lose the opportunity for good, green jobs for people in Northern Ireland.

Some of the contributions today do a real disservice to agriculture. I know farmers across Northern Ireland who know about the impacts of climate change, because they deal with them day and daily. They are getting on board with the interventions that will give them the resilience to go into the future with confidence in their business. I come to the matter very positively because of where we can go. I am very grateful for the fact that I got agreement at the Executive to bring the SRs to the Assembly. Hopefully, we will pass them and be able to move on.

I get people's concerns about the impact that carbon budgets might have on public finances. I know that the AERA Committee sought advice from RaISe on that, so people have asked those questions about it. However, people also need to understand the benefits of our making that investment. For example, investing in public transport may have benefits for us by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, but — guess what? — it will also mean that people will be able to travel more quickly and easily around Northern Ireland and that there will not be as much congestion. It will also improve air quality. That relates to a just transition, because air quality often affects the most socially deprived people in Northern Ireland. I do not think that it is right for us to ask people to endure that. There are difficult decisions to be made. Maybe I am different, in that I am prepared not only to come to the Assembly, take difficult decisions and face up to it but to look at the issue in a positive fashion. The targets are there, and there is a legal obligation on us to take them forward.

The next step is to bring forward the first climate action plan. Matthew O'Toole mentioned the climate action plan, and Robbie mentioned the fact that the preference was to have the plan alongside the carbon budgets. The issue is that we need to do the budgets before we do the climate action plan. Hopefully, soon after I get agreement on the budgets, we can consult on the plan and I can share with you all the detailed facts in the action plan and where we are going with it.

I assure Members that any financial impacts will be dependent on normal budgetary decision-making. A process is in place to ensure that value for money is key and that the consideration of any policy, programme or project is part of that. Some of the costs of the cap will already be part of our existing programmes and budgets, as I outlined. For example, they relate to public transport and work that we are already doing. Some of the costs will relate to things that are already planned. For example, we have developed policies to reduce fuel poverty, improve infrastructure, strengthen our economy and deal with issues in our health budget. That all comes together as one joint collective action on climate change.

It is key that we recognise those actions as investment in our public services and our communities, better air quality, reduced pollution, improved water quality and better public transport. Fewer cars on the road will also tackle congestion. It is about investment in warmer, more comfortable homes, in buildings that cost less to run and in greater energy security. It is about investment in shopping local and improving biodiversity. All of us have expressed our concerns about Lough Neagh and reducing our emissions. That is another strand of the action that we will take on climate change. It is about investing in improving the health outcomes for people who live in cold and damp houses and have to travel to work through congested traffic that causes pollution. They do not have the resilience that many of us have to deal with fluctuating fuel and energy costs. Setting the carbon budgets for the 2040 target is about investing in our economic future and sending the message to local and international businesses and investors that we have a stable and long-term commitment to decarbonisation and that we are forward-facing and ready to embrace new technologies and employment opportunities.

In all the discussions about cost, let us remember that the UK impact assessment shows a £2·66 billion net present value benefit from reaching net zero. It is about putting it in context. Fundamentally, and this is a key point, doing nothing will cost us more. Carbon budgets and interim targets simply provide the trajectory to ensure that the actions that we take are gradual and fair. They mitigate the risk of having to take more radical action over shorter periods, which would result in significantly higher costs of mitigation and adaption measures and risk us losing out on economic and employment opportunities.

In the absence of carbon budgets, all Departments will still have to meet the targets in the Act. We are also bound by the requirements of the UK's 2008 Act. The two SRs that I ask you to affirm are to give us the pathway. It is not about pressing pause. It is about moving towards the pathway and allowing us to start the journey so that we can do it gradually and bring people, communities and sectors with us in a fair and just manner. Now is not the time to reduce the pace. Folks, we have not even started the marathon yet. We are at the start line, and some people are saying that they want to go back to the hotel. We need to get on the road. We need to be able to do it, and we need to give people in Northern Ireland hope that we are confident about our future.

I have also heard concerns about the level of our targets. I remind Members that the figures for carbon budgets that I have brought before the Assembly are reflective of the advice received from the CCC. Some Members have raised concerns about the net zero trajectory that we are on. The target was set over two years ago by the Assembly, but I remind Members that the CCC's advice has never said that Northern Ireland could not meet net zero. Indeed, its most recent, updated advice from 2023 confirms that we can meet our targets and provided us with a range of pathways to do so. That is why we will bring through the climate action plans.

Some Members have told me, in my role as Minister, that the legislation is flawed and that the targets in the Act are too hard. Yet when I attended New York's Climate Week, our legislation was the envy of others. The strength of social justice runs right through it: there is a safety net provided by the required impact assessments, a focus on just transition, and a systems approach of focusing on nature-based solutions, embedding biodiversity and soil and air-quality targets alongside climate action. Let me be clear: I will not change the Act to remove our net zero target. I am convinced by the swaths of science, evidence and case studies that show the benefits and opportunities that will be created as we reduce our emissions and achieve net zero, and I do not want Northern Ireland to miss out. The impacts of climate change are clearly no longer confined to academic reports and research papers. As Members have said, we can see its impacts, the instability that it causes and the huge financial and economic pressures that it brings.

I am not saying that it will be easy — I know that a marathon is hard: I have done 11 of them — but it is far from impossible. I have faith in this place; I have faith in the people of Northern Ireland; and I believe that we can do this. We have a strong history of innovation and problem-solving. In my Department, there is globally cutting-edge work on decarbonisation in the agriculture sector. Give farmers credit for the work that is being done: that sector is leading by example, and I am very proud of it.

My Executive colleagues, across lead-sector Departments, have policies and programmes in place that work, and they are also working to develop future policies. The policies will not only reduce carbon but insulate homes, bring down people's bills, give us greater energy security and, with EVs, reduce air pollution. We have globally leading science and technology, and we have the chance to embrace future industries that will attract green investment and have real economic benefits.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for giving way. I have waited for quite a while.

Mr Muir: I am going to respond to your point.

Mr Butler: The point that I would like to get to, because you have referenced it a number of times, is that the CCC set the targets a number of months ago, and I am sure that the Committee will agree with me that that is absolutely a given point. However, our job is to scrutinise the Department's work and decisions and what you bring forward, Minister. I do not want to pre-empt it too much, but will you give the Committee clarity and confidence today that, when you bring forward the changes, ambition and plans, it will have reasonable time, rather than its being the way that the SL1 and SR were brought forward in this instance?

Mr Muir: No problem, Robbie. I am happy to have had your intervention, and I will address your points. The key fundamental is the judicial review against my Department for not setting the carbon budgets, and that weighs on me. That is why it is important to do this, and I am grateful to the Business Committee for tabling the motions today for debate. Going forward, hopefully, we will not be subject to those judicial reviews as a result of our statutory obligations, and we will have that time for engagement.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for letting me in again. Will the Minister put on record whether there was any dissension in the Executive about tabling this piece? Obviously, it has been put through with the Executive's approval.

Mr Muir: The matter was brought to the Executive, and it received the Executive's approval. The Member will be aware that Executive business is confidential, and I hope that Members will be able to support the SRs in front of us today.

Every day, I meet business people, people from rural communities, those in the energy sector and farming, and those who work in food production, transport and recycling. Many of those people are leading the way. They are already taking action, empowering and educating their communities. They look at our changing world, and they want to play their part. Many of them have committed and are already taking part in the journey towards net zero, but they are looking for clarity. They are looking to the Assembly to set the ambition and for the framework to deliver on climate and environmental action. For the sake of the future of people here, we owe it to all our young people to step up, play our part and start delivering for Northern Ireland.

I hope that I have addressed your points. I have addressed the issues that you raised about the climate action plan, and we will bring forward that plan once we set the budgets. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) recently released some research on green jobs, which I will send to you. That research gives us an understanding of from where growth is coming and the sectors involved.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for giving way again. This is a really important point. We met the rural support groups. If there is any financial impact on the farming and agriculture sector, just transition will need to kick in. A just transition can be created only if we travel that route. Will the green jobs be distributed equitably to ensure that those who live in rural areas can avail themselves of the opportunities?

Mr Muir: The Member is moving ahead of himself. We will hopefully get the carbon budgets agreed today, but one of the next steps is to bring forward the climate action plan, get Executive agreement and then announce the green growth strategy. It is a cross-Executive strategy and is about securing good green jobs. I will be able to provide a bit more detail about that in the time ahead.

I was at the British-Irish Council meeting last Friday, at which I updated the UK Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and the leaders of the devolved Administrations that are part of the British Isles on our plan for the green growth strategy. I made a very strong case that, once we get the strategy agreed, we should be looking towards having a green new deal. As Minister, I am very keen to work with my Executive colleagues to continue on the trajectory towards green growth and towards delivering those good green jobs. A lot of good work is therefore under way. I am making the pitch for Northern Ireland, and I will continue to do so.

Achieving a just transition is absolutely key, and, when it is established, the just transition commission will be fundamental through its being able to give guidance and provide a scrutiny role. Its establishment is something else on which we have fallen behind. We were unable to progress the commission because of the lack of an Assembly.

Some of the other contributions from Members referenced the impact of trade deals. The next debate, on the democratic consent motion, will perhaps elucidate that. One of the perceived benefits of Brexit has been trade deals that the UK has done with other parts of the world, but they are not to the benefit of Northern Ireland, as far as I am concerned, and particularly not to the benefit of farmers. It was bizarre to see the UK Government announce some of their trade deals during this year's Balmoral show.

Matthew echoed my concerns about stop-go government and the impact that it has on so many aspects, including on what we are doing here setting the carbon budgets. He mentioned the climate commissioner. The Executive Office is progressing the establishment of that office.

Tom Buchanan raised a number of issues. I will not engage in the climate change denial that he did. Climate change is a reality. We see it, and we would do well to follow the science and evidence. Mention was made of the threat to jobs and livelihoods. That threat is real if we do not take action to address climate change, and, today, I am giving the Assembly an opportunity to move forward. People in Northern Ireland, especially farmers, need leadership, and I am giving that in spades. They do not need people who are in denial about issues, and I am very much not in denial. I am very realistic about climate change.

Most importantly, the Prime Minister of the UK said very clearly to the British-Irish Council that climate change is for real and that there will be devastating consequences if we do not act on achieving net zero. We have the single biggest opportunity of our time. It is a global race, and many are getting in the race. We in the UK have advantages, particularly when it comes to skills, but we should not just be in the race. Rather, we should be looking to win it. A just transition requires an active Government, and being active is what I am doing today. The Taoiseach, Simon Harris, said at the British-Irish Council meeting that climate change is a scientific reality. A just transition is not just about growing our economy but about raising living standards in a just way.

The First Minister of Scotland spoke about the need to give policy certainty and the importance of not leaving anyone behind. I do not seek to leave anyone behind. I seek to give leadership on the issue, and I seek to follow the leadership that many other people are demonstrating. Many businesses in Northern Ireland are getting on the road towards net zero and decarbonisation. Many have signed up to Business in the Community's climate action pledge: companies such as ABP Food Group, Almac, Belfast Harbour Commissioners, Danske Bank, Encirc, the Galgorm Group, GRAHAM, the Henry Group, Hughes Insurance, Northern Ireland Water, Translink and Wrightbus. Let us join them on that path. Let us show leadership and move towards net zero.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The motion has been debated. I have been advised that the party Whips are content that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease until Question Time at 2.00 pm.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister for Infrastructure): In advance of the planning application in 2017, Translink undertook extensive community engagement in the Sandy Row and Grosvenor Road areas. Much of the feedback received was incorporated into the design for the new station, such as ensuring easy access to Sandy Row from the station, once the project was complete, retaining pedestrian access from Sandy Row to the city centre via the existing Europa bus station and significantly extending public realm works up Sandy Row.

I am also aware that Translink has been continually engaged with the local community, including businesses in the area, throughout the design and construction of the new station. That has included regular engagement with the local retailers' forum and face-to-face engagement with the businesses on Sandy Row in July 2023, and a presentation on the works was given to elected and community representatives in the area in February 2024. An update covering the Durham Street road closure was provided at a local community meeting in April 2024, and there was a letter drop to residents, community groups and businesses on 8 October 2024, providing full details of road closures and associated activity. Feedback from that more recent community engagement highlighted the fact that one of the benefits identified from the temporary closure of Durham Street would be the reduction in through traffic on Sandy Row, which had become an increasing issue for residents in the area.

I appreciate that there may be some impact on retailers in the area. As a result of that, Translink has reached out to the Linen Quarter Business Improvement District and other agencies to see whether there is an opportunity to work with local retailers to assist them during the transition phase while the works are completed.

Once completed, Saltwater Square will be a new public space in the city and one of the major points of the new station. It is envisaged that it will be used in a way similar to Custom House Square for public art, entertainment and leisure activities. It will also be a lively, busy place, providing opportunities for visitors, local residents and commuters.

Mr Gaston: Minister, I asked you yesterday:

You said that there had been none. In response to three questions for written answer last month, you told me that you were discharging a number of planning conditions relating to the Belfast transport hub that had originally been put in place to protect the unionist businesses on Sandy Row. What sort of messaging does it send to others when rules and regulations are an afterthought in your Department?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member needs to understand the distinct legal entity that is Translink. As I stated yesterday, my Department is not in breach of any planning conditions in relation to the planning application. My Department is working its way through a number of planning matters in Translink's programme of work in and around Grand Central station and other matters. The Member would do well to understand the legal entity that is Translink.

Mrs Erskine: Minister, we talked yesterday about the traffic chaos in Belfast. You answered my question on the strategic oversight group. It is meeting not daily but weekly. It does not include the Chamber of Commerce or the business community. Yesterday, there was "Work from home" messaging from the Department, and you were then publicly embarrassed over bringing forward your meetings with businesses.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Is there a question?

Mrs Erskine: Why has engagement not taken place urgently on the traffic chaos in Belfast before now? We all knew that traffic chaos would come, so why has that taken until now?

Mr O'Dowd: Those who claim to have Belfast's interests at heart would do well not to broadcast constantly the fact that there is traffic chaos in Belfast. There is traffic congestion in Belfast. Last Thursday night was particularly difficult as a result of traffic accidents on the M1 and M2, the weather conditions and the failure of traffic lights on the Ormeau Road. If Members genuinely have Belfast's interests at heart, let us have a sensible, informed conversation about what is going on so that people who want to travel to Belfast to enjoy the sights and sounds of the festive season feel confident in doing so.

I did not say yesterday that the strategic group was meeting daily: I said that it had been meeting daily. Why are business groups not represented on it? It is not the right forum for the business groups. I have, however, given instructions to the group to improve its communications with the business groups, because they are key stakeholders.

In regard to my being embarrassed about overturning a decision, until I heard about it on the radio this morning, I was not aware that I would not be meeting the Chamber of Commerce until January. I am not involved in putting meetings in my diary. I agree to meet groups, and, rightly, my private office organises those meetings. The meeting date was agreed — agreed — between my private office and the business group. When I became aware that the business group had concerns, I was happy to bring the meeting forward. I have a very good working relationship with the Belfast Chamber of Commerce and other commercial groups across the North.

Mr O'Toole: First, Minister, you may want to speak to your private office, if you have no say over what goes in your diary. Secondly, I want to gently push back on what Mr Gaston said about "unionist businesses" on Sandy Row. People from all over the community have used the shops in Sandy Row in the past, and I hope that that will be the case into the future. We need to be careful about using that kind of language.

Minister, yesterday you said that you wanted people to get out of their cars and onto public transport: we can all agree to that. To do that, particularly in the south of the city, we need Glider phase 2. When will we get an update on that? You promised that it would be in the coming weeks, but we have heard nothing yet.

Mr O'Dowd: I have often heard the leader of the Opposition talking about being a constructive Opposition. What is constructive about misrepresenting what I have just said? I said that I agreed to meet the group. The date that goes into my diary is organised between my private office and the organisation that I am meeting. I emphasise that the date was agreed. When I became aware that the business group had concerns, I rightly asked my private office to contact it again to see whether we could bring the meeting forward, and we have done that.

When will Belfast Rapid Transit phase 2 (BRT2) be in place? When I am in a position to make an announcement. I hope that that will be before the end of the calendar year. If it is not before the end of the calendar year, it will be immediately after the end of the calendar year. We will progress that, and it will provide more public transport infrastructure in the city for those who wish to travel into and across the city.

Mr Stewart: Given the impact that the roadworks etc are having on local businesses, have you engaged with your colleagues in the Finance Department and the Economy Department to see what support can be opened up for those businesses?

Mr O'Dowd: I understand that the Department for Communities is bringing forward a specific programme of work for Sandy Row, and fair play to it for doing so. I am aware that the business organisations in the city regularly meet my Executive colleagues to discuss issues. Again, I emphasise that one of the reasons why Belfast is so busy with traffic is that it is doing particularly well commercially. Like all businesses, businesses in Belfast are still recovering from the impact of COVID-19, and this season is particularly important to them. I will work with businesses on that matter. I again ask Members this: if you are saying that there is chaos in Belfast, what message does that send to people who want to come into the city to enjoy its sights and sounds? My Department and I have set out alternatives for commuters coming into the city, and I encourage others to encourage commuters to plan how they travel into the city.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member is not in his place for question 2.

Mr O'Dowd: The proposed pedestrian and cycle bridge forms part of the Newtownards to Bangor greenway. Planning approval for the project, including the bridge, was granted in September 2022. Ards and North Down Borough Council is leading on the delivery of the project, and I am pleased that my Department has been able to provide 50% of the capital funding required to bring it forward. We know that greenways contribute positively to local communities and can bring many health and economic benefits. I look forward to seeing that happening here.

With respect to active travel more generally, Members may be aware that I recently launched a public consultation on a draft active travel delivery plan for the North. The plan sets out how my Department will prioritise and deliver high-quality active travel infrastructure, particularly for shorter, everyday journeys. I encourage everyone to engage with the consultation to help to shape our priorities for the delivery of pedestrian and cycling infrastructure improvements in our villages, towns and cities now and into the future.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his response and for the update on the wider investment in greenways. I welcome the investment in greenways in the Ards and North Down Borough Council area.

The Minister may be aware that the residents who live directly on the site where the footbridge is due to be constructed have expressed serious concerns about that aspect of the project. They have also raised wider concerns around road safety in the laneway that they reside on, speed limits and proposed alternative crossing options for access to the greenway but have been disappointed by the lack of engagement with DFI officials on their request to meet. Given the range of concerns that they have raised and the constructive proposals that they would like to bring to your officials, would you be able to facilitate a meeting between your officials and that group of concerned residents?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware that the project received planning permission in September 2022 and has gone through the local council. All the issues related to residents' concerns will have been dealt with through the planning process. My understanding is that Ards and North Down Borough Council is moving ahead with the project. It is regrettable that there are concerns. I do not know all the circumstances — there are often understandable concerns about changes in neighbourhoods and to the environment around citizens — but the planning process has to take all that into account and come to a decision. A decision has been made by Ards and North Down Borough Council to proceed with the project.

Miss Brogan: Will the Minister outline what his Department is doing to improve active travel?

Mr O'Dowd: As I mentioned, I recently launched the active travel consultation document. I encourage Members and others to make themselves familiar with that document and respond to it in due course. It sets out the Department's vision of what active travel will look like in the future. We have given a number of examples and locations where we would like to see active travel projects go ahead. It is important that local communities and elected representatives feed into the consultation in order to make the document as inclusive as possible.

Mr McNulty: Will the Minister give an update on the new Newry to Carlingford greenway that is under construction? I know that a new boardwalk is being constructed adjacent to Victoria lock. That project, together with the Narrow Water bridge project, which has, of course, been paid for by the Irish Government, will be transformative for Omeath, Warrenpoint, the Mournes, Cooley and the whole region.

Mr O'Dowd: The supplementary question does not relate to the original question, but the Member has given us a comprehensive update on the project.

Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his update on active travel. Minister, what are you doing to ensure that the voice of the disabled community is at the forefront of active travel, particularly on schemes such as bus stop boarders that have an impact on the disabled community? Will those, such as the example on the Dublin Road be addressed?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member raises a relevant and important point about the inclusivity of active travel moving forward. We are working closely with the Inclusive Mobility and Transport Advisory Committee (IMTAC) on that. I believe that Dermot Devlin was present and gave an address at the recent launch of the document. We are engaging closely with the disabled community on the issue. They are important stakeholders in the discussion on active travel and how we plan for it. I encourage anyone with views on active travel to respond to the consultation.

Mr O'Dowd: My Department's policy on the provision of street lighting in rural areas is detailed in policy and procedure guide E072. The policy, which has been in place since 1993, uses two main criteria when considering the provision of street lighting in rural areas. They relate to the density of development along a road or where lighting is likely to help at sites that have a significant history of night-time collisions. There must be at least 10 dwellings located within a continuous 200-metre road length to qualify for the installation of street lighting. In applying that rule, dwellings must front the road that is being considered for lighting. At present, the section of the Buncrana Road near Coshquin does not meet the criteria under that departmental policy.

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

As the Minister is aware, Coshquin is on or off the Buncrana Road. Will he provide us with an update on the long-awaited and long-overdue dualling of the A2 Buncrana Road?

Not only are the delays there causing traffic problems in the area but potential road safety interventions along the route have been put off and put off because the dualling of the road has been imminent for nearly 50 years.

Mr O'Dowd: The future delivery of that project rests with the local transport plan. We hope to be in a position to launch a consultation on the Derry City and Strabane District Council transport plan early next summer: I believe that the date is set for that. That will then fit into how we strategically move traffic in and around that area and how we deal with the traffic, given, for example, the increasing numbers of students at the Magee campus. It is an important consultation and plan, and I have no doubt that the Member will be able to respond to them in due course.

Ms Sheerin: How does the Minister's Department consider the impact of street lighting on the safety of women and girls?

Mr O'Dowd: Safety in general is one of the factors that is taken into account in the provision of street lighting. I am aware of the launch of the policy on ending violence against women and girls. A number of areas in my Department will have to have a rethink as to what services we provide and how we provide them. I believe that the street lighting policy will fall under that.

Mr O'Dowd: I met Ministers Nesbitt and Muir on 9 September to discuss the cross-departmental working group on community transport, which I established in my previous time as Minister. We collectively agreed that the group will look to consider whether transport in the community can provide a more cost-effective, value-for-money service delivery model to meet the needs of users, and to investigate the potential for community transport providers to be part of a collaborative group of transport options and pathways that can be accessed by the population. My officials are preparing a new transport strategy and a new suite of transport plans that will set the framework for transport policy and investment decisions until 2035.

The suite of transport plans will not consider changes to community transport operations, as those matters are being considered separately by the Department at a regional level and will be integrated into the plans as appropriate. While health and social care transport is the responsibility of the Department of Health, the transport plans will consider access, including by public transport, to the main health and social care facilities.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Minister, for your response. I am pleased to hear that you are working with other Departments to try to coordinate a transport approach. I encourage you to look in particular at the impact on rural areas. It can take up to an hour to get from Coleraine to Castlerock on a public transport bus, whereas it takes 10 minutes in a car. If community transport can take customers to the bus stop, there are ways that we can do that better. Are there any more conversations that we can have about medical transport? I know that a lot of people are paying privately for that service, and the cost is quite significant.

Mr O'Dowd: I am happy for my Department to engage in any conversations as to how we assist the public, whether in accessing healthcare or other matters, particularly in rural communities. Many rural communities have been left behind for far too long when it comes to the provision of public transport. Even as part of the community transport review that I am carrying out, we will have to look at how we deliver that transport in a different way in order to ensure that there is equal access to services for rural communities.

Mr O'Dowd: In order to address the safety issues on the Glenshesk Road, I have allocated £275,000 to manage the damage associated with the slippage on 27 March 2024. That funding will facilitate surveys and enabling works and will allow for the completion of the detailed design throughout this financial year. Further funding will then be sought from next year’s structural maintenance allocation, once the detailed design is complete and a final estimate of the construction costs can be developed. I can advise that funding was also provided to manage the impact of the most recent slippage further along Glenshesk Road associated with storm Bert. I am pleased to confirm that remedial works are now complete at that location.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. I have spoken about this matter a couple of times before, and it is just because of the impact that it is having on that farming community. Does the Minister know whether further or additional measures will be put in place to prevent further damage from any other storm-related incidents along that road? We know that the situation is created by the increased rainfall and the increased volume of water going under the concourse of the road. Will additional measures be put in place before the final upgrade and works?

Mr O'Dowd: We will examine how we can secure the road. The Member, and other Members, may have seen the video footage taken of the most recent damage to the road. It is significant. The topography of the area makes it very difficult to remedy, and, due to the intensity of some of the rainstorms that we have had recently, material has simply washed out from underneath the road. We will examine it to see how we can secure the road in the long term.

Mr O'Dowd: My Department has published flood maps for all areas across the region. Those maps identify areas that may be vulnerable to flooding. A regional flood risk management plan (FRMP) for 2021-27 has also been developed by my Department. This FRMP, which is readily available on my Department’s website, includes a range of interventions to manage flood risk from a range of sources. As part of that work, my Department is planning to commission detailed flood studies for Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus, to assess any river and coastal flood risks within those locations and to identify whether there are any economically viable schemes to reduce the impact of flooding in the area.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister and appreciate his response. Flood forecasting and an early warning alert would, obviously, allow for more efficient, targeted, emergency responses and flood warnings directly to residents. Will he provide an update as to where that sits with his Department?

Mr O'Dowd: It is the ambition of my Department to introduce such a measure. However, such things incur significant costs. I keep the matter under review through budgetary periods to see whether I can set aside the funding even to start such alerts and reach a point where we have an up-to-date flood identification programme.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Minister outline what approach his Department has taken on flood risk management specifically on Kings Row in Coalisland, which has flooded on numerous occasions, most recently during the heavy rain on 23 November, causing devastation to those homes.

Mr O'Dowd: In the lead up to the recent storm, storm Bert, there was, for a period, notification of that storm approaching. My officials managed to visit a number of sites about which they had concerns to check, in particular, drainage and the covers on drains, and whether drains were blocked by any materials. That was the case in the King' Row area, which my officials visited on the Friday and again on the Saturday to ensure that there was no recurrence of previous flooding. They checked as best they could because there are a number of factors involved in the flooding in Kings Row. I have also asked my officials to carry out a review of the flooding there and at Dundonald and in a few other places that were impacted on by flooding in the previous storm to see whether there are any lessons that we can learn from that.

At this point, I put on record my appreciation to all the staff who worked over the weekend and put in long hours, from all the agencies that responded to the most recent flood. A lot of the work that they carried out prior to the storm hitting saved a lot of communities from damage and flooding, though it was not a particularly heavy rain event: it was more of a wind event. However, the work that goes on behind the scenes is often unseen and unappreciated. However, I assure Members that significant work was carried out by a multitude of agencies in the run-up to the most recent storm.

Mr McMurray: Very briefly, I would like to associate myself with the Minister's comments thanking the staff for their work over the past weekend. Will the Minister give us his assessment as to whether tidal defences in towns around Northern Ireland are adequate or whether further improvements will be required in the light of climate change to prevent further flooding incidents?

Mr O'Dowd: My Department's role in coastal defences is the protection of my Department's property. That may include roads and other areas. That is my Department's role in coastal flood defences. There has been some engagement with Minister Muir — there is no doubt that that engagement will continue — and others in the Executive about how we ensure that we have proper coastal defences in place as tides and storms increase.

Mr Brooks: I associate myself with the Minister's thanks to the staff for their work. My colleague Joanne Bunting has been engaging with his Department to try to have a meeting about future plans to protect the houses in Dundonald. I ask the Minister to encourage officials to arrange a meeting so that we can discuss what we can do to support those people.

Mr O'Dowd: I am happy to raise that issue with my officials.

Mr O'Dowd: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 9 and 10 together, and, if appropriate, I ask for some extra time to do so.

I noted the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the funding of water infrastructure, which was published earlier this year. My Department carried out considerable work on the funding and governance options for NI Water. In 2019-2020, the Department formed a working group with experts from NI Water, the Utility Regulator, the Department of Finance, the Strategic Investment Board and the Department for Infrastructure's finance branch to undertake research into and analysis of the situation. That work reviewed opportunities for raising additional revenue; operating more efficiently; using financial transactions capital and additional borrowing; and seeking an increase in public expenditure funding. My Department also reviewed alternative water utility company structures across Britain and Ireland in order to identify best practice. However, the privatisation and mutualisation models that are favoured in England and Wales require domestic water customers to pay charges. Further recent evidence has demonstrated that those governance models do not necessarily provide the better levels of services that people expect and can lead to higher levels of debt and increasing costs.

Regardless of whether the existing funding model is sustainable and fit for purpose, there is a need for additional funding for all public services. NI Water is not immune to that. Water and sewerage infrastructure has suffered from years of historical underinvestment as a result of the austerity policies of successive British Governments. We are dealing with the legacy of that. I continue to make the case with my Executive colleagues for additional funding for NI Water. Indeed, I was able to provide NI Water with an additional £32 million of public money in the October monitoring round, £19·5 million of which was to specifically address waste water capacity issues in order to enable housing connections.

If the suggestion is that another funding model should be introduced, the Assembly should be aware that the other models that have been proposed to date would involve domestic water charges and additional borrowing debt finance. That includes mutualisation, on which I made my position clear in the debate on the private Members' motion on the matter in April. To be clear, I will not introduce domestic water charges and I will not oversee additional borrowing that will lead to an unmanageable scale of debt that is similar to what is being experienced in some water companies in England. I am progressing a three-pronged approach in partnership with the Executive by seeking further investment from Executive colleagues; reviewing the policy and legislation on developer contributions; and seeking to secure Executive agreement for the water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill, which is to be introduced to the Assembly.

Mr McGrath: Whilst I can hear in the answer that the Minister agrees that something needs to be done, can we get any sense of a timescale for when it will happen? The problems are mounting up, and people are suffering as a result. All that we seem to hear is, "We need extra funding, but we're not going to generate any extra money". How will we get something done?

Mr O'Dowd: Let us see what we have done in recent months. I provided NI Water with over £500 million of funding, which is 40% of the non-ring-fenced budget of my Department. In recent weeks, during the October monitoring round, I secured an extra £32 million for NI Water. I secured agreement from the Executive about a sustainable drainage Bill, which will be introduced in the Assembly in due course. I am working my way through what legislative changes or new legislation I will require to introduce developer charges in relation to NI Water. Those are three practical steps that I have taken in the last period.

I do not know whether Members had the opportunity last night to watch 'Panorama'. It was a very interesting programme about private water infrastructure and businesses in England.

I advise Members to watch it. It would be worth the while of those who advocate the privatisation or mutualisation of NI Water to watch it and see the consequences for the environment, shareholders — well, it is good for the shareholders, it has to be said — and bill payers.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, time is up.

That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mr O'Dowd: I am confident that, with the Executive working together and seeking solutions to problems, rather than simply highlighting them, we can be successful in fulfilling our ambition and plan to deliver that number of homes over the next number of years.

NI Water, like all public services, faces significant challenges. It is no different from any other public service. I am confident that Executive colleagues understand the need. If we are to progress our ambitious plans across a range of areas, the Department for Infrastructure needs to be properly funded. If we do not have the drains underground, we cannot put the cranes overground. I am bringing forward proposals in that regard.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer. In response to an earlier question, the Minister outlined his opposition to water charges and his concerns about mutualisation, which I share. In that context, however, why does the Minister appear reluctant to proceed with the independent expert-led review of Northern Ireland Water's funding and governance, as recommended by the Northern Ireland Audit Office?

Mr O'Dowd: The actual term used in the Audit Office report is "encourage". There is no formal recommendation in the Audit Office report; it encourages NI Water and me to proceed with a review. If a Member or anyone comes forward to me with fresh information that would lead to an expert-led panel dealing with new information on how to structure a water company, I am more than willing to do that, but, to date, no one has come forward to me with that and nor am I aware of information that would lead to the benefit of an expert-led group being brought in.

I could stand here and say, "Yes, I will bring in an expert-led group to carry out a review that will last six months and cost x amount of money", and be pretty confident that, at the end of it, it would come back to me with the same conclusions as every other review of NI Water that has been conducted. Members need to get off the fence in that sense. You either support NI Water's remaining a publicly owned company funded through direct taxation, or you support its being privatised. That is the fence on which some people are sitting. People are perfectly entitled to get off that fence on whichever side they want, but get off the fence and defend your position. I am defending my position: I will not privatise NI Water, and I will not introduce domestic water charges.

Mr O'Dowd: My officials are more than happy to engage with the Member on that and discuss the road safety implications in the area and how best to deal with them.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that the road is treacherous, particularly in winter conditions, and there have been numerous incidents over the years, will the Minister consider adding the road to the gritting schedule for the time being?

Mr O'Dowd: There is a long-standing policy on the roads that the Department does and can grit within the time frame and the finances that it has available. I am more than happy to share the criteria with the Member. If she believes that the road in question meets those criteria, she should raise that when she discusses the crash barrier issue with officials.

Mr O'Dowd: There have been no further policy developments, but we will look at the issue as we work our way through road safety improvements. Drivers should be aware that, under the Highway Code, I believe, they should not pass a stationary school bus. If we need to strengthen the legislation on it, however, we should look at that.

Ms Dolan: Minister, it is vital for rural areas such as my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, especially as a young girl lost her life. In the meantime, when there is no legislation, will you commit to working with other agencies and stakeholders to ensure maximum safety for our children and young people at bus stops on rural roads?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. I have said in the Chamber many times that 95% of road traffic collisions are a result of human error by a driver, a pedestrian, a cyclist or whomever the road user is. Human error leads to 95% of road traffic collisions. I appeal to anyone who comes across a stationary school bus, whether it is on a rural or urban road, to give space to the bus and to the passengers who are getting off it, particularly on these dark nights.

I occasionally get the opportunity to give my sons a lift from the school bus stop. I see the way in which young people come off that bus. You have to have your wits about you. When people approach stationary school buses, they should always be aware that young people are about. Their lives are busier and more exciting than ours, and they have a lot of things going on in their head, so give them space and time in order to ensure that they arrive home safely.

Mr O'Dowd: I hope to come before the House to do that in the early part of the next calendar year. As the Member heard me say earlier, a number of plans are afoot. Plans are going through development in a number of areas across the North. I hope to be in a position to come forward with a plan in the early part of next year.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he recognise that those whom I represent and, indeed, those whom his party represents are keen to see a road map for infrastructure projects such as the dualling of the A26 to the north coast and the Ballykelly bypass?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes, it will be an important document. The consultation process that we will enter into will map out our road and transport network for the next 20-odd years, maybe more. It is vital. I understand Members' anticipation as they wait for it, so I will do my best to bring it forward as soon as possible.

Mr O'Dowd: I expect that, by early spring of next year, the measures that I have taken on exemptions will have had their full impact and we will therefore see a significant reduction in the delays in people receiving their MOT dates. There are still delays in some areas. My mailbox on the issue has significantly reduced over the past number of months, which may indicate an improvement in service. I encourage anyone who is seeking a date to continue to check the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) website, however, because cancellations will become available. If people are at the point at which renewing their tax and other matters are on a collision course with an MOT date, there is information on the nidirect website. DVA officials will work with people as best as they can to get them a date and time.

Mr K Buchanan: I thank you for your answer. Minister, I understand that the Hydebank and Mallusk centres will add approximately 20% to the system's capacity, which will reduce delays even further. Will you provide an update on when those sites will open to the public?

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware that we are now engaged in legal proceedings with the company that was providing the equipment to Mallusk and Hydebank. I hope that those legal proceedings will be resolved as soon as possible, and we will then have a greater indication of the capacity in the system. The Member is right: it would be much better if Hydebank and Mallusk were up and running. That would take some of the pressure off other parts of the system, but, thus far, the measures that have been taken are absorbing the pressure.

Mr O'Dowd: The matter has, understandably, been raised with me on several occasions. My officials are working their way through the application, and, when they are in a position to make a recommendation to me, they will do so.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for that answer. I acknowledge that he is working hard on the matter, but it is an approval that was issued by Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council and is waiting for a call-in from your Department. Hopefully, the matter will be resolved soon so that the hotel can be completed for the 153rd British Open at Royal Portrush in 2025, given that just under 238,000 people attended the last event there.

Mr O'Dowd: I assure the Member that I am acutely aware of the importance of the application and the upcoming major event that is being planned. However, all planning applications have to be given a fair and equal hearing, and that is exactly what is happening with that application.

Mr O'Dowd: Planned works will proceed. There is no legal injunction to prevent us moving ahead with planned works, and, given the cost of delay to that project, it is only right and prudent that we move ahead as planned.

Mr T Buchanan: Will there be no implications, following the court case, if the Department continues with work on the A5?

Mr O'Dowd: There is no legal impediment to the Department continuing the works on the A5. That is the process that we will now commence. The cost of delays to the A5 going beyond next spring will run to tens of millions of pounds, not to mention the road safety implications of continuing delays. My Department will proceed within its legal framework.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question 8 was withdrawn after the deadline.

Mr O'Dowd: If the Member wishes to write to me about her constituent's experience, I will be more than happy to receive that correspondence and take a look at it. That would be important.

As the Member says, I announced this morning that the second stage invitation for tenders will take place in spring 2025, following the pre-qualification assessment, which will determine a restrictive list of contractors. The construction for the scheme is due to commence in March 2026 and will take three years to complete.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Diane Dodds for a quick supplementary.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is good news, Minister. Will you explain the length of the scheme? To which junction between Loughbrickland and Newry will it go from Hillsborough?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Minister has one minute.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have a list of the junctions in front of me, but the A1 junctions phase 2 scheme aims to provide further safety improvements along the A1 dual carriageway between Hillsborough and Loughbrickland. I am more than happy to provide the Member with the detail that she requires.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, time is up. I ask you to take your ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Speaker: The Assembly will be aware that a legal challenge to the vote taking place today was abandoned in the High Court yesterday. The court was clear that the Executive, legislature and judiciary must observe the separation of powers and would not consider any step to prevent the vote taking place. Any further proceedings will not be directed at the Assembly. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to Members participating in the debate.

Mr McGuigan: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. Please open the debate on the motion.

Mr McGuigan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), in a report analysing the impact of Brexit, concluded that the post-Brexit relationship between Britain and the EU:

It stated:

Britain

It concluded:

Official British Government statistics produced by HMRC concluded that, in the 12 months ending June 2024, compared with the previous 12 months, England, Scotland and Wales each experienced a decrease in the value of their exports. Here in the North, that value increased, with HMRC stating that trade from the North is growing, suggesting that the Windsor framework is working for our domestic exporters.

I do not intend to rehash the debate about Brexit, but it is important to set today's vital debate and vote in context. In 2016, the vast majority of citizens in the North voted to remain in the EU. They did so in the knowledge that, politically and economically, it is in our best interests. Those who say today that they do not consent to the protocol seem to forget the fact that the North never consented to Brexit in the first place. As I said in a previous debate, there are those who, prior to the Brexit referendum and after it, appear intent on pursuing a strategy of political self-sabotage on a grand scale regardless of the implications for peace on this island or the prosperity of businesses, communities and citizens in the North. It was clear that Brexit, whether in Britain or Ireland, was never going to be positive. That is a fact that, hopefully, even its initial proponents across the Chamber can, at least in private, now recognise.

Thankfully, for those of us who live in the North of Ireland, our voice was heard and listened to during the negotiations between the EU and the British Government. Sinn Féin continues to give people in the North a voice in the EU through our two MEPs, Lynn Boylan and Kathleen Funchion. In previous negotiations, the terms and conditions of the Good Friday Agreement were front and centre. Thankfully, the EU was not going to allow peace in Ireland to be collateral damage of English or British nationalism.

The protocol and further agreements offer us, particularly our businesses, protections from Brexit's worst excesses, as they allow for dual market access to the EU and British markets. The objectives of the agreement are listed in articles 1 and 3 of the protocol/Windsor framework, which forms an integral part of the UK's EU withdrawal agreement, and it states that its purpose is:

Good Friday

Those are the hard-fought and hard-won protections that absolutely need to continue and that we will vote for today. They are protections that are necessary and which offer certainty and stability for our businesses. The certainty and stability that our businesses want to be clear will continue after today's vote. They are protections that have contributed to trade increasing across this island by 125% between 2018 and 2023, growing from €4·5 billion in 2018 to €10·2 billion in 2023, according to the Central Statistics Office in Ireland, which also states that trade from the South to the North increased by 104% to €5 billion in 2023. Trade from North to South increased by 150% to €5·2 billion in 2023, up from €2·1 billion in 2018. This trade between North and South in 2024 continues to be dominated by exports and imports of food, live animals, chemicals and related products, and it continues to grow in value and importance.

Are there issues? Of course there are. This is not perfect. However, the protocol at least mitigates the worst excesses of Brexit. As I said earlier, Brexit could not be anything other than negative and was always going to cause problems. We have managed to protect ourselves from the worst impact, but there have been impacts. Community and voluntary groups, businesses, sporting organisations and rural communities have lost access to millions in EU funding. Our young people are losing out on the full benefits of the ERASMUS scheme. The electronic travel authorisation (ETA) that has been imposed by the British Government will undoubtedly disrupt and damage the number of visitors travelling northwards and impact on our tourism and hospitality sectors. There are still outstanding areas of concern for some sectors and small businesses here.

The Labour Government at Westminster have stated that they are determined to reset the relationship with the EU. If that transpires, it will be a welcome development for us in the North too. I want to see progress made on the issue of veterinary medicines and the need for a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement between Britain and the EU. Those are issues that can and should be resolved through agreement, and I hope that that happens sooner rather than later.

In the short term, the certainty and stability in the relationship with the EU that the protocol and Windsor framework offer are vital and must be endorsed by the majority in the Chamber today. As I said, I would welcome relationships between the EU and the new British Government becoming closer, and, should that transpire, it could and should bring with it positive outcomes for the North in the medium term. Today's vote and the continuation of the protocol protections are vital. Ultimately, though, I believe that the majority of people in the North want, as they indicated in 2016, to be part of the European Union. So, through necessary constitutional change on this island and the building of a new Ireland — a noble and worthy positive outcome on its own — we the citizens in the North can rejoin and access benefits from full EU membership, something that I want to see and something that will be better for all the people of this island.

Mr Buckley: What is today's debate all about? Is it a genuine attempt to give Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly a democratic say in the laws that govern them? Or is it merely parliamentary parlour games, giving lip service to the basic tenets of democratic concepts? Members, be under no illusion: today's debate, today's vote, is an illusion of democracy. It is a rigged vote of which the European Union already knows the outcome. If any Member believes otherwise, please stand up and I will take your intervention. The outcome of this vote is known. Just yesterday, I listened to some experts on the Brexit process and, indeed, European relations say that this vote is something special, as the European Union does not simply allow devolved Governments to have a say on trade policy, never mind the UK Government. It simply would not let this happen if it thought that the outcome would not be guaranteed. It has its quislings in this very Chamber: those who know exactly what the EU's priorities are and who will advance them at every opportunity.

The protocol has destabilised Northern Ireland's political landscape, fuelled division and shattered trust. The rigged nature of today's vote is evidence of that. My colleague Paul Frew often talks in this place about a "zombie Assembly". Well, never has there been a more clear example of a zombie Assembly than today. Members will vote on giving the authority for the EU Parliament to take control of over 300 areas of law, allowing it to decide the regulations by which businesses and consumers will operate, with no attempt, no ability and no desire to scrutinise them and vote on them in this Chamber.

What was the protocol designed, in part, to do? We were told that it was to protect peace, protect the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland. It is important, in today's debate, that we examine and scrutinise those basic concepts for which we were told it was so necessary to have the arrangements in place today.

Let us look at the first two objectives. First, to protect the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. Members will probably agree that it seems odd that the DUP is in the Chamber today to stand up for the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. We do so because one of its core concepts, which went to the very heart of settling Northern Ireland politically, was by means of mutual consent and respect and by means of a cross-community vote.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I am presuming that he has read his party's manifestos from 2016, 2017 and 2022, all of which called for reform of the institutions. In fact, the earlier ones actually called for voluntary coalition. Does the Member now demur from those positions?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for the intervention because not only have I studied my party's manifestos but I have studied Alliance's.

Some Members: Ooh!

Mrs Long: Hopefully, you will have learnt something useful, then.

Mr Buckley: I will come on to that very point. In 1998 — [Interruption.]

Mrs Long: Do you want a membership form? [Laughter.]

Mr Buckley: Perhaps the Member can allay my fears on this very point. In 1998, there were political negotiations and so emerged the Belfast Agreement. What was the Alliance Party's response to the Belfast Agreement?

A Member: Yes.

Mr Buckley: It was yes. I will read it:

The leader of the Alliance Party is keen to quote party policy.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

Perhaps she should take a long look in her own mirror as to how the Alliance Party has moved from the core principles of the Belfast Agreement, which enshrined cross-community voting to ensure that this place could operate on a fair and equitable basis.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will come to the Member in a moment.

Other parties are on the record from that time. John Hume said:

Mr O'Toole: I am delighted that Mr Buckley has given way and given me the opportunity to challenge some of his assertions around cross-community voting and the context in which it is applied in the Assembly. He and his party appear to be saying that cross-community consent applies to all constitutional issues. Does he acknowledge that the first paragraph under "Constitutional Issues" in the Good Friday Agreement says that Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom relates to:

This place is in the United Kingdom by dint —. [Interruption.]

Mr O'Toole: His friend the Education Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position. Northern Ireland remains in the UK by dint of a simple majority, not a cross-community majority. Will he acknowledge that?

Mr Buckley: The Member probably does not understand — [Interruption.]

I will say it, because the Member simply does not understand the procedures by which the Assembly operates.

Mr Givan: He does. That is the problem.

Mr Buckley: Yes. Systems that were, in part, crafted by his late party leader, John Hume.

Mr Givan: The ugly scaffolding.

Mr Buckley: Let us continue to quote him:

I do not know whether "deluded" refers —

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: — to the Member for South Belfast. I will allow him to perhaps comment on that at another stage. John Hume went on to say:

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will not give way at this stage, but I will happily give way later in the debate to the leader of the Alliance Party.

Ms K Armstrong: It was me, actually.

Mr Buckley: Sorry? Oh, yes, absolutely, Ms Armstrong. [Laughter.]

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Buckley. I am not the leader of the Alliance Party. She is sitting in front of us. [Laughter.]

I am delighted that the Member talked about inclusiveness. I am delighted that, for once, my vote will count the same as those of nationalists and unionists in this place.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Ms K Armstrong: At long last, we have a system that is inclusive.

Mr Buckley: This is great viewing for anybody watching today — the Alliance Party calling for majoritarian rule.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mr Buckley: I always knew that Ms Armstrong harboured leadership ambitions

but her saying it in the Chamber today really is quite something.

The comments of the Members' parties at the time were clear. They accepted that at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was the need for cross-community voting on serious and substantial issues.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will not give way to the Member at this stage, but I promise that I will bring her in later. I know that she has plenty to say on these matters.

Mrs Long: I certainly do. [Laughter.]

Mr Buckley: Now, Mr Speaker, I will go back to the substance of what I was discussing, which was protecting the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. I am pretty sure that no Member in the Chamber would deny the impact and, indeed, the participation of the late Lord Trimble in designing the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. My party may not have shared some of the late Lord Trimble's positions — in fact, there were many that we did not share — but we do share the emphasis that he placed on cross-community voting. We do not have to look to legacy statements from 1998. We can look at what he said during the crafting of the protocol. I quote Lord Trimble:

He continued:

Do members of the Alliance Party, who were keen to intervene, and members of the SDLP, who were also keen to intervene, agree with the late Lord Trimble's comments on cross-community voting? I will give way.

Mrs Long: No, I fundamentally do not agree, because I do not believe that parallel consent is the only way to achieve cross-community consent. It can be done by weighted majority voting, and, indeed, that is allowed for under the agreement. Furthermore, Alliance has always been clear that we saw that agreement as a foundation on which to build, not as the ceiling of our ambitions for this place. Also, one cannot retrofit in Parliament institutional arrangements that were made in this House, and I do not imagine that the Member would wish to do so.

Mr Buckley: It is clear that the Alliance Party is keen to cherry-pick when that suits its agenda. I have seen that clearly in my time in the Assembly. To put it in context, if Brussels was to self-identify as a plug, the Alliance spokesperson on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, Mr Tennyson, would self-identify as an EU adapter. [Interruption.] [Laughter.]

I have seen that time and time again.

However, let us look at some of the commentary from an even more recent time: Lord Dodds, for example. On 19 October 2019, commenting in the House of Commons on Boris Johnson's deal with the European Union, he said:

The DUP went on to say that day that the Government have:

The principles of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement should be respected in all its forms.

I have just demonstrated how those parties — [Interruption.]

Do the Members want to chunter again about not demonstrating anything, yet the principle of cross-community consent

— I think that this goes to the heart of how the Alliance Party's continual abuse of democratic processes in this place —.

Ms K Armstrong: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The start of our Standing Orders clearly outlines that every Member in the House is entitled to have a vote, and today every Member in the House is having a vote. Mr Buckley has suggested that unionists and nationalists are not having a vote today. I believe that that is incorrect. Will you confirm the voting mechanism, please?

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. Mr Buckley, resume.

Mr Buckley: The Member may think that we are in the Committee room of the Committee on Procedures, but I remind her that we are on the Floor of the Northern Ireland Assembly —

Some Members: Hear, hear. [Interruption.]

Mr Buckley: — and the Member cannot get away from the point that this will be the first occasion on which the Assembly, since 1998, will vote not on a cross-community basis, as was stipulated in the Belfast Agreement, on a major issue such as this. That is a step backward, and I say to the Alliance Party that it is quite clear that its agenda denigrated the concerns of unionism when it looked at cross-community voting as an issue that was of genuine need at the time of the agreement and that many nationalists used on many occasions to safeguard and protect the position that they held. However, when unionists look to cross-community consent to demonstrate their collective opposition to something quite substantial, the Alliance Party is silent.

Let us not forget that article 18(2) of the protocol — yes, I will quote from your protocol — actually decrees that any vote on the continuation of the arrangements should be held:

the Belfast Agreement. How ironic that Boris Johnson and subsequent UK Governments, as supposed custodians of that agreement, would be content to ride roughshod over the fundamental consent principle. How is the constitutional affront, whereby GB is decreed to be a third country, with the Irish Sea seen as the entry point to the EU customs area, in keeping with the spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement? How?

For Members who want to smirk, chunter and laugh from a sedentary position, I say that this goes to the very heart of how unionists feel about the Northern Ireland protocol. I have spoken very much from a constitutional perspective. I will come to the economic heartache that it has been causing to many of our businesses and consumers in recent times. Multiple court rulings against the Government, who give hollow words of constitutional guarantees, show us how deceitful and shameful this entire episode has been. The point is not about whether Members agree with individual policy proposals. It is no legitimate way of dealing with these issues when we are surrendering the ability to make these very laws in Parliaments to which we elect Members.

We are disenfranchising our citizens in over 300 areas of law. Those 300 areas of law, Members, are not 300 laws but thousands of regulations controlling vast swathes of the Northern Ireland economy that are included in articles 5 to 10 of the protocol. It is colonial light control from the EU. I know that Members take exception to the word "colonial", but I have seen at times, in history and in the current context, how Members, particularly those of a nationalist persuasion, have railed against laws made in the sovereign UK Parliament, 500 miles away, yet today they will happily acquiesce to sending our law-making ability 700 miles away, to a place to which nobody is elected.

If he wants to come in on that point to expound his rationale behind observer-status MEPs, by all means, Mr O'Toole, please take the Floor.

Mr O'Toole: OK. I will have plenty of time later on to expound on the points in this wonderful paper. You mentioned railing against laws made in our sovereign Parliament. This is a law made in that — "our", as you want to call it — sovereign Parliament. [Laughter.]

The protocol exists and applies in law in Northern Ireland only because the UK Parliament voted for it too. [Interruption.]

Mr Buckley: The Member knows very well how unionism voted against it at every stage. [Interruption.]

Again, the EU's little helpers in the Alliance Party are keen to grapple with those EU regulations.

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

It is clear to me that nationalism has acceded to the EU planters by delivering regulation without representation. That is the objective of today's vote.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way.

Nationalism has given way to EU colonialism. At least Westminster is democratically accountable.

Mr Buckley: The Member is absolutely right. I was not aware of Sinn Féin's political history with Europe. In fact, I was listening to some of the recent coverage of the Irish election, in which some of the commentators were trying to paint Sinn Féin as the Eurosceptics of the Irish Parliament. My goodness. I know that Sinn Féin is keen on Irish reunification, but its supporters in the South must not be taking much note of its actions in this place.

We listened to the Sinn Féin Member for North Antrim talk about the protocol protecting the Belfast Agreement in all its dimensions. As I said, cross-community voting has been ripped out. The Member said that Northern Ireland voted to remain and that we should therefore respect Northern Ireland's wish. I do not recall the ballot paper in 2016 reading, "Does Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the European Union?". It was a UK-wide referendum, and, should we want to boil it down into an ever narrower context, if we follow the narrative of the Member for North Antrim, North Antrim itself voted for Brexit.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Buckley: Does the Member represent the views of those constituents?

The deputy leader of the Alliance Party? Upper Bann voted to leave. There are many Members in the House —.

Mr Tennyson: I did not. [Laughter.]

Mr Buckley: I do not think that the Member picked me up correctly. The Upper Bann constituency voted as a majority to leave. That is exactly what I said. [Interruption.]

Mrs Long: That is not what you said.

Mr Buckley: In the context of the argument that Northern Ireland should therefore follow a different set of laws, should North Antrim follow a different set of laws? Should Upper Bann follow a different set of laws from Newry and Armagh? No, of course not, Members. It makes no sense. Doing so makes a mockery of what was a democratic vote by the nation of the United Kingdom, yet Members —.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way again. He pointed to the position of Sinn Féin. He should recall that its position on the EU, in all of its past and for all of its history, was to be anti-EU, right up until the point of the referendum campaign.

Mr Buckley: Yes, well, we will see. It would seem that times have changed, Mr Frew, in the Assembly.

The very nature of today's vote constitutes an assault on democracy.

It is the culmination of a long democratic dispersion, from the Northern Ireland protocol through to the Windsor framework and the present day. The people of Northern Ireland have been democratically disenfranchised and discriminated against in a way that the rest of the people of the United Kingdom simply have not. We have been humiliated and disrespected by having our rights to impact the laws to which we are subject demeaned. That has wider implications for the country. Today's vote asks each one of us to agree to uniquely discriminate against our constituents by denying them the right to have a say in all of the laws — not merely some of them — to which we are subject.

At the heart of this, however, is the future of democracy. That lies with our young people. I refer to a letter that I received from a young unionist just yesterday in which he expressed his deep grievance with today's vote:

Mrs Long: All communities.

Mr Buckley: I know that the Member wants to chunter, but I am expressing the sentiments of a young unionist in my constituency who feels that he is being disenfranchised by the vote. He goes on to say:

If some Members had their way, perhaps it would be every eight years.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. He made a powerful point about the voice of young people being heard: should that also apply to people being able to vote at 16?

Mr Buckley: That will be a legitimate vote for another day. However, I guarantee Mr Carroll that, if such a decision is made, we will make it in the House as democratically elected Members in Northern Ireland. We will not sell it off to the Europeans to make the decision on our behalf.

I will finish the letter:

That is quite a testimony from a young unionist.

We were told that the protocol was put in place to protect peace and stability in Northern Ireland. My constituent has outlined how it has had directly the opposite impact. Tensions are high. The protocol has fundamentally failed to ensure that there is no tension or violence on our streets. In times past, it has caused violence, threats of violence and the collapsing of political institutions.

At the time, we had Leo Varadkar, the then Taoiseach, going to the European Parliament and waving in his hand a photograph of a bombed customs post in an attempt to extol the virtues of subjugating unionists to arrangements that severed their unfettered access within the United Kingdom. We do not even have to look to Leo Varadkar in the Irish Parliament: we had Mary Lou and Michelle smashing fake border bricks, and we had Claire Hanna, the leader of the SDLP, talking about the concept of civil disobedience at a very minimum. That was the language not of unionists who had concerns but of those who were trying to force such undemocratic means on the people of Northern Ireland.

What was that in aid of? It was to protect against a hard border on the island of Ireland. That was one of the central tenets of the protocol. Leo Varadkar told us that, in order to have a lasting agreement and to protect and enshrine the institutions of the Belfast Agreement, there must be not even a camera at the border and that to have one would be such a dilution of the agreement and such an impingement on those who did not share my constitutional position.

The voices went silent, when, just recently, we received news that the guards were making border checks on buses and cars moving from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland to ensure that immigrants were not passing into their territory. Not an eye was batted by Alliance, the SDLP or Sinn Féin. That was not the movement of bacon rashers, Members, but the movement of people. It showed clearly that the objective was to ensure that Northern Ireland was captured in the EU's regulatory orbit, putting barriers between Northern Ireland citizens and their counterparts across England, Scotland and Wales.

The UK Government betrayed unionists in Northern Ireland. That was shameful. Successive Conservative Prime Ministers spoke much of constitutional guarantees and promised much in frictionless trade but delivered none of it. We all know what the EU's real political objective was. Michel Barnier used to say that the clock was ticking. Well, his clock ran out with the French people last week. His objective with the agreement was clear: Northern Ireland was to retain its place in the EU single market and customs area, thus keeping it in the EU regulatory orbit. By that means, the rest of the UK would have to decide whether it wanted to keep its country together or subject itself to EU laws. Members may not universally agree with my constitutional outlook, but they should seriously consider the economic implications of articles 5 to 10 of the protocol that we are debating today and the impact that they have had on businesses and consumers.

I will talk first about the chilling effect on GB businesses and consumers. Each week, members of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee gather to listen to proposed new EU laws or amendments and constantly ask officials what the impact will be on GB trade with Northern Ireland. Continually, although it is no fault of theirs, the officials cannot tell us. They have no ability to ascertain what the chilling impact will be.

People have asked me many times to spell it out: "Tell us. Let us know what the issues are". For the purposes of today's debate, it is important that I do just that, so I will give some examples. At least 97 GB retailers have not been delivering to Northern Ireland as of September 2024. That excludes online marketplaces, which I may capture later in my contribution. There is a threat of the discontinuation of the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland from Great Britain; a ban on the direct-to-consumer sales to Northern Ireland of seeds marketed in GB; and the discontinuation of the supply of powered wheelchairs to Northern Ireland. I hope that Members understand the thread of what I am trying to get across. These are not unionist issues or nationalist issues; they are everybody's issues.

There are new requirements for poultry fanciers travelling to GB; additional requirements on pets travelling to GB; an outright ban of certain plant and tree species; difficulties for florists seeking to secure flowers, ribbon and bamboo, resulting in diversion; continued barriers to livestock movement for shows and sales in GB; segregation and separation of Northern Ireland animals; divergence in type approvals for vehicles, jeopardising supply for Northern Ireland dealers, who traditionally source new cars from the GB stock; and extra controls on animal fodder and hay moving between GB and NI. Yes, I understand why hay is of such detriment to the EU single market. It has bedded many animals over many years, yet it was such a threat in 2010 to 2017 that it is still a threat today. I understand that.

There is the cost and disruption of the requirement for supplementary declarations on GB to NI trade; treated wood for fencing for agricultural purposes not being permitted in Northern Ireland; the cost and delay associated with the Trader Support Service and the duty reimbursement scheme; new barriers to the shipment of waste between GB and NI; and significant rises in haulage, logistics and courier costs. Am I mad, Members? Am I the only person who sees those as genuine issues for consumers in Northern Ireland?

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: Mr Dickson.

Mr Dickson: For fear of your becoming a Little Englander, have you looked to see the damage that Brexit has done to supermarket shelves in England, Scotland and Wales?

Mr Buckley: I thank Mr Dickson for his intervention and remind him that every issue that I have raised — I am on number 16 and have a few to go — pertains to the people of Northern Ireland. It is about how they have been disenfranchised by arrangements that were propped up and supported by the Alliance Party, which called for rigorous implementation. Before I get back to point 16 — somebody remind me of that — let me remind you, Members, that the protocol that the Alliance Party asked for the rigorous implementation of was far worse than the variant that exists today. I will take no lectures about being a Little Englander; I am a proud Northern Irish man, and I will never shy away from speaking up for the people of Northern Ireland in this place. The Member may wish to send lawmaking off to Brussels at the behest of the EU, but I certainly do not. I will speak up and speak out for the people of Northern Ireland every chance I get, as will the Democratic Unionist Party.

Number 17: the movement of horses is now administratively complex and time-consuming, especially for local amateur competitors. The UK VAT margin scheme has not been available for second-hand goods that are purchased in GB and moved to Northern Ireland. The introduction of EU GPSR requirements on 13 December will create further chill factors on trade between GB and NI. The Irish Sea border that you see today, Members, will have changed by the end of the week. It is going to get worse, and not for the first occasion.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will finish my list first, and then I will come back. [Laughter.]

Number 21: the EU retains a veto over state aid granted in Northern Ireland where it deems it to affect trade with the EU or exceed limits for farmers. The Government pause on UK-wide "Not for EU" labelling is creating uncertainty in relation to the appetite of GB firms to supply the Northern Ireland market. There is a chilling effect on GB businesses doing business with Northern Ireland.

Mr McGuigan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: Absolutely.

Mr McGuigan: The Member said that he is a proud Northern Irish man, but his concerns seem to be about businesses in GB. How does he react to businesses in the North when we look at the export statistics published by HMRC that show that Scotland was down 13%, England was down 4·5% and Wales was down 9% from June 2023 to June 2024, while, here in the North, business exports were up 7%.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for his timely intervention.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

Do I, as a proud Northern Irish man, look as though I am protecting the interests of GB businesses? The Member fails to understand my point entirely. Northern Ireland consumers are impacted on by the inability of GB suppliers to supply them in Northern Ireland. Who has not seen examples of that? It is Christmastime, Members. It is pantomime season for many of the Members opposite. [Laughter.]

How many times have our family members and constituents gone online to look for products that they normally buy at Christmas from GB suppliers only to be told that those are not for sale in Northern Ireland? That has been delivered to you by the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member for North Antrim was beating his chest and saying that trade with the South is up, but does he not recognise that that is because of displacement as a result of the protocol from his party, the SDLP and the Alliance Party? There has been a displacement of trade because of the protocol.

Mr Buckley: The Member is absolutely right: divergence is happening all around, and it is impacting on consumers who, primarily, we must shield and protect by voting for laws that are in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. That must be at its core.

Companies and consumers are having problems sourcing tropical fish. There are specific requirements for retagging livestock sold to Northern Ireland keepers. Northern Ireland businesses face double the tariff costs faced by businesses established elsewhere in the UK because of differences in UK-EU trade defence measures. There are concerns over the supply of medical devices and products, including podiatry products.

Number 27: the potential for Northern Ireland to be carved out from the single UK immigration policy because of article 2. The Rwanda case is a case in point. I will not get into that today, because it is not part of articles 5 to 10, on which we will vote today. Be under no illusion: articles 5 to 10 contain vast swathes of EU laws that the Members opposite want to surrender to the European Union, but there are more, and they are fundamental. While we may not agree on the policy intent from Westminster in some regards, be it on the Rwanda policy or others, it is being interpreted in such a way that it will have a profound impact on the ability of the UK Government to bring forward legislation and policy in the best interests of the United Kingdom.

When the temporary derogation ends, Northern Ireland organic egg producers may be forced to use different feed compositions for hens in the same way as producers in GB. Agri-intermediate goods will still be subject to full EU requirements and procedures. Professional operators in GB will still not be able to sell seed potatoes directly to consumers in Northern Ireland.

I see that the First Minister is leaving. She is not content to debate and listen to the issues, which affect all our constituents. Just this week, I was in contact with a constituent who cannot get fabric. My goodness, such a threat to the EU market. An elderly lady emailed me just this week to tell me that, because of the proposed new GPSR rules, fabric and craft companies are no longer supplying Northern Ireland. That may seem trivial to some Members who want to sweep it under the carpet with the EU laws that have been surrendered to Brussels, but, in reality, that is having an impact on everyday consumers. My constituency colleague Cheryl Brownlee discussed particular concerns that some of her constituents have brought to her, particularly about crafting. Again, they have been told, "Not in Northern Ireland".

Just this morning, I spoke to a local angler who informed me that he can no longer receive dead bait from GB suppliers. Members may ask what that is, and I see that Mr Honeyford is laughing keenly at that, so let me give him a very easy explanation that goes to the very heart of the absurdities of some of the rules. Roach that is caught in Lough Neagh goes to GB and is processed and vacuum-packed in order to be sold as dead bait to local anglers. What has happened? The GB companies are saying, "Not for Northern Ireland". Wow. They can take the fish from Lough Neagh and bring it to GB, but, on the journey across the Irish Sea, it somehow becomes a threat to the single market. It is ridiculous in the extreme, and that will only grow over time.

That is a list of issues that I and Members on these Benches have experienced.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will.

Mr Donnelly: Given the list of issues that the Member has with the framework, is he now sorry that he and his party were such staunch cheerleaders for Brexit?

Mr Buckley: I really thank the Member for that point, because it is such a point of contention for me. Northern Ireland did not get Brexit. Let us face it. Why did we not get Brexit? It was because it was the intent of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland were bound to the EU single market and to EU customs codes. I remind the Member that, in doing so at the behest of his EU paymasters, he has disenfranchised the people of Northern Ireland. He has ensured that our consumers have less choice and that businesses continue to struggle with the rigorous implementation of the very barriers that his party called for.

Do not just take my view or the views of the Members on these Benches on how that is impacting on local consumers. Just recently, at a meeting of the Economy Committee, I asked the chief executive of Invest NI whether he could point to an example of business having been won to Northern Ireland as a result of our unique dual market access. Members, the chief executive could point to none. How many times in the Chamber have we heard Members extol the virtues of dual market access? Yet, it was revealed by the very chief executive who is charged with trying to secure foreign direct investment that there is no such benefit that he could recount to date.

Just recently, Tina McKenzie from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) talked about how GPSR rules were seriously disrupting the ability of GB businesses to trade into Northern Ireland. Dual market access is a myth because, in order to achieve it, you have to have an equal playing field. There is no such equal playing field, so dual market access is the myth: trading divergence is the reality. It comes down to this question: who has supremacy? The EU has supremacy in trading terms. The EU's rules ensure that GB is classed as a foreign entity; a third-party country in trading terms with the rest of Northern Ireland.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

The economist Dr Esmond Birnie is repeatedly on record debunking the myth of dual market access, because it is exactly that. You cannot have dual market access. One rule will supersede the other, and essentially that is what is happening by means of the protocol. Members always talk about the access to the European market and how essential it is for businesses in Northern Ireland. They make it out as though, if we did not have the protocol and did not have the arrangements that Northern Ireland has in place, we would not be able to trade with the EU.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for giving way, and I am sorry to interrupt his, so far, very dramatic performance. It is wonderful to hear the Member talk about dual market access. Does he acknowledge that one of the greatest barriers to that has been the fact that these institutions have been down so much and that we do not have everyone in the Executive speaking with the same voice in ensuring that dual market access is a priority in the Programme for Government?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for her intervention. She will know that I addressed, at the beginning of my contribution, some of the issues through which the institutions collapsed. I do not think that she wants me to go over them again. [Interruption.]

Let me reassure her that the collapse was because of the political instability that the protocol created.

As for dual market access, you would think that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and President Joe Biden were bowled over by so many Members in the Chamber. What was the attitude? Was it that Northern Ireland was the most interesting, exciting economic space in the Western world, the Singapore of the western isles? Wow! There is not one example of where dual market access has secured foreign direct investment.

Members, pull the curtain back from your eyes. Stand back from your EU love-in and realise that your quest to ensure regulatory alignment with the EU is causing pain to the very people whom you claim to represent.

I remind you all of this. I was taken a bit to the wayside there, but I come back to the point following Ms Nicholl's point. Let us look at this: we are told that EU access is so important. Britain has access to the EU market. The United States has access to the EU market, but the US does not sacrifice or surrender its own internal market access for its own citizens at the behest of a foreign entity to enter a foreign market at the expense of our largest market, that of the internal market of the United Kingdom.

Articles 5 to 10 are again causing a continued chilling impact on GB trade. I have mentioned this time and again. Members should be very alert to the fact that this will get worse as time goes on. What has "no hard border on the island of Ireland" achieved? It is only hardship and disruption, rather than practical measures. Technological solutions were decried by the Members opposite throughout most of the Brexit process, but those technical solutions can offer real hope to the people of Northern Ireland, respecting their constitutional outlook whilst ensuring that trade maintains free and unfettered within the United Kingdom.

Article 5 applies the EU customs code in Northern Ireland. It decrees that GB is a third country and gives supremacy to EU single market rules. It also sustains the at-risk test, which punishes many businesses by pushing them into the red lane for full customs checks. That bureaucracy is disrupting internal, domestic UK trade. It is having a devastating impact on the haulage sector, which anybody who takes time to speak to the sector will understand.

I spoke to one haulier just yesterday, because I wanted to ensure that I highlighted today the views of the people who are suffering from the imposition of the protocol. The haulier to whom I spoke is from the second generation of his family to have served the Northern Ireland economy. He noted the huge impact that the disruption caused by the protocol is having on his ability to secure produce from GB businesses across the Irish Sea and on to Northern Ireland shelves for consumers. He told me, "I feel less of a citizen. Businesses in Scotland and Wales can freely trade into England and vice versa, yet I, with my UK-registered company and as a British citizen, face the prospect of my business being destroyed because people in Northern Ireland, at the behest of the EU, are intent on ensuring that we can't make our own laws: laws that demand the careful curation of conditions that suit the Northern Ireland consumer". That is a huge issue that continues to face many people.

Those who have some understanding of haulage across the Irish Sea know that it can be complex in the extreme in many regards. A load that is brought from GB into Northern Ireland is often a mixed load, but, because a business cannot guarantee that its entire container will stay in Northern Ireland, it is essentially pushed down the road of full customs checks. I spoke to hauliers about that. They cannot say wholeheartedly that their load will not end up in the Republic of Ireland, so they are being pushed down that road, when the likelihood is that it will all stay in Northern Ireland.

Article 6 deals with the protection of the UK internal market. We would expect that to right the wrongs of disrupting internal UK trade that are outlined in article 5. Bear in mind that the title of article 6 is "Protection of the UK internal market": is that not ironic? Article 6 states that restrictions on GB to NI trade should apply only where strictly necessary and in order to provide assurances to the EU. My goodness. The article that is there to protect internal UK trade contains the condition, "Only if the EU says we can". That is a despicable display of negotiating by the UK Government. Think about the threat of trees and of British soil. How dare they enter the Northern Ireland marketplace.

Article 7 gives effect to huge swathes of EU law that govern the regulation of goods produced in Northern Ireland. We see that impact of that acutely in many of the laws that we scrutinise on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. Competitive disadvantage continues to prevail for local firms. The risk of divergence is always present.

Article 8 sees Northern Ireland shackled to the EU's VAT regime, which means that the UK VAT margin scheme has not been available for second-hand goods purchased in GB and moved to Northern Ireland since January 2021. That is strangling many businesses and sectors that source the bulk of their stock from GB for onward sale. It is absolutely imperative that the Government at Westminster regain the power to make regulations specifying VAT, excise and taxation to lessen, eliminate or avoid difference between Northern Ireland and GB.

Article 9 deals with the functioning of the single electricity market, with Northern Ireland being subject to EU laws that deal with the generation, transmission and supply of electricity. We are governed by the EU's state aid rules on energy in that respect. The danger is in what is coming down the tracks. The EU's plans for a carbon border adjustment mechanism run the risk of creating a carbon border within the United Kingdom, with checks and tariffs on goods like electricity, iron, steel, aluminium and some fertilisers that move between GB and Northern Ireland. That is because those carbon taxes would be levied on goods that originate in countries that do not apply EU emissions trading rules.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: That may seem very technical to a lot of Members, but, in reality, when you follow some of that through, you see that there is huge risk of divergence. I give way to Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: I am aware that the Member is now possibly filibustering and just reading out stuff that is in front of him in order to eat up time, but he may not be aware that some of the regulations that he just mentioned are critical to the functioning of the single electricity market. That is how electricity flows. That is why the Building and the Chamber are alight. Can he explain how, without the provisions of the protocol, we would keep the lights on, because that requires the single electricity market to function?

Mr Buckley: I know very well how the lights in the Building work — thank you, Mr O'Toole, for that education — but I will say this: for Mr O'Toole to suggest that I am filibustering on an issue that is of such magnitude and such importance to the constituents of Northern Ireland is so dismissive, but it is not untypical of the SDLP's approach throughout. I do not care what time I stand on my feet to in the Chamber to ensure that the legitimate concerns of the people of Northern Ireland are represented. If the Member wants to go home, by all means he should do so, but I will not leave the Chamber before I have stood up and shouted out for those constituents.

Aside from whether the Assembly continues to see merit in cross-border cooperation on wholesale electricity, which was the point that Mr O'Toole raised, it is a perverse feature of today's vote that MLAs are expected to vote on the discontinuation of articles 5 to 10 as a block. It does not give you the option to say, "I like article 9, but I do not like article 5"; the vote is en bloc. There is no individual scrutiny of each provision of the protocol.

Because of article 10, Northern Ireland has been carved out of a number of provisions in the UK Subsidy Control Act 2022 in relation to subsidies that are deemed to affect trade between Northern Ireland and the EU. The circumstances in which the EU can bring action against the UK over subsidies in Northern Ireland under EU state aid rules were tightened under the Windsor framework, but the underlying legal position remains. The EU must approve the allocation of UK financial support to companies within the United Kingdom: how absurd. Businesses that are looking for intervention and financial support — for example, during COVID we saw a need for a fast supply of money to businesses to ensure that they remained operational — will get it only if the EU says that that is possible.

Members on these Benches have always been concerned that those provisions could endanger support, investment and even, perhaps, rates relief policy in Northern Ireland compared with other regions in the United Kingdom. There is a cap on the amount of funding that can be given to farming, for example. How will that impact on future investment on farms and any schemes that the Executive might wish to bring forward to offset the harm of inheritance tax rules or National Insurance contributions? Northern Ireland agriculture is already hampered with regard to funding streams for capital investment compared with other regions of the United Kingdom. If Members use their vote to approve those laws by sending control of them back to the EU, support systems for agriculture may not be there in the future.

The motion focuses on articles 5 to 10 of the protocol. If Members vote against it — I hope that I have convinced a few to do so — those provisions would be disapplied in two years' time. In theory, that would remove vast swathes of EU laws that were imposed on us without any say and at great detriment to many of our constituents. It may also ensure that our position in the single UK internal market is improved, but it would not remove all EU laws. The root cause of the problems that we face today is —

Some Members: Brexit.

Mr Buckley: — the implementation and imposition of EU laws that no Member in this place or the UK Government can change. That is the reality. That will not change as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol.

Members may wish to shout "Brexit" from a sedentary position, but the reality is that the Northern Ireland protocol is your version of Brexit. You own it; you sell it. I say this to Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin: when businesses go out of business because they cannot access their supply chains and when consumers are faced with challenges, you own it; it is yours. Do not say that you were not warned or that the concerns were not aired. Do not plead innocence when it comes to oversight. Today's vote is on you.

As I said, the imposition of EU law is the root cause. The EU overstretch and court interpretations, as we have seen in many policy areas, will have grave consequences for UK decision-making going forward. It has been alluded to that that may even come into sharp conflict with a potential US trade deal with the UK, because, while Northern Ireland continues to be bound by the EU's single market and customs union, we will for ever be in its regulatory orbit.

The practical problems that I outlined are only the symptom: the application of EU law is the root cause. The UK Brexit negotiators were the laughing stock of Europe as they hastily sold out their citizens, prioritising access to a foreign market over their own. We must put that right. It is imperative that the Assembly assert its democratic rights in line with the provisions by which the institutions operate, the bedrock of which, as I have been told many times, is the Belfast Agreement. Some Members blindly continuing their love-in with the EU will lead only to more self-harm.

I will speak directly to the people of Northern Ireland: do not lose hope and think that this is the last opportunity to have your say on these matters. The 300 areas of law — the number is growing — that were surrendered to the EU by Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin will come back to be voted on in four years. Skulduggery may succeed today, but the power lies in your hands. You have the ability to elect representatives to this place who can legislate in your interests, not at the behest of the European Union. People who vote in the future have the right to expect that their democratic right will be exercised through their elected representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the UK Parliament and the ability of those representatives to vote on laws made in the United Kingdom.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, I think, Mr Buckley, or maybe thank God, Mr Buckley. [Laughter.]

Mrs Long: After listening to Mr Buckley, you would almost think that the DUP had lost the Brexit referendum. You won, guys. Cheer up.

I must be the only person who was bothered before by the phrase "Not available for sale in Northern Ireland" when I was ordering things online. It used to happen regularly before Brexit. It was often linked to the cost of postage, the size of the item and lots of other barriers. I am not sure that is as simple as saying that, because those things exist today, they are all a result of the Windsor framework. However, I get a sense that the entire debate feels a bit like, "Hello, actions. Let me introduce you to consequences".

Today's democratic consent motion, when we decide whether to continue with articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework, marks another important moment in our long journey towards some kind of stability post Brexit. In the eight years since the UK voted to depart the European Union, a lot of time, energy and resource have been spent navigating the choppy and uncharted waters into which that decision launched us all — a lot of time, energy and resource that might have been better spent by investing in our communities are making life better for the people we represent.

You will be relieved to know that I do not intend to stand here today and rehearse all the harm that has been caused by Brexit over the last eight years to our finances, our economy, our politics, our international relationships, trust between political partners and government and even the functioning of the institutions in which we stand. There simply would not be time to do so, although some people have challenged that notion, but more importantly, it would not be a productive use of the time we have this afternoon. Instead, I want to focus on the future and the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead, as well as the need to focus on solutions and stability.

Alliance has always been clear that it is simply not possible to entirely square the circle of the challenges and contradictions posed by Brexit. Leaving the EU made a level of friction, barriers and bureaucracy inevitable. The only question remaining was where that would occur, not whether it would occur. To be clear, I said at the time in studio after studio with members of the DUP that the most pragmatic and likely option — not my option of choice — to be pursued, because of its simplicity, was that those frictions would happen at the seven ports and airports rather than along 300 miles of border. That is just logic, but that was never applied during Brexit. However, if we rebuild trust and apply creativity, we can and must lessen the impact of Brexit. We know that challenges remain and, indeed, that further challenges will emerge, and with that at the forefront of our minds, we should now consider our options moving forward.

We have a choice today, a choice about how we present Northern Ireland to the rest of the world. Are we a place committed to tackling the most difficult challenges head-on, finding creative solutions and building stability and prosperity for the people we represent, or are we to be for ever defined by uncertainty, chaos and instability, allowing Brexit to be a constantly open wound, suppurating and poisoning our economy and our body politic? The attritional war about Brexit has done enough damage. We need to look now at how we move forward.

As a divided society, we know all too well that Northern Ireland works only when we recognise our interdependence in our communities, across these islands and beyond with our European and global partners. People in this jurisdiction interact, and businesses have supply chains and sales both North/South and east-west. Brexit, particularly a hard form of Brexit, was always going to cause friction and create barriers, particularly with the UK's decision to leave the customs union and single market as part of the Brexit process. It created an interface with the EU that had to be managed somewhere, and, as I said, while it was not my choice where it was to be handled, it was logical and apparent to anyone who considered the options available where it would end up, out of convenience and pragmatism alone. That is why Alliance opposed leaving the EU and advocated the softest possible Brexit to minimise the friction and tensions when the UK decided to leave.

By contrast, a hard Brexit was pursued by the DUP in collaboration with the Conservatives, whom they propped up. There is no point denouncing the British Government for their treachery. I agree that they treated unionists appallingly, but you let them. You propped them up and helped them. That type of Brexit was always going to necessitate special arrangements for Northern Ireland to manage those tensions and frictions. While the Windsor framework is far from perfect, it clearly provides for the softer landing that we need. It is also, frankly, the only game in town, as the new Labour Government have made clear. Of course, my hope is that, over time, that can change and evolve and become less bureaucratic and more flexible, but it will, nevertheless, be the starting point for that evolution.

Acting collectively, with the best interests of Northern Ireland as our compass, it is not beyond our capacity to navigate all the post-Brexit complexities together. That is our collective responsibility to those who elected us. While this juncture will expose a clear difference in opinion today, it is important that we quickly move beyond that by working together. I remain optimistic that our best days are ahead of us, and I am wholly committed to us getting there. That is a project that is for us collectively to deliver.

Alliance is proud to be strongly pro-European. We maintain close links and positive relationships with parties across the EU and will always seek to use whatever influence we hold to the benefit of our community in Northern Ireland. During my short time as an MEP, I witnessed first-hand the level of knowledge, interest and commitment to ensuring that Northern Ireland was protected from the worst excesses of Brexit that existed in the Parliament, the Council and the Commission. That interest in our affairs and the success of our institutions remains strong among my former colleagues. We should make every effort to continue to foster that interest and understanding and to build deeper and stronger relationships, as there is a huge opportunity for us in doing so and it assists us in identifying the issues that are coming down the tracks and helps us to prepare for the changes that may impact on us directly or indirectly.

Of course, it is not just politicians who have a role in resolving outstanding issues. Those issues can be tackled only in collaboration with others, including civic society and businesses. The consensus there is clear: we need to improve implementation through practical measures, including a comprehensive UK/EU veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement such as we advocated during the negotiations. We know that an ambitious SPS agreement and UK/EU veterinary agreement would significantly reduce checks and bureaucracy on Irish Sea trade and enhance our collective food security, both of which things we would all welcome, not least because it means that, the next time Mr Buckley gets up to outline a list of problems, it will be considerably shorter.

We also need improved information and assistance for businesses based in GB regarding trade with Northern Ireland. That is an issue that I have raised again with the current Secretary of State, having done so repeatedly with previous Secretaries of State. Many businesses in England opt not to trade with Northern Ireland, even when there is no regulatory barrier to doing so, due to uncertainty about the bureaucracy and paperwork. Early and enhanced engagement between Northern Ireland's elected representatives, Executive Departments and other stakeholders in the development of EU law is also essential if we are to avert crises and respond dynamically to new developments. Furthermore, in Alliance, we are mindful of the challenges coming down the line on the GPSR regulations and parcels, and we continue to work to find solutions to those and other challenges. That is our job. We are not professional critics; we are meant to be professional problem-solvers.

There are other aspects that would help improve our relationship with the EU and provide us with additional opportunities, including, among others, a progressive return to freedom of movement; deepening of the policing and justice cooperation agreements, which, I have to say, have been incredibly successful; mutual recognition of professional qualifications; merging of UK and EU emissions trading regimes and carbon border adjustment mechanisms; and a joint approach on chemicals. All of those will take time and trust to advance, but all of them offer us new opportunities.

Ultimately, closer and stronger relationships with the EU and better alignment between the UK and the EU would reduce the need for many aspects of the Windsor framework and would limit friction for business and trade. The UK Government have indicated that they want to achieve that, and, as a party, we are open to further negotiated, bilaterally agreed changes that deliver those improvements. However, unilateral actions, reneging on agreements or breaking international law in limited and specific ways not only are destabilising but fly in the face of the Government's commitment to rebuild those strong relationships with the EU. I trust that that phase in our relationship has now passed.

Although this is not part of the articles that are being debated today, it has been raised, so it is crucial for me to state, both as leader of the Alliance Party and as Minister of Justice, the importance of article 2 in protecting rights under the Good Friday Agreement and the European Convention on Human Rights. We will continue to defend that from any attack or diminution, in line with the Windsor framework.

While I have spoken about overcoming the challenges that Brexit presents, if we are focused on the future and on growing our economy, we also need to be willing to exploit any opportunities as they arise. Mr Buckley made much of the fact that, so far, we have not been able to do so, but he should talk to his colleague who was Economy Minister, who did not want to mention the opportunities in our 10X Economy strategy that made us able to exploit the benefits of the opportunity to have a free flow of trade into both markets.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Long: I genuinely think that the Member has spoken for long enough, but I am more than happy to give way to other Members. I want to make some progress.

If we are going to be serious about doing this, we have to look for and exploit the opportunities as they arise. The commitment of the new UK Government to a reset of relations with the EU offers Northern Ireland a real opportunity to assert ourselves more robustly, positively and constructively; to place ourselves at the centre of that process; and to ensure that not just our needs but our ambitions are at the heart of those discussions. With a common commitment to delivery from the Executive and local parties and leveraging the power of dual market access, we can unleash opportunities that lie in the Windsor framework arrangements to grow our economy. In the spirit of maximising our potential and solving common problems, the UK Government and the EU must urgently step up their efforts to reset relations.

I hope that that will also mark a reset in relationships between the British and Irish Governments, which have been placed under significant strain during Brexit and unhelpfully so. As neighbours and allies, all our futures are bound together, and, if we are serious about economic growth, political stability, peace and security, the engagement must become more constructive and positive than has been the case over recent years.

We as a party remain committed to doing all that we can to reduce the level and impact of checks in the Irish Sea through closer alignment and reduced divergence and to simplify any remaining processes and checks. We are dedicated to exploiting every opportunity presented by dual market access to help local businesses grow and thrive. The majority of people and businesses in Northern Ireland do not want further chaos and instability; they want to see progress and pragmatic solutions. That is what Alliance has always offered and will always offer, and it is why we will support the motion.

In the run-up to the debate, there has been a lot of media focus on unionist concerns regarding the Windsor framework; indeed, Mr Buckley raised it again today in the debate. He claimed falsely that Alliance and others had no interest in those concerns. I want to put it on record that we have always acknowledged that there are genuine concerns and that we wish to see those addressed insofar as they can be. I have set out in my speech some of the mechanisms that, I believe, will assist us in doing so. However, it is worth remembering at this early stage in the debate that there are many who are not unionists who also have significant residual concerns regarding the ongoing impact of Brexit, a Brexit that we did not champion or choose. Yet, we will vote for the motion today. If we are to move forward constructively, we need to acknowledge that the Windsor framework is an imperfect attempt to manage a hugely divisive and widely impactful situation.

We in Alliance have also done significant heavy lifting in championing change to the protocol and agreeing that change, and we will continue to so.

We were the first political party to call for grace periods to defer the application of aspects of the protocol in order to give time for businesses to continue to prepare, for supply chains to readjust and, most crucially, for mitigations and derogations to be agreed. We pushed for Northern Ireland political representation on UK-EU decision-making bodies and tabled amendments to that effect in Parliament. We championed flexibilities on the regulation and supply of medicines into Northern Ireland and welcomed creative solutions that have now been provided by the Commission. Alliance led a campaign on the creation of a comprehensive UK-EU veterinary agreement as the most comprehensive means to minimise the nature and level of sanitary and phytosanitary checks across the Irish Sea and secure the supply of veterinary medicines. We welcomed the extension of that veterinary medicines grace period, but we have warned that a long-term solution now needs to be urgently found, as part of those UK-EU talks. We also called for a derogation on regulations relating to dental amalgam, which was subsequently granted by the EU. If you engage constructively, progress can be made, but you have to go with practical solutions.

Softer and more flexible alternative versions of Brexit existed, and, indeed, Alliance pressed for them to be properly considered. However, they were roundly dismissed by largely the same people who railed against the protocol and will vote against this motion on the Windsor framework today. Ironically, the DUP claimed earlier this year that the sea border had been removed and hailed the current arrangements under the Windsor framework as a success, following the publication of the 'Safeguarding the Union' paper. What has changed since then?

To be clear, Alliance's support for the framework and this motion is not because it is perfect or seamless. It is not because it is what we have always wanted. It is because it is the better option when faced with a choice between hard and soft borders, between friction and facilitation and between stability and chaos. I also question whether some of the Members choosing to vote against the motion today have properly considered the potential consequences were their will to be carried out. It will be interesting to hear whether any credible, workable alternatives that could be delivered in the next two years will be advanced today by Members who are opposing the motion. There has certainly been none in the past eight years, nor was a single one offered in all the verbosity of Mr Buckley's speech. The abject lack of seriousness in his contribution and his recourse, at times, to personal insults underpins a lack of seriousness that has defined the DUP's approach to Brexit, from start to finish.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs Long: I also wonder whether some who are opposing —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Excuse me, Naomi. May I have order for a minute, please? Mr Buckley, you have asked the Member to give way a few times now. It is clear that she is not going to. I ask you not to persist, please.

Mrs Long: I also wonder whether some who are opposing this genuinely believe that it would be a good idea for the House to reject the motion or whether they will be quietly relieved if the motion passes despite their opposition.

It would be remiss of me, in that context, not to note that, if and when the House divides today, for once, on an issue of this seriousness and magnitude, my vote and those of my colleagues will count for just as much as every other Member of the House and will be able to genuinely influence the outcome.

To be clear on a matter that was raised — I asked Mr Buckley to give way to allow me to clarify, but he did not wish to do so — there was no cross-community consent for Brexit in the first place. The DUP cannot now demand that there must be cross-community support for how we leave the EU but not on whether we leave the EU. The Windsor framework and the protocol were agreed by the UK and EU as part of an international agreement. Just like votes at 16, those are reserved matters; ones that will be decided not on the Floor of this Chamber but in Westminster. It was approved by Parliament, which is sovereign, so it is not an issue for us. Trade is not a devolved issue. Handing any single party, in any devolved institution in these islands, a de facto veto over national government policy is not a credible proposition, and the DUP, at its core, knows that that is the case. If I give them credit for anything, it is that they are skilled parliamentarians and understand the primacy of Parliament in these matters. Cross-community votes in this House are the least cross-community of any vote in the Assembly, excluding as they do the votes of those who are in a cross-community party and who make up almost 20% of the membership of the House. As a genuinely cross-community party, we are committed to genuine cross-community voting, not by majoritarianism but by using weighted majority voting, which is a much better system. Excluding the third-largest party in the Chamber, and a party in government, from so-called cross-community votes is an affront to democracy.

There will, I am sure, be Members who, in this debate, will talk of the democratic deficit — again, Mr Buckley spoke of it — that was created by Brexit, yet they refuse to address the democratic deficit right here in the Chamber, week in, week out, every time that we vote by parallel consent. I encourage them, when the debate concludes and as we look to work to address our future together, to address that deficit, which it is in their gift to do, with the same vigour as they have addressed this one.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Members who have contributed to the debate so far. In some ways, it has been educational, but, in other ways, it has not been.

I will speak on the democratic consent mechanism and our party's opposition to the retention of articles 5 to 10 inclusive of the Windsor framework. I will talk about politics and the generalities and about the articles themselves. To preface our detailed remarks on the articles, I put on record our party's oft-stated and clearly stated opposition to the protocol and the imposition of the Irish Sea border. If Members do not mind, I will move around a bit. My knee is a bit sore. Do not worry about that.

Unlike some parties on both sides of the House, we always took the line of looking out for the best interests of Northern Ireland. We never joined the SDLP, Sinn Féin or the Alliance Party in seeking full implementation of the protocol, regardless of the impact that that would have on all of us. For clarity, we advocated Remain in 2016, but, as democrats who believe in the United Kingdom, we accept that our nation as a whole voted to leave. Since that date, as well as accepting the result, we have therefore striven to see a pragmatic deal delivered.

We engaged extensively, much like the leader of the Alliance Party, in London, Brussels, Dublin and further afield, being in the room and talking, although I doubt that we were listened to, with Michel Barnier, Maroš Šefcovic, Rishi Sunak, Theresa May, Johnson, Frost, Davis, Enda Kenny, Leo Varadkar, Simon Coveney, Liz Truss and Micheál Martin, among others. On every occasion, Lord Empey and I made the case for an agreement that was as minimal-touch as possible, asking those who were supposedly negotiating for us to recognise that there was very little, if any, risk to the European single market from Northern Ireland. As members of the Ulster Unionist Party, which led on creating the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, we knew how destabilising an overzealous deal would be to Northern Ireland and to the wider all-island and all-islands relationships.

Our advice fell on deaf ears. One can but ask why. Some, in the case of Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney, despicably sought to mislead and raise the spectre of a return to violence if there were even any minimal checks on the EU border. Others, who sought just to punish the United Kingdom for having the temerity to leave the EU, took a maximalist approach and made the economic sovereignty of Northern Ireland the price of any agreement. Meanwhile, we took every opportunity to make the case for a pragmatic, minimalist and mutually beneficial agreement. In that, I regret to say, we failed.

We sought to create a deal that did not create a growing divergence or that doubled bureaucracy but one that allowed continuous access to human and veterinary medicines, to the flexible use of state aid and to an all-island energy market. We definitely did not advocate costly border control and customs-checking infrastructure such as that which is being built in Larne, Belfast, Warrenpoint and Holyhead, with money that could be better spent elsewhere across our nation. We gave a copy of our ideas to every stakeholder to whom we talked, and they were many. Nothing that was our view then has since changed. You cannot argue that we have offered no alternative when we have done so continuously. At no stage did our proposed deal envisage the imposition of an internal border within our nation, and those who advocated, at the behest of a mendacious Prime Minister, that this trade protection measure was a sensible option and a sound idea, should continue, regrettably, to hold their heads in shame. Boris Johnson, in his recent memoir, admits that he put too much faith in Leo Varadkar and the EU playing fair, so a charge of naivety can be added to the one of mendacity against him.

Regrettably, we are where we are. However, no one should fall for the siren calls from some, most notably the same full implementer protagonists, that Northern Ireland somehow has the best of both worlds. Any recent growth that we have had, welcome as it is, has, as Ulster University said last week, come largely from professional services, the public sector and, in a very limited way, manufacturing. The majority of that, as we all know, is not covered by the Windsor framework. We delude ourselves by pretending that we somehow are in a uniquely positive position. We have only to look at the recent Mercosur agreement between the European Union and South American countries, which the Irish Farmers' Association (IFA) said would grant market access to hundreds of thousands of tons of poultry and beef at a zero-rate tariff and decimate the Irish and EU beef and poultry sectors. The IFA added:

What will our full implementers say about how to stop that from impacting on the Northern Ireland agriculture sector?

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: Certainly.

Mr O'Toole: The Member is right to say that the IFA and lots of other heavy agriculture producers, including beef producers, are very concerned about the Mercosur deal. I am not a fan of it myself, but is it not the case that the UK Government — certainly the previous UK Government — went hell for leather when it came to agreeing trade deals that had very low standards with regard to agriculture goods and were not in the interests of farmers on this island?

Dr Aiken: I thank the honourable Member — I do call you "honourable" because we have debated these and many issues — but the key issue is that the Mercosur agreement is going to have a huge impact on farming on this island. That is not fearmongering: it is the reality of the open borders that are insisted upon by article 5.

As has already been said, the chief executive officer of Invest NI recently explained that he has no evidence of any companies coming to invest in Northern Ireland because of any perceived benefit from the Windsor framework. There is a reason for that, because instead of being in the best of both worlds, we are now in a morass of additional arcane rules, regulations and non-tariff measures on everything from labelling —

Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: — to digital passport classification, general product safety regulations and much more, all of which are adding cost and uncertainty to consumers and businesses alike. Please.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Member for giving way. I tried to come in on this point earlier when the one-man pantomime was going on. [Interruption.]

The CEO of Invest NI did not say those words. What he said to our Committee was that, up to this point, no businesses had invested on that basis, but he expected —

A Member: It is the same thing.

Mr Honeyford: No. The next part of the sentence was that they expected that businesses would invest. He has been misquoted twice, and I just want to put that on the record. That was not what he said.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for his intervention because I did check, and I asked many trade bodies. The Member will be aware that I used to be the chief executive of a major trade body. Indeed, one that was responsible for £1 billion worth of trade back and forth across the Irish Sea every week. There have still been no examples of such investment.

Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: You have already had your intervention.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: No, sorry. [Interruption.]

Excuse me, I will continue.

An accumulation of changes is making us diverge increasingly from our largest market — our own nation. The message to our companies and those who are looking at investing here is that the costs of doing business here are higher. Rather than being a streamlined and pro-business environment, we are increasingly being sucked into a morass of excessive legislation and rules. The cumulative effect is impacting on all of us, which is why, if we actually looked at it objectively, all MLAs should vote to reject articles 5 to 10. The main reason for that is simple: we need to send a strong message to Brussels and London that we all want to see the interests of Northern Ireland put first. If we do not do that and start the reform process now, we will be tied into another eight years of stultifying and restrictive legislation that does little or nothing for Northern Ireland. However, we know that this is not about doing what is right for us. It is about ideology, as some believe that the continued application of articles 5 to 10 will lead inexorably to an ever-expanding internal border within our own country, the United Kingdom. Some, if not most, of those who will vote for the retention of those articles believe that, after eight years, our economies will have diverged so far that constitutional change will become inevitable.

It is no surprise that the SNP wants an arrangement similar to the Windsor framework, not for the good of Scotland but to help to render asunder the Union. However, by myopically supporting the retention of articles 5 to 10, we will serve only to undermine our economy for our farmers, our business people, our consumers, our entrepreneurs and, indeed, for all of us: nationalists, unionists and others.

Let us move specifically to articles 5 to 10. As the consent mechanism requires us to vote on articles 5 to 10 in their entirety, at this stage, we have to examine the combined and cumulative effect of those rules and draw a judgement on them. So far, as well as the existing EU legislation that has been carried over under those articles, we have, since January this year, adopted around 23 regulations and responded to several applicability motions. Members will note that, during that time, the EU Commission, the EU Parliament and the Council of the European Union were largely moribund, given that the EU elections were in the summer of this year. In a normal year, we can expect, on average, 80 directives, 1,200 regulations and around 700 decisions to come from Brussels. While some of those may not apply to the Windsor framework, many will, fully or in part. The likely volume of future legislation, directives, applicability motions, decisions and regulations makes it inconceivable that we can adequately scrutinise that volume of change coming in our direction. We have not even properly scrutinised the 23 regulations that we have had before us, having held inquiries into less than 20% of those EU requirements. There is absolutely no way that the Assembly can currently act as the scrutiny safeguard that the people of Northern Ireland need. As was stated to us recently in Brussels, even countries such as Norway and EU countries such as Estonia struggle to comprehend that legislative tsunami. We therefore need a way to limit the scope of those EU regulations in Northern Ireland.

Just because some of us cannot understand what is being imposed on us, there is no reason why we should blindly accept it. Why should we accept differing standards in laws from Brussels from those that we would accept from London or even those that we enact ourselves? Surely, that is what democracy is about? We should be starting that process of scrutiny and accountability by rejecting articles 5 to 10, thereby sending a message that we should seek to cease the application of those articles while we seek an arrangement with the European Union and the British Government that is pragmatic, pro Northern Ireland and does not impose internal borders.

We also need to bear in mind that the worst impacts of the provisions laid out in articles 5 to 10 are yet to be implemented. Rejecting them would give us time for a fundamental review of the process before permanent harm is done. By sending out that message today, we can categorically say that we want to be heard and have a say in the laws that affect us. Currently, there is little or no direct, effective dialogue between the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly and the key UK Government and EU stakeholders. We can attend meetings like low-grade civil servants in the alphabet soup of EU-UK Joint Committees. However, by rejecting articles 5 to 10, we could and should be communicating the strong case that we should not be bystanders but sitting as equal partners on the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee.

If it impacts on Northern Ireland, we should have a say. The Stormont brake, for those who have studied it, is anything but. At best, it is a loud alarm that real harm is being done to Northern Ireland, but without any direct mechanism to influence a call for a halt or delay of the implementation of areas covered by articles 5 to 10. Remember, the brake does not mean stop. It means that the UK and EU Governments will think about it for a year or so, possibly.

You may hear arguments that the negotiations between the UK and EU will not, or cannot, be reopened, even though we know that, in fewer than 13 months' time, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement is being tabled for review. Even a cursory glance at any of the EU official press releases will show the flexibility, negotiation and pragmatism that are shown daily on trade deals, treaties and international arrangements. However, to be clear, that is only when it is in Brussels's interests. So why can they, and we, not put Northern Ireland's interests first? Northern Ireland should be in Brussels's interests because, after all, every EU official I have ever met has told our party how central the European Union was to the peace process. To be honest, that came as a bit of a surprise to some of our party members who were involved in the talks, but I digress.

It was stated in the Secretary of State's explanatory notes to the motion that opinion on these articles should be sought from institutions created by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. The Assembly is one of those institutions, as are the Northern Ireland Executive, and our opinion is not being sought. It is being ignored. As we are the custodians of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and the political representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, our voice needs to have equal weight where rules and regulations pertain to Northern Ireland.

Others will comment on the fact — some already have — that the motion will not be subject to cross-community support. As the party that supported and was fundamental to the creation of, the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, we believe that the failure to adhere to that convention is a grave mistake. Again, if it was not for the ideological position of some Members, we would all be agreeing on that. Being partial with community consent on such major constitutional issues as this will have profound and long-lasting implications. Please, Members on all sides of the Chamber, allow that thought to sink in.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. Has the Member read sections 5(d)(i) and (ii) of strand one of the Good Friday Agreement, where it says that cross-community voting can be either what we have now or a weighted majority? It is not against any laws or rules that we have the opportunity to move to weighted majority voting.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for bringing up her party's position, yet again, but the point was very ably made.

Moving on. Curiously, the reasoning behind our having to follow articles 5 to 10 was that the integrity of the EU single market had to be protected at all costs. Article 5 places the integrity of the EU single market to the fore, but we have seen that the risk of EU single market contamination is minimal, even with the many derogations that we have continued to have in place up until now, but primacy over the UK internal market undermines our economy. The increasingly zealous application of those rules over our own needs will only exacerbate concerns about democratic accountability. While divergence from the rest of the United Kingdom is occurring in agriculture, manufacturing, regulations, medicines — I am glad that Mrs Long mentioned dental amalgams, because, remember, this is only deferring the adoption of the rules, not changing the rules — pet foods, animal welfare and much more, there is still not one example of the single market being put at risk by UK goods. However, as the adoption by the EU of the Mercosur agreement shows, there is a very real threat to contamination of our market and, by extension, the UK market by other imports coming from outside even the European Union. It is not the integrity of the EU internal market that is being compromised: it is our UK market that is being damaged.

Article 6, while dealing with Northern Ireland to GB, does not consider the chilling effect of article 5 on moving goods into Northern Ireland, with GB companies of all sizes impacting on their own lean logistics, supply chains and circular economy. That recipisis — I will say that again. That recipis —. Anyhow —.

Mrs Long: Reciprocity.

Dr Aiken: Reciprocity. Thank you, Naomi. That reciprocity across industry and our UK-wide supply chains is being damaged by the Windsor framework now. It has already started in the SME sectors. Unless it is halted, diversion and its chilling effect will spread further across all sectors of our economy. As we have heard from the likes of the Federation of Small Businesses, a review of those processes would be welcome, so why do we not give it to them by rejecting articles 5 to 10?

On article 7, we have referred to the avalanche of regulations, directives and other non-tariff barriers that are having significant impacts on us, showing that a review of article 7 is also urgently required.

The VAT rates on this island, which are discriminatory and impact on our hospitality sector in particular, are enshrined in article 8. Even if we hoped to negotiate a variation of VAT to enable our businesses to compete on a level playing field, under articles 8 and 10, we will not be able to do so.

We cannot even take full advantage of the lower industrial and manufacturing energy costs in GB because of article 9 and the little-understood but far-reaching EU electricity market design reform mechanism. Provisions in that mechanism require our energy system to meet targets that are impossible to achieve without GB interconnections even though it is not physically connected to that of the rest of the island. I defer to my friend Mr Frew on that point. We do not have an all-island energy system. It is not there. It is only a virtual energy market.

Paradoxically, GB is the only market to which we are physically connected and the only one from which we cannot gain an advantage. In fact, we will be financially penalised for doing so while adopting a protectionist system that adds cost to the consumer and does not add to the security of supply but will, in fact, make it worse and then make it more difficult for us to meet our net zero carbon targets. By voting for the retention of article 9, we will work against our carbon targets rather than accelerate towards a more secure energy system. The benefits of a large GB system, connected as it is to Norway and northern Europe, with a significantly higher penetration of renewable wind, backed up by secure nuclear and closed-cycle gas, are being denied to us by our remaining in the anti-competitive and monopolistic integrated single electricity market (ISEM). As anybody who has talked to our energy industry will tell you, England, Scotland and Wales, by coming under Ofgem, have certainty, while all we have is endless delays, shambolic non-strategies and article 9, which is not fit for purpose.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: Yes, certainly.

Mr O'Toole: Article 9 relates to energy and the operation of the single electricity market. Does the Ulster Unionist Party want us to leave the single electricity market? That seems to be what he is indicating.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed. The point is that we need to have an energy system on these islands that is fit for purpose. One thing that we can definitely say is that ISEM is not fit for purpose. It is not working. Thank you for raising the point, however.

Article 9, surely, is not in our best interests. As has been, or should be, pointed out by other commentators, the so-called best of both worlds can be achieved only if other factors are considered, such as an all-island corporation tax, although, surreally, that would be deemed contrary to article 10.

It also seems bizarre that article 10 has been quoted by certain UK government officials — I hope that they are listening — as a reason why aid cannot be given to Harland and Wolff when, clearly, all across the European Union, shipyards are either state-owned or heavily state-subsidised. It seems oxymoronic that that very article is quoted as a reason for not revitalising one of our vital historic and increasingly strategic industries. That is another reason why all MLAs should call out that article, as well as the others, for rejection.

MLAs should take an objective rather than an ideological view on whether articles 5 to 10 benefit Northern Ireland. They categorically do not. Members will be whipped by the parties; those driven by ideology will not vote on the merits of articles 5 to 10 but will re-fight the Brexit referendum or cling to a nebulous belief that we will bring forward a constitutional referendum by undermining the foundation of the United Kingdom. Contrary arguments will be made about the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and how the protocol in all its parts undermines our Union. I have a lot of sympathy for that argument, but the real reason why we should reject articles 5 to 10 is that they fundamentally undermine the competitiveness of our economy. They work against our customers, our farmers, our hospitality sector, our green targets and even our livestock and domestic animals. The articles remove this place's role in democratic accountability.

Retaining those articles also takes away any bargaining power that we might have in the review of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement in 2026.

We hear many complaints in the Assembly about Westminster imposing rules and regulations. It is well beyond comprehension that those same MLAs would vote for the unbridled imposition of European Union rules. Supporting the retention of articles 5 to 10 would show that narrow ideology supplants the needs of our people. This will maybe not happen now, but soon the electorate will realise the severe long-term implications of the vote and will note who voted for the needs of the people rather than those of the EU and, I dare say, the British Government.

I urge you all vote against the retention of articles 5 to 10.

Mr O'Toole: The protocol came into existence, in a sense, in October 2019. October 2019 feels like a lifetime ago, although, in fairness, everything that happened before Jonny Buckley's speech feels like a lifetime ago. [Laughter.]

Should Mr Buckley ever, for whatever reason, decide to leave politics — he is very young, and I hope that he does not — let me reassure him that the Grand Opera House beckons. May McFettridge would be jealous of that performance. It was one of the great ham acts of the pantomime season.

We are debating a serious issue today. Unlike many of the motions that we have debated since returning to the Chamber, this is about something fundamental. It is about the relationships that we have following the UK's decision to leave the EU. It is about a decision that we did not make, which was for a hard Brexit, that has had profound consequences for our people, our peace and the society and economy in which we live. That protocol was first signed by Boris Johnson and his Government five years ago. Since then, we have seen two UK general elections, two Irish general elections, an Assembly election and institutional collapse. That institutional collapse was brought about by the party opposite — the DUP — because it did not like the post-Brexit arrangements resulting from the hard Brexit that it and its allies in the Conservative Party championed and brought about. That is why the protocol exists.

It was surreal to hear Mr Buckley and, to an extent, Mr Aiken talking about the protocol — now renamed the "Windsor framework" — as if it fell from the sky and had nothing to do with Brexit. It would not have happened without Brexit. The UK's leaving the European Union is ipso facto why there is a protocol. It is also why I am here, and I will talk a little about my experience.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way, yes.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member accept that the protocol and the framework are the result of his and other Members' attempts to thwart democracy and not to honour the referendum, rather than of Brexit? Brexit has been achieved in other parts of the United Kingdom but has not been delivered here, largely because of the lobbying of those on the Benches opposite.

Mr O'Toole: The Member has made his point.

I will return to the basic logical point that I was making, which was that, had the UK not decided to leave the European Union and had there not been a hard Brexit, there would have been no need for lobbying by the SDLP, the Alliance Party, Sinn Féin, the Irish Government and EU member states in order to protect us from a hard border on the island of Ireland. That was necessary because of Brexit — a hard Brexit that was chosen by people who did not have the interests of this place at heart. Tragically, the DUP and others in the Chamber got on board with that hard Brexit and were cheerleaders for it. I am afraid that, in many ways, they have no one to blame but themselves, although perhaps they can also blame Boris Johnson, their erstwhile ally, who is now retired somewhere, writing his memoirs and probably not paying much attention to the debate here today. Perhaps Members on the other side of the Chamber will reflect on that as they lambast those of us in the Chamber who are doing our best to make this place and our post-Brexit arrangements work.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in one minute — in fact, I will give way now.

Mr Buckley: I know that he knows the inside of 10 Downing Street a lot better than most of us, given the fact that he worked there for a Tory Prime Minister.

If the Member has always had the best interests of Northern Ireland in mind, does he regret passing a motion that called for the rigorous implementation of the original protocol, which, in a sense, was far worse than the variant that we have today? Was that a mistake? It was a signed declaration.

Mr O'Toole: First, it was not a motion; it was a letter. What would some of the anti-protocol crowd have to talk about were it not for the phrase "rigorous implementation"?

I will come on to talk about our view of the protocol and our ambitions for our future relationship with the European Union. I want to see —.

Mr Buckley: Do you regret it?

Mr O'Toole: Well, I was not a politician then. Do I regret wanting to have the protocol implemented? No, I do not. Does Mr Buckley regret hard Brexit?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr O'Toole: Do you regret —?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Now you had loads of time. [Laughter.]

In fact, you had an hour and seven minutes, Mr Buckley. This is a serious debate, so can we be a bit more respectful and not shout from a sedentary position on the Benches, please?

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

The Member brings me back to my former career, which I was going to talk about. There have been many consequences from hard Brexit that the DUP does not like.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way to the Alliance leader in just a little while.

There have been many consequences of hard Brexit that the DUP does not like, one of which is the protocol and the Irish Sea border, as it talks about. I do not call it that. Another consequence that it does not like is me. I would not be in the Chamber, had it not been for a hard Brexit. I would not be here and would not be a politician in Northern Ireland, had the UK decided not to leave the EU. I was, as the Member said, in Downing Street. I was a civil servant. I did not agree with the Government that I worked for, but, like lots of civil servants, you work for the Government that you work for. I was a civil servant in 2016. I spent the night of 23 June in 10 Downing Street. As a civil servant working on that campaign, I tried my best to stop the UK leaving the EU, because I thought that it would be a disaster for the UK economy.

I am a nationalist. I believe that Northern Ireland should leave the UK and form a new Ireland inside the EU. However, I did not want to see the UK economy destroyed; I cared about what happened to the UK. I worked there at the time as a UK civil servant. I am being honest with Mr Buckley about that. He wants Northern Ireland to stay in the UK. I presume that he has the best interests of the UK and its economy at heart. I draw his attention to the repeated findings of the Office for Budget Responsibility and every other serious, credible economic forecaster and analyst who has said that Brexit has fundamentally damaged the UK economy. Philip McGuigan mentioned the finding that it cost the UK 4% in long-run productivity: that is the finding after the referendum. The forecast before the referendum when I was working on all that inside Whitehall was that the UK leaving the EU on the terms that it did would cost long-run productivity of 4·2%. That means tens of billions of pounds of lost economic output every year, less money for public services, fewer jobs and fewer opportunities — that is Brexit. So do not, members of the DUP, come in here and carpet me or others in the Chamber who will vote Aye on the motion today, when the consequences that we are dealing with are the result of hard Brexit. Members on the other side of the Chamber shake their head, but it is true. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I am happy to give way to any member of the DUP or TUV or anyone else who would like to intervene and tell me the name of one economic analyst who can find a benefit of Brexit or thinks that Brexit has not cost the UK economically. The Education Minister is here. He was not happy with me earlier. I am happy to give way to him. I am happy to give way to the two former Economy Ministers from the DUP. Actually, I think that we have three former Economy Ministers from the DUP here. If any of them can give me the name of a single economic analyst who thinks that Brexit has had any benefits, I am happy to give way to them. No. That is because there are not any. I have made my point.

Brexit has been a disaster. Northern Ireland has had some protections from Brexit. If you want evidence of that, look at the numbers on our overall economic performance. The Northern Ireland composite economic index (NICEI), is produced regularly by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA). We go back to quarter 4 of 2019, when Boris Johnson, formerly beloved of certain Members in the Chamber, signed the protocol. If we compare economic output from quarter 4 in 2019 in Northern Ireland with that in the UK writ large, the UK's is about 2% above where it was then, while Northern Ireland's is over 8% above that. We have far outperformed the rest of the UK in that sense. I would not claim, nor could I claim, that all that difference has been delivered because of the protocol. What I will say, however, is that the idea that the protocol has ravaged our economy and that we are dong terribly as a result of it is clearly, obviously and self-evidently untrue. Had it been damaging our economy in the way in which some have claimed, the numbers would bear out that claim. They do not, and they have not. That is not to say that the protocol is some perfect thing: it is not. I would never say that. I have never said that, nor has my party ever said it.

Let me go back, first, to the economic question and to some of the disruptions. The protocol, as a result of hard Brexit, has meant new processes for goods as they move from Britain into Northern Ireland. That has caused challenges that need to be worked on for businesses, particularly for small businesses, which do not have the same level of capacity as, for example, large supermarkets do to deal with those processes. Our party has always said, as have others in the Chamber, that there needs to be a focus on ensuring that the disruptions are as minimal as possible in order to deal with them. At no point will Members hear me or any other Member from my party say otherwise. Would that other Members in the Chamber were as frank and honest about acknowledging the damages from Brexit writ large. If they were, we might get somewhere.

By the way, I would say, in parenthesis, that, while people talk about impacts on business here, there are businesses on the island of Britain that are dealing with the hugely damaging costs of all the trade barriers that have been erected between Dover and Calais. Please let us not pretend that hard Brexit has not been economically ruinous, as I said, for businesses on the other side of the Irish Sea. Members on the opposite Benches are again shaking their heads, but they are simply denying obvious, self-evident fact.

There are and were challenges around implementation, and the EU has not got them all right. The UK has mostly got them wrong, but we have been frank about the fact that there needs to be a focused effort on improving things. That is why, in our paper, 'Our European Future', which I will talk a fair bit about today, there are practical suggestions about how we can grow our voice in Brussels and create better mechanisms for making representations to the EU-UK Joint Committee and the Specialised Committee. I would like to think that some of the Members who have talked today about all the challenges will get on board with this, but one such opportunity is through taking one obvious step — there are business representative groups that support this — which is to have the European Commission open an office in Belfast. It had an office in Bedford Street for many years and has an office in London that causes no major issues. If it were to have an office in Belfast, that would enable business trade bodies and Members of the Assembly to have meetings there, to make representations and to find out what is happening around the application of EU law or any checks that are or are not happening or, indeed, around future pieces of EU law. There is a reasonable proposal that, I hope, Members in the Chamber can get behind, and there are lots of others in our paper. Yes, by all means, let us look at how we can continue to ensure the smoothest possible implementation of the protocol.

I also want to challenge one of Dr Aiken's points. He said that, if we did not vote against the motion today — the motion specifically relates to articles 5 to 10 — there would be no review and nothing would happen. That is not true, because the law has now been changed. Schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I believe, now makes it clear that, if there is a vote today by simple majority, the relevant articles in the protocol will extend by four years but the UK Government will deliver an independent review. There is a review. That is something that the UK Government put in law. It was not something that we demanded or insisted on, nor was it something that we particularly supported, but it is not true to say that there is no review process, if there is a simple majority vote to continue the application of the protocol.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will give way in one second. It is also important to say that that very differentiation between a simple majority and what is called a "cross-community majority" gives the lie to all the nonsense that has been talked about "cross-community versus simple majority".

There is a differentiation in our vote today, between a cross-community vote and a simple majority vote. If there is a simple majority vote, there will be review, but if there is a cross-community majority, the review period will be extended to eight years. What it does not give is what the DUP want: the ability to operate a veto against everyone in this community who voted Remain, and I do not care if it bothers people in the DUP that I am pointing out that people in the North voted Remain. The DUP wants a veto: that is what it demanded from the UK Government during the Safeguarding the Union process. It did not get one, but let me remind the DUP that cross-community voting, so called, does not apply to every single motion in the Assembly. It never has done. Pointedly, no cross-community consent was required for Brexit. Of course, the point has to be made that there is no cross-community consent, by definition, for the constitutional status quo. So it is a bit absurd for the DUP to try to superimpose it post facto on some of the things that it does not like about a hard Brexit.

I give way to Dr Aiken.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for his remarks. The key question is this: what would be our strongest negotiating hand with the European Union and the British Government? Would it not be much stronger if we all rejected it and said, "This will —"

Mr O'Toole: No.

Dr Aiken: Sorry, allow me to finish without interrupting, please. You have given me an opportunity to speak, and I am trying to answer your point.

The question has to be this: what would give us a stronger negotiating hand? If the Assembly, as a whole, said, "With this, we will not put up", would that not be a much stronger message to send Brussels and London than, "Half of us — or, regrettably, slightly fewer than half of us — have decided that we are not going to support the retention"? Over to you, please.

Mr O'Toole: The answer is no, because I fundamentally do not agree with the proposition. However, I respect you and gave you the opportunity to make your point. I thought that the leader of the Alliance Party also wanted to say something, but she does not. That is fine; I will make some progress. I do not want anyone to feel that I am being miserly when it comes to interventions, although I will speak more briefly than Mr Buckley.

We only have the protocol, and now the Windsor framework, because of a hard Brexit. It creates a corpus of EU law that applies in Northern Ireland specifically to the movement of goods. It is imperfect, but it offers critical protections. The idea that it has fundamentally damaged our economy is wrong, but there are specific challenges that specific businesses need to have resolved. I have no difficulty with that.

I also want to acknowledge that there are real, genuine and sincere difficulties that people have with the protocol on the basis of their identity and their sense of belonging. I would never diminish or dismiss those concerns. I go back to my personal experience, which Mr Buckley referred to. On 23 June 2016 and subsequently, I felt that the terms of my citizenship had changed. That is a part of the reason why I changed my career and became a politician here. I am an Irish citizen and a European. It is because of my European identity that I believe profoundly in the values of mutual respect, pluralism and diversity. Those are the values that fundamentally animate my party. Those are the values that made John Hume believe and say that the European Union was the greatest peace project in human history. Our party stands firmly behind that aspiration. On 23 June 2016, and in subsequent years, many of us felt that that sense of our identity and belonging had been fundamentally taken away from us, so I understand that, for many unionists, the protocol presents difficulties. I would not diminish them and I would not dismiss them. The way to approach them is not to tear down political institutions, boycott things or threaten to collapse, or actually collapse, institutions: it is to work to make things better.

To that end, the SDLP published its paper for what happens next. After today's vote, assuming that there is a simple majority, a review will be called and there will be a process in which we look at how we improve the operation of the protocol. Our party hopes that we will get the absolute best from the opportunities that lie in front of us from the protocol. We are a proudly pro-European party. We are the most pro-European party in the Chamber. We make no apology for wanting Northern Ireland to rejoin the EU in a new Ireland or for believing that that is the best future for all our people. Even for those who do not believe in that future, there are huge opportunities from a special relationship between Northern Ireland and the European Union.

Let us bear in mind that not only is Northern Ireland bound by certain EU rules under the protocol but our people have EU citizenship by birthright. Our people also have the opportunity to rejoin the EU automatically at some point in the future. As I said, however, even if they do not want to exercise that right, although I do, there is a vast universe of opportunity awaiting us if we embrace our position at the crossroads of two markets. We are uniquely positioned — frankly, people all over the continent are envious — to take advantage of the situation. First of all, we have "dual market access", a phrase that has been bandied about today. I think that I might have been one of the first Members to use it in the Chamber. Mr Buckley dismissed it, saying that the head of Invest NI stated that there had not been any specific investment because of it. Although it is true that he said that there had not been specific FDI on that basis, he did not say that there was no potential or proposition. He did not say that at all. It would be mad for us to throw away our dual market access proposition. There are regions across the world that would love to have the proposition that we have: the seamless ability to move goods into the UK and EU markets. Just one example is decarbonisation and the green economy. The UK and the EU are moving towards net zero. That will mean a huge project and transition involving huge amounts of low-carbon manufacturing, such as the manufacturing of wind turbines. Mr Brooks was animated earlier. We have in his constituency a historic manufacturer, including of the kinds of machinery that can be used in renewable technology. Why not ensure that Harland and Wolff is able to move its goods for the purposes of renewable technology into the UK and EU markets, so that we and the workers of East Belfast can take economic advantage of our position by manufacturing goods and moving them into the UK and the EU single market? Why would we not take those opportunities?

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: Briefly.

Mr Brooks: I am well aware that there are businesses in East Belfast looking into wind turbines and so on. I do not think that Harland and Wolff's previous venture into that space was particularly successful. Nevertheless, far more businesses in East Belfast rely on our biggest market, which is GB. Unfortunately, when you talk about dual market access, you do not recognise that it is not seamless between Northern Ireland and GB in both directions. That is the reality.

Mr O'Toole: He has made his point, but there has been huge progress in smoothing out the issues.

The DUP is a party that wants to pursue and protect the status quo. That is not my lookout; I want Northern Ireland to rejoin the EU via a new Ireland. It is, however, some prospectus for young people here who are thinking about their economic, professional and constitutional future to hear the big opportunity that awaits us in having access to both markets being talked down. If I were defending the constitutional status quo — believe me, I am not; I would like us to leave the UK and rejoin the EU — I would be a little less negative about the possibilities in front of this place, but that is the DUP's lookout. It is for the DUP to make that argument. I do not think that constantly dragging us back into arguments about some of these matters is necessarily the way in which to make a positive offer.

I am positive about our European future. I am positive about the opportunities that await our young people. That is what we are pursuing. Our party was in Brussels last week having meetings with members of our European socialist and democratic group to talk about what we would like to see. We would like to capitalise on Northern Ireland's dual market access. We want opportunities for our young people, and not just ERASMUS. Yes, at the minute, young people from Northern Ireland can participate in ERASMUS, but they need a sponsoring body in the Republic to help them. I want our institutions to be back fully in ERASMUS, but not just for university students; I want all our young people to benefit from youth mobility programmes. I want us to have a voice in the European Parliament. Some Members complain about the way in which the protocol is being implemented and about EU law. Why not take advantage of our unique position and have, via observer status in the European Parliament, our voice at the heart of where those decisions are taken? Why not take advantage of our unique position and give our young people all those opportunities? Why not look to see whether the European Investment Bank is willing to partner with the Shared Island unit to underwrite infrastructure investment in Northern Ireland? Why not look to see whether we can push to get more EU funding using the PEACE PLUS initiative as a model? Why not look for every single opportunity that awaits us?

I am totally positive about our future. I am passionate about the opportunities that await us. Yes, the SDLP is the most pro-European party here, but these are practical, pragmatic ideas, too. My party has already written to the UK Government Secretary of State about our ideas. After the debate, we will write to the chairs of the Joint Committee, Maroš Šefcovic and Nick Thomas-Symonds, to make it clear to them that we want to see any future initiatives on the protocol focus not just on east-west interests or the interests of a narrow part of unionism but on the interests of everybody here in Northern Ireland.

We also want to focus on North/South interests, because, for all the talk of disruptions across the Irish Sea — there have been some, and they need to be managed — there has been a huge range of other disruptions to the all-island economy and cross-border life that we need to examine. Under article 11, which talks about the North/South context, and article 14, which allows for the NSMC to make representations to improve the operation of the protocol, there is a real opportunity for us to start to deal with those challenges.

Some in the Chamber want to focus only on the negative. Some in the Chamber want us all to forget their responsibility in delivering a hard Brexit. Some in the Chamber want to drag us back to the division and dysfunction of the past few years and the Brexit debacle that they helped to deliver. Not my party. We are hugely positive about a European future for this place. Let us harness our unique position. Let us take advantage of the unique position that Northern Ireland is in. Let us claim the rights and privileges that we have as people who are entitled to European citizenship with unique rights under EU law. Let us take advantage of those opportunities. Let us harness dual market access. Let us claim our voice in the European Parliament. Let us give our young people the opportunity to travel, live and work across the continent. Let us not be dragged down by negativity and pointless stunts. Let us choose a European future. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Dr Archibald: It is always worth reminding ourselves that the majority of people here in the North voted against Brexit and to remain part of the EU. The people whom we represent in the North did not consent to Brexit and certainly not to the hard Brexit that has transpired. People understood the threat that was posed by Brexit and its detrimental impact on our economy and communities, including our rural communities and farmers, and, most importantly, on our peace agreement and the delicate balance of relationships. We highlighted the lost opportunities for our people, including our young people; loss of funding through the various EU programmes, including for farmers and the community and voluntary sector — funding that has not been replaced, despite promises from the British Government that none of us believed in the first place; loss of trading relationships and creation of barriers where barriers did not exist, including on this island.

Others, however, were content to plough on regardless of all that on the basis of ideology and fantasies about the halcyon days of an empire that is long gone and will not return. After the referendum, those of us who wanted to protect the balance of relationships and our communities and economy understood the importance of negotiating arrangements that took account of our special status. Those were painstakingly negotiated over four years in the face of ardent Brexiteers in England who cared, and care, nothing for our people or our place. The result was the protocol and, ultimately, the Windsor framework.

It is worth reminding ourselves, as Mr Aiken did, that the democratic consent mechanism that we are debating applies only to articles 5 to 10 — the bit that refers mostly to trade — and has no impact on the rest. It is worth emphasising the important protections against diminution of rights that are contained in the protocol and Windsor framework. When it comes to trade, the vast majority of us recognise that we need to maintain both our North/South and east-west trade. That has not been easy to achieve. It has required difficult compromise and imaginative solutions. As Matthew said, we have had some protections as a result of the protocol.

Speaking of trade, the impact of Brexit on trade has been nothing but negative. This year, up until June 2024, England, Scotland and Wales all experienced a decrease in the value of their exports. The North, however, where the protocol applies, experienced an increase in exports. Businesses here have applied creativity and innovation and have been stretched to achieve what, at times, seemed impossible. The outworkings of the implementation of the protocol have resulted in significant increases in all-island trade. Trade North to South and South to North has increased by billions over the past five years. The all-island economy is going from strength to strength, and that has continued over the first seven months of 2024.

It is, of course, important to acknowledge the resilience of our business community. Its willingness to work with officials and politicians to find ways forward has been admirable. We need to record our gratitude for that willingness to work to find solutions. That does not mean that there are not challenges or that there will not be in the future, but the arrangements that are in place are better than the alternative of a land border and having checks on this island. That would have had a catastrophic impact on our integrated supply chains, not to mention our integrated economies and communities.

It is long past time that the issue was settled, that certainty was provided for those looking for investment opportunities and that we truly focused on taking advantage of our access to both the British and EU markets in order to develop our economy, support our businesses to grow, create jobs and attract further investment. It is important that the protocol is maintained and that the stability that it provides is upheld by Members' support for the consent motion that we are debating.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak from the Back Bench in this important debate. We are discussing a matter of fundamental import. It is a serious matter, and it has an impact, particularly on many thousands of businesses, throughout Northern Ireland. It affects trade and our economy but also the very democratic and constitutional underpinnings of Northern Ireland and our sovereign United Kingdom. Across the Chamber, people will have different perspectives. For some, it will present ideological and constitutional issues, but, for all others, we ought to listen to the real and practical trade and economic issues that face businesses in each and every one of our constituencies in relation to articles 5 to 10.

It is important to remember that the vote does not and will not revoke the protocol. We are debating a motion on articles 5 to 10. We have heard some exploration of that already. The reality is that those provisions are causing serious issues. The DUP's commitment is clear across all three of those issues: ideological issues, constitutional issues and those that relate to the practical trade implications. By building on the progress to date, the DUP will continue to fight to fully restore Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom. That means removing EU law that applies and any internal barriers that such laws create. The DUP will continue to argue the case for full primacy of the United Kingdom internal market and to reject the undermining of its integrity. That is why we have no hesitation in voting against the application of those articles and therefore triggering the review.

The tale of the matter is both long and sad. It is not possible to talk to the matter without some consideration of how we got here. There have been disappointments and let-downs. There have been theatrics and dramatics. There has been buffoonery and blustering — of course, more about Boris later — and the continual dismissing and demeaning of serious concerns, which I have seen repeated here today. We cannot and ought not to sneer at each other across the Chamber when we raise real constitutional and ideological concerns that we genuinely feel. That has been the hallmark of the past eight years, and the lessons of the past eight years must be learned. They cannot be repeated. Issues must be addressed, and promises must be kept.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am going to make a little bit more progress before I give way. Make no mistake: the mishandling of Brexit and the subsequent protocol was an unparalleled act of constitutional self-harm by the UK Government. No Government should ever have signed up to such terms. That agreement damaged the very fabric of our constitutional settlement and shattered the integrity of the UK internal market.

The strength of an internal market matters. The integrity of an internal market is protected for the good reasons of fairness and strength and to create optimal internal trading and internal relationships. That is precisely why the integrity of the EU single market would never have been on the table during the Brexit negotiations. The integrity of the UK's single market should not have been on the table, yet it was. We are still dealing with that in 2024 because of the botched nature of those discussions and because the very integrity of our internal market — our single market in this United Kingdom — was placed on the table, negotiated away and damaged.

From the ineptitude of Theresa May and her team to the blundering of blustering Boris, it has been a catalogue of mistakes, errors and own goals. It was a botched Brexit. Let us be very clear: this situation was not the inevitable result of Brexit; it is the result of a botched Brexit. They were warned. We warned them. I was there in Parliament raising my voice time and time again against what was proposed. There were many different ways to bring about the result of a democratic referendum across this United Kingdom. No matter what people across the Chamber think about Brexit, that was a democratic vote. I can tell you this: if it came to a vote on the reunification of Ireland and the vote passed but was ignored, the very same people who fight against the democratic outcome of the Brexit referendum would be howling if there was even a suggestion of that vote being ignored.

Therefore, when the referendum happened, the DUP, rightly, regardless of the view on Brexit — there was a range of views on Brexit in unionism and in the DUP — took a position, which is and was that the result of the democratic referendum should be implemented. We also made clear that it ought to be implemented in a way that produced a good Brexit deal. That did not happen. It was a botched Brexit that started with key mistakes, such as timetabling agreements for negotiations that created pinch points to pressure the UK to early concessions that removed important negotiation flexibilities by Theresa May and her team.

At every stage, we have heard the same thing, time and time again, which is, "This is the best deal that you are going to get". When Theresa May came up with her backstop, the very same thing was said, but we said that the backstop was never a backup. Yet, too many did not want to see that. The backstop deal that would have kept Northern Ireland formally and officially in the EU customs union was always going to be the final outcome. It was never going to be the backup. A blind man on a galloping horse could have seen that, yet there was collective gaslighting going on. People said, "Oh no, the backstop will never come in. Something else will be negotiated", but, of course, the backstop deal meant that nothing to replace it could be put in place unilaterally. The replacement of the backstop had to be agreed by the EU in the terms of that agreement. It was always going to be the outcome.

Wall-to-wall, all declared that the negotiation was completed. As we raised concerns about the backstop provisions, we were told that it was not going to change. There were wails from Remainers on all sides of the House of Commons, from party leaders in Northern Ireland — the SDLP, Alliance and Sinn Féin — to the Lib Dems, Labour, the Back-Benchers of the Conservative Party and from worthy academics to practically all the media commentators saying that the backstop was not going to change. Then came Boris, and boom — the backstop is reopened. Great news, or it should have been. Boris blew it.

The UK Government, the negotiators and the Prime Minister's team were, it appears, woefully unprepared, and that is what we are dealing with today, what we are trying to deal with week by week and why the Committee looks at all these unexpected, unforeseen, unpredicted issues that are causing real issues for businesses in every constituency. That is what we are dealing with today because of that original backstop leading to the protocol — that original agreement that was made.

What we are dealing with today leads directly from Boris's botched Brexit deal, and it is not working. A wee wander through the garden with Leo Varadkar, and Boris signed up to the protocol and caused immeasurable damage. The protocol created a hard border down the Irish Sea and shattered our UK internal market. We warned Boris Johnson about that, but he would not heed the warnings. I am absolutely sick of the revisionism, the scoffing and people saying, "Why did the DUP negotiate with Boris Johnson?". Well, it was because he was the Prime Minister. He was the person leading the negotiations with the EU. He was the person with the ability to put on the table what needed to be done. He was the person who was going to sign his name on the bottom of that document and that agreement. That is why we did our best. That is why we endeavoured to ensure a good Brexit.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. We all had to engage with Boris Johnson when he was Prime Minister. That was the inevitable consequence of his position. However, we did not all champion him when he was running for prime ministership. We did not all invite him to our party conferences and cosy up to him. Some responsibility in all of this needs to be taken for the choices that the DUP made.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her contribution. I should point out that the Conservative Party is not a sister party of the DUP, but the Lib Dems is a sister party of the Alliance Party and Labour is a sister party of the SDLP. At various times over the past number of years, you have cosied up to many different people who have then gone on to take part in votes and issues and make decisions that you disagree with, and ditto with what is happening with the Labour Government at the moment. That is the reality.

The truth is that we were doing our best for the people of Northern Ireland by making our point at every opportunity to the Prime Minister. We invited the Prime Minister to our party conference because it was a great opportunity to make the points directly to him. Did he listen? No. Did he listen to the warnings? No. That is a shame on him. It is not a shame on us —

Some Members: Hear, hear. [Interruption.]

Mrs Little-Pengelly: — for doing what we could do to fight for the people of Northern Ireland and to get the best deal and the best Brexit outcome. As I said, we warned Boris Johnson about that, and he did not heed the warnings.

I think that everyone in the Chamber can tell that I am no fan of Boris Johnson, but the protocol also brought us this vote. It meant, and does mean, that, for the very first time since 1998 and for the very first time since the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, a key decision and a key vote in the House that will affect everyone in Northern Ireland will not require cross-community support in the Assembly. The reality is that that is a fundamental change, and the only reason why any of you across the Chamber are not howling about that is that it is not in your interests to do so on this particular issue. I reiterate that this is the first and only key decision that the House will vote on that absolutely tears asunder the key values and principles that other parties in this Chamber championed around the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the deputy First Minister giving way. I and others have dealt with the point about cross-community voting. Will she acknowledge that, prior to the debate, we voted on carbon budgets, which most people would say are a pretty big deal? They are such a big deal that her party forced a Division and voted against them. I might disagree with that, but it is entirely the right of the DUP to have that perspective. That was not decided by a cross-community vote, and that is a pretty significant issue — significant enough for there to be a Division. Will she accept that cross-community voting is not a commonplace thing that happens on every single important vote in this Chamber?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I hesitate to get into the detail of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, but I am sure that the Member is fully aware that all key decisions — indeed, all decisions — of the House are subject to a petition of concern, and, ergo, a cross-community vote could have been triggered in relation to that vote, as is the case with every single vote. I am afraid that, if the Member from the SDLP does not recall that, I suggest that he goes back and reads again the Northern Ireland Act 1998, because this is the only key vote in the House since 1998 and since the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement that will not be subject to the ability to trigger a cross-community vote.

The values of that agreement, we were told by those who wrote it and put it together, were consensus and inclusion, but the agreement is about consensus and inclusion only if it is a matter that is important to you but not if it is a matter that is important to unionism. It is absolutely appalling.

This, frankly, is a rigged vote. The message being sent from the Chamber today is of a vote that has not gone through the normal procedures that underpin these very institutions. The protections promised in early October 2019 by Boris Johnson were of a cross-community vote in the Assembly. That promise disappeared after his little chat with Leo Varadkar, which fundamentally changed what was on the table. The DUP immediately pointed that out, highlighted it and opposed it. We have opposed the provisions from the very start, and, over the years, we have worked tirelessly to undo the incredible harm caused by the protocol agreement. The DUP has fought against the damaging protocol at every stage. We opposed it to the Prime Minister, voted against it in the House of Commons and voted against it in the House of Lords. We publicly and legally challenged its provisions. Our opposition could not have been more clear. We could see the damage that it would cause, even if others, including many in this place today, refused to see it.

That is the reality. It was not just the harm done by the then Prime Minister but that done by an impatient House of Commons, which was eager to just get it done with and vote it all through. Yes, our UK Parliament voted for it, and we cannot get away from that fact. It is something that, day in and day out, grieves me, because that is where this is based. I can criticise the European Union, criticise the Irish Government for their interventions and criticise others, as I will in due course, for rigorous implementation, but I also criticise my sovereign Parliament for not caring about the constitutional implications. When we got to court, why was the challenge defeated? It was defeated because the sovereign Parliament had voted for the protocol.

I appeal once again for that Parliament to have a rethink, and that is why I agree absolutely with the many Members who have spoken from this side of the House today who said, "Wouldn't it be so good for us to send the message to the UK Government and to the EU that the provisions set down in articles 5 to 10 are causing real difficulties for businesses, creating limited choice for consumers and causing issues with supplies and for suppliers?". There is no way of getting around that, and, while there are always promises and more promises of a possible benefit down the line from so-called dual market access, we have confirmation that that has not yet been realised, if it ever will be. We have caused real practical issues for our economy and for our businesses on the promise of something that has simply not materialised. That is unacceptable.

Others, once again, pontificated about how the negotiations were over, because, of course, the protocol was only a certain point in all of this. We were told, once again, that there would be no changes to the protocol. We were told to forget all about it and that the negotiation was over. We were told that by so many of you who are sitting in the House today. Once again, you said, "Don't waste any time on that". We could see the danger in it, however. We could see the many, many issues. Even getting access to human medicines had not been resolved. Literally thousands of products were going to be stopped coming into Northern Ireland, and the only reason that citizens throughout Northern Ireland did not notice it was because of the grace periods. Rigorous implementation of the protocol would have ended those grace periods. It would have brought in everything in it. It would have caused huge disruption for every supermarket, corner shop, takeaway, restaurant and small business, and that had to be dealt with. We therefore went to the UK Government and to the EU, and we tried to renegotiate to fix the damage done by that terrible protocol.

While we were trying to do that, there was a restoration of the Assembly. We were going through COVID. Every time that we made a little bit of progress, what happened? We were undermined. I am absolutely unashamed to say clearly that we were undermined by some of those who are sitting here from the SDLP, the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin. While we were involved in live negotiations to try to get the worst parts of the protocol changed, you were running to the European Union and running down the road to Dublin, asking them to rigorously implement something that would have caused huge harm to Northern Ireland. That is shameful, and it led directly to the point where we had no choice but to step forward, stand up and force people back around the table. Did we want to do it? No. Were we reluctant to do it? Absolutely, but we had to force people back to the negotiating table, and what was produced from that process? The Windsor framework.

The reality is that the DUP took the abuse. We were attacked for our actions, but it is undeniable that the Windsor framework is a significant move forward. Thousands and thousands of goods were removed from being impacted by the protocol. The provision on the internal movement of goods for supermarkets, restaurants, takeaways and cafes meant that they were all able to access supplies from GB. For the first time, it gave the UK a unilateral veto on amended and new EU legislation. That was something that we had asked for during the protocol negotiations and had highlighted as a concern to Theresa May and Boris Johnson, but it was achieved by Rishi Sunak. The Windsor framework addressed a number of issues, but there was more to be done. That is why we did not go back into the Executive: it did not resolve everything, and we made that clear at the time.

It was an improvement but, unfortunately for unionism, we had to take a hard decision. The DUP, as leaders of unionism, had to take a hard decision. We care about the people of Northern Ireland. We care about health, we care about education and we care about the economy. We want the Northern Ireland economy to do well. That meant that we had to get best deal that we could, which is why we did not accept the Windsor framework. We recognised the progress that had been made, but we fought on for the best deal that we could get. The 'Safeguarding the Union' paper represented steps forward, but, again, it was not perfect. We said that clearly at the time. I so rarely get the opportunity to speak about it, but, my goodness, I have had to sit and listen, time and time again, to people telling us what we said about 'Safeguarding the Union'. We said that it was progress — it was progress — but there was more to be done. There were still problems with it, but it represented real progress and built on the progress of the Windsor framework. That is why we are where we are.

There have been improvements. I speak to businesses all the time, as, I know, many of you do too, but there have also been many unexpected problems. We might as well rename the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee the "Whack-a-mole Committee" because, frankly, it deals with issues as they pop up left, right and centre. Unexpected and unpredicted, they suddenly come from nowhere. The UK Government did not see it, and the EU did not see it. I appeal to everyone to understand that, because the origin of the provisions are in a deeply flawed protocol document botched by Boris Johnson and his Government, those issues will continue to flow. They continue to flow because of articles 5 to 10.

I have already heard Members asking today, "What is the alternative?". The alternative is a logical system based on an assessment of risk, proportionality and looking at issues such as mutual enforcement and a mutual recognition of standards.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will indeed.

Dr Aiken: On a point of guidance, the Member will find a paper that mentions all of those things on the Ulster Unionist Party website. I would be delighted if everyone read it, because it contains a method for moving ahead.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his contribution. The Ulster Unionist Party was, of course, talking to the same people about the mutual enforcement concept at the same time as we were. That is an issue on which we made representations to the UK Government. You will have seen many contributions by our Members in the House of Lords and the House of Commons on that issue as well because, of course, there are many different ways to do the same thing. We must not forget that, at this moment, the UK is fully aligned with and signed up to the same standards as the EU.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We are tracking goods from one area into another area with exactly the same standards; it is absolutely ridiculous. It is totally disproportionate, it is not based on risk, and it is bureaucracy gone mad.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way and for her passionate articulation of facts. Does the Member agree that, whilst there is sneering from some Benches about mutual enforcement, the genesis of the suggestion came from the EU itself?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his contribution.

Of course, it goes back to the fundamental issue of Brexit. The UK voluntarily joined a club, and that club was the European Union. Under the terms of joining voluntarily, of course, you could leave at any time, yet, my goodness, the wails of outrage when the people of the United Kingdom democratically decided to leave. The mature thing to do and what you would have expected from sovereign Governments and international bodies was to accept the result — the outcome of a democratic vote — and try, mutually, to work together for the best possible deal. It is not beyond the wit of man and woman to have two sovereign places working together side by side as good neighbours that can trade with each other, both wanting high standards of food products and manufactured goods for their people on the basis of an assessment of risk, proportionality and mutual recognition of high standards. That is what ought to have happened, but it did not. Northern Ireland is paying the price of a botched Brexit.

Mr O'Toole: I genuinely appreciate the deputy First Minister's giving way as a sign that she is willing to have a serious debate. Could she give me an example of any jurisdiction in the world that operates the kind of mutual enforcement that she would like to see on the island of Ireland?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: There are numerous relationships between trading partners that do not look or feel like the European Union situation. We always seem to get away from this fundamental point: at the moment, EU goods can flow freely into Great Britain because Great Britain is not exercising a protectionist system. The reason why GB goods cannot flow freely into the European Union is that the European Union — it is globally notorious for it — operates a protectionist system. Those are political choices. It is the political choice of the European Union, if it wishes, to lift customs from Northern Ireland. To do checks or not is a political choice.

If the EU has broken the mould, as it keeps telling us that it has, with the Windsor framework, it can continue to break the mould, but it will do so only if we send the clear message, "We need to strive for better. We need to strive for something that will work". If, for the next four years, we have to look at constantly trying to fight against issues as they keep popping up, that is a crazy system. Yes, we need that reactivity in the short term. We need a reaction from the UK Government and the EU to deal with issues as they emerge, but better still would be a system that does not result in those issues continuously coming up unexpectedly and unpredictably.

I will move on to the outstanding commitments in the 'Safeguarding the Union' agreement and policy. I appeal to the Labour Party: there are a number of outstanding commitments. The Labour Party voted for and supported the Windsor framework and 'Safeguarding the Union'. It undertook to fulfil the promises, acknowledging that the then Government, who had done the deal, were in their dying days. That was the basis for restoration. The Labour Government must step up and deliver what was promised, what they voted for and what they said that they would do. Where are we with implementation and delivery today? What is the Government's position on eradicating routine checks in the UK's internal market system, which they promised to do? That is what Labour voted for.

We face, on Friday, the general product safety regulation coming into force. That will have a real impact. I am being contacted all the time by people who will have issues with supplies. The Labour Government promised, along with the then Government, that they would ensure the free flow of internal UK goods across the United Kingdom without checks. Let us see that happen. On parcels and customs, another commitment was made in February and supported by Labour.

Let us make it clear: we would not have moved forward only that those were supported and voted on by Labour, because it was inevitable that there was going to be an election. Therefore, it was going to be a Labour Government that had to stand by those agreements in terms of what needed to be done. It was to be implemented by October of this year, but they have delayed it. They have promised that they will do it, but those promises need to be fulfilled. UK-wide labelling has been ditched, and, again, there was a good reason for that. It was to prevent the withdrawal of suppliers from the NI market. It would not have brought with it any significant cost, but it would have helped to protect the UK internal market. More must be done.

We also need urgent action and response when things emerge. I mentioned the GPSR. I took the opportunity to raise that directly with the Prime Minister, with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and with the Ministers responsible for EU relationships. Make no mistake: it is an excellent example of something that emerges despite the fact that in February 2023 the UK extended agreement to alignment with EU standards. EU standards continue, and, despite that, this coming in under regulations agreed prior to the protocol and Windsor framework arrangements will have a real impact on the UK internal market, particularly for Northern Ireland.

The reality is that SPS negotiations will take years. Negotiations will not produce the answers to any of the issues in the next number of months. Therefore, we should send a clear message from this place: do better. Go back and try to achieve more. You made a promise to the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, to the people of the United Kingdom that there would be a free flow of trade across our United Kingdom. The integrity of our single market matters. It matters to us, but it should always matter to businesses, and to you, regardless of your ideological and constitutional background.

The Northern Ireland protocol has been imposed on us without any support from unionist representatives. It is doing harm, and we stand here today, even though the process has been delegitimised, because we are not willing to complete the disenfranchisement of our constituents by not participating in today's debate and vote. However, by participating and by voting against it, we ensure that no one, whether in Westminster or in the European Union, can claim that we are uninterested or absent. Today, we make it clear that we oppose the ongoing application of the framework, which causes so much difficulty for businesses. Today provides an opportunity for unionism to unite and send a clear message to London and the EU. We will vote against the continued application of the current arrangements, and we encourage all Members of the Assembly who value democratic decision-making in this place to join us.

Mr Muir: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. In doing so, I know that a number of the issues raised inside and outside the Chamber today and previously will soon, hopefully, be addressed by an ambitious and comprehensive UK-EU SPS veterinary agreement, which I now refer to as an "agri-food and drink agreement", which Alliance has long and consistently argued for. I cannot stress enough that the sooner we have such an agreement in place, the better it will be for Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and, indeed, the European Union.

It is therefore disappointing that we do not seem to have quickly moved on from what seems to be mere mood music. We are stuck in what I would describe as the Spice Girls problem. "What is the Spice Girls problem?", some of you may ask. Well, as the hit song, "Wannabe" goes:

And so it continues, on repeat. If we really, really want to get with the EU on an agri-food and drink agreement, then, as the Spice Girls would say, we need to get our act together "and make it fast" and then "we could be just fine". The reality is that the EU and the 27 member states have many other matters on which to focus. The planned UK-EU summit in spring next year must be the moment when we change the tune and the negotiations get serious.

Dr Aiken: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Muir: Yes, no problem.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed to the Minister for looking at one of our substantial issues, in particular, the agriculture piece. The Minister will be aware that, admittedly, it is under the Hungarian presidency, but the European Commission recently looked at its negotiating position in reference to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement review in 2026. One of the key things that it said was that there would be no cherry-picking and there would be no move towards an SPS agreement unless there was an in-depth fisheries agreement. As the Minister responsible for Northern Ireland fisheries, could you perhaps address how a comprehensive SPS agreement can be achieved without giving away substantial issues on our fisheries?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, sorry. There are two things that I want to remind Members of. Although there is no time limit on the debate, interventions should be short. The second point is that Andrew Muir is not speaking as a Minister, so I just remind the Member of that, OK?

Dr Aiken: Apologies, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, and it is a term of endearment. Andrew. [Laughter.]

Mr Muir: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I do appreciate the "endearment". [Laughter.]

I will continue in a spirit of brevity, and, hopefully, others will follow.

We all know the issues relating to an agri-food and drink agreement, and that is why the UK needs to face up to those and be able to progress the matter at pace, because the people of Northern Ireland, the UK and the EU will benefit from it. That is why the planned UK-EU summit in spring next year must be the moment when we change the tune and the negotiations get serious. Until an agri-food and drink agreement is in place, many aspects of the Windsor framework will remain; indeed, even the most ambitious deal would not negate all the aspects of the Windsor framework. Significant aspects will always be needed, such as those relating to the single electricity market. It would, however, make a big difference, and I will continue to push for a comprehensive deal to be concluded without delay.

As a party, Alliance has always been clear that Brexit would pose considerable challenges for Northern Ireland. The direction pursued by the Tories and driven by Brexit purists has massively exacerbated those challenges. I make no secret of the fact that I am passionately pro-European. I believe in the EU and the principles on which it is founded. I want the benefits of being part of the world's largest trading bloc, as did Northern Ireland when we voted alongside Scotland to remain as part of the EU. Regrettably, we were removed, and the rest is history.

Let me be clear. No one has ever said that the Windsor framework is perfect, but it reflects the best possible outcome in the context of a hard Brexit negotiated by the previous UK Government. We should also not forget that many of our colleagues in the rest of the UK, such as Scotland, would jump at the chance to have the dual market access afforded to us by the Windsor framework.

To grasp the opportunity for Northern Ireland, we must move forward with stability and certainty. Nonsense such as the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill put forward by Liz Truss and others was not the answer to many of the problems. When you make international agreements, you need to stick to them. You must act in good faith; otherwise, how can you expect the EU to agree an agri-food and drink agreement when it relies on mutual trust? How else can you provide the certainty needed for businesses to thrive and attract investment? That is why I remain firmly committed to full, timely and faithful implementation of the Windsor framework. It is key.

I understand that implementation is not without its challenges, especially — I speak as an MLA but also in the context of my dealings outside this place with the UK Government — the issues thrown up by the Windsor framework implementation regulations. There are challenges there. I put on record that I will continue to seek a positive, productive and, importantly, respectful working relationship with the UK Government. However, it takes two to tango. Recent attitudes of the UK Government are disappointing and rather adrift of the reset in relations that the Prime Minister promised. Perhaps we need a reset of the reset.

I reassure Members that, as a Minister, I remain true to the commitment that I gave at my first Question Time, when I stated that my approach would be very different from what had gone before. It is important to implement the law and to focus on solutions, not to deliberately enlarge problems. As I said:

Since I took up office in February, I have carried out substantial work in that manner, without fanfare or drama. I have been to Brussels twice, engaging and building alliances that are to the benefit of Northern Ireland at the highest levels in the European Parliament, the Commission and with permanent representatives. My engagement with the UK's Minister for the Constitution and EU Relations, Nick Thomas-Symonds, has been significant. I will continue to make representations to the UK Government on addressing veterinary medicines. I notice that positive progress is now being made. It is not concluded, but negotiations and engagement are where we should go. I successfully made the case for negotiated derogation and a resolution of issues on dental amalgams. Pardon the pun, but that proved that jaw-jaw is much better than stand-off and stalemate.

With the needs of farmers in mind, I have been pushing for the better promotion of available workarounds in order to secure plant-protection products. I am also urging UK-EU alignment on a range of matters, including the emissions trading scheme and the carbon border adjustment mechanism, as well as a joint approach to the welfare of cats and dogs. That is just a taster of the areas into which I am putting delivery and solutions ahead of drama and deadlock. As I said, the Windsor framework is not perfect — it is far from it — but those who want to withdraw us from it ought to be honest about the consequences, because we would be in a different place today if they had thought more about the fallout of Brexit when they mis-sold it in 2016.

Let us consider what would happen if we voted today to walk away from the Windsor framework and articles 5 to 10, plunged people and businesses in Northern Ireland into another long period of uncertainty and chaos and turned our backs on years of negotiations and agreements that were reached without any viable solution. That would be a disaster, particularly for our agri-food sector, and many of you know that. Our dairy industry would be devastated. Many representatives of the food industry in Northern Ireland put on record their clear and serious concerns about what would have happened if Liz Truss had succeeded in scrapping the protocol in 2022. One stated:

Another stated:

Whilst the previous DUP leader said that he could live with 40,000 jobs being lost as a result of Brexit, I cannot. I am not in the job to play politics with people's jobs and livelihoods. It is for the sake of our agri-food sector and for all the other reasons that I have outlined that I will vote yes later and will encourage others to do likewise. For those who are determined to strike up old, worn Brexit tunes that fell out of the charts a long time ago, I will, in closing, quote another Spice Girls song:

Mr Brooks: Thanks to the comprehensiveness of my two colleagues who have spoken, I suspect that my speech might be only about two thirds the length of Jonny Buckley's contribution.

I suspect that I will also go over some of the same stuff, but, whilst I have the list of issues that was read out earlier, the Chamber can be thankful that I will not repeat it.

The mechanism that brings us to the House today represents a corruption of the most fundamental principles of the Good Friday Agreement that, we were told during the Brexit process by the very rigorous implementers who bring it before us today, no less, must have every jot and tittle respected and upheld. It is more concrete proof of that which unionists have known and seen to be true in the past eight years, which is that, for those who speak in such lofty terms about the peace process and have often hung much of their modern identity on it since 1998, referendums are to be respected only when they suit; that majoritarianism is to be discouraged and safeguarded against but only when it is not in their favour; that the so-called ugly scaffolding that was referred to earlier was necessary but is dispensable when it becomes advantageous to their cause; and that the upholding of the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts, not only in letter, as previously said, but in spirit, was vital during the negotiation of Brexit but apparently optional thereafter.

That, of course, applies not only to the Opposition, Sinn Féin and Alliance but to the other key players of that time who were adding such clichés, be they the UK Government of the time, Irish National Caucus voices in Washington, EU negotiators — I agree with my colleague who spoke earlier and join him in sending heartiest commiserations to France's shortest-serving Prime Minister after the events of last week — or many members of the European Parliament to whom I listened, I assure you, during my time working for my colleague who is now the Member for Upper Bann, as they declared their undying devotion to and protection of a document that, I am sure, many of them had never set eyes on. All have been shown to be hypocrites on this issue in their support for the corruption of the principle of consent and cross-community consensus that, for all its fundamental flaws, lay at the very heart of the Good Friday Agreement. Indeed, article 18(2) of the protocol decrees that any vote on the continuation of arrangements should be held:

yet Boris Johnson and subsequent UK Governments and, indeed, the parties opposite are content to casually dispense with that fundamental consent principle.

Not one unionist in this place supported the protocol, yet, when it came to the democratic consent mechanism, the rigorous implementers, like others, were content deliberately and by design to dump the protections that they had baked into what was their agreement, not ours. That selective approach may win them the day, but they should know that it is noted by not only the DUP but unionist communities across Northern Ireland, which see that those parties value safeguards only for nationalists. The nature of the democratic consent mechanism by which we were brought here today is like much of the protocol and the Windsor framework: it has been imposed without the consent and certainly without the cross-community consent that, we were told, was essential to maintaining the confidence of both communities and the legitimacy of government here. On that point, the leader of the Alliance Party said that she was not sure whether we were serious in opposing the motion today. My colleagues have outlined precisely why we are very serious about the position that we are taking.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Mr Brooks, for giving way. I will just pull you up on a point. You talked about "both communities". In the House, there is recognition that there are unionists, nationalists and others. I ask you to consider changing your language to be inclusive in the House.

Mr Brooks: I am happy to look at the language that I use, but the Good Friday Agreement, which was built on those terms, was agreed by your party and the parties opposite, not by this party. The agreement does not hold any particular weight for me in that regard. It is something that some of the parties opposite have hung their identity on since 1998. No, on this issue, I will continue to articulate my points on the basis of what it means for the unionists in this country and the people whom I represent to have the constitution of the United Kingdom impinged upon and the protocol imposed in the way that it has been.

The leader of the Alliance Party and Minister Muir referred to a lack of other options having been proposed. As colleagues have said, however, alternative arrangements, such as mutual enforcement, have been proposed. A wealth of other options were proposed during the Brexit process. It is simply a case of their being options that the Members opposite and the EU —.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Not at the moment, thank you.

They were options that the Members opposite and the EU did not like. As was pointed out, the EU commissioned the study 'Smart Border 2.0'. Lars Karlsson was involved in the drafting of that document. The EU launched three documents on the same day. I was there in the room when they were launched. It was happy to cast aside 'Smart Border 2.0', because the very study that it had commissioned did not say what it wished it to say. I am not saying that the study was perfect or that there was no issue with it, but it has been built on since then, so it is untrue to pretend that no other workable options have been put forward.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: I will not give way. I want to make some progress.

In recent weeks, I have said — I will say it again — that we have been regaled with sanctimonious interventions and preambles that point to the damage caused by this place having been down. I have heard some talk today, Mr Speaker — sorry, Mr Speaker, I have just seen that you have replaced Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair — of this place being down for the first period of the mandate. The Members making those comments and their parties may want to reflect on how the corrosive effect of their utter contempt for unionist concerns and their enthusiastic dismantling of settled government norms here led us to that point. The way in which Mr O'Toole — he is currently not in his place — referred to my colleague Mr Buckley's comments is reflective of that. I understand that Mr Buckley's contribution was lengthy, but it represented the dearly held feelings of a significant proportion of the community in Northern Ireland who feel that the Windsor framework and the protocol have impinged on their identity and on their place in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom.

Today, we, as MLAs, will be compelled to vote on what is a major and controversial issue, and, for the first time in decades, a vote will be decided in here on the basis of a simple majority. My colleagues have outlined how the DUP has a steady record of opposition to the measures in place and to the protocol that imposed them. My party voted against the protocol in our national Parliament and worked against it in the European Parliament before it was forced through by the Johnson Government in 2019. We believe now, as we did then, that the continued barriers to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are unacceptable. Their impact continues to be significantly detrimental to the economic, constitutional, social and political life of this place. We are on record as saying that, even with the progress that was made through 'Safeguarding the Union', the Windsor framework did not fix all the issues or secure all our negotiating objectives.

The leader of the Alliance Party said earlier that we in the DUP had won when it came to Brexit and that we should smile about that. That is a corruption of the truth, however. The Alliance Party and others on the Benches opposite should recognise that they had some successes themselves in campaigning to thwart democracy and the result of a referendum. That is how we have landed in this place. It was never the case that we were always going to land here with Brexit. Rather, that happened as a result of people's campaigning to ensure that we landed here and that Northern Ireland was not granted Brexit on the same basis as others were granted it.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: I will not give way. My colleague Mr Buckley was not afforded the same privilege, despite his being very generous with his time during his contribution.

The protocol remains an unacceptable incursion on our sovereignty and on our full integration into the UK single market. Northern Ireland should have left the EU on the same basis as the rest of the UK did, and as both campaigns said that it would, despite their opposing motivations. We will continue to work towards that aim.

Today's vote is flawed. As I said, it is a corruption of all that the "peace processors" have, until now, proclaimed to be essential. Nevertheless, today remains an opportunity for the DUP, in cooperation with other unionists, to demonstrate practically and give voice to the commitment to oppose that which has been imposed on us. In voting against the continuation of the current arrangements, nobody on these Benches is deluded about the likely outcome, thanks to the design of the mechanism, which represents a further capitulation by the Johnson Government. Brexit was never about making an enemy of Europe; it was about the freedom to set one's own course in the world. Acrimony with the EU, which includes some of our longest-standing allies and friends, was never the aim. We, too, would welcome a reset in relations, but not at the expense of ignoring the continuing thorn in our national flesh.

The vision that the Labour Government have laid out in recent days will, no doubt, be given due consideration by my Westminster colleagues in view of the current circumstances and the impact on Northern Ireland. However, any moves forward by the Government must honour and advance commitments that have already been made to the people of Northern Ireland, particularly those that form part of the basis for the restoration of these institutions. On that basis, I say to the Government that they, too, should reflect on the corrosive effect that a failure to honour such commitments would have on trust and confidence in government, politics and these institutions. Such failure would sow instability for the future.

My party secured in law a commitment to an independent review of the framework, including the areas on which there is not cross-community consent. It also secured a commitment that there would be completion of the review within six months rather than two years, as agreed under the Government's original unilateral declaration. We have said that a strengthened independent review should be the basis for Labour to honour their stated commitment to protecting the UK internal market. Again, the full suite of the Government's statutory duties should be delivered in good faith.

In common with a number of the contributors today, I sit on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. Each week, we are increasingly sitting through sessions on complex EU legislation on which officials invite us to lean only upon the presumption that the UK Government will probably approximately align their regulations with those that are being brought forward. We are compelled within a short time frame to make decisions without complete and necessary information. The levers available to us, as a Committee, and to the Assembly are time limited, but we often cannot possibly know if or when an impact will be felt by our constituents or local businesses. Generally speaking, some members — I appreciate that they will point to examples in recent weeks that, I hope, reflect a sustained change in approach — have been, up to now, exceptionally trusting of the idea that what is good for the EU at large will also be in our interests. That is an idealistic approach that not even member states take when considering regulations. We have little ability as yet to consider regulations in light of their cumulative effect when combined with other regulations over the course of time. The chilling effect, which was referred to today, of divergence increasing over time means that we are seeing, and will increasingly see, Great British businesses choosing not to sell to Northern Ireland.

In the past two weeks, we have discussed provisions that pertain to the ability of consumers to hold a company in the EU's customs area ultimately legally responsible for product defects, even where it is not the responsible manufacturer. That is particularly important in circumstances where the manufacturer is outside the EU. That means that local companies that sell products from GB suppliers or the suppliers themselves, if they have a presence here, face increased risk and potentially increased costs. That is one example that is relevant to the work of the Committee. Colleagues who have spoken have presented many examples of the damage due to the current system, and I suspect that colleagues who are yet to speak will draw upon similar examples.

While others have the ability to couch their arguments in the positive elements of anything that the EU is bringing forward and is wishing to achieve with such regulations — in this case, consumer protection — it does not take a genius to draw the lines and see how such red tape and additional burden will make GB suppliers, whether direct to the consumer or to other parts of our manufacturing base, simply decide that Northern Ireland, with its 1·8 million people, is not a big enough market on its own to warrant the additional risk and expense. As we are seeing, and will see, increasingly with the issues around Amazon and eBay, others, too, will stop supplying.

To that end, we have welcomed the appointments to Intertrade UK and the independent monitoring panel. The Command Paper clearly envisaged a role for both in feeding into the work of the independent review, particularly with respect to the implementation of the internal market guarantee. We must see further work to progress the work of both bodies so that they can help to prevent the kind of disengagement that we are seeing from key businesses and, indeed, to enhance the information available to those of us who serve on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee.

The Government must maximise the scope of any review, and there are aspects of agreed arrangements that must be taken forward in the round. With that, I conclude my comments.

Mr Givan: Today's democratic consent motion is one of the most significant issues that the Assembly has debated or will ever debate. At one level, it is a complex and complicated matter, but, at another level, it comes down to this very simple question: does the Assembly wish to give away powers and responsibilities that were entrusted to us by those who sent us here, or are we prepared to do the job that we were elected to do? Let us be clear that democratic consent is not merely a theoretical concept but a fundamental pillar of freedom, justice and the rule of law. It ensures that Governments, institutions and leaders remain answerable to the people whom they serve.

In many ways, this is a unique moment in history. Down through the centuries, many have fought and died for the franchise and the right to participate in democratic institutions. From the Chartists to the suffragettes to the civil rights movements in the United States, the direction of travel has been clear. Today, the Assembly is likely to reverse that tide of progress. Today, the Assembly is likely to vote to place more trust in those who vote for Viktor Orbán in Hungary than in the people of Northern Ireland who vote for Members of the Assembly. So much for government of the people, by the people, for the people.

If only we had known a generation ago that Sinn Féin would prioritise the rules of Mrs Thatcher's landmark achievement of a European single market over the rights and sovereignty of Irish people, even Northern Irish people, to determine the laws that govern them. We might have been saved much anguish. Such a proposition would surely have been greeted by the mocking laughter of our children. It is even more shocking that Sinn Féin rushed to hand over our rights to an institution that, to quote Gerry Adams, has:

Twelve years ago, however, Sinn Féin and the same Gerry Adams told us that they were committed to ensuring that the Irish people were not subjected to the:

Mary Lou McDonald echoed her party colleague, advising:

How times have changed. You might rightly ask how it can be a Europe of equals for the people of Northern Ireland.

Much ground has already been covered in the debate, and I do not wish to rehearse arguments that have already been made. In the time available, however, I want to look at a few of the key issues. I will leave others to more fully develop the arguments around some of the practical implications of the operation of the present arrangements, but let me touch on issues of fundamental concern.

The motion is not only a denial of the fundamental principles of democracy but a clear abrogation of our responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland. If passed, it represents a repudiation of the role to which we were elected as a legislature and by which we govern as an Executive. Effectively, we are saying to our constituents that others in foreign lands are better placed to do the job to which we were elected. We are passing the responsibility for hundreds of key elements of law in Northern Ireland, as set out in annex 2 to the Ireland/ Northern Ireland protocol, to those who are neither elected by nor accountable to the people of Northern Ireland.

We are here because, on 31 October, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn, formally launched the so-called democratic consent process. However, it is not our present Secretary of State but his father whom I wish to invoke today. His father, the Rt Hon Tony Benn MP, famously posed five questions to assess the democratic credentials of any institution, which were:

He added:

By that very basic yardstick, the motion must fail. We are giving away powers entrusted to us by those who elect us. The rights that are entrusted to us are not for us to give away. They are not our personal property to relinquish or trade away. It is instead our primary duty to preserve and protect those rights. As citizens, we must continue to value and protect the systems of accountability that underpin our democracy. To quote Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of the United States:

This motion is also a repudiation of the cross-community concept at the heart of the Belfast Agreement. One does not need to analyse the issue through a constitutional law perspective to know that, in everyday understanding, important decisions at an Assembly level often require a cross-community vote. Indeed, the petition of concern arrangements were specifically included in the Belfast Agreement and legislated for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This key safeguard is for both the main communities in Northern Ireland. It is an essential mechanism that ensures stability, fairness and shared government in this country, marked by its complex history and divided communities. Indeed, the cross-community concept underpins power-sharing, ensuring that nationalists and unionists are represented at every level of governance. These provisions were specifically disapplied by the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (Democratic Consent Process) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which specifically rewrote the cross-community protections in the Northern Ireland Act. Not only is this consent mechanism inconsistent with the underlying approach of the cross-community protections embedded in the Belfast Agreement, but its creation was a deeply cynical exercise. The Irish Government, and ultimately the European Union, only agreed to a consent mechanism by simple majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly because the electoral arithmetic made it unlikely that it could be used to extract Northern Ireland from articles 5 to 10 of the protocol. Notably, the then Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, rejected the notion of a referendum to determine the issue as this was, and I quote, "just too dangerous". Northern Ireland was trusted with the vehicle by which it could escape the protocol only after the petrol was taken out of the engine.

Rewriting the rules in the middle of the game sends out a very dangerous message. Throughout the Brexit negotiations, the EU sought to justify its approach on the basis of the Belfast Agreement. This was always at best a partial and selective reading of the agreement and at worst a deeply disingenuous approach. From 2017, the Irish Government were prepared to weaponise the Belfast Agreement to get what they wanted from negotiations. Whether that was clever politics or recklessness on their part is a matter of debate. The foolishness of the then UK Government in largely accepting that analysis is not. It was, of course, not the Belfast Agreement but the EU single market that was the concern of the European Commission. From the start of the Brexit process, the EU was prepared to play fast and loose with the peace process in Northern Ireland and showed scant concern for the unionist tradition here. Equally, unionists should not lose sight of the fact that it was not the European Union but the previous Conservative Government who were prepared, in 2019, to prioritise the purity of Brexit for Great Britain over the quality of the Union. It was Boris Johnson who did the deal with the EU to leave Northern Ireland subject to EU law, and that deal was done over the heads of, and in complete defiance of, every unionist in Northern Ireland and despite DUP opposition from the outset. That subsequent Conservative Prime Ministers sought to ameliorate the damage that had been done should not be dismissed or underestimated, but the original protocol did much of the damage.

The question is: what is to be done? All is not lost. Crucially, today is not the end of the story. Arising out of the vote today, there will be an independent review of the arrangements to help restore cross-community support. I cannot guarantee what progress the promised review will make, but I note that real and tangible progress has been made since the Northern Ireland protocol was negotiated in 2019. However we measure or describe the progress that has been made, there can be no serious doubt that the Windsor framework and then 'Safeguarding the Union' represent real progress since the Northern Ireland protocol. Assuming that the motion is agreed today, there will be a further consent vote in four years' time. That means that there will be an Assembly election before MLAs will be asked to vote again. That is an opportunity for those of us who oppose the arrangements to take our case to the country on the basis of the experience of the operation of the new arrangements. To those of us who oppose the present arrangements, that should represent a challenge and an opportunity. However, I have one message for unionists who oppose the present arrangements: we must not make a difficult situation worse. We must think and act rationally and strategically.

Those of us who believe in the Union and the integrity of the United Kingdom oppose the motion because we believe that it undermines the economic and constitutional fabric of our country. That will not be remedied through damaging the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland. Put simply, alternative options offer neither a prospect of removing the Windsor framework nor any strategy for a better future for Northern Ireland. That is the fundamental weakness in the argument of those who would burn this House down, with no credible path to rebuilding support for the Union.

There are those who believe that, if the Executive had not been reestablished, we would have the leverage to deliver a better result now. That is a delusion. Leverage is not a constant; it is dictated and affected by circumstances. Those circumstances were favourable in the autumn of 2021 and the early part of 2022. They are not so today. The leverage that we created in 2021, which was in a different political environment, allowed progress to be made, but that leverage has delivered all that is possible. The idea that the Labour Government would provoke a confrontation with the EU to deliver a form of Brexit that is cleaner and purer than that delivered by Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak is not one that could be sustained in any serious discussion. We must choose between the alternatives that are realistically available to us, not fantasy options that have no prospect of success and would lead us down a constitutional cul-de-sac.

We must not be fooled by the simple solutions that some suggest. I read in this morning's 'News Letter' a lengthy and thoughtful piece from my friend Dan Boucher. Unfortunately, although there is much to agree with in his article, it is long on analysis and history but short on solutions. That too often characterises the approach of those who point out the problems but have no credible way in which to resolve them. We must not risk the broad support that exists for Northern Ireland's place in the Union on tactics that are doomed to fail.

History has taught us lessons that we would do well to remember. The events at Thornton Manor Country Estate on the Wirral in October 2019, where Boris Johnson cut a deal to, effectively, leave Northern Ireland behind, were a crucial moment in the process. We now know what many suspected at the time: Boris Johnson was never serious about a no-deal Brexit. He admitted in his memoirs that that was a bluff. That the EU had assumed as much holed his strategy below the waterline. Stefaan De Rynck, a close aide to Michel Barnier during the negotiations, correctly identified that, during the negotiations, the UK played a game of chicken with itself, due to its erroneous assessment of the negotiations. His bluff did not end well for Northern Ireland or the Union. Those who now threaten political stability in Northern Ireland are inviting unionists to repeat that failed strategy.

This is a sad day for democracy and for the economic integrity of this great United Kingdom. There is no point in hiding or disguising that fact. However, it must not become a counsel of despair; we must not talk ourselves into a downward spiral and make an already difficult situation worse. Real progress has been made since the Northern Ireland protocol was published. I am confident that further progress is possible not through articles in newspapers or interviews in the media but through hard work. That is where, inch by inch, the only progress that has been made is being made.

In the past, we have proven that progress is possible, and we can do so again. Our future lies in our own hands not just through the vote on the democratic consent motion, which will be repeated in four years' time, but through support for the Union. I continue to believe that devolution can and will deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. That is why I oppose handing over powers in a wide range of areas to those who are not accountable to a single citizen of Northern Ireland. However, we must not retreat into a narrower vision of unionism where an unobtainable purity of idea is elevated over wider community support.

In all likelihood, because the Government have rewritten the rules of the game, I will not be on the winning side today, but, in whatever role I have in the Chamber or elsewhere, I will do all that is in my power to ensure that the benefits of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom are enjoyed. I make no apology for echoing the sentiments of perhaps the greatest of all unionist leaders, Sir Edward Carson, who said:

The benefits of Northern Ireland's remaining fully within the United Kingdom are clear and undeniable. We have access to economic prosperity, political stability and global influence. Our future is brighter as part of the UK. We must continue to embrace the Union with pride and determination. We in the Democratic Unionist Party remain committed to our manifesto commitment to argue the case for the full primacy of the United Kingdom internal market and to continue to reject the undermining of its integrity. However, we do so without jeopardising wider support for the Union or these institutions in a way that has already paid and continues to pay real dividends.

I, like all democrats, believe that we who make laws should be accountable to those who elect us. The Assembly should not casually dispense with the powers that have been given to us by the people who sent us here. Articles 5 to 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol have given rise to significant concerns, impacting on the economic, political and constitutional relationship of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom. They create unnecessary divisions. They hamper trade and undermine democratic accountability, creating serious challenges for our economy, our sovereignty and our political stability. We must instead seek a solution that preserves the economic integrity of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. We will continue to work to that end. I therefore must oppose the motion.

Ms Nicholl: I add my voice to those that have said that Brexit has been a disaster for the whole United Kingdom and, in very particular ways, for Northern Ireland. The protocol and the Windsor framework are attempts to manage, mitigate and soften the blow of Brexit on our part of the world. We live in a complex place, and there are significant sensitivities that must be managed. It is likely that nobody will ever fully get what they want in a post-Brexit landscape. Maybe that is just life. I keep thinking about the words of Senator Mitchell during the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. He warned against the "100 percenters" in politics. In Northern Ireland, of all places, we should know that reasoned, principled compromise is the only pathway to progress.

I enjoyed parts of Jonathan Buckley's speech. Words like "quisling" and "skulduggery" do not feature in Hansard nearly enough, much like Spice Girls analogies. However, the Alliance Party will take no lectures from Members who championed this outcome.

When I was growing up, there was a sign in a shop in the town that said:

I always liked the idea that you are accountable for your actions. That does not seem to fly with the cheerleaders of Brexit. They won but are not willing to be held accountable for the consequences of the actions that they took when they were running through the shop, breaking everything but not accepting the consequences. They broke it, we all had to buy it and it has not been cheap.

Cambridge Econometrics found that, this year, Brexit had already cost the British economy £140 billion. That is £2,000 per person. It is staggering. Philip McGuigan and Matthew O'Toole referenced the Office for Budget Responsibility statistics. Its forecast suggests that the volume of UK imports and exports will be 15% lower than if we had remained in the EU and that it could lead to a 4% reduction in the productivity of the UK, with the full effect being felt after 15 years.

We are where we are.A clear opportunity is on the horizon, if we have the courage and humility to grasp it. A reset in relations between the UK and the EU is welcome, and, combined with our competitive proposition as the only jurisdiction in the world where businesses can sell goods into GB and the EU free of customs and regulatory barriers, we are well positioned to build a more prosperous Northern Ireland, which, I think, we all want. Yes, there are issues. We need to implement an ambitious SPS agreement and manage our way through the incoming parcels regime and the GPSR, but that is only possible through engagement.

The Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry has been clear: over 70% of its members surveyed before the general election saw dual market access as a key driver for sales growth. That is why I reject the argument that voting against the motion will send a clear message. I reiterate what my party leader said: it sends the message that we are not pragmatic, forward-thinking or solution-focused. We need to get there with one voice from our Executive, business community and civic society and shine a spotlight on the immense opportunities that come with investing in Northern Ireland. That is what will deliver the progress that our communities cry out for.

As Northern Ireland's cross-community party, Alliance has always sought to build positive relationships with those outside this region to deliver the maximum opportunity and prosperity for our communities. Brexit has, undoubtedly, made that task so much more difficult, but it has also made it more urgent. We will continue to proudly engage internationally and build positive relationships that can deliver for everyone here.

I want to pick up on one point, because we have heard it a lot. We keep being accused of being rigorous implementers. I do not know whether it is because I am six months pregnant and a bit angrier generally, but I think that that is so disingenuous. The "rigorous implementation" phrase was used in 2020 in a letter that was signed by party leaders in relation to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 about breaking international law in a "specific and limited way". Accusing us of upholding international agreements and law is really not the accusation that you think it is.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Will the Member give way?

Ms Nicholl: No. [Interruption.]

I am sorry, but I will not give way, because I was not given the same courtesy. I asked earlier, and you did not give it to me, so I do not think that that is fair.

Alliance is in the business of solutions. Our economy requires certainty and a clear way forward. A vote against the continuation of the articles will deliver the opposite. I hope that Members who vote against the motion are fully cognisant of the impact that doing so would have, if their vote were carried. It is an insult for people who held the institutions down for so long to describe the motion as an "assault on democracy" or a "democratic deficit".

It is time to rebuild, not to tear down. Our businesses need stability, not greater uncertainty. Our communities need hope, not constant negativity. My party leader said that we had a choice in how we want to be seen in the world: as innovative, solution-focused and forward-thinking people or as people who are constantly defined by chaos, negativity and instability. I know what I choose, and I know what our constituents want us to choose. Our job in the House is to make this place better and deliver. That starts with voting for the motion.

Ms McLaughlin: My goodness, today really has triggered me. It is like rolling back the years and arguing over spilt milk. The Brexit band has reformed and is playing many of the old tunes, and, now, I will rehash some of my old tunes as well. [Laughter.]

The decision to leave the EU was one of the reasons why I, like many others in the Chamber, entered politics. As former vice chair of the Remain campaign in Northern Ireland, I saw how little our issues featured in the UK's decision. I, with others, worked really hard with people from all corners of our society to make the case for remaining a part of Europe. The Remain campaign won that argument in our region, but, as we all know, we were still dragged out against our will. Brexit was a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea now.

It was not just a bad idea; it was the most profound act of economic and social self-sabotage that any Government have ever undertaken.

Looking purely at the economic impact, we know that the Office for Budget Responsibility has stated that both exports and imports will be around 15% lower than if the UK had remained in the EU and that new trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact.

In the North, thanks to the protocol, we have been shielded from some of Brexit's worst effects, although not all of them. We now have something that we can work with, however, and it is a unique opportunity and a unique position. The uniqueness of having unfettered and flexible access to both markets on the island of Ireland is an opportunity that we cannot afford to pass up, so we must now grasp it with both hands. We all know that that is the mood of business as well. For example, research carried out by the Ulster Society of Chartered Accountants Ireland (CAI) found that 87% of its members viewed dual market access as the biggest opportunity for growth over the next decade. Some Members across the way said that there had not been one investment as a result of dual market access. My colleague Matthew O'Toole and I spoke to the chief executive of Invest NI, and he indicated a few days back that that was because there had been no opportunity to promote and sell dual access, which Invest NI is now doing across the world on its trade missions. There will be a trail here, so we will hopefully maximise that opportunity in the not-so-distant future. InterTradeIreland has seen an increase of £7 billion in cross-border trade since 2015.

Of course we can appreciate the concerns of Members on the opposite side of the House about east-west trade, and a smoothing of processes would be welcome. Let us work together on finding common ground while exploiting the opportunity that we have in our hands. Northern Ireland now has an opportunity to be a bridge between two major markets, and that opens the door to major possibilities that we all must leverage. Until now, the focus has been on the UK's internal market. Now that we have dealt with many of those concerns, let us stop overlooking the prospects that we have as a result of our new arrangements.

Last week, the SDLP launched our proposals on our European future. They included our call for an independent review to be initiated to explore how centres of strategic economic importance can capitalise on the opportunities resulting from Northern Ireland's unique position. The review should evaluate the costs and benefits of establishing a new office in Northern Ireland for the European Commission. I gently suggest to my colleagues that, if we are looking for regional balance, that office could be in Derry.

Why should we foster cooperation and trust between Northern Ireland and the EU institutions? Doing so could play a crucial role in maximising dual market access and provide us with advice on trade, investment and regulation compliance. It could build on our ability to leverage the unique position in which we now find ourselves and engage meaningfully with Europe. Such new mechanisms would have real-world consequences and present opportunities for high-value manufacturing and supply chains, offering specific advantages to sectors such as pharmaceuticals, agri-food, precision engineering and many more. We could explore the role of the integration of regulations in key sectors by securing closer alignment with European agencies, creating initiatives to strengthen Northern Ireland and EU supply chains and exploiting the potential of dual market incentives such as tax credits. Those benefits would mean that a place such as Derry, which sits as the urban capital of a cross-border region, is uniquely positioned to take advantage of such opportunities and reverse decades of economic neglect.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: On the subject of opportunities for Derry and the north-west region, will the Member acknowledge that some of the Members opposite talk about the fantasy idea of mutual enforcement? They may want to go back to a period when members of the Shared Prosperity Commission went to the north-west region. They — some of the hardest Brexiteers around — acknowledged that full customs controls and a hard border, which is the inevitable consequence of a hard Brexit, could not be imposed on the north-west. Full-blown customs controls could not be imposed between Coshquin and Bridgend.

That would have been madness, but there is now a real opportunity for the north-west to be at the meeting point of those two markets.

Ms McLaughlin: Absolutely. It is the most porous border in Europe. It would be impossible to contemplate anything resembling a hard border. Again, we are talking about spilt milk at this stage. It is done. The deal is done, and we now need to make it work for everyone. Thank goodness that we have open borders on our island.

Our desire for closer alignment with the EU has also begun to match that of the British Government. Across the water, we have begun to see the Labour Government pursuing a so-called economic reset with the EU. Yesterday, Rachel Reeves became the first Chancellor since Brexit to meet EU Finance Ministers, whilst the Prime Minister is due to meet EU leaders in the new year. I welcome that, and it signals, albeit in a small capacity, a political will to put the disaster of Brexit behind us. However, we must act with urgency.

It is clear that the Labour Government have realised that Brexit has left us with new problems, not new opportunities. New EU regulations and an ever-changing geopolitical landscape, which is changing by the minute never mind the hour, has only increased the challenges that we face post Brexit. Therefore, I suggest that it is in the interests of Members opposite for the reset of relations with the EU to be a success: you should be pushing that with your Members of Parliament. If not, the argument to revisit Brexit only grows stronger. That is why we must consider an interim strategy that brings us closer to the single market and the customs union.

In conclusion, people in the North have multiple identities. Those identities have been pushed, prodded and stretched by Brexit and the resulting crisis. As we enter this new period of relationships, let us be confident and optimistic about those identities and the potential for trading, collaborating and working as two islands. Let us secure the opportunity that we have in front of us for our economy through dual market access by developing our European ties closer still.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Martin: Given the hour and the length of the debate, I have reduced my speech from a chunky 45 minutes to a concise 30 minutes. [Interruption.]

I hear cheers from around the Assembly Chamber.

I do not want to go into the technical details of the articles, as they have already been well rehearsed by colleagues over the course of the debate. Of course, it will be a surprise to no one in the Chamber that there is disparity of opinion as to how we approach them. I simply point out — I have heard this from Members today — that the debate is not about Brexit, and it is certainly not a rehash of Brexit. Rather, it is about the continued application of articles 5 to 10 of the protocol.

In my remarks, I want to focus on consumer choice and some of the impacts that those articles have in Northern Ireland. A report from the Consumer Council in July 2024, entitled 'Consumer experiences of retailers not delivering to Northern Ireland', cites a couple of interesting points, and I want to highlight them to the House. It states:

Whilst those issues are clearly problematic for consumers in Northern Ireland, I could not, in all conscience, necessarily tie them to the operation of the protocol. However, the report also states that 86% of consumers who shop online said that they:

I contend that articles 5 to 10 are responsible for some of those items not being available to purchasers in Northern Ireland, and that that is limiting consumer choice.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for giving way. 'Safeguarding the Union' included a promise and a commitment on the establishment of Intertrade UK. That body was to be established not only to address real and practical issues but some of the misinformation that may lie with companies in Great Britain that believe that they cannot send goods here or may be confused about what the law is and, ergo, withdraw voluntarily. Does he agree that the UK Government need to get on with establishing that body in full and ensuring that that work can be carried out?

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for her comments, and I concur fully. It is crucial not only informationally for businesses in GB but, as I was saying, for consumer choice in Northern Ireland that Intertrade UK start its work.

Finally, the report highlights the very worrying figure that over 75% of consumers who had experienced difficulties with GB retailers delivering to Northern Ireland said that they now shop a lot less from those retailers. I am sure that no one in the House wants to see that. It is crystal clear to me that the public want consumer choice when making a purchase, and, in my view, the findings of that report provide evidence of the damage that the articles are causing to choice. We have heard other Members talk about some of the products affected by the legislation, and I will not rehearse those. Even some of the most mundane items have been affected by what I might call protocol mission creep.

As an example, I looked up the DAERA regulations that apply if you want to purchase hay in Scotland and bring it across to Northern Ireland. That is not a particularly dangerous substance: it does not have any corrosive acids, it cannot explode and it is certainly not poisonous. The regulations are, however, significant. The DAERA website says that you need to be registered on TRACES NT, which is the EU’s trade control and expert system. You need to pre-notify DAERA of the arrival of the consignment by creating a common health entry document for products of animal origin — the document is known as a CHED P, which is quite a catchy title — on TRACES at least 24 hours before the hay enters Northern Ireland. When you have completed that, you have to input a further code to tell whether it is straw or hay. I know the difference because I married a farmer's daughter, but those regulations are significant. This morning, when I finally went to the DAERA website and tried to click to see the additional guidance — that is not all the guidance — I was told that access was denied. I was not authorised to view that page. Perhaps DAERA knows that I am not a farmer or perhaps the information is just way above my security clearance. My salient point stands: all of that to move hay from Scotland to Northern Ireland. In my view, that is not good enough.

I am also concerned about, as the deputy First Minister mentioned, the chilling effect on businesses in GB that want to sell in Northern Ireland. Those are commercial decisions that firms are being forced to make when assessing whether to make their goods available here in Northern Ireland. An example of that will occur this Friday — Friday the thirteenth — and the DFM referenced it in her speech. After that date, general product safety regulations will apply to goods sold into Northern Ireland from GB. I will quote directly from the Government's advice:

Those regulations also introduce certain requirements for product labelling, traceability and documentation, as well as clarifying that online marketplaces are also within the scope of these regs. I do not have to tell Members that that means further costs for sellers from GB to Northern Ireland. The Federation of Small Businesses said the following about the regs:

One adviser on eBay said, rather succinctly, on the sellers' forums:

That is the last thing that we would want to see.

In Northern Ireland, since 1998, within the safeguards and equality section of the Belfast Agreement, every individual has a right to democratically pursue national and political aspirations, and we do that in this Chamber. However, tonight, MLAs are voting on a highly contentious issue using a simple majority, and my colleagues have already reflected on that. There is a mechanism to provide for such votes in the Belfast Agreement that is being ignored today. I simply point out the irony that unionists were told, throughout the Brexit negotiations, about the importance of the Belfast Agreement in all its parts, yet the requirement for cross-community consent for today's vote was unilaterally removed by the previous Government. We have talked a lot about blame in the Chamber this afternoon and this evening. The blame for that falls, in my eyes, on one person: Boris Johnson. The aftermath of his saying one thing and then doing the complete opposite finally caught up with the Conservative Party in the recent election. They seamlessly, with Johnson's help, managed to turn a very large Tory majority into the largest wipeout of the party in modern history. My colleague the Education Minister mentioned the Wirral deal, where Boris Johnson signed off much of the democratic responsibility for Northern Ireland. Ironically, that was because people did not particularly like Labour but they just could not trust the Conservative Party any more. However, as the former Prime Minister finally realised to his chagrin, those who live by the sword often die by the sword.

In conclusion, this party has been working consistently and diligently to right the wrongs caused by the damage of the imposition of these articles. As has been mentioned, we voted against the imposition of the Northern Ireland protocol at our national Parliament in Westminster and at the European Parliament. Tonight, we will vote against the motion, because it is our firm belief that it is contrary to the best interests of Northern Ireland, and we urge others to join us. I see that the AERA Minister is not in his place, but in honour of him — I am not a Spice Girls fan; I am more of a Pink Floyd guy — I perhaps suggest that some Members of the Chamber are 'Comfortably Numb' to the operation of the protocol in Northern Ireland.

Mrs Dodds: I am not quite sure how to follow that bit at the end.

Before I get to the substance of my speech, I want to put on record some of my concerns about the tone of the debate today, and particularly what I think of as a bit of sneering from some of the Members opposite. I do not think it does the Chamber any good at all. If we cannot acknowledge the concerns of those on this side of the House without the laughing — I see that the Member for South Belfast has not remained in her chair — and the labelling of people who do not agree with the protocol as backward and not progressive and not wanting Northern Ireland to go forward, that is deeply, deeply regrettable. I want that on the record today, because I think that it is important.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: No, I want to make some progress. I will give way later. You know that I do.

I am glad to be able to contribute to the debate today. It is a travesty to call it a democratic consent motion, but, nevertheless, I contributed to many European debates during my time in the European Parliament. I was directly and democratically elected to that Parliament. I held a mandate from the people of Northern Ireland to speak on their behalf, and we should remember that the democratic process is a precious instrument. The right to influence and vote on a law that governs a society is a fundamental tenet of our democracy.

In Northern Ireland today, however, in the Chamber this evening, thanks to the protocol, we have the utterly bizarre situation in which people in this directly elected Chamber — Members who hold a mandate to make laws on behalf of citizens here — are cheerleading for that basic democratic right to be held by a Parliament where they have no representation and no voice and are simply content to take the laws that the European Union sees fit to hand down.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: I will when I have finished this section.

There are Members in the Chamber who are so enamoured with the European Union that they are content to preside over the disenfranchisement of their farmers and their manufacturing companies; Members who see no harm in setting up barriers to trade with our biggest market and creating an internal customs barrier within the United Kingdom, all to please and to be subservient to their European masters; and Members who cannot bear to question the European Union through the Democratic Scrutiny Committee process. It is truly 'Through the Looking Glass' stuff and shameful to behold.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I am interested in some of what she says, to the extent that she was an MEP. Although I obviously do not, in large part, share her politics, she was a diligent MEP and did a lot of work and had a mandate. Does she agree with our call to return Northern Ireland's representation to the European Parliament via observer status? She might even seek some form of mandate to return, given that she is the most experienced former MEP in the Chamber. Would she be interested in such a role in future?

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for his kind words; they are appreciated. Being a Member of the European Parliament and representing Northern Ireland as one of three Members, was an enormous job and a great honour. However, as the Member well knows, having MEPs who do nothing is not something that I am going to condone. As the Member well knows, I am proud that we are part of the United Kingdom. As long as the United Kingdom has a democratic mandate to remain outside the European Union, there is no place for that in Northern Ireland.

I promised the Member that I would give way.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you. I appreciate that. At the start of your remarks, you talked about what you regarded as sneering from Members. There was quite a bit of sneering, chuntering and Members shouting from their place from the DUP Benches as well. During one of the first speeches, we were referred to as "quislings". There were several references to the vote on the motion having been rigged, and a jibe was thrown at one of my colleagues about the EU identifying as a plug and his accepting that. Do you think that those comments were out of step with the tone of the rest of the debate?

Mrs Dodds: I am not against really robust debate, as you know because you and I have engaged in that many times. I am against the labelling of a community as backward because it does not support something. I will always call that out. We see that, and we are very annoyed by it. I will, of course, give way.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for giving way. I am sick. That is why I left my seat, and I am sorry about that. I never said that you are backward. I do not think that anyone heard me say that, and Hansard will reflect that I never said that you are backward.

Mrs Dodds: I accept entirely that you did not say that I, personally, am backward. What you did say was that people who do not support the motion are backward in their outlook for Northern Ireland. That is how I read it.

On the intervention of the SDLP Member for South Belfast, I see that he would like to have an EU office in Belfast. Since I am on the subject of EU law, how impotent does the political process in Northern Ireland have to be when laws are set in a place where we can make no input to them but we can beg for an explanation of them in an EU office in Belfast? How ridiculous have we become?

Thanks to annex 2 of the protocol, Northern Ireland is governed by the EU in over 300 areas of law — that is thousands of regulations — and not by the Assembly and not by our sovereign Parliament at Westminster. Those are areas of law on which no citizen of Northern Ireland can vote for change because no one they vote for can effect it. They are areas of law that create a competitive disadvantage for our manufacturing companies and farmers; that mean that certain trees and seeds cannot come into Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom; and that mean that Northern Ireland must apply the EU customs code for goods, meaning that Great Britain must be treated as a third country, or a foreign country, within the United Kingdom. They are laws that create that border in the Irish Sea — a border that is hardening through time, despite agreements and repeated assurances by Conservative politicians and a Labour Secretary of State who says that the only way to please Europe is to implement everything faithfully. Oh, how the rigorous implementers are applauding. I noticed today, interestingly, a lot of rowing back from that rigorous implementation phrase. You own it. It is yours.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for giving way, because it saves me having to make a point of order. I am sure that the Alliance Member for South Belfast would not want to mislead the House, but earlier she responded to the allegation of rigorous implementing by saying that that was specifically in reference to the Internal Market Act. I refreshed my mind by looking again at that letter, and I am happy to put it in the Library so that everybody can see exactly what she wanted to be rigorously implemented. However, does she agree that that letter went much wider than that specific point on the Internal Market Act and that it was calling for the rigorous implementation of the entire protocol? [Interruption.]

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Dodds: The reaction that we have just seen means that some Members do protest and are protesting too much and that we have hit a very sore spot. However, rigorous implementation was called for, no matter how anyone wants to dress it up or make it look.

I will continue. That is not the only affront to democracy that we are dealing with today. Let me be clear: disapplying the cross-community consent mechanism violates the Belfast Agreement. All through the Brexit years in the European Parliament, I endured many long contributions from Michel Barnier, the former Brexit negotiator and now former Prime Minister of France, on his version of the Belfast Agreement. It does not matter what the Belfast Agreement actually says: they have all had their version of the Belfast Agreement in the European Union. He was very fond of telling us that he must implement the Belfast Agreement, and I quote, "in all its parts". Indeed, there was an awful lot of kerfuffle to get it inserted into motions in the European Parliament and so on at the time — it was very important — but it should be implemented "in all its parts". However, article 18(2) of the protocol actually decrees that any vote on the continuation of the arrangements should be held "in a manner consistent with" the Belfast Agreement. How European to forget it all once you decide that something else is in your interests.

Here we are today, compelled to vote on the basis of a simple majority. Yes, that vote is significant and contentious. Yes, the Belfast Agreement principle of laws, which requires support from both sides of the community, should trigger the cross-community consent mechanism. That is not going to happen today, and we are going to vote, for the first time since 1998, by a simple majority. The cross-community mechanism was removed by the Conservative Government under Boris Johnson. British Governments and the European Union, purporting to uphold the Belfast Agreement in all its parts, now happily ride roughshod over that agreement with the abandonment of the cross-community mechanism.

Today, I expect all shades of unionism on this side of the House to unite and show their contempt for the protocol and the way in which this vote is conducted. There is no consent from unionism for this separation of the United Kingdom, and there is no consent for the way in which the Belfast Agreement is disapplied in relation to the voting mechanism. This is designed to placate nationalism and marginalise unionism, and it is an appalling state of affairs. Northern Ireland works better when everyone is represented in the democratic process, and if you care about building a better Northern Ireland, you should be courageous and vote against the motion.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: Sorry, if the Member is going to make the same point about —

Mrs Long: Our votes being discounted.

Mrs Dodds: — the vote, we have had that on about three occasions today. [Interruption.]

Having outlined general objections around the issues of democracy and the legitimacy of the vote, I want to turn to some of the specifics around the motion. Today, we are voting —.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A number of Members have called this vote some kind of a "fix", and now, the legitimacy of the vote is being referred to. Can you confirm to the House that this vote is entirely legitimate and is in order in how it is about to proceed?

Mr Speaker: The vote will proceed as set out by the mandate from the Westminster Parliament. It is not a normal vote in the House, but it is the vote that has been set out by the Westminster Parliament.

Mrs Dodds: I will return to the point about the legitimacy of the vote. The Member can protest all that she wants, but in the eyes of my constituents, in the eyes of the unionists whom I represent and in the eyes of the general people whom I represent, a vote in a Parliament —.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order, when the Chair has ruled on a matter — the Speaker has ruled that a legitimate vote will take place this evening — for a Member to continue to challenge the ruling of the Chair in this way?

Mr Speaker: I did not hear a challenge to the ruling of the Speaker. I hear a Member making a point. It is a point that many may disagree with, but, nonetheless, there will be lots of people who will make points today that many others will disagree with.

Mrs Dodds: If I am allowed to develop the point, which is very important, the point is this: in the eyes of the people to whom I talk, in the eyes of the people who object to the protocol and in the eyes of people who do not want to be ruled by Brussels and do not want to apply European law to everything that they do, there is no legitimacy to a vote that does that. The technicalities are one thing, but how it is viewed in the eyes of the unionist community is an entirely different one.

Today, we are voting on articles 5 to 10 of the protocol. Those apply the EU customs code and EU single market rules for goods in Northern Ireland. We were told that this was necessary to protect the EU single market and to avoid a hard border. We had people, probably including the First Minister, out knocking down walls. We had Leo Varadkar waving pieces of paper, threatening what would happen if we had any kind of border. However, what they have created — what these rules have created — is an Irish Sea border that pervades all aspects of our life. It necessitates declarations, checks and reporting of data on goods crossing from one part of the United Kingdom to the other.

Article 7 relates to the technical provisions and standards of goods placed on the Northern Ireland market, and my colleague — the Member who spoke previously — articulated that more than I could. Article 8 means that EU VAT rules continue to apply in Northern Ireland, and article 10 means that EU state aid rules apply to subsidies related to the trade in goods.

We are totally under EU law for sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

Those may appear to be dry enough legal points, but they impact on our businesses, our pets and our agri-food industry. The onerous nature of those laws means that we have a significant trade diversion, and many companies in GB are no longer willing to put up with the bureaucracy and expense that comes with servicing the Northern Ireland market. The biggest manifestation of that is the installation of border checkpoints at Larne, Belfast and Warrenpoint harbours.

Despite all the talk, Great Britain remains, by far, our most important market. That is true for the goods that we sell into that market as well as for the goods that we buy from it for manufacturing and retail. A growing number of GB retailers no longer sell into Northern Ireland, citing the cost of bureaucracy and of labelling as the reasons for that. The issues are diverse: they cover many sectors and include the supply of veterinary medicines, the sale of seeds to consumers, bans on plants, divergence and type approval for vehicles. My colleague Mr Buckley entertained Members with the full list, but I will not do that at this time of the evening.

The border is not being simplified. Rather, it is getting harder. On Friday 13 December, the introduction of the EU general product safety regulation will take that to another level. Many small retailers will not be able to comply with it and will therefore simply cease to service the Northern Ireland market. Just last weekend, one of my young constituents sent me a message from a leisurewear company that she orders from in another part of the United Kingdom. The message from the company read:

That is only one example of the many businesses that can no longer supply the Northern Ireland market as a direct result of the divergence in law for goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. It is destroying consumer choice and increasing costs. It is an appalling situation, and one that, I suspect, Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin will endorse in the Chamber tonight to the detriment of their constituents.

We have all heard the cries of, "But we've access to two markets" and, "We're uniquely placed". The Prime Minister said it, Joe Biden said it and lots of Members said it. When, however, my colleague asked the chief executive of Invest NI whether he could give an example of a company that had set up in Northern Ireland because of dual market access, he was unable to do so, yet tonight we have the Opposition leader and the SDLP Member for Foyle trying to soften his words by saying, "Well, you know, I talked to him afterwards. It's because companies don't know about it". Companies either have or have not heard about it, as they have had four, coming on five, years to use the provision. The chief executive of Invest NI says that he cannot find such a company.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: I will.

Mrs Long: Will she remind me how many times in her 10X Economy strategy she mentioned the potential of dual market access as something that Northern Ireland could leverage in order to grow our economy?

Mrs Dodds: It was not mentioned in the 10X strategy because I did not see that there was yet value in it, as was the case for the chief executive of Invest NI. If we all explode about that, that is part of the problem.

Although the consent motion is applicable to limited parts of the protocol, we should not be blind to the far-reaching impact of article 2. The courts and the rights industry have taken an expansive approach to that article and the interpretation of its "no diminution of rights" phrase. That phrase has constrained the Government in their attempts to legislate for Northern Ireland on such fundamental issues as immigration. It is an area of influence in the protocol whose impact on our daily lives is set to grow and grow.

I want to address a couple of issues that the leader of the Opposition brought up on the benefits of the EU. He cited PEACE PLUS. It is amazing that £1 billion will be invested in communities in NI, but what the leader of the Opposition did not tell us is that the contribution from the UK Government to that £1 billion is £730 million and that the other contributors are the European Union and, to a much lesser extent, the Republic of Ireland.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's generosity in taking interventions. She pointed out that the UK Government are a significant contributor to PEACE PLUS: I acknowledge and welcome that. Will she direct me to the line item in the Budget that shows that the UK Government have replaced the European social fund and all the other lost funds that social enterprise community groups are dealing with?

Mrs Dodds: I hope that that was an acknowledgement of my point on PEACE PLUS, because it is important to be accurate. If we say that the European Union's largesse is so amazing, we should acknowledge that 75% of the PEACE PLUS funding comes from our Government. That is an important point to acknowledge.

I agree with the Member about the Levelling Up Fund and the other funds. I do not think that the Government have made a great job of making sure that communities in Northern Ireland are well served. I will say something more on that that may be a little more controversial, but that is always the danger of speaking off the cuff. [Laughter.]

It is really difficult for the Executive, because, in many ways, some of those funds do not align with Executive policy, and it is therefore hard and much less coherent to implement them. Those issues need to be addressed.

During the debate, we heard that there was no alternative. During my time in the European Parliament, I was a member of the Constitutional Affairs Committee. I went to that Committee with my colleague, as usual, to take part in the debate. The Committee had commissioned a report on how to manage borders and brought to the meeting the distinguished expert who had authored it. He had a lot of experience in managing the border with Norway and so on. That expert, Lars Karlsson, talked about mutual enforcement and the management of a border without having a physical presence on the ground. Guess what the Constitutional Affairs Committee did? It quickly got the report out of the road, swept it under the carpet as quickly as it could and dismissed its findings as magical thinking, yet it had been written by one of the foremost experts on the subject in the world.

I will also address the idea that the protocol protects us from the excesses of everything and the problems of Brexit. Thanks to the protocol, we are setting up barriers to our most important market for goods that come into Northern Ireland for manufacturing and retail. That is seen in the fact that the value of the sale of goods from GB has dropped. I think that one of the Sinn Féin Members — I cannot remember who — quoted the Northern Ireland composite economic index. Let us look at what it says on the subject. It says:

That is a reflection of the complex issues that there are in bringing goods for retail or manufacturing across to Northern Ireland. The same report tells us that manufacturing input was down by 1·1%. Those are issues with goods and with the competitiveness of our companies. That was for the second quarter of this year. That is eight consecutive quarters in which we have suffered a decline in manufacturing output. I do not think that the protocol protects us from an awful lot, yet the service sector, which is not managed by the protocol, grew by 0·4%. It is important to get the reality of those statistics.

In concluding, I urge Members who care about Northern Ireland, who care about Northern Ireland going forward and who realise that there is a large bloc of unionists who do not consent to the protocol or the way in which the vote is taking place, if they have a care or a thought for that, to be courageous and vote against the motion, sending a strong collective message that, as indicated by my colleague from South Antrim, we should do better and that we can manage things in Northern Ireland better together.

Mr Gaston: Before I make my remarks, I will read an email that I received last night, which articulates sentiments that are seldom heard in the Chamber and even more seldom heard on the airwaves. It came from a number of young, articulate unionists who are concerned about how the protocol is negatively impacting on them:

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am reading out the email; I will give way at the end of it. It continues:

Members, that email rather eloquently expresses sentiments that colleagues would do well to reflect on tonight. Before I move on to make some points on the substance of what we have before us, I note that article 18(2) of the protocol says that the consent vote was to:

Members, that unilateral declaration of October 2019 promised a public consultation before the vote. It is there in black and white in the words of the declaration. There has been no consultation, so why is the vote taking place tonight? I have no doubt that, if there was an issue that trampled on the rights of any community other than the unionist community, the Alliance Party would be up in arms about it, but today —

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. There are many votes in the House where my vote counts for less than his vote and, indeed, those of other Members of the House. You are right: of course we are up in arms. Treating every Member of the House equally is the very definition of democracy.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for her repeated intervention to make her point. I do not know whether they have a game in the Alliance Party to see who can make that point tonight the most. There you go, Mrs Long: there is a point for you.

The Member for South Belfast wanted an intervention; the Floor is open to you if you want.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate Mr Gaston's giving way again. In particular when he read out the correspondence that he had received, he majored on what he saw as the anomalous and democratic deficit situation around people not having a say in the European Parliament. There is, of course, an answer, which is Northern Ireland having MEPs. I presume that, given that that would answer part of his point, he would support our call for Northern Ireland to have its own MEPs. Perhaps he or even his colleague, a former MEP who has now tragically left us and gone to London, could return to the European Parliament.

Mr Gaston: I will pass on your comments to Jim that you miss him dearly

and give you a point for once again promoting your European fantasy document and having it as your prop in the Chamber.

Today, the Alliance Party is happy to propose a motion that should have seen a long, robust consultation with the public, but that has not taken place. Because it does not affect nationalism, the Alliance Party is happy to go along and do what it is told. When it comes to unionist rights in the Chamber, you do not see the Alliance Party speaking out, but certainly, when it comes to nationalism, it is there front and centre, leading the charge.

Due process has gone out the window. We have consultations about minor changes to domestic law, but today we are voting to surrender lawmaking powers to a foreign power, giving it a blank cheque to legislate over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland on a plethora of issues that no one in the House or in the EU has even thought of yet. That is an obscenity.

We meet today to debate the most important motion in the history of Northern Ireland, and, shockingly, it is also the first time in half a century that the House will make a significant decision on a simple majority basis. The UK Government sought to justify removing cross-community consent in relation to this vote by arguing that it did not apply because the decision pertains to non-devolved matters. That argument, however, is plainly absurd, because the Belfast Agreement makes provision for cross-community consent not to a subset of Stormont decisions but to all key Stormont decisions. It requires arrangements to ensure that key decisions are taken on a cross-community basis, not arrangements to ensure that key decisions of a particular kind are taken on such a basis. It covers all key decisions, and this is plainly the most far-reaching decision to be put before us. Moreover and in confirmation of that, had their initial argument been correct, it would have been completely unnecessary for them to then intervene to change the law to disapply cross-community consent to this decision. However, regrettable legislation was passed to disapply section 42 of the 1998 Act.

Indeed and as if there was not enough, we must remember that the basis on which the Government sought to justify the non-application of cross-community consent was the definition of devolved matters, which kept from Stormont really controversial questions about the constitutional foundation for the relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the UK. Far from lessening the need for cross-community consent, widening the scope of decision-making into this much more controversial subject matter plainly increases the need for cross-community consent rather than lessening it.

On that very basis, the suggestion that there is a justification to remove cross-community consent fails, other than for the purpose of denying unionists the protection afforded to nationalists for over 50 years: the banning of majority voting at Stormont on matters of controversy. This is the most controversial proposition to come before Stormont in its 103-year history. Put simply, the vote has been gerrymandered by the Government with the assistance of political parties, namely Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party, that have spent the last quarter of a century telling us how wrong, how unjust, it would be to have a vote on a simple majority basis.

Today, I find myself in what, some here might argue, is an odd position. I find myself part of a minority arguing for the fundamentals of the Belfast Agreement and arguing that protections for minorities should continue to apply. However, in another sense, I find myself validated, because I and my party have always argued that the supposed guarantees of the Belfast Agreement were always a sham. The supposed —.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. In the previous mandate, I worked closely with his colleague Mr Allister on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, on which, as other Members will be able to attest, Mr Allister and I were the only members who agreed that getting rid of designations would be progress for this place. Has there been a change to TUV policy?

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for her intervention, but I struggle to understand what the input was. There has certainly been no change in TUV policy, but you have made your point. It will be in Hansard, so congratulations.

The supposed protections in the Belfast Agreement applied only for as long as they suited nationalism. Once unionism was in the minority in this place, the protections no longer applied. Why is that? It is because the protections that were sold to unionists to justify throwing the prison doors open and agreeing to share power with those who had sworn to destroy the state were a sham. That is not the position only of the anti-Belfast Agreement zealots: the Member of Parliament for South Antrim, Robin Swann, reminded the Commons on Friday of what the chief unionist architect of the Belfast Agreement, Lord Trimble, had to say about the protocol. We heard it earlier from Mr Buckley, but, for Hansard's benefit, I will read it out once again. The late Lord Trimble said:

That seems to be something that the SDLP cannot get to grips with. That is our problem with the protocol and the Windsor framework. Today, however, Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party are happy to play their part in betraying Lord Trimble's legacy.

Today is a seminal day in particular for Alliance, which has come off the fence and decided to aid nationalism in doing what 30 years of terror failed to do in Northern Ireland: move the border to the Irish Sea. It is no wonder that many refer to Alliance as "Sinn Féin's little helpers". The leader of the self-styled Social Democratic and Labour Party told us how far people were prepared to go on the issue. She said that there would be:

if there were so much as a CCTV camera where the international border is. Perhaps the SDLP will clarify what its leader meant. What is the next level up from civil disobedience? I contend that we got to where we are today only because of what Seán O'Casey would describe as "The Shadow of a Gunman".

I will move on to what we are being asked to vote on today. I noted last week that the SDLP had travelled to Brussels to press for representation. Of course, such a route would also disregard the Belfast Agreement. The Belfast Agreement told unionists in its opening paragraph that our position in the UK was accepted and respected. Implicit in that was the recognition of the right to take part in national debates, such as those on whether the UK should leave the EU. No ballot paper in any part of the UK asked people whether they wanted GB to leave the EU and leave Northern Ireland behind. Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance are telling their constituents that they are not up to the job and are happy to surrender control in 300 areas of law to a Parliament to which no one from Northern Ireland is elected. Seventy pages contain not the text of the law but mere titles. How can any democrat claim that that is correct?

Importantly, the laws are not incidental. EU regulation 952/2013 puts us under the EU's customs code. That means that the rest of our country — the United Kingdom — is, in terms, a third country or, to use a term with which people will be familiar, a foreign country. In terms of customs, we are now known as a foreign country. How absurd.

All that is because of the border with an EU member state.

In 2020, the value of goods entering the EU single market via Northern Ireland was a mere 0·003% of EU GDP. The border posts are being built at Larne not because of a threat to the EU single market but because the EU decided that Northern Ireland would be the price that the UK paid for Brexit. One has only to look at recent court judgements where it has been decided that, to all intents and purposes, Northern Ireland is to be treated as EU territory. Indeed, let me quote Mr Justice Colton, who ruled:

Today, we are being asked to vote to accept colony status: to become a territory that is governed by someone else's laws from a foreign jurisdiction. How democratic. How republican is that?

I want to move on to consider the economic case. Before the protocol, Northern Ireland's economy was intertwined with that of the rest of the UK. Since then, we have seen a severing of links and businesses swamped with red tape. Invest NI has had to admit that it cannot point to a single job that has been created in Northern Ireland because of the protocol. Why? It is because businesses work on the basis of facts, not spin, regardless of what the SDLP tells us here tonight. It will not take them long to work out that the idea of dual market access is a nonsense and that the protocol has created massive obstacles to bringing in raw materials from GB. I remind the House that the one area of the Northern Ireland economy where there has been an increase and growth — Mrs Dodds has already pointed it out — is the services sector, which does not fall under the protocol.

On Friday, my party leader brought a Bill before the Commons that spelled out a solution to the problem: mutual enforcement, whereby each sovereign power undertakes to respect and enforce the standards of the other. I credit Jim Allister with the Bill, but I cannot credit him with the idea. The proposal for mutual enforcement as a solution came from inside the EU. On Friday, Jim made public a statement from the three gentlemen involved. Let me read it into the record:

That was because, as I have said, the EU and the Republic of Ireland sought to use Brexit as an opportunity for a land grab.

Given that this debate could have happened as late as 17 December, it is striking to me that there was obviously a desire to get it over with before the EU general product safety regulation comes into force on Friday and possibly before the new NISRA trade data comes out tomorrow.

I will conclude by appealing to unionists in the House. I will begin by referring to the High Court action that was brought by Jamie Bryson yesterday. I note that, yesterday, the Secretary of State sent in a team of nine lawyers and that they threatened to seek costs. The judge in the case rightly dismissed that out of hand. It was all part of a desperate attempt to scare off any challenge. Let me quote what Justice McAlinden said yesterday about the so-called constitutional legislation that was referred to in 'Safeguarding the Union':

He added:

Whatever you think of my party leader and me, it is indisputable that we have been proven to be correct about the impact and reality of the sea border and the Windsor framework. No one can claim that the Acts of Union have not been trashed: just yesterday, a judgement reiterated the fact that they have been. No one in the Chamber would repeat today or at any other time the outlandish claims made by Sir Jeffrey Donaldson that resulted in the restoration of the institutions.

We all know what the result of the vote will be, because of the nationalist and republican Alliance. For the benefit of Hansard, I confirm that that is "Alliance" with a capital A. The question is this: what will you do about it? The assurances that unionists were given, whether they were in the Belfast Agreement or the Windsor framework, were clearly not worth the paper on which they were written.

Mr Tennyson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for Mr Gaston to refer to the Alliance Party as "nationalist" and "republican" when it is clear that we designate in the Assembly as "United Community"?

Mr Speaker: We all know how the Alliance Party has designated itself. Mr Gaston has made a different assertion. Members are entitled to say things in the House, and, as Speaker, I am not here to be some kind of speech watchdog. It is a debating chamber —.

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

Mr Speaker: I have not finished, Mrs Long.

I am not here to tell everybody what they are supposed to say. Members can say things that are wrong, but that does not mean that they cannot say them.

Mrs Long: It is correct, of course, that Members are entitled to hold their own opinions, but are they entitled to state on the record things that are counterfactual?

Mr Speaker: The Member referred to nationalists and republicans, and he referred to Alliance. That is for him to do. How you vote tonight may reflect that; I do not know. How you vote is up to you.

Mrs Long: Excuse me?

Mr Speaker: How you vote tonight may reflect the fact that nationalist, republican and Alliance Members might go through one Lobby. That is something that you are perfectly entitled to do.

Mrs Long: That is a political comment.

Mr Speaker: That is not a political statement. You are perfectly entitled to do that. If the Member wishes to point that out, he is entitled to do so. This is a debating chamber, where people are allowed to have a go at one another, as they do in debating chambers across the world. I wish to goodness that Members would be a little less sensitive about being attacked.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: If you are attacked, get up and make your case against the individual. I will facilitate anyone in doing that, but I will not stand here and say, "You are not allowed to say this" and, "You are not allowed to say that". It is a debating chamber. Take it on as a debating chamber. It is not a student debating chamber.

Please resume, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It appears that we have touched a raw nerve with nationalist and republican Alliance. There is a bone of contention there. Yes, Alliance might not be designated as such, but that is the perception in unionist circles; I certainly believe that. I restate my comment about Alliance being Sinn Féin's little helpers. On that basis, you will troop through the Lobby with its Members later, I am sure.

I will return to what I was saying.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I will give way, because you look cross.

Mrs Long: I will walk through a Lobby tonight on the basis of what I believe and stand for. You are no more the DUP's little helper than I am anybody else's little helper. The Member would do well to extend to other people the courtesy that he would expect to be extended to him. I find it outrageous that I have been accused of being a nationalist or a republican tonight, just as I would find it outrageous to be accused of being a unionist or a loyalist.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm, for the clarity of the House, that Mrs Long is not the Speaker? [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. Order. Mrs Long made her defence. That is what I encouraged her to do, and she was quite right to do it.

Mr Gaston: Offence is a choice. We talk about courtesy. I let the Member in, and I thought that I was being courteous. [Interruption.]

She obviously disagrees with that as she is chuntering from a sedentary position. Listen, I am sure that we will have many a dispute in the months and years to come, whether you like it or not.

Going back to what I was saying, the House operates on a sham basis. We have seen that tonight. Minority protections clearly only apply to non-unionists. Why, therefore, do unionists continue to prop up this sham?

I will pick up on a couple of points that were made earlier. The deputy First Minister, in her capacity as an MLA, mentioned sending a strong message to Westminster. We could have sent a strong message to Westminster by returning to the House only to vote against the motion before us tonight. The position of unionism has been weakened by a return to the House to operate the very mechanisms that are ushering us out of the UK. I ask the Member and her party to reflect on that position. I want to go forward with a strong and united voice in opposition to the protocol, but we need to grow a backbone and use the leverage that is at our disposal. Our rights have been trampled: unionism is in the minority and is being disregarded by the other side of the House, so we need to question the very existence of the institutions that we are sitting in tonight.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I will give way.

Mr Dickson: I am interested in a particular word that you used. You said that your rights had been "trampled", but surely, both yesterday and today, the Lord Chief Justice upheld the decision to allow the House to take part in a democratic vote. How have your rights been trampled when the highest court in Northern Ireland has made that decision?

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention. The 'Safeguarding the Union' document, which was sold to unionism in Northern Ireland to bring back the institutions, was what was being tested in the courts. It turns out that the safeguards in 'Safeguarding the Union' are not worth the paper that they are written on. When we talk about rights, I am talking about the Belfast Agreement. I am talking about the Government taking action to remove cross-community consent to ensure that the vote tonight was gerrymandered to get what they wanted. That is exactly what has happened. When unionism has been in the minority in the House, our rights have been diminished. Our rights have been trampled on, and if the vote was going to go the other way, the republican Alliance Party — Sinn Féin's little helpers — would be the first to stand up and call that out. However, because the vote will go against unionism, the Alliance Party en bloc are saying nothing about it.

Ms K Armstrong: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Point of order, Mrs Long.

Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Apologies, that is the second time that you have been confused.

Ms K Armstrong: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order 65, which states:

Tonight, the Alliance Party and those of us who do not designate as nationalist or unionist have had our designation besmirched, called out and disrespected. I would like you to make a ruling on that.

Mr Speaker: I thought that made it clear to Mrs Long that if this Table had to correct everything that everybody said in the Chamber that was wrong, we would do nothing else because there is an awful lot said in the Chamber that is wrong. For example, there was a debate yesterday about Mr Carroll's comments about a company that provides services to the Assembly and whether it should have been ruled in or ruled out of order. It was allowed because it was part of the debate. You can fundamentally disagree with what the person says, and what the person says may well be inaccurate. Mrs Long took the opportunity to correct it. That is done. The Alliance Party has stated its position. It has sought to correct what Mr Gaston said. As far as I am concerned, that is the matter finished. That is what happens in a debating Chamber. If someone says something that, in your view, is wrong, you get up, challenge it, make your case and allow the public to make their decision thereafter.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm that this is indeed a political Chamber? Members seem to be getting very offended by everything that is being said, maybe if they do not like the Member. My goodness, I had to apologise to get speaking tonight. I am glad that I was given that opportunity, apart from being interrupted by the interventions from the Alliance Party. Remind the Alliance Party that this is a political Chamber.

Mr Speaker: I think that your having to apologise, Mr Gaston, was a demonstration of my treating the entire Chamber fairly, because you were wrong in what you said yesterday.

Mr Durkan: Who is sorry now? [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: Very good, Mr Durkan.

What is going on tonight is debate, and I will tolerate debate and, on occasions, give everyone the opportunity to clarify their issues through points of order, even though they might not be points of order, and through interventions, if that is how it can be done. It is a debating Chamber. Make your case and stop appealing to me to be some big watchdog who will police every word that every person says, because we will get nowhere if I have to do that.

Mr Carroll, it is your turn, and I am sure that you will not say anything controversial whatsoever. [Laughter.]

Mr Dickson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Gaston said that he "had" to apologise to you in order to speak this evening.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Dickson: That sounds to me to be the most insincere apology that you have ever received in the Chamber, and I ask you to rule on the sincerity of that apology. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: You may well be correct, Mr Dickson, but I cannot rule on the sincerity of Mr Gaston's apology. [Laughter.]

He made an apology, and that is what he was asked to do.

We are moving on. You might want to stay here all night. I am happy to stay all night. I thought that you were all wilting some time ago, but you may want to stay here all night. Perhaps we should not disrupt Mr Carroll's flow and let him get at it.

Mr Carroll: Third time lucky. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just like yesterday, everything that I say is connected to the issue that we are discussing this evening. I found it almost — almost — humorous hearing some unionists talking about minority rights and being trampled on during the debate. You could not really make that up. How many times have they trampled on minority rights, including those of Irish language speakers, LGBT people, women and workers? The party to my right has trampled on a long list of minority rights.

People living in border communities have enjoyed nearly 20 years free from customs posts and a security presence, and we cannot go back to that. I would say that nobody wants the restoration of physical borders, but I think that some do want and have wanted the restoration of physical borders since the debate began. We should continue to allow the free movement of goods across the border. Throughout the debate, from some to my right, we heard more about pet food and other animal products than we did about poverty, the free movement of people or any other issues of that nature.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I am happy to give way, yes.

Mr Brooks: The reason why you hear about things such as pet food is because that is the business of the issue. That is what the Democratic Scrutiny Committee is having to look at and deal with weekly. Those are the issues that this throws up. I thought that maybe, as a fellow Brexiteer, you would want to see the full realisation of all the promises made to you. [Laughter.]

Mr Carroll: I am definitely not a fellow Brexiteer, and I do not agree with you on many issues. Viktor Orbán was mentioned earlier. I am sure that you would probably be glad to welcome him into your political party.

When it comes to the opportunities for reshaping the economy on this island, we have to say that the neoliberal orthodoxy of European economic policy has sought to liberalise and privatise services, increase competition, deepen the power of the private market and weaken workers' rights and social protections, and that is the last thing that we need to continue in this period.

Whilst we in my party agree that existing trade agreements should continue to apply in the North, there is also an opportunity to develop a new political economy outside the neoliberal orthodoxy of the European Union. A new political economy for the North should prioritise public ownership of services to combat inequality, poverty and environmental destruction. A new political economy could also reverse industrial decline by redeploying existing infrastructure and greening jobs, giving support to workers to buy up manufacturing facilities and keep them running under worker or community ownership. Procurement could be leveraged for social good, building community wealth and stabilising jobs, but it has not been done.

On the question of migration, instead of addressing the root causes of displacement such as war and genocide, the EU is using deterrence techniques to stop migration, which is relevant to this debate and the protocol. Since September, it has spent £11 billion on deportations, which is probably music to the ears of the party to my right. Increased controls and deterrence techniques have only fuelled a booming smuggling industry that has led to at least 29,000 deaths. These are only the documented deaths of people travelling to Europe between 2014 and 2021. There has been a lot of renewed talk about Syrians after the fall of Assad, but how many have drowned in the Mediterranean Sea because of the EU policy of racism and the dehumanising of their right to move into Europe or wherever they want to?

The protocol is obviously a trade deal, but we should also briefly mention in the debate the EU-Israel association agreement trade deal that the EU has with Israel. The ongoing genocide in Gaza, perpetrated by Israel, has resulted in multiple, clear and well-documented violations of the human rights of Palestinians. Hospitals have been bombed and destroyed, and a population faces famine and death by contagious disease. In the course of its war on Gaza, Israel has blocked food, water, fuel, medicine and humanitarian aid, all backed by von der Leyen and the EU. There are sanctions for some states that intervene and occupy countries but not for Israel. It is sickening, and it needs to be called out. In spite of those well-documented human rights violations and, to put it more clearly, genocide, its economy continues to enjoy privileged access to the EU market via the EU-Israel association agreement. In fact, trade between the EU and Israel has increased since the signing of the agreement in 2000. The EU is Israel's biggest trade partner — let that sink in — accounting for almost 30% of its trade and goods in 2022. The EU says that it considers respect for human rights to be an essential element of EU association agreements with partner countries, yet it refuses to suspend the EU-Israel association agreement. I am calling on it today to do so. Serious breaches of the agreement mean that the EU can suspend it at any time. There is no denying that Israel's treatment of Palestinians constitutes a serious breach of the human rights clauses in the EU-Israel association agreement, yet the EU cannot bring itself to suspend the agreement and stop rewarding Israel for its war crimes.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Givan: He is nearly in danger of convincing me to vote for this. On the arguments that he has made against the EU based on its support for Israel, we know what People Before Profit stands for. It is against globalisation and all these elitist corporates that rule the world. On that basis, will Gerry Carroll join the DUP in voting against the motion, or will he now go and vote for those globalists?

Mr Carroll: The Member needs to be careful with his language, because "globalists" can mean very different and strange things. Maybe check the meaning of that.

Mr Givan: Yes or no?

Mr Carroll: If you want an answer, listen. On elitist corporations, the DUP is the party that backs elitist corporations in the North, so I think that you need to check your facts on that as well. You and everybody else should remember that, when we are talking about the EU, we should mention the role of von der Leyen and the people who have backed Israel every single step of the way in the past year. Members should remember that when they are up to their necks in backing and supporting Israel and its horrible crimes.

Ms Sugden: As an independent and constitutional unionist, I like to think that I approach issues from the perspective of practical governance that works for everyone in Northern Ireland. My unionism is not abstract ideals or rigid ideology. It is about ensuring that Northern Ireland remains a prosperous, stable and equal part of the United Kingdom. It is about creating the best possible context for delivering public services, supporting businesses and serving all communities — unionists, nationalists and those who identify as neither.

I voted to remain in the European Union because I believed that it offered economic, social and political stability for Northern Ireland. However, we are long past the point of criticising the outcome of Brexit without any real effect. We must now focus on solutions that protect Northern Ireland's interests without losing sight of fairness, inclusion and practicality.

I know how important it is to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. Indeed, I know how important it is to avoid a hard border in the Irish Sea. It is not just a political issue. It is about safeguarding peace, ensuring cooperation and enabling a two-way market in Northern Ireland that is as seamless within the east-west jurisdiction as it is outside that jurisdiction, North/South. I was prepared to accept the arrangements under the protocol in good faith that the practical issues would be resolved, but it seems that, day by day and week by week, more issues are arising. I was also prepared to accept the arrangements under the protocol on the promises that the benefits would be realised. How many years in are we, and what are those benefits? I am happy to take interventions.

The current arrangements under articles 5 to 10 of the protocol have created as many problems as they have solved. I believe that that falls significantly short of serving the people of Northern Ireland — all the people.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. She mentioned the benefits. Go back to some of the points that were made; I have listed lots of benefits. On the dual market access, it is important to correct what was said earlier. The chief executive of Invest NI did not say what he was quoted as saying, that there are no possible benefits. He said that there had not been a specific, singular investment purely on that basis, which is a different thing. On the economic point, does the Member accept that Northern Ireland has outperformed the rest of the UK since the protocol came into force? The argument that it is damaging in a GDP sense is simply not borne out by the statistics.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate the intervention. I cannot say that it has improved because, from a constituency perspective, I am hearing every day from constituents and businesses who are realising the issues. Genuinely, I have not heard of any benefits, and I would be keen to hear those. The reality is that, after the vote tonight, this arrangement will continue for at least four years. We need to be assured that, within those four years, we will get the progress that has been promised, because we are a number of years into the arrangements now, and it does not feel as though they are providing the balance that unionists like me were prepared to accept in the hope that we could actually improve things for Northern Ireland.

Under articles 5 to 10, Northern Ireland is required to align with the EU rules on goods, trade and state aid. Although those rules affect every aspect of our economy and daily life, they are made in Brussels, where we have no representation. Northern Ireland's elected representatives have no seat at the table, no voice in the discussions and no opportunity to influence or amend these regulations to reflect the realities on the ground. That lack of representation has significant consequences. Without the ability to scrutinise the rules or challenge their suitability, Northern Ireland is left in a reactive position, simply implementing decisions that have been made elsewhere. That makes it harder to refine or improve policies to better serve our businesses and communities, because, when those constituents contact me as an MLA, I struggle to understand how I can address their concerns, and I suspect that every MLA in the Chamber feels the same way. Without representation, we cannot engage constructively to propose practical adjustments or ensure that our unique circumstances are considered.

Unfortunately, it is not the first time that Northern Ireland has experienced a democratic deficit. We have been here before, and the outcomes were not positive. During periods of direct rule and, more recently, when the Executive were suspended, Northern Ireland’s ability to govern itself and address local needs was severely hampered. Decisions about health, education and infrastructure were made by Westminster, if at all, and often by Ministers who lacked the deep understanding of our unique challenges. That resulted in policies that were disconnected from the realities on the ground, and we are seeing the outworkings of that. Public services were left under strain, and we are seeing the outworkings of that. Citizens were underserved, and they tell us that every day.

Most Members agree that we are better served by local representation, yet those who are expected to vote in favour of the motion tonight will overlook a similar democratic deficit that applies through the arrangement. The lesson from direct rule and an absent Executive should be clear: when decisions are made remotely, without local input, the people of Northern Ireland suffer. Public services stagnate, policies fail to reflect local needs, and citizens lose trust in governance. The same risks apply under the current arrangements. By continuing to apply articles 5 to 10 without addressing the democratic deficit — let us be clear: there is one — we leave Northern Ireland vulnerable to policies that are ill suited to our needs and unable to advocate the changes that would make a real difference to our people and services.

We have heard a lot about the supposed benefits of dual market access. Again, I am willing to entertain and embrace those, but let us not ignore the difficulties that the protocol has created for trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Take the example of food producers in Northern Ireland sourcing ingredients from Great Britain. They now face additional customs checks, higher transport costs and delays that make it harder to run their business. In some cases — there are many cases, if constituency casework is anything to go by — Great British suppliers have stopped delivering to Northern Ireland because the paperwork is just too complicated or costly, and it is not worth it. Northern Ireland is suffering.

The Windsor framework has maybe made some improvements, such as the green lane for trusted traders, but it is not a magic fix. Goods deemed to be at risk of entering the EU single market still face checks, and even the green lane requires "Not for EU" labelling of products. Those things might seem small, but they add complexity, uncertainty and costs that weigh heavily on businesses. That means that Northern Ireland is being asked to choose between access to the EU market and seamless trade with Great Britain. That is not a choice that we should have to make in our own jurisdiction. East-west trade is vital to our economy, and those barriers should not be allowed to become permanent.

The protocol and the Windsor framework were supposed to bring clarity and calm, but they have done the opposite. Unionists are all concerned about the current arrangements, which weaken our place in the UK jurisdiction. By "unionist" I mean those who would vote to stay in the Union and who extend beyond the political parties and loyalism to include people like me, whose constitutional preference is based on the best context in which to provide public services. Let us not dismiss this as an orange and green issue, although, at the end of the vote, it might seem as though it is, because it is perfectly fine and our right to have the constitutional preference of either unionism or nationalism.

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Sure, yes.

Mr Donnelly: You mentioned two constitutional preferences. There is another group of Members who have no constitutional preference and designate as "Other", although they have been branded by others in the Chamber as having a preference.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate the intervention and the fact that there are people who have not made up their mind yet, but, if a border poll happens in Northern Ireland, it will not be a case of, "Yes", "No" or "Other"; it will be "Yes" or "No".

If we look at opinion polls and elections, we see that, significantly, most people in Northern Ireland want to have an opinion. The Good Friday Agreement upholds and encourages that. It was the means to reconciliation.

Cross-community consent was not just a nice idea in 1998. It was introduced under the Good Friday Agreement to ensure that major decisions in Northern Ireland reflected the support of unionist and nationalist communities. That is a necessary safeguard for a deeply divided society that is recovering from years of conflict.

The Good Friday Agreement did not conclude the constitutional question, and, while people are rightly entitled to aspire, it is an important consideration in our politics. Cross-community consent ensures fairness, partnership and stability and gives both sides the confidence that their voices matter. Nowhere is that principle more —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Sure.

Mrs Long: The Member said that it ensures fairness. Will she explain how it is fair to those of us who do not designate as "Unionist" or "Nationalist"? She said that it ensures stability. Will she explain how the veto mechanism has ever ensured the stability of this place, given that it has been closed down almost as often as it has been functional?

Ms Sugden: I appreciate the Member's intervention. It ensured peace. It ensured that, however many years after the Good Friday Agreement, we are still able to sit in the Chamber and talk about the issues. Sometimes, it is difficult to believe that we have moved on in Northern Ireland, but we have, and tonight we are talking about issues that matter to people on the ground. That is important, and the provision of cross-community consent enables that. It is important that we have a constitutional opinion. It is the fundamental basis of our politics, as it is in Scotland, for example.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes, sure.

Mrs Long: I respect the fact that, for the Member, it is the fundamental basis on which her politics are built. It may be so for a majority in the House, but can she equally respect the fact that those of us who do not take a position on the constitutional question are not just undecided but have made a conscious choice not to do so? Can she respect us in the way that we respect her?

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Let me respond to the Member, and then I will.

I entirely respect those who have not made a choice on constitutional opinion. However, it is undeniably a fundamental part of our political basis in Northern Ireland. Certainly for me — this is my opinion — it is responsible and important that I take a position on it. It is not just about whether we want to be in one jurisdiction or another; it is the basis on which we provide public services. Certainly for me, as an elected representative, good public services are better in the UK context.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member has listened to a bit of a Pontius Pilate approach from Alliance in, "Not my problem, I don't designate". Does the Member agree that there was a time when the Alliance Party did designate as nationalists, gaming the system and working the arrangements set out in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement? While they may wash their hands today, their history proves that they were willing to use the systems when it suited them.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that Mr Buckley is, perhaps, not as long in the tooth as I am — he is grateful for that, I am sure — but I just remind him that we designated as unionist, not as nationalist.

Mr Speaker: I think, Mr Buckley, that you stand corrected.

Mr Buckley: I am happy to correct the record in that regard, and it is good to see a time when Ms Long was able to designate as a unionist. I doubt that she would be able to do so today.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member has just asserted that I designated as a unionist. That is factually incorrect. I have never designated as a unionist in the House. For clarity, a few members of my party designated as unionist for 24 hours: I never have.

Mr Speaker: As someone longer in the tooth than both Members — Mrs Long may be glad of that — I can say that she is correct in that.

Now, Ms Sugden.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate the interventions from the Members, which just go to demonstrate that people are passionate about the issues and to disregard them in this context would be foolish. Certainly, it gives rise to a reason to continue to have the conversations.

Cross-community consent is an important mechanism to ensure that decisions are fair, balanced and inclusive. If we abandon it on issues as sensitive as these, we set a dangerous precedent for future constitutional debates.

Maybe in the spirit of Christmas, I found it interesting that the mechanism that we are employing tonight by not achieving cross-community consensus provides an opportunity for greater scrutiny and engagement under the arrangements. If the motion passes with a simple majority as expected but without cross-community support, the consent mechanism requires a review after four years instead of eight. It also triggers the Secretary of State to begin an independent review process. Therefore, it enables the House to have a more regular opportunity to revisit the issues and apply a form of scrutiny. Crudely, unionism and nationalism disagreeing is not necessarily a bad thing in this context. It increases democracy, albeit in a limited way.

To conclude, I want to touch on specific issues that are causing problems for my constituents. With regard to regulatory divergence, as GB develops its own rules and regulations, Northern Ireland risks being left behind, stuck following EU rules. That divergence could make trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland even more complicated, and we have seen examples of that. With regard to costs for consumers, we are very much taken by the everyday costs of life, and shoppers in Northern Ireland are feeling the effects because changes in supply chains have driven up prices for some goods, particularly in the food and retail sectors.

Products that used to flow seamlessly from Great Britain — why not now? — now face delays and additional costs that will ultimately fall back on consumers. It seems to be easier to purchase goods from China than from across the Irish Sea. Many businesses still do not fully understand how the system works, because it is just another burden that, in a difficult market, they find difficult to bear. They worry about how future changes might impact on them. That uncertainty makes it harder to invest, expand or even plan ahead.

We cannot keep papering over the cracks with temporary fixes. Northern Ireland and everyone in it deserve a system that genuinely works for people and their businesses. Rejecting the motion does not mean rejecting the need for solutions. We need solutions. Indeed, voting for the motion is causing complacency. We have been complacent up until now about the issues that we see on the ground. We need to fight for better. The story should not be over. I know that we all suffer from Brexit fatigue. I wish that it had not happened in the first place, but we are where we are, so we need to ensure that businesses can operate seamlessly across the British Isles.

I firmly support the principle of avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland and, indeed, in the Irish Sea. That is non-negotiable. The current arrangements, however, have created other problems that are just as damaging in their own way. We need to push for better arrangements that respect Northern Ireland's unique position, protect east-west trade and address the democratic deficit. We need a deal that unites rather than further divides communities. Most importantly, we need a deal that ensures that Northern Ireland's voice is heard.

Mr Tennyson: In closing the debate, I will return to the facts, because they have been sadly absent from many of the contributions this afternoon and this evening. The fact is that, when you come out of the European Union, particularly when you pursue the kind of hard Brexit pursued by the DUP and the Conservative Party, you create a border. It then becomes a question of where that border can be best managed and its impact mitigated.

Alliance warned at the time of the referendum that those checks would inevitably happen at ports and airports, where they could be controlled and contained, rather than at a porous land border that stretches over hundreds of miles and that people cross daily for their lives and livelihoods. I say that not to relitigate old arguments but because, until Members in the Chamber ground themselves in that basic fact rather than entertaining the politics of delusion and fantasy that we have seen, we will never make meaningful progress on the issue.

The Windsor framework is the product of eight long years of painstaking negotiation between the UK and the EU. It is aimed at squaring an impossible circle of frictions and tensions created by Brexit and is an attempt to mitigate its worst impacts on Northern Ireland. It is imperfect: I concede that. That is why, when the original protocol was proposed, Alliance voted against it at the European Parliament and at Westminster, when other, better alternatives were still on the table. Its continued operation today, however, is absolutely critical, as it is the only viable means by which to protect the Good Friday Agreement, to maintain an open border on this island and to protect our dual market access.

While there are no circumstances in which Northern Ireland would be better off than if Brexit had not happened at all, dual market access presents a unique economic opportunity and a competitive advantage. We enjoy privileged and unique access to the GB and EU markets. Those markets combined have almost 500 million consumers and produce over £17·5 trillion pounds in GDP. While Brexit, as my colleague Kate Nicholl outlined, has cost the UK economy a staggering £140 billion, according to independent analysis, the one silver lining is that Northern Ireland has had the fastest growth in the UK in recent years.

A number of Members during the debate referenced the Invest NI chief executive's comments. It is perhaps no coincidence that those comments were selectively misquoted, because, if Members look at the export statistics that were read into the record by Philip McGuigan, they will see that, while exports are down in other constituent parts of the UK, they are up in Northern Ireland. That is no coincidence. I also note that, when they want to talk about the impact on our economy, business and trade, DUP Members talk about only one set of imports, when anyone knows — you do not have to be an economist to know it, and I am surprised, from her remarks, that the former Minister for the Economy did not know — that you grow your economy through growing your exports.

The European Union is a project in cooperation, collaboration and easing trade friction. It therefore could not have been a surprise to anyone in the Chamber that withdrawing from those institutions would create new barriers. Yes, that friction has been felt most acutely by some of our smallest businesses, and at no time have I been glib about the consequences for them. However, I am equally clear that those issues will not be solved by rejecting the motion: far from it. To do so, would be foolhardy, reopen a Pandora's box and create even further chaos, instability and uncertainty for those very businesses.

Andrew Muir spoke as a private Member and made reference to the potential impact on agriculture. Our dairy industry is deeply integrated on a cross-border basis on the island. Milk is produced in Northern Ireland and transported across the border for processing in the Republic of Ireland, and then it comes back to Northern Ireland for onward sale. Without the protections of the Windsor framework, that industry would be decimated. Members owe it to the public to be honest about the trade-offs and choices that exist and are available to us.

Mr Muir: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will.

Mr Muir: Does the Member agree that it is important to learn lessons from 2016? When I am out and about in Northern Ireland, I speak to farmers and fishermen who come up to me, privately, after events, and say, "We were lied to, but what we want you to do is focus on practical solutions and be honest with the people of Northern Ireland".

Mr Tennyson: Absolutely. I could not concur more. Alliance, like the majority of people and businesses in Northern Ireland, is focused on pragmatic solutions. It is not focused on more chaos and instability, which the people of Northern Ireland have had enough of, regardless of whether they are nationalist, unionist or someone who does not fit into either of those boxes. It is in that vein that a number of my colleagues, Mr O'Toole and Members from Sinn Féin pointed to some pragmatic solutions — for example, on a veterinary agreement — that would significantly ease the level of friction and the number of checks in the Irish Sea. That is an outcome that I want to see, because I do not want to see borders or barriers anywhere in these islands. Recent history shows us that when we act in good faith and in a spirit of cooperation, flexibilities are available. Dr Aiken referred to the specific example of dental amalgam.

We have heard from the DUP that unionist concerns have been derided and dismissed. I want to make a number of comments on that point. Part of the reason why we are in this mess is that the only concerns from Northern Ireland that were heard at Westminster between 2017 and 2019, when the protocol was initially being negotiated, were theirs. They held the balance of power at Westminster and propped up the Governments of Boris Johnson and Theresa May. They can cry now at the consequences of their actions, but that will be cold comfort when the people of Northern Ireland know that, when they had influence at Westminster, they squandered it.

I have heard a number of contemptuous remarks about the Alliance Party and our designation on the constitutional question. I am proud to be a United Community politician; it is at the core of my political identity. I would never dismiss or deride the political identity of a unionist or nationalist in the Chamber. If I did, there would, rightly, be an outcry. All that we ask is that that same respect be afforded to Members on these Benches, who, by the way, represent an increasing number of people in Northern Ireland.

We heard from Mr Buckley about shattered trust. Trust has been shattered on many fronts. It has been shattered between political parties, between Governments, between the UK and the EU and between the electorate and the people whom they elect. What I did not hear from any DUP Member was any introspection regarding their hand in that process. In 2016, they told the public that they could leave the EU, maintain all the benefits and deal with none of the consequences. Earlier this year — in February — they told voters that the Irish Sea border had gone and that they had solved all the issues. Mr Buckley was very quiet, as was the deputy First Minister, in correcting their leader at the time. I see shaking heads now, but that is the reality.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I was not afforded any opportunity by DUP Members to intervene, when I attempted to do so — and, yes, deputy First Minister, I did attempt to intervene during your comments.

We heard a lecture on the Good Friday Agreement from the DUP today. Thankfully, the DUP did not speak for a majority of people in Northern Ireland in 1998. It did not speak for a majority of people in Northern Ireland in 2016, and it certainly does not speak for a majority of people in Northern Ireland today. We heard about a democratic deficit, but there is no recognition from those on the Benches to my right that people in Northern Ireland not only voted to remain in 2016 but have voted in increasing numbers in eight elections since for pro-Remain parties that are pragmatic and want to see solutions to the issues. I caution Members about their attitude towards the Alliance Party. If they reflect on the size of the unionist bloc in 2016 versus its size now and on the size of the Alliance bloc in 2016 compared with its size now, with 17 MLAs, they might find that instructive about where many unionists now lie. I am proud to represent people who are nationalist, people who are unionist and people who fit into neither of those boxes. Many unionists are not only pro-Union but pro-European Union and choose to express that view by voting for the Alliance Party. Those on the unionist Benches do not have a monopoly on unionist opinion.

We are on record about the need for reform of cross-community voting in this place. Cross-community votes in the Assembly are the least cross-community votes that can happen, because they ignore the voices of genuinely cross-community parties. Again, it would be an outrage if the vote of a unionist politician or a nationalist politician were discounted. Why should we stand for that today?

Mr Givan: It is in the Belfast Agreement.

Mr Tennyson: I have heard many references to the Belfast Agreement. The Member who chunters from a sedentary position was not worried about the Good Friday Agreement when his party collapsed its institutions, so I will take no lectures from those Members on those issues. They also fail to recognise that Northern Ireland has changed utterly since 1998. There is no majority in Northern Ireland any more. We are all minorities, and our political institutions need to start reflecting that reality.

We heard in a number of contributions about the rights of young people and rights to equal citizenship. I believe that Mr Gaston, Mr Buckley and a number of others made noises about equal citizenship. Again, I find that galling. I did not hear any vociferous cries from those parties about equal citizenship when LGBT people in our society could not access marriage on the same basis as people across the water. I did not hear any vociferous opposition when women in our society did not have the same access to reproductive rights. I heard loud noises, however, the minute that there was a problem with getting sausages from Stranraer to Belfast. That says it all about the priorities of those on the Benches opposite.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that, for many a year, there have been unionist Health Ministers who have been happy to have divergence between the pay of health workers here and the pay of health workers in Britain?

Mr Tennyson: Absolutely. There is a border in the Irish Sea for a host of issues, some of which are a product of devolution and some of which are a sad consequence of failures of devolution. Pay is one example. There is also a border in the Irish Sea in respect of the rates support that a number of our businesses receive. Those are the real challenges. Those are the real borders in the Irish Sea that we ought to be dealing with.

On Steve Aiken's comment on the Mercosur agreement, Mr O'Toole rightly pointed out that, since Brexit, the UK Government have pursued a number of trade agreements that undercut GB farmers from which Northern Ireland farmers have been insulated. It is also the case, however, that, when we were a member of the European Union, the UK was a significant player with veto power on a number of issues. I accept that we do not have as much democratic input now as we did pre 2016, but those are the consequences of the Members' actions in pursuing Brexit.

We heard that voting against the motion would send a strong message. It would send a strong message. It would send a strong message that those of us —.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will indeed.

Dr Aiken: Just for the record, the Member will be aware that I voted Remain.

Mr Tennyson: Absolutely. I am happy to apologise. I was referring to other Members in the Chamber. I understand that Mr Aiken voted Remain, and he outlined that in his remarks.

We have heard that it would send a strong message for us to reject the motion, and it would. It would send a strong message that politicians in Northern Ireland are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face, that we are untrustworthy, that we cannot do business and that our economic environment is unstable and febrile. That is not the message that any of us in the Chamber, irrespective of our constitutional outlook, should wish to send. We also heard comments about sneering in the Chamber. I note that it is "sneering" when it is the Alliance Party doing it, but it is "robust debate" when a unionist Member is chuntering from a sedentary position. I want to take Members back to a time when the Members who are now on the unionist Benches were accusing the Alliance Party of scaremongering when it outlined the inevitable disruption to supply chains that would arise as a result of Brexit. Sammy Wilson, MP for East Antrim, told those who warned of supply chain disruption that they could "go to the chippy". Let us not throw stones in glass houses when it comes to dismissing legitimate concerns or sneering in a debate.

David Brooks referred to potential alternative arrangements. That is fantasy politics of the highest order. We had eight years of negotiations between the UK Government and the EU. An Alternative Arrangements Commission was set up. It looked at the models that have been referred to over the course of the debate, and they were dismissed, so the idea that those models are going to be reinvigorated now, in 2024, is delusional.

Diane Dodds made a number of comments with which I deeply disagreed. First, she accused my colleague to my left, Kate Nicholl, of stating that she or her colleagues in the DUP were in some way backward. Kate is much too kind to make a comment of that nature. I will leave it to the public to draw their own conclusions as to whether they believe the DUP to be progressive or regressive, based on the positions that it takes on social issues, climate change and other matters. Mrs Dodds did not address the point about dual market access, but, when she was Economy Minister, she refused to market the dual market access that Northern Ireland enjoys. If, as Members on those Benches claim, we are not seeing the impact of dual market access, perhaps some introspection about why there is not good global knowledge of Northern Ireland's unique position would be useful. Perhaps we need to think about how we can take better advantage of that unique position.

Today is an opportunity to finally bring this war of attrition over Brexit to an end. I think that we have all had enough; I know that I certainly have. Today, we can turn the page and work together to build on the unique position that we are in and to market Northern Ireland as a place in which to live, work and do business, having privileged access to the GB market and the EU market. Irrespective of constitutional outlook or position, surely that is an ambition that we can all get behind: good jobs, investment, a roof over people's heads and good quality of life. At the end of the day, is that not what we all care about?

Mr Speaker: That draws to a conclusion all those who are listed to speak in the debate. It seems like a long time since we started the debate. I did not even notice that Mr Mathison had a beard before Mr Buckley got up to speak. [Laughter.]

Nonetheless, I thank you for your contributions. It was a good robust debate, and people made their points.

Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires a simple majority to pass. However, because of the longer-term implications arising from the level of cross-community support for the resolution, should the motion be agreed, the announcement of the voting results will include a breakdown of nationalist, unionist and other support.

Mr Speaker: The motion is carried. The democratic consent resolution has been passed by a majority of Members voting, but not with cross-community support. The Secretary of State must now commission an independent review of the functioning of the protocol, in accordance with paragraphs 7 to 9 of the unilateral declaration. The duration of the next continuation period is to be four years.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is your office able to investigate whether the Secretary of State is able to give the Assembly clarity on the terms of that independent review, and, if so, when, given that the verdict of the Assembly is a critical part of that independent review's being commissioned?

Mr Speaker: I hope to have some information when we resume in the new year, but, until the first plenary sitting on 13 January 2025, I wish you all a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: I trust that I will see you all then.