Official Report: Monday 08 September 2025

Mr Speaker: I inform Members that the Budget (No. 2) Bill received Royal Assent on 28 July. It will be known as the Budget (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2025, and it is Chapter 4.

Mr Speaker: I am sorry to inform the House that one of our former colleagues Tommy Gallagher died on 17 July at the age of 82. Tommy was one of the first Members to come into the Assembly in 1998 — he is in that famous picture — and was here until 2011. He served on the Committees, including the Committee for Education and the then Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Prior to that, from 1989, he served on Fermanagh District Council for many years. He was also a teacher for 30 years. So, he represented and served the public in a wide and varied range of areas over the years.

My recollection of Tommy was that, in spite of the fact that he travelled from Belleek every day, which is at least a two-hour drive, he seemed to get here before everybody else did. His dedication to his role as an MLA was second to none. He always spoke on education; he was absolutely driven by the issues surrounding education.

As Speaker, I extend my personal sympathies to the Gallagher family and to the SDLP on the loss of one of their esteemed colleagues.

Mr O'Toole: It is with sadness but also immense respect and gratitude for the life of Tommy Gallagher that I rise to lead the tributes today. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving us the opportunity today to share some words and reflections on the passing of Tommy Gallagher.

Tommy was an extraordinary man. He was part of a generation that, in some cases, we are now losing: one that, through the darkest days, helped to stand for the values of peace, reconciliation and justice and then helped to craft the peace that we enjoy today. As you said, Mr Speaker, Tommy had one of the longest commutes to the Assembly, from his home in Belleek. That is something that he shared with my Committee counterpart Jemma Dolan, who knows how long a drive that is to serve the people who sent you here. In many ways, Tommy's connection to that Belleek community was what stuck with him.

He was born on the Donegal/Fermanagh border in 1942. He had a passion for GAA, which was a thread that ran through his professional and personal life, but he was also an educationalist. As you said, Mr Speaker, he taught for decades at St Mary's High School in Brollagh. Not only did he teach there but he coached GAA. Brollagh became a force in Fermanagh schools GAA — a force that probably belied its relative size. He was committed to that.

In the 1990s, he was brought into the talks team by John Hume and Seamus Mallon. He was passionate about education, but also passionate about North/South issues. Being not just a border MLA but a border resident, he knew about the potential of not just reconciliation but better working across the border for the good of those communities. He fought hard for those communities for years as an SDLP representative. When it came to getting electricity and expanding the NIE Networks service to areas in rural Fermanagh, roads or anything else, Tommy was a diligent and proud local representative in Fermanagh.

Those of us who serve here will know that sometimes this place can be stressful and challenging. You are not sure whether you are prioritising the right things or doing the right things. Over the past year or two, I regularly received text messages from Tommy Gallagher, who kept abreast of everything that was happening in politics, both in Stormont and on this island. Those were encouraging text messages, but sometimes they came with a suggestion about an issue that I might want to focus on, particularly in relation to education. Given his background as an educationalist, he retained a profound interest in education and its possibilities for transforming people. We are in his debt.

He was an extraordinary Irishman, an extraordinary Fermanagh man and an extraordinary educationalist and public representative. His friends, colleagues and comrades in the SDLP continue to thank him and his family for his service. He is survived by his wife, Eileen, and their children, Clora, Thomas, and Donogh. May his gentle soul rest in peace.

Miss Dolan: I join the SDLP in paying tribute to Tommy Gallagher — someone who gave so much of his life to serving the public. Tommy was, first and foremost, a Fermanagh man. He knew the struggles and the strengths of rural life because he lived them, and he carried that understanding into his work as a councillor and an MLA. We may have come from different political traditions but that never stopped Tommy from being respectful every time we met. He always asked how I was finding the job, the travel and the constituency work. He knew the ups and downs of MLA life, and he believed in representing our community as best he could. That is something that deserves recognition regardless of politics.

Many in the Belleek area, including my parents, remember Tommy from his teaching days in Brollagh, but he had retired by the time that I joined the school. If people did not know Tommy through education or politics, they recognised him from his sporting achievements on the GAA field.

For those of us in public life today, there is a lesson in Tommy's example. We will all be remembered, not for the arguments that we won or lost but for the way that we carried ourselves and the respect that we showed to others. In that sense, Tommy leaves behind a legacy that we would all do well to follow.

On behalf of Sinn Féin, I extend my heartfelt condolences to his wife, Eileen, his children, Thomas, Donogh and Clora and the wider Gallagher family. I will miss seeing Tommy at events around Belleek. May he rest in peace.

Miss McIlveen: It was with great sadness that we learned of the passing of Tommy Gallagher. I served with Tommy in the Assembly from 2007 to 2011, and found him to be a man who was not only a dedicated public servant but someone who demonstrated great warmth and kindness.

Throughout his years as a public representative, Tommy worked tirelessly for the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. He was passionate about his community, especially rural areas, and he championed better healthcare, education and opportunities for local families.

Beyond his political career, Tommy will be remembered for the person he was. He had a warmth and generosity of spirit that were endearing. He was approachable, genuine and deeply committed to helping others. Even at times of disagreement, he sought understanding, which is a quality that earned him respect right across the Chamber and far beyond.

On behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, let me say that our thoughts and prayers continue to be with Tommy's family, friends and former colleagues. His legacy remains in this place and across his beloved Fermanagh.

Mr Dickson: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I pass on our condolences to the Gallagher family and to Tommy's colleagues and former colleagues in the SDLP.

I first met Tommy Gallagher through my involvement in local government. We often attended a range of training courses and other events for councillors, and I always found Tommy to be a powerful advocate for peace and reconciliation, coming as he did from a constituency that bore a heavy burden of the Troubles.

Tommy was always friendly and engaging in the world of local government. He was passionate about his community of Belleek and his roots in Ballyshannon. As Members said, he was an educator, and he taught in St Mary's High School, Brollagh, for nearly 30 years. Tommy made a very important contribution to the long and difficult road to the Good Friday Agreement. He was, as Members stated, a senior and trusted negotiator for the SDLP. I was fortunate to know him and have many conversations with him during those times and in those talks.

In describing the talks process, Tommy said:

I joined the Assembly in 2011 as Tommy left it. He was a highly respected Member of the Assembly. His legacy will be an enduring commitment to peace and reconciliation and to making this place work. I send my condolences to his family and comrades.

Ms D Armstrong: I have listened to the warm tributes that are being paid to Tommy Gallagher, who served the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone with passion as their MLA for over a decade. Tommy was a kind and humble Fermanagh man who was always proud of his Fermanagh roots. He had a willingness to reach across the political divide in pursuit of a better future for the whole community, which, sometimes sadly, is something that is not always seen today. My Fermanagh colleagues and I recognised that Tommy was a man of conviction and decency who cared deeply for this place and its people and someone whom we could work with to achieve better outcomes for the west.

His achievements were worthy. He was instrumental in key decisions, notably on the location of the Waterways Ireland headquarters in Enniskillen and in campaigning alongside the community to bring the South West Acute Hospital to the area. However, his heart was always in Belleek, where he worked tirelessly on local economic and heritage projects, most recently through the Belleek Development and Heritage Group.

When I encountered Tommy, he always greeted me with the same warm, genuine smile and asked how I was getting on in politics. He was a man who brought people with him with no need to be in the spotlight. He was highly respected as a decent man, and he will be remembered with great affection.

On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I extend my heartfelt condolences to his wife, Eileen, children, wider family circle and his former comrades.

Mr McCrossan: Following colleagues from across the House, I pay tribute to a man who gave so much of himself to others. Tommy was, first and foremost, an educator. He dedicated years of his life to the classroom, shaping and inspiring the next generation of young people. His work as a teacher left an indelible mark on countless young people, many of whom went on to speak of the encouragement and guidance that they received from him. That instinct to nurture, care and help others to fulfil their potential carried over seamlessly into his political life and journey.

Tommy entered politics at a very difficult time in our history.

It took courage, conviction and a deep sense of responsibility to stand forward for public life in those years, but that was the measure of the man. He believed that politics could be a force for good. He believed passionately in using his voice to represent the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

As a founding member of the SDLP in Fermanagh, Tommy embodied the values of civil rights, fairness and non-violence. He worked to tackle rural neglect, to improve the infrastructure and public services that communities relied on and to ensure that the people in border areas were not left behind. He was particularly passionate about better roads and better healthcare and opportunities for so many young people.

Tommy was first elected to Fermanagh District Council in 1989 and then, later, to the Assembly, where he served with distinction. In Stormont, he carried himself with dignity, humility and purpose. He was never a man for grandstanding, but he was always a man for principle. His contributions were measured, thoughtful and deeply rooted in the needs of his constituents. Tommy never lost sight of what politics is ultimately about: improving the lives of people, standing up for those without a voice and making sure that government works fairly for everyone. That was Tommy Gallagher to his core.

Those of us who had the privilege of knowing him will remember more than his politics. We remember his warmth, decency, humour and generosity of spirit. He had a way of putting people at ease, finding common ground even in difficult debates and situations and reminding us all that at the heart of all our arguments and divisions were real people with real-life needs. The tributes that have poured in since his passing are testament to the impact that he has made not only as a dedicated public servant but as a neighbour, a friend and a family man. His community respected him, the Assembly respected him and his colleagues across political divides respected him. That respect was earned through decades of service and integrity.

On behalf of the SDLP and personally, I extend deepest sympathies to Tommy's wife, Eileen, his family and their friends. Their loss is immense, but I hope that they can take comfort and have pride in knowing that he leaves behind a powerful legacy of service, decency, courage and compassion. Fermanagh is poorer for his loss, as is the Assembly, but we are all richer for having had the example of Tommy Gallagher before us. May he rest in peace.

Mr McGlone: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your kind and respectful comments about Tommy and for facilitating the opportunity to pay our collective respects to him and the entire family.

Tommy was a good friend to many, me included, and a mentor to many in his role as teacher, community advocate, public representative and stalwart GAA supporter, coach and player in football and hurling. Of course, he was delighted with the recent progress of some of his local teams. For Tommy, his teaching life was a vocation to inspire, nurture and help people. Therefore, it was no surprise that Tommy went on to become an elected representative, first as a councillor and then an MLA. He was driven by a passion for helping people, looking after people and serving the community that elected him and by a deep, deep commitment to achieving peace by the only method by which it could eventually be achieved: a peaceful methodology.

More recently, Tommy was on the phone to me about people who had a problem or a particular issue in his locality that needed a bit of a push. He was always there to help and support people. If anyone turned to him for help, he gave his time willingly and freely and used whatever means he could to help that person along their journey. During the negotiations that ultimately led to the Good Friday Agreement, Tommy's dedication to peaceful means and achieving a peaceful outcome was prevalent.

Tommy was a man of great faith; indeed, he visited Lourdes a short time before his death. He was deeply committed to his faith. Tommy was also a dedicated family man. Anyone who spent any time in his presence would know that and learn that from him. He was deeply, deeply committed to his wife, Eileen; his children Clora, Thomas and Donogh; and his grandchildren and wider family. That was so obvious to anyone who spent any time in his presence. To them, we offer our deepest heartfelt sympathies. Ar lámh dheis Dé go raibh anam Tommy.

Mr Durkan: I rise with a heavy heart to pay tribute to a man whose life was defined by service, sincerity and solidarity: Tommy Gallagher.

Tommy epitomised the values of the SDLP. He was not just a politician, as we have heard; he was a múinteoir

a mentor and a friend to so many. In the classroom, on the GAA pitch and, later, in the Assembly, he led by example with dílseacht

and meas

for everyone. He gave a voice to the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, especially during times of great difficulty. Amid that darkness, Tommy worked for peace with quiet determination, helping to lay the foundations for a more hopeful future.

Tommy was one of those rare public figures who never sought headlines, yet his contribution to public life was immense. His decency transcended party lines; his compassion knew no bounds; and his impact, especially on young people, will live long beyond his years. Ní bheidh a leithéidí arís ann.

To Eileen and all the Gallagher family I say that your loss is deeply felt not only in your home, not only in our party, but across this island. Tommy's legacy is not just in what he did; it is in how he made people feel: respected, heard and valued. May we carry that legacy forward with pride. Go ndéana Dia trócaire ar a anam uasal.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. That concludes tributes to the late Tommy Gallagher.

Mr Speaker: Just before we move to Members' Statements, I regret that I have to raise this issue again: it is the principle that Ministers should bring significant announcements to this Chamber first and foremost. As we went into the summer recess, it was raised with me in connection with the Infrastructure Minister making announcements to the media in the Great Hall about the A5 but not coming to the Chamber. Last week, the Minister of Health made an announcement on a review of gender identity services by press statement, with no written statement to Members and no request to come to the House today. For that reason, I have accepted a question for urgent oral answer that will be dealt with later. Then, this morning, the Minister of Education gave an interview on the BBC about changes to gender identity guidance and policies in schools, but, again, there was no request to come to the House. I anticipated that Members might have sought to table a question for urgent oral answer today on that — had they, I would have accepted it — but I am sure that Members will take the opportunity to raise the issue at Question Time.

I cannot be clearer that the role of the Assembly is to hold Ministers to account. While there is a role for written statements, Ministers should, as much as possible, bring policy changes to the House first and foremost so that they can be questioned by you on behalf of the public, so I will, unfortunately, be writing to Ministers again. I have to say that it is not the best start to our business. Nonetheless, I will seek to hold Ministers to account on behalf of you, the Members.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Members will be aware of a number of sectarian and racist attacks in the lower Oldpark area of north Belfast before the recess in May of last year. As recently as last week, residents were subjected to those horrifying attacks again. The terrified victims in the middle of all that need to hear our joint condemnation.

I thank Nuala McAllister, one of the MLAs for North Belfast, and Jordan Doran, a DUP councillor, for attending a multi-agency meeting last week that my colleague John Finucane called. That was an opportunity for everyone there to call out sectarianism and racism. Today, I wish that we all stand together and call for that collective condemnation. In 2025, we are dealing with families who are barricading themselves behind their front and back doors in the evening, and that is completely unacceptable.

Those families, and their extended families, are not sleeping. They are terrified. Their mental health is under massive pressure. I once again call out those sectarian and racist attacks without equivocation. No ifs, ands or buts: they need to stop.

My final appeal is for individuals who go to the media without talking to families or having concern for the wider community please to stop. That, too, is causing stress.

Mr Speaker: A lot of Members are looking to make statements today. If they can keep them as short as possible — Ms Ní Chuilín's was only two minutes — we will get more in.

Miss McIlveen: I am absolutely delighted to welcome the decision by my colleague Paul Givan, the Education Minister, to withdraw the transgender guidance that was issued to schools in Northern Ireland. It is a significant and commendable step that reflects a commitment to clarity, fairness and the recognition of biological reality in our education system. It is also common sense. I asked for that guidance to be reviewed when I was Education Minister, then at the start of this mandate and again when Dr Cass issued her interim report, so I am pleased that we are now seeing its withdrawal. The withdrawing of the guidance ensures that schools are not compelled to adopt policies that conflict with biological facts.

Importantly, the decision provides reassurance that single-sex spaces, including school sports facilities, changing rooms and toilets, can remain protected, where appropriate, in accordance with safeguarding considerations and biological sex. That is particularly fundamental for the safety and privacy of young girls. Furthermore, teachers and pupils will not be placed under pressure to use language, such as pronouns, that denies biological fact. That upholds the rights to freedom of belief and expression for all members of the school community and avoids compelling speech that may conflict with personal convictions or scientific understanding.

The Minister's decision follows careful consideration of the judgement issued in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers and the important legal implications that that case holds for departmental policy. It is right that educational guidance in Northern Ireland align with legal precedent and provide schools with a clear and lawful framework to support all pupils while respecting the rights of every individual. Any future guidance must be developed with due regard for biological reality, legal obligations and the welfare of all children. It is a common-sense decision that lets kids be kids.

Miss McAllister: I highlight the unacceptably long waiting times that patients who need for red-flag cancer referrals face, but, today, I will talk specifically about breast cancer. Most people will be aware of this, but, if they are not, the target for starting treatment for any diagnosis of breast cancer is within 31 days of a decision to treat. The longer that a patient waits for a decision to treat, the worse that it is for that patient. I am talking not just about the cancer diagnosis but about the social and mental impact on the patient.

Over the summer, we looked forward to hearing from the Department of Health and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust (SEHSCT) about their tackling of the regional waiting list. After writing to the South Eastern Trust, we were told to go to the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG). After writing to the SPPG, we were told to go to the Minister. I had already been to the Minister, however. I had asked his Department about how exactly we were tackling the regional waiting list, only to be referred to the trust. It is a game of pass the parcel. It is a buck to be passed between the Department and trusts.

Ultimately, at the end of the statistics are patients. My constituency office has been working with some of those patients. One in particular, instead of sitting in stress and anxiety, took it upon herself to contact all her elected reps. She is in such stress because she sees her symptoms every single day yet is having to wait.

I am grateful that she has now received an appointment, but it is outside the time frame. We need to ensure that no other patient has to wait more than nine weeks — more than six weeks — for a red-flag cancer referral. I hope that the Department and the Minister can come to the Chamber and address the issues without again passing the buck.

Ms D Armstrong: I rise on behalf of the community of Maguiresbridge in County Fermanagh, where the shadow of heartbreak Iingers on, with the community united by the unimaginable loss of three cherished lives: Vanessa Whyte, Sara Rutledge and James Rutledge. In the silence that is left behind, the community remembers not just the sorrow but the love, laughter and light that they brought to the lives of those who knew them. Their memory is defined not by the tragedy but by the warmth that they gave, the bonds that they built and the legacy of love that endures beyond the pain. That is why I want to place on record my heartfelt condolences to the families of those involved in the tragedy as they navigate their way through this difficult time.

I pay tribute to the workers from the emergency services who attended the scene at Drummeer Road that morning. We owe them respect and gratitude for the professional way in which they conducted their roles in the most difficult circumstances. I am aware that their attendance at the scene has had a profound impact and that counselling services are ongoing for those professionals who require it. I commend the local clergy, churches, schools, Gaelic clubs and Women's Aid for comforting friends, neighbours and the hundreds of mourners who attended the vigil and the funeral service in Maguiresbridge. Enniskillen Royal Grammar School, where James and Sara were pupils, opened its doors to the friends of the young victims and to special counselling professionals from the Education Authority to ensure that the young people could have an opportunity to talk about their sense of loss and the fear that they were feeling.

The sense of shock and loss following that horrific event still resonates, and we must say collectively, "Never again". Violence against women and domestic violence is a scourge on society, and we cannot fail more women and children. We must turn words into action and act to make this place safer. Our heartfelt sympathies remain with the families and friends of Vanessa, James and Sara.

Mr O'Toole: Mr Speaker, I welcome back you and all our Assembly colleagues after a long summer break during which not much happened. The public of Northern Ireland might not have noticed that this place was not here, because not much has been delivered since we returned in February 2024. There has been a litany of failure by the four-party Executive. The Executive are not just failing; they are comatose. They appear to be somnolent and inert, and nothing is happening. The public out there were promised change and clear action back in February 2024, but nothing has happened and nothing is happening. Levels of public trust in the Executive are at rock bottom, but it does not have to be like this.

As a constructive Opposition, we are robust, and will continue to be so, in challenging the Executive. Today, we set them six simple tests. They should not be difficult or impossible, because they are the tests that they set themselves. They are either based on things in the Programme for Government or are official targets. Can this four-party Executive pledge that, by the end of the mandate, waiting lists for cancer treatment — Miss McAllister spoke about that earlier — and waiting lists in emergency departments will be coming down and that we will have met the targets that are set out in law? Can they promise that work will have started on the life-saving A5 and the landmark Casement Park? Can they promise that nutrients flowing into Lough Neagh will be reducing? Can they promise that the Executive will have delivered 6,000 social homes by 2027? Can they promise that childcare costs will be lower for working families than when the Executive came in? This is perhaps the most obvious test of all: can they promise that they will still be here and that there will still be an Executive in 2027?

Those should not be difficult questions, but, for the Executive, they probably are, because they are failing to deliver on all those things. We set out those six tests today not to be oppositional or difficult but to ask simple questions on behalf of the public of Northern Ireland, who deserve better. Can the Executive deliver for them, be honest with them and do right by them? We have set the tests today. Let us see the Executive follow.

Ms Murphy: I rise to speak about the devastating and senseless murders of Vanessa Whyte and her two beloved children, James and Sara, that happened in the summer.

Our first thoughts must be with the wider family circle, friends and neighbours of Vanessa, James and Sara. All three were active members of their beloved St Mary's Maguiresbridge Gaelic Football Club and St Patrick's Lisbellaw Hurling Club, where their absence will be felt deeply on the field and the sidelines. James and Sara were known for their energy, enthusiasm and determination, whilst Vanessa was not only a devoted mother but a friend, colleague and neighbour whose warmth touched so many.

Of course, it is not the first time that such an incident has faced the people of south-east Fermanagh. In 2017, Concepta Leonard was murdered by her ex-partner. She was a loving mother, a musician and a friend to many, whose life was needlessly taken. Remembering Concepta, Vanessa, James and Sara reminds us of the lives, full of love, potential and generosity, that were lost through tragedy and cut short by needless violence. I acknowledge the emergency services, local clergy, schools and community groups that rallied around those who were most affected to support them. Their quiet dedication in the most distressing of circumstances rightly deserves our recognition.

We must take time to reflect on the fact that, once again, the brutal loss of life has brought to the fore urgent and, rightly, uncomfortable questions about how we, as a society, address violence against women, girls and children and the devastating impact of domestic violence. Proper resourcing needs to be provided to front-line organisations like Women's Aid and other vital support services that are at the coalface of supporting women and their families through domestic violence and abuse. The Department of Justice and the Department of Health must implement the recommendations that are made on their approach and that of statutory agencies and the role that they play at a multi-agency level.

Out of this darkness, there must be a renewed determination across all sections of our society to end gender-based violence and ensure that our constituents feel safe and protected in their homes and communities. Today, we remember Vanessa, James, Sara, Concepta and all victims of domestic abuse and gender-based violence.

Mr Middleton: I pose this question: what should be the role of an elected representative? Is it to serve constituents, advocate for local interests and try to make life better for our communities? The sad reality in the Londonderry City and Strabane District Council area is that nationalist parties and independent republicans increasingly see it as being their role to spend hours virtue-signalling on issues that they cannot control yet spend mere minutes on things that they can control. Our council area tops the league table in almost every area that you would not want it to: economic inactivity, unemployment and deprivation, to name but a few. Yet time and time again, their focus has been on every issue rather than on trying to address the concerns that matter to people. There have been decades of control by the SDLP and Sinn Féin in the council, and, alongside the MP position, the area's Assembly seats are held by a nationalist majority, yet we continue to lag behind.

Tomorrow, a jobs fair is due to take place at the Foyle Arena in the Waterside area of my constituency. Jobs fairs are an excellent opportunity for employers to meet potential employees all under one roof. However, one of the most significant employers, the Ministry of Defence and our armed forces sector, has been told that it is not welcome there by the SDLP, Sinn Féin and independents. The short-sightedness and downright bigotry of that position is shameful. To seek to deny people in my constituency the right to engage with that employer is disgraceful. Once again, there is a complete and utter failure of leadership from nationalism in my constituency.

When a unionist colleague spoke of the importance of the military to them and their family and of the valuable jobs that are on offer, they were told by an SDLP councillor:

That is the crux of the issue. Dehumanising those who are impacted on might be easier on the conscience of those representatives, but it does not change the reality. Unionists are just about tolerated by the nationalist leadership in our city. Even small gestures are too big for some.

What happened when a portrait of His Majesty The King was offered to the council following the coronation? "You can have it, but not on our premises", was the message. Coronation celebrations? "Do it, but do not involve us", was that message. A jobs fair? "Yes, we can have it, but with only those employers who conform to our outlook", was the message there. That is the reality for unionists in my constituency. There are those who talk of the Derry model, but if that is the model that nationalists seek for their shared island, they are even more deluded than I thought.

For the record, I am very proud of our armed forces, whether for helping out during the pandemic, defusing bombs that terrorists left or defending all our freedoms across the globe. Their devotion and sacrifice stand in stark contrast to those who seek to drag us back.

Mr Donnelly: I will take a moment to celebrate one of East Antrim's rising stars, 13-year-old Preston Creighton. Preston represents the renowned Evolution Boxing Club in Carrickfergus, which is a club with a proud tradition of producing champions, and he is already living up to that legacy.

In just his first year of competition, he has stepped into the ring 18 times, including for six international bouts, and he has risen to the challenge every time. He won the Antrim Championship four times, and, in Naples, he represented County Antrim with two outstanding performances. He has gone toe to toe with boxers from Scotland and Wales. Most impressively, he won the international gold at the Monkstown Box Cup, defeating Finland's national champion. That is an incredible record for anyone, never mind someone of just 13 years of age.

We can all admire Preston's hard work, determination and talent, and I have no doubt that he has a very bright future in the sport. On behalf of everyone here, let me say congratulations, Preston. You have already done Carrickfergus, County Antrim and Northern Ireland proud, and we will be cheering you on in the years ahead.

Mr Baker: I stand here to be a voice for children with special educational needs, who continue to be left behind. Before the recess, I tried everything that I could to have the Minister of Education come to the House and communicate to families his plan for children who did not have placements. Before we went into the recess, the number of such children was in the hundreds, and that is what the headlines were about. Today, we could say, "The number is down to single digits, and that shows some sort of improvement", but the detail is in the weeds, because hundreds of those children will not be in school this week because their place is not ready. Sadly, some of those who were lucky enough to get placements were left at home this week because of transport issues.

This happens year-on-year. My first speech in the Chamber was about the need to prioritise special educational needs and early interventions, and I hoped that we would see improvements, but, unfortunately, we have not. That is simply not fair. It is not fair on those children, who are always left behind. We must ask these questions: why are they not being prioritised? Why do we not have a SEN-first approach to placements? Why, in 2025, do we not invest in high-tech IT for transport, given that a small number of staff are still working with pens and pieces of paper to map out routes? That is simply not good enough, and it shows where the priorities lie, which is certainly not with children with additional needs.

I will quickly make a wee point about one of my cases, because it maps out the journey that children will have if we do not take this seriously and start prioritising those children. Seeing a set of twins start at nursery should be the happiest time for a parent and grandparents. In one of my cases, one twin has additional needs, and the other, who is in the mainstream, does not. Guess who got the nursery place. The wee child with additional needs watches his sibling go off to school, and the child who probably needs the most interventions and the most support is left behind.

If we do not see change — if the Minister and the chief executive of the Education Authority do not get real on this — this is how that child's life will map out: come P1, their placement will be an issue, as it will be in the next transition year, when they go into first year. They will also have transport issues. Their parent will fight tooth and nail for support for that child, while the other child goes through the education system almost seamlessly. We need to stop that. We need an inclusive education system for all children. It is we who can deliver that. I want to work with the Minister and everybody in the House to make that a reality, but it will happen only if it is prioritised.

Ms Bunting: I rise to pay tribute to the Irish Guards in their 125th anniversary year, following a weekend of commemorative events. The Irish Guards are an extraordinary regiment, renowned for their bravery, loyalty, passion and willingness to serve King and country even unto death. Theirs is a proud and distinguished history of unwavering service, and this weekend fully demonstrated their deep roots in and strong connections and bonds to Northern Ireland. It was a joy and a privilege to celebrate the historic milestone with them.

There were a number of events to recognise such a significant occasion, which included beating the retreat ceremonies at Carrickfergus Castle and Edenmore, a remembrance service at the cenotaph at Belfast City Hall, a parade and concert in Bangor and, finally, a parade and laying-up of colours in my constituency of East Belfast yesterday. Everywhere they went, the soldiers on parade were cheered and greeted by large and enthusiastic crowds, wishing the young men and women well, delighted to pay tribute to them and their service, revelling in the ceremony, the music, the uniforms and the meaning and history of the occasion.

Yesterday was particularly poignant and certainly historic, as the ninth set of old colours, which were presented to the 1st Battalion by Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on 6 May 2009, were laid up in a beautiful service. Many of us were honoured to be in attendance on such a meaningful and historic day. Meaningful because of what the colours represent to a regiment: the sacred flags that serve as the physical embodiment of a regiment's honour, spirit and heritage; the ever-present banner standing as a rallying point for loyalty and morale, with them in battle, on parade and everywhere in between — always a source of pride and inspiration; and a powerful reminder of those who went before and all that they gave.

I say "historic", because this is the first time that a regiment has laid up its beautiful colours anywhere on this island. For East Belfast to be chosen is inordinately special. Moreover, St Mark's Church in Dundela is, itself, a historic landmark, being the former church of CS Lewis. It was a privilege for those of us who were present to stand alongside serving personnel and veterans and their families to reflect, remember and give thanks.

We in the DUP are proud of those from Northern Ireland who, despite opposition and threat from some quarters, have chosen the noble career of service in the military. We understand the sacrifice that that requires, including being away from family and loved ones for sustained periods and often putting oneself in danger. We commend the regiment and those in it. We pray for them and for their safety. We are grateful to them for our freedom and for their service, and we honour those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Dr Aiken: I will follow on from those words, as I, like many of us over the weekend, had the opportunity to thank the Irish Guards for their service. There were two events that, in particular, touched our armed forces community and our veterans. The first one, of course, was the laying-up of the colours in St Mark's Church in Dundela. I have to make a declaration of interest as a parishioner of that fine church, which was CS Lewis's former church. I thank all those from East Belfast and beyond who lined the damp streets, the veterans of the Irish Guards, the battalion itself, the regimental padre and the Reverend Canon Dr Helene Steed, our rector, for such a memorable occasion.

My main thanks, however, go to you, Mr Speaker, and our wonderful Assembly staff for marking the 85th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. On Friday night, our Great Hall was filled to capacity by Northern and Southern Irish serving Royal Air Force members and veterans. It was particularly pleasing to welcome Brigadier General Rory O'Connor, the chief of staff of the Irish Air Corps, to the event. Few who were there will forget the stirring oration from Air Chief Marshal Harvey Smyth, who is head of the RAF and, surprisingly enough, a Lurgan College old boy. I have seen many of the original RAF artefacts that the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) displayed in the Senate Chamber. However, the fly-past by the Lancaster from the Battle of Britain memorial flight, with the roar of four Merlin engines, along the mile up to Stormont, clearly brought home the message of the debt that we owe to the few. Never has "Per ardua ad astra" — "Through adversity to the stars" — been more apt.

Mr McCrossan: The A5 project came to a grinding halt on 23 June 2025 as a result of a judicial review taken against the Department for Infrastructure.

Since then, the silence from the Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister on that all-important issue has been deafening.

Several weeks ago, the Minister told the public that she would challenge the latest court ruling on the A5. Since then, all that we have heard is that an appeal has been submitted: no explanation, no plan, no indication whatever of how her Department intends to proceed or, crucially, how it intends to avoid making the exact same mistakes all over again. Families have not been updated, landowners have been left in limbo with their land in a terrible state, and accidents still happen on a daily basis.

It is not a minor scheme: the A5 is the most important infrastructure project in the North of Ireland. It will cost £1·7 billion to connect Tyrone, Derry and Donegal safely with the rest of the island, yet, for almost 20 years, the project has been stuck in delay, tied up in court challenges and mismanaged at every turn. More than 50 people — 50 innocent lives — have been lost on that road while Ministers and Departments have dithered, delayed and failed to get the project over the line.

The mistakes that have halted the A5 are unforgivable. They stink of complete, utter and absolute incompetence by the Department. Over the summer, we learned that DFI officials met DAERA on the issue of climate compliance not seven times, as they originally told us on paper, but 13 times. They had 13 meetings, and still the Department produced a scheme that could not survive a legal challenge; 13 meetings, and still they did not manage to get it right. If that is not incompetence, what is it? PAC recommendations were ignored. Where is the accountability for those who presided over the project and led to that terrible failure?

The Minister has chosen silence as a response, but silence will not comfort the families who have lost loved ones. Silence will not reassure the people of west Tyrone, Derry and Donegal, who continue to risk their lives by travelling on that road daily, and silence will not deliver the A5. Let us be clear to the Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister: you must come out, give a statement and update people on where the project is. I have never heard such silence from Sinn Féin in West Tyrone on this so-called priority.

People's lives are at risk daily. Let us get the road built. Let us ensure that lives are saved and give the west what it truly deserves and has waited long enough for. It is time that the Minister got on with that job.

Mr Speaker: I call Cheryl Brownlee. Confine your remarks to two minutes, please.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I speak about something that matters deeply to the Democratic Unionist Party: the future of education in Northern Ireland and, in particular, the vital role of our controlled sector.

We have all heard a lot of debate recently around integrated education. While that discussion is important, too often it feels as if the controlled sector is pushed to the side, treated as if it somehow lacks ethos, respect or value. Let me be clear: that could not be further from the truth. It lacks absolutely nothing. Our controlled schools have a strong ethos built on inclusion, respect and community. They welcome children of all faiths and none. They are diverse and open, and they reflect the society that we want and need to build.

The Department of Education's latest paper on integrated education exposes a fundamental flaw. Despite decades of transformation efforts, integrated education has failed to deliver a genuine balance and falls short of the aspirational 40:40:20 split; in fact, some are now less balanced than they were when they first transformed. It is not just a failure in numbers; it is a failure of principle. The transformation process, in certain circumstances, has created a label without substance, whilst our controlled schools, which quietly and consistently welcome children from all backgrounds, are being left behind. Controlled schools are achieving integration in practice and not just in name, yet they are being denied the support that they need.

Unfortunately, time and time again, I see schools in the controlled sector in my constituency of East Antrim having to fight tooth and nail for the most basic of needs. For example, Carrickfergus Academy continues to operate across a split site, awaiting the central campus that it has been promised for years. That is not just an inconvenience: it is a barrier to cohesion and quality education.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Sorry. Thank you, Cheryl.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next item of business in the Order Paper is a motion from the Assembly Commission to appoint an Assembly Commissioner for Standards.

Mr Allen: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to 45 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have up to 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mr Allen: The Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 provides for the role of a Commissioner for Standards. It also provides for the commissioner's independence and powers, which include the same powers as the Assembly to call for witnesses and documents. The commissioner's primary role is to carry out investigations of complaints relating to the Assembly's code of conduct and the ministerial code of conduct and to report the outcome of those investigations to the Assembly. The role of the commissioner is therefore an important part of the framework for ensuring that high standards of conduct in public life are upheld in the Assembly. I thank the outgoing commissioner, Dr Melissa McCullough, for her service and dedication, particularly in managing her significant responsibilities amidst the additional challenges of the COVID pandemic and the period when the Assembly was not sitting.

The 2011 Act that provides for the office of the commissioner requires that the person to be appointed as Commissioner for Standards be:

The Assembly has delegated that function to the Assembly Commission. The recruitment panel comprised the Speaker, on behalf of the Assembly Commission; the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Cathy Mason; the Clerk/Chief Executive, Lesley Hogg; and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at Westminster, Daniel Greenberg CB. The Assembly Commission thanks the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges for her important involvement in the recruitment process. The Assembly Commission also particularly thanks Daniel Greenberg for giving of his time. The experience and expertise that he provided was of great assistance to the panel.

Having completed a rigorous recruitment competition, the Assembly Commission is delighted to nominate Mark McEwan as Commissioner for Standards for a period of five years, as set out in the 2011 Act. It is an important and significant role that requires expertise and sound judgement. Mark McEwan has 26 years' experience in policing, including serving in the Metropolitan Police in London and, most recently, as Assistant Chief Constable in the Police Service of Northern Ireland before his retirement in 2024. From his extensive policing career, Mr McEwan not only has extensive experience of conducting investigations, including of sensitive and high-profile cases, but was involved in overseeing processes to uphold professional standards and deal with misconduct. The Assembly Commission therefore believes that Mark McEwan has the appropriate skills and experience to undertake the responsibilities of commissioner effectively.

The Assembly Commission was pleased to table the motion on the appointment of a Commissioner for Standards, and I commend to the House the nomination of Mark McEwan as the Commissioner for Standards.

Mrs Mason (The Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges): I speak to the motion having sat on the Assembly's recruitment panel for the appointment of a new Commissioner for Standards as the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

As Members are aware, the commissioner is an independent officer who is appointed by the Assembly to consider and investigate complaints of alleged breaches of the MLA code of conduct and the ministerial code of conduct. In fulfilling the role, the commissioner contributes to the overseeing and safeguarding of the ethical standards of MLAs and Ministers. The commissioner's independence is therefore essential to ensuring fairness, transparency, accountability and public trust in our standards regime.

The process for investigating complaints is designed in such a way that allegations of breaches of the MLA or ministerial codes of conduct go directly to the commissioner for assessment of admissibility and, where applicable, for investigation. For complaints against MLAs, the Committee then considers the commissioner's investigation reports, determines whether a breach of the code has occurred and, where appropriate, recommends to the Assembly the sanction to be imposed. The commissioner, the Committee and the Assembly therefore exercise the complementary functions of investigation, adjudication and sanctioning respectively, and each has a key part to play in ensuring that appropriate and proper standards of conduct are upheld by Members of the Assembly. As such, in order to safeguard the timely exercising of the commissioner's functions, it is important that the Assembly ensures that the office of Commissioner for Standards remains filled, without undue interruption.

I take this opportunity to look back on and acknowledge the contribution of the outgoing commissioner, Dr Melissa McCullough, over the past five years. During her term, Dr McCullough addressed a range of challenges, including working through a three-year backlog of complaints, taking on additional functions in relation to ministerial complaints and taking initiatives to modernise the office of the commissioner, while dealing with a range of complex, sensitive and challenging cases. Dr McCullough did so professionally, engaging positively and empathetically with the Committee and with Members, generally. On behalf of the Committee, therefore, I put on record our thanks to and appreciation for Dr McCullough. The progress that she made in developing the office will provide a sound base upon which the new commissioner can build.

I expect that the other members of the Committee will welcome the appointment of Mark McEwan, as I do, and look forward to engaging with the new commissioner on progressing the vital work of implementing the Assembly's ethical standards system. On behalf of the Committee, I support the motion.

Ms Egan: As a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I put on record my thanks to Dr Melissa McCullough as she leaves the role of the Assembly Commissioner for Standards. I found Melissa to be extremely professional and diligent in her role, and I always appreciated her willingness to engage with the Committee, explaining her findings and answering any questions that we had. I also welcome the appointment of Mark McEwan and wish him well as the incoming Commissioner for Standards. It is, without a doubt, a challenging position but an extremely important one.

Mr Gaston: I preface my remarks by noting that the legislation under which we appoint Mr McEwan was only recently amended by the House. It was not, however, amended to tighten the rules on Members' conduct or to guarantee that the Commissioner for Standards would always investigate alleged misconduct — oh, no. It was amended to lay the foundations for a substantial MLA pay rise. We could have tightened the rules, but, sadly —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, the motion is not about the Assembly Commission but is about the Assembly Commission's appointing a new Commissioner for Standards. With respect, I ask that the Member please return to the subject of the debate.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, the House, sadly, decided to look with importance to the interests of Members' wallets instead of seeking a higher standard of Member conduct. That does nothing for the standing of the Assembly in the eyes of the public. I trust that Mr McEwan will learn from their expectations and from where his predecessor fell short.

I draw to the attention of Members what happened last week in Westminster, where there were questions about Angela Rayner's tax affairs. She was rightly referred to the ethics adviser, because it was recognised that that was the person for the job. What a contrast with what we have at Stormont. Let me remind the House of the Sinn Féin paedophile scandal around Michael McMonagle.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: The case was not referred to the —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — Commissioner for Standards.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston. For a second time, I am asking you to return your remarks to the subject that is being debated. It is not a case of you throwing in "standards commissioner" and saying whatever you want. I ask you again, with respect, to return to the subject in hand. If you continue to go outside of that, I will ask you to take your seat. Is that clearly understood?

Mr Gaston: Principal Deputy Speaker —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Gaston: — it is very relevant to the debate. I am simply comparing what happens in Westminster with what we see in Stormont. Indeed, the case that I mentioned was not referred to the Commissioner for Standards, but, instead, to an insider: the Assembly's head of Legal Services. Unsurprisingly, when he delivered the report to the Assembly, it exonerated the First Minister. He could only do that by not interviewing a single person about the case, including journalists who knew that McMonagle had acted as a Sinn Féin press officer.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, take your seat.

Mr Gaston: Principal Deputy Speaker —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, take your seat. It is the first day back. We are all eager to get into it, but I remind you and other Members that you need to stick to the subject in hand. I will give you plenty of flexibility as long as you are making sense and are relating what you are saying to the subject in hand. You have done neither of those things. I am going to move on.

Mr Kingston: As a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I reiterate the words of the Committee Chair in welcoming the appointment of the new commissioner, Mark McEwan. I wish him well in post, and the Committee will work diligently with him. I also join others who have paid tribute to Dr Melissa McCullough, the outgoing Commissioner for Standards. It is an important role, which is part of the public scrutiny of our role as MLAs. I found her work to be thorough and her investigations to have been carried out diligently. It is fair to say that even those Members who came to her attention and were found to have breached the code of conduct or its principles mostly accepted, with good grace, that there was an issue. In most cases, an apology was made, and in some cases, there were further consequences. It is an important role that allows people to see that scrutiny is taking place, both by a commissioner and the Committee members, who are acting independently to ensure that the codes and principles of conduct are upheld by MLAs and the Assembly. We welcome the new commissioner and look forward to working with him.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Nuala McAllister to conclude and make a winding-up speech on behalf of the Assembly Commission. Nuala, you have up to five minutes.

Miss McAllister: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions. I was not on the recruitment panel, but, as a member of the Assembly Commission, I am assured that there was an effective, rigorous and fair recruitment competition. I repeat the Assembly Commission's thanks to all those who participated in the process. I also repeat the appreciation, personally and from the Assembly Commission's perspective, for the rigorous and thoughtful way in which Dr Melissa McCullough approached her tenure. Everyone can agree that she was both professional and personable.

The Commissioner for Standards is crucial to upholding standards in the Assembly, and it is, therefore, important that the Assembly supports someone with the credibility and experience to undertake those significant responsibilities. As a corporate body, the Assembly Commission normally undertakes the recruitment of officers of the Assembly. However, the involvement of the Committee on Standards and Privileges is vital for this role, and I thank its Chairperson, Cathy Mason, who spoke at the beginning of the debate, for participating in the panel, and I welcome its support today. The Committee will want to build a strong and positive working relationship with Mark McEwan.

I want to point to an issue that was mentioned in one of the contributions: the role and remit of the commissioner.

The Commissioner for Standards works within the current legislative framework. That legislative framework has not been put before the House for it to change the roles and remit by the Assembly Commission. It would not be the responsibility of the Assembly Commission, so I want to put that on record.

It is important that the role gives the public confidence that any breach of the Assembly code of conduct or the ministerial code of conduct will be investigated and dealt with and that it gives Members confidence that any complaints will be considered through due and proper process.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: Yes, sure.

Mr Gaston: The Member talks about public confidence. When I made a complaint about a Chair, the previous commissioner said that she could not investigate said Chair. Will the Member ensure that, in order to instil confidence in the appointment, the new commissioner will not take the same view and that every MLA will be treated the same — they will be treated fairly, and no MLA will be above the law — when it comes to complaints being considered in the House?

Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for his contribution. Just to be clear, no Member is ever above the law in the House. I know that the previous Assembly commissioner worked within the framework that she had and with regard to the proper processes, and I do not doubt that Mark McEwan will do the same. As a member of the Policing Board, I have personal experience of working with Mark in his previous role as Assistant Chief Constable. I know that he will work with professionalism and diligence. It is clear that he is well suited to ensuring that any allegations of breaches of the codes will be investigated.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Miss McAllister: I will not give way again; I am just finishing up.

On behalf of the Assembly Commission, I commend Members for the nomination of Mark McEwan for appointment as the new Assembly Commissioner for Standards, and I wish him all the best in his new role.

Mr Middleton (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gary. The Question is — sorry, Gary, you are due to speak on this. Go ahead.

Mr Middleton: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will be brief.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Apologies for horsing on.

Mr Middleton: You are fine.

As indicated at the Second Stage of the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill, the Committee's call for evidence was commenced over the summer recess, which was not ideal. Consequently, the Committee agreed that it would seek an extension of the Committee Stage until just before Christmas recess, as indicated in the motion.

I anticipate that we will conclude our deliberations well in advance of that. However, we will surely need some of the extra time owing to the lengthy and complex nature of the Bill, which runs to 121 clauses and four schedules.

On behalf of the Committee, I commend the motion to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gary. No other Members have asked to speak.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item of business.

Mr Speaker: Apologies, Members. I did not expect to be back just so quickly. We will move to the next item of business.

Mr Brooks: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Mr Brooks: Many of us will have engaged in good faith with Lord Murphy's review when he visited this place in the previous term. I met him in my role as the Deputy Chair of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee and, later that day, as part of a delegation from my party. I feel that, even then, there was a sense that whatever was suggested would not stretch the Government's ambition to reform how the framework operates. Despite the fact that Lord Murphy clearly heard and understood some of the mechanical issues around the functioning of our Committee in particular, it is clear that the report has been a missed opportunity to press for the necessary fundamental reform of the framework. Beyond tinkering at the margins, there is clearly an unwillingness in London at this time to take on board anything, however valid and obvious, that causes frustration in Brussels. Perhaps I should be unsurprised. When I worked in the European Parliament for my colleague beside me, it seemed to me that Keir Starmer spent more of his time there, seeking to assist European efforts to undermine a democratically mandated Brexit for the UK as a whole, than he did in Westminster.

As our motion lays out plainly, the independent review of the Windsor framework, however well intentioned, has failed to address the obvious and extensive concerns that remain. The recommendations in the areas that require the most significant and urgent intervention are not filled with demands or pressing but merely meekly will the Government to "continue to do" all that they can, despite it being clear that the Labour Government are not currently showing and have never shown any intention of doing everything that they can to address the issues at hand. The framework risks being yet another exercise in glossing over the continued failure of successive British Governments to honour commitments and to address the problems faced economically and certainly constitutionally, if it has not already established itself as such.

Fundamentally, the framework continues to lack democratic legitimacy in Northern Ireland. It was by design, not by accident, that the framework was adopted without the accepted norm of our constitutional settlement of there being cross-community support in this place. Unionist MLAs and, thus, the unionist community were overridden and had their concerns sidelined. That was not democracy in action, and it was certainly not the system of anti-majoritarianism that has been hypocritically championed by London, Dublin and non-unionist parties in the Chamber since 1998, when it was thought that unionists would otherwise benefit. The December 2024 consent vote, which passed with a simple majority, triggered the independent review precisely because the system lacks the essential consent of the unionist community. The review, commissioned under statutory obligations, is set to become another layer of bureaucracy rather than a genuine vehicle for restoring parity of esteem for the unionist community. Unless it delivers —.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. He says that cross-community consent is a constitutional norm. Should it not therefore have applied to the concept of Brexit overall for the UK's leaving the EU? His colleague clearly does not agree, but, if it is a constitutional norm, why did it not apply to the central decision of leaving the EU?

Mr Brooks: Brexit was established by a nationwide referendum — it was the largest democratic exercise ever carried out in the United Kingdom — so it was a very different proposition. I do not argue that a sovereign Parliament cannot overrule this place, as a devolved institution; I am saying that it should not, given the norms that have previously been established.

Let us be clear: unless the framework delivers real powers and protections, it merely entrenches the democratic deficit. I welcome the fact that Lord Murphy has listened to the concerns that all parties in this place raised about the accessing of information, the unrealistic timelines faced by the Democratic Scrutiny Committee, the need to have adequate staffing in relevant areas and the need for departmental points of contact to be empowered to speak to the Committee about areas as required. As I have said, however, the language on the more significant issues is weak.

The Government and Brussels should be aware that the oft-repeated sound bites of reverence for the Belfast Agreement and the peace process will be as a fig leaf if the fundamental basis of confidence on both sides of the community continues to crumble, while genuine appeals to secure the foundations of these institutions and the actions required to do so are treated with contempt.

Under the terms of reference set by the UK Government, Lord Murphy was asked to identify issues and make recommendations to command cross-community support. However, let us be clear: the terms of reference themselves presume legitimacy in the framework that simply does not exist. The framework maintains EU law supremacy in Northern Ireland in areas such as customs, VAT, state aid and even medicines regulations without unionist consent or an adequate time frame. The Stormont brake and the Democratic Scrutiny Committee are in place, but this party has always been clear that they are not enough in themselves and that there is more work to do. Current mechanisms are not a remedy to a sovereign Parliament electing to bypass cross-community consent when the protections afforded to nationalism become an inconvenience if wielded by unionism.

Unless the independent review assists the fulfilment of government promises and the full restoration of Northern Ireland's place within the UK internal market without the distorting overlay of EU law, it is fundamentally toothless. Moreover, as our motion outlines, recent findings from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) in Northern Ireland reveal the harsh realities of the framework's impact on small firms. Its comprehensive study found that 58% of businesses trading with Great Britain and Northern Ireland reported moderate to significant disruptions, while more than one third — 34% — had already ceased trading rather than grapple with the growing compliance burden. Even more alarming is that 56% of affected businesses lacked confidence in future planning and only 14% understood or benefited from the touted dual market access. We look forward to welcoming the FSB to the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee to discuss its concerns about widespread trade friction, low confidence —

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the survey is an indicator that the Windsor framework, whilst it has no consent from unionism in this place, is now widely discredited among businesses across the piece in Northern Ireland?

Mr Brooks: Absolutely, and, when some of those organisations were supportive of the vote to remain, other parties in this place valued their input.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. It is not just small businesses. The Member will be aware that Marks and Spencer — other supermarkets are available — has made it clear that the issues are not with just small businesses but with even the largest businesses across our nation.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: I will make some progress, if that is OK.

I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, I wholly agree, although I recall that, at a previous meeting of our Committee, when we invited the FSB to speak to us, a Sinn Féin member remarked that it was not the only stakeholder. While I agree with that, we know that it represents 89% of businesses in Northern Ireland, and I think that it would be concerned to hear the party that holds the economy brief being so dismissive.

The message seems clear that, rather than functioning as the economic lifeline that many in the Chamber extol, the framework is introducing confusion, cost and red tape, fracturing the UK internal market and undermining business confidence across the region. This party warned that that would be the case with the protocol, and the framework has not resolved those issues, not least because successive British Governments have failed to honour promises made. However, the British electorate at large will be as unsurprised as unionists in Northern Ireland that the current Government show scant regard for commitments made.

Unionists believe that the current arrangements continue to undermine sovereignty and seamless economic integration with the rest of the UK. Business and trade have been made not easier, as was heralded, but more complicated. What the independent review should have done was to confront the systematic distortions head-on, not merely document the inconveniences and encourage the Government to keep calm and carry on. It should have been bold enough to demand reforms to remove the EU impositions and remedy the issues that divide this nation, harm business and corrode community confidence in the very idea that the mechanisms within our devolved institutions can be trusted to be used in a fair and balanced way for both sides of the community.

My party leader, Gavin Robinson, noted correctly that the independent review must be an honest assessment rather than an exercise in papering over problems and that there must be more urgency in responding to unionist concerns.

That is not a request; it must be a demand. The DUP carries a clear mandate to continue to fight to fully restore Northern Ireland's place in our United Kingdom and remove any legislative or administrative apparatus that undermines it. We will not surrender from working to that end.

Dr Aiken: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Speaker: Thank you. You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.

Dr Aiken: I ask the Assembly to support our amendment to the important motion. There is a subtle difference between what the DUP has proposed and what we are saying. I declare an interest as a Member who supported the Remain campaign and as somebody who was involved in discussions with the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, to whom my party and I suggested the idea of a greater consent principle in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We even suggested that an Assembly Committee could act as part of that safeguard. For my sin of hubris, I now sit on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. As many of you have heard from me, or as those of you who have served on the Committee will know, it has categorically failed in its duties, in that it is barely democratic, it does not do much scrutiny, and, worst, for any Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly, it is remarkably incurious about EU rules and regulations within the very wide remit of the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland protocol, which is, in fact, growing.

It is to that point that our amendment speaks directly. Every Member here who is not blinded by pro-EU or pro-united Ireland ideology must see that the checks, balances and controls of the Windsor framework are not working. Although we welcome the work that Lord Murphy did in his recent report — indeed, we have called for the adoption of his recommendations — it does not go far enough. I know Lord Murphy. He and I have worked on various committees covering the alphabet soup of British-Irish relationships. I knew him before I was even involved in politics. Lord Murphy gets it. Lord Murphy understands the issues. Anybody who understands Lord Murphy, who has read the report closely or who gave evidence as part of the report process, like I and some others here did, will know that the clear point is that he knows that trade diversion is occurring. Trade diversion is not just occurring; it is accelerating.

We have heard many people say that a lot of the problems would be resolved by the SPS agreement. We have heard quite a lot of talk about the SPS agreement because it was going to answer the problems in a relatively short period of time. Indeed, that was going to happen in such a short period of time that the Welsh Government, who are, of course, Labour, consulted with the British Government, who are, of course, Labour as well, about spending significant amounts of extra public money on building border support facilities in places such as Holyhead and Fishguard. They have decided that, because of the SPS agreement's coming into place, there is no need whatsoever to spend that money, and, so, that money is not being spent. They have decided that that money can be used for other things, such as additional police, nurses and doctors. However, the Agriculture Minister here in Northern Ireland has stated on several occasions that he wishes to be a faithful implementer. The Secretary of State has used the words "faithful implementation" as well. Faithful implementation works on the assumption that it is going to happen fairly rapidly. My learned friend the Chair of the Agriculture Committee will probably talk to this when he is making his winding-up speech: the SPS agreement is not going to be enacted until about 2028, which is three years away. In the meantime, we will build border infrastructure — it is nearly finished — in Larne, Belfast, Warrenpoint and other places as part of the faithful implementation of that agreement, yet other parts of the United Kingdom will not be implementing it.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way. You have described very eloquently the cost of border posts and the implementation of the agreement. However, that is only one element of it; we also have the Trader Support Service and all the ancillary services. We are probably in the region of £500 million now for costs. Do you agree that all that money would be better spent on enhancing trade within our internal market?

Dr Aiken: I very much thank the Member for her intervention. I take issue with her figure of about £500 million; it is a lot more than that. It is interesting that every time that I, our wonderful MP for South Antrim, Robin Swann, or even some of our Lords have asked those questions, we have not got any answers from the British Government. Lord Elliott asked a question on the Floor and got a written response that mentions a figure of about £160 million, but that is for only a very specific area, not for all the other areas that are involved.

We were also told very clearly that, within the consent process for looking at the Windsor framework, there would be break points and the ability for us as an Assembly — that means not just people on these Benches but everybody here — to hold the process to account. The first one was on applicability motions. When the first applicability motion came before the Assembly, we voted on it, and, because it did not pass with cross-community consent, it was deemed to have failed, except, of course, that the Secretary of State did not action it. The second one did not even arrive on time, because the applicability motion was already making its way through the various stages in the House of Commons and we could not even intervene. That should be a concern for every single person in the Chamber, because this issue should have been dealt with as it was part of the consent mechanism and system as well.

We have heard about the Stormont brake. We tried to apply the Stormont brake. We brought it through, followed the process, but that was ignored as well. I will say to the Secretary of State that he has probably put into action a lot of the things that were requested that would fix the problems with the Stormont brake. He has put some of those into action, but not all of them. If there is to be faith that we, as an Assembly, have any voice on these things, we must be able to make it heard clearly. My concern is that, every time that we seem to do anything in here, the Secretary of State — let us be honest, it is probably Erskine House or the NIO — gets to a point and then says, "Oh, we are faithfully implementing it, and we do not want to offend anybody". We have heard that time and time again.

Many of us who regularly visit Europe or go to Brussels have good friends in the Irish Government and with people across the whole process. We ask time and time again what "faithful implementation" means. A very interesting event happened not so long ago when a certain president on the other side of the Atlantic decided that there was going to be a differential in tax, particularly with taxes on goods going to the United States. There is a differential in that taxation regime, because Northern Ireland would be at the United Kingdom rate and the Republic of Ireland would be at the EU rate. Behind the scenes, many Irish officials were telling people that they were looking at the provisions of the Northern Ireland protocol so that they could call a temporary break in that process. There is a temporary break in that process because there would be — what is it, everybody? — a diversion in trade. There was going to be a significant diversion in trade. Those conversations are ongoing, and I understand that Simon Harris and his officials have been putting their feelers out to try to address that situation so that we can understand it. We are in a situation where the Republic of Ireland, rightly or wrongly, considers that there is going to be a major diversion in trade, and in Northern Ireland, there is a major diversion in trade. Rather than tearing up the entire Windsor framework completely, which will probably be difficult to do under international law, the key issue is that there should be break points in the Windsor framework that the Secretary of State should be adopting. We should be going to the point of saying, "Let us pause this to stop the diversion until such times as the SPS agreement gets across the line, and then we can look at it again". That is what people normally do during trade discussions. Those are the issues.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He raises an interesting point. Surely we are now at the point where, although the UK Government are determined to have a reset of relationships, as they call it, with the EU, that is actually going beyond that point and is now undermining more businesses in Northern Ireland that have genuine issues with trade in the current situation.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for that. It is not just Northern Ireland businesses that are having those issues; it is businesses in the whole of the United Kingdom. Indeed, if people were honest, we would find that it is an issue across the whole of these islands, because there are many complaints from Irish businesses that are trying to —.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way, unlike the Member for East Belfast. Earlier, you mentioned problems that businesses have faced. The Economy Committee took a presentation from the FSB following the report that it produced, and we were told, as the report outlines, that just over 700 businesses contributed to it out of 140,000 businesses across the UK.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Sheerin: Is that proportionate?

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Ferguson: It has to be said that, to me, the motion reads as little more than the TUV tail wagging the DUP dog, to be honest. Members, as you are all well aware, next June will mark a decade — 10 years — since the Brexit referendum in which the majority of people in the North voted to remain in the European Union. The majority of our citizens in the North were not beguiled by those who found themselves at the behest of Boris and the Brexiteers, yet, here we are again, listening to a DUP motion that refuses to acknowledge that the challenges about which they now complain are in fact the very outworkings of that failed project, which we were all well warned about. Economists, commentators, academics and organisations all warned of the many potential negative economic and social consequences of Brexit.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms Ferguson: No, thank you. Sorry, I want to move on.

Some even defined the Brexiteers' choice to advocate a project that would increase trade barriers and hinder free movement as supporting self-inflicted recession. Brexit is a child of the DUP. You were repeatedly warned that it would be bad for the North and our economy. If we cast our minds back to the publication of a report by the Department for the Economy in July 2019 that warned of a possible 40,000-plus job losses, we remember that one DUP politician said that they could live with that. Another stated:

Those who so whimsically dismissed the qualitative advice from so many sectors have a brass neck when they continue to complain about the outworking of the wheels that they set in motion.

Our electorate voted overwhelmingly to remain. Our people know only too well the continued impact of Brexit on our economy, trade, small businesses, opportunities for students, our young people and even the stronger collective vigilance concerning human rights and standards in a post-Brexit era. Equally, however, our people know that unionism is no longer the monolith that it once was. Its electoral majority in the Assembly and at Westminster is gone. A majority in our local Assembly has instead voted to continue our post-Brexit trade arrangements and recognise the need to maintain the hard-fought and hard-won protections against Brexit's worst excesses.

Mr Tennyson: It is telling that the first motion that we are debating in the Chamber on our return from summer recess is not about the crisis that faces children with special educational needs, hospital waiting lists, the ecological crisis that faces Lough Neagh or the cost-of-living crisis bearing down on our constituents; rather, it is a crass attempt from the DUP to relitigate old arguments and rewrite history. I understand why the DUP wants to do that, for it is not a pretty history from its perspective. Having campaigned for, promoted and voted for Brexit, it is once again shedding crocodile tears at the inevitable consequences of Brexit.

Our departure from the EU has been a monumental act of self-harm. It increased division in our politics and chaos in the UK economy and deprived us of key opportunities. That may well not be the fantasy that previous Governments promised, but it is certainly the Brexit that those of us on these Benches voted against, because everyone knew that, whatever was written on the side of Boris Johnson's campaign bus, the DUP would inevitably end up under it.

Alliance warned that leaving the EU meant new borders and new barriers and that those were always going to be constructed at ports and airports, where they could be managed and mitigated, rather than along a 300-mile land border. That is just logic, something that the DUP never applied during the Brexit debate. Instead, it told us that we were scaremongering. It told those who warned of supply chain issues that they could, "Go to the chippy", and, shamefully, it said that it could live with up to 40,000 job losses in the event of a no-deal Brexit. To attempt now to pin the consequences of its Brexit squarely on the Windsor framework is akin to driving your car square into a brick wall and blaming the airbag for your bloody nose.

The Windsor framework is imperfect, as any solution short of full EU membership would be, but it is the bare minimum that is required to mitigate the impact of Brexit on our economy, create stability for business and protect the Good Friday Agreement. Let me say this clearly and unequivocally: Alliance recognises the challenges facing many of our smallest businesses. Unlike the proposer of the motion, we have set out solutions to ease that burden through simplification of the at-risk category, improvements to the Trader Support Service, streamlining of the customs duty reimbursement scheme, and awareness and training campaigns for GB-based suppliers.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will indeed.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, Eóin. At the moment, the question over that scheme is the fact that reimbursement takes so long. Will you join us in calling on HMRC to get its finger out and, rather than waiting nine months to pay people, do it within 14 days?

Mr Tennyson: I could not agree more. That causes cash flow issues for businesses, and it is a practical issue that could be addressed by government. Alliance is also clear, however, that, through returning to, at least, the customs union and, ideally, the single market, we can wipe away much of that Brexit-related bureaucracy.

Today's motion omits key facts from the Federation of Small Businesses report. Some 87% of the businesses that responded to the survey were based in England, Scotland and Wales, businesses that do not enjoy the protections available to businesses in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework. When we look at export statistics, we see that business exports were up by 7% in Northern Ireland last year. In Scotland, they were down by 13%; in England, they were down 4·5%; and, in Wales, they were down by 9%. The Northern Ireland economy grew faster than the UK average. I make no apologies for championing the interests of Northern Ireland businesses above all others. Crucially, nowhere in its report does the FSB call for the suspension of the Windsor framework, as both the motion and the amendment clearly do. On the contrary, the report explicitly calls on the Executive to "promote dual market access" and:

I wholeheartedly support that call.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Tennyson: I will not give way again. Thank you, Steve.

It is long past time that we moved beyond rehearsing the same old tired, circular arguments and talking Northern Ireland down. We have an opportunity to focus on practical and pragmatic solutions aimed at building on the protections of the Windsor framework and creating a more stable, prosperous and vibrant economy and future for everyone who calls this place "home". On that basis, we will not indulge or support the motion or the amendment.

Mr O'Toole: Here we are again. We return after a summer break with, as Mr Tennyson said, public services in crisis, Lough Neagh dying in front of us, race and sectarian hate crime on the rise and a list of other things to debate, and, sure as day follows night, we have a motion on the Windsor framework in which the DUP seeks to negate the consequences of, as many Members have said, the hard Brexit that the DUP itself championed, delivered and insisted on.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will be happy to give way in a moment; I just want to outline some of my points. It will come as no surprise to anybody in the Chamber that the SDLP will oppose the motion and the amendment.

I will say this: the Murphy review offers practical ideas for smoothing processes in moving goods from Britain into Northern Ireland and improving democratic scrutiny in the Chamber. It is a reasonable bit of work. I do not agree with everything in it. Of course, I did not agree with Brexit: Northern Ireland should be back in the EU. I reiterate the point that I have made multiple times in the Chamber: the only way that that will happen — the only way of taking control of that process — is by voting for a new Ireland back in Europe.

I recognise, however, that some sensible things are recommended in the report: better resource for Assembly Committees; some action on repayments under the duty reimbursement scheme; and a number of other things. We engaged with Lord Murphy and mentioned our proposals for an EU Commission office in Belfast, as well as observer status for Northern Ireland representatives, be they MLAs or, indeed, directly elected MEPs.

I give way briefly to Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he accept that an issue, support for which has deeply divided Northern Ireland and continues to affect Northern Ireland businesses of all sorts, is worthy of debate in the Assembly?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr O'Toole: I did not say that it was not worthy of debate. I will tell you this, Mr Buckley: I am happy to debate this any day of the week. I and my side will win the debate, because we have won the debate repeatedly.

I say this in the nicest possible way: I am in politics here because of Brexit. I have talked about that many times. Ms Ferguson mentioned that, next year, it will be a decade since Brexit. I was then a civil servant, working in the middle of it. I was literally in Downing Street when it happened. I left that life and career because I could not stay in it. I thought that Brexit was dreadful for Ireland, for Northern Ireland and for the whole system, and so it has turned out to be, worst of all for unionism.

I think that we are moving towards a new Ireland, back in Europe. The mad decision that was made by English/British voters in June 2016 is what has driven that. Brexit was not something that I wanted, but it will expedite something that I do want, which is a new Ireland. Today, unionism is once again having a debate in the Assembly not about healthcare, waiting lists or Lough Neagh but about a debate that it cannot win. The Windsor framework is something that you created and have made worse every time.

I will be honest: as someone who worked in London and understands how that machine works, I know that no one over there cares about the Windsor framework at the moment. I am really sorry to have to say that, but let me be blunt: it is not on the agenda in London or in Brussels. The Murphy review makes some sensible, practical suggestions.

I will give way very briefly.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you very much: you are always generous in giving way.

I recognise that, when the Member was in Downing Street, as he often tells us, he was fulfilling the Tory party's wishes at that time. That may not have been his personal wish, but it is what he was doing. It is interesting, however, to hear nationalism in the Chamber today confirm that only majority rule is what it wants. Is that really what you see for the future?

Mr O'Toole: I will say this: I was delighted to hear the Member have a little pop at the work of civil servants. In front of her is the deputy First Minister, who has SDLP, Sinn Féin and Alliance Party civil servants working for her. What the Member just said is, frankly, a slur on all civil servants, but that is fine. I have made clear my view on all of that.

I will go back to the point that the Member made about majority rule. Mr Brooks mentioned the idea of a constitutional norm, but that is an absurd and wrong argument. By definition, the constitution of this place does not require double majorities for everything. We are in the UK, but I do not consent to that. That is not the way in which this place works, so it is an absurd argument. Mr Brooks also acknowledged that Parliament is sovereign. The UK Parliament — I want a new Ireland — voted for these arrangements. I am sorry for Ulster unionism that it has got itself into the position in which the UK Parliament voted for arrangements that unionism detests so much. Perhaps unionism should reflect on the original Brexit decision and on its tactics now of tabling these absurd and futile motions for debate.

I care about the needs of business. I want smooth processes for businesses, whether they import or export. As Mr Tennyson rightly said, exporting businesses in Northern Ireland are increasing their exports. We are performing better economically than the rest of the UK. Yes, I want smooth processes east-west, but you are constantly tabling motions for debates like this about things that will not happen. The UK, which is struggling with growth and says that it does not have enough money to fill its fiscal black hole, will not jeopardise its just-repaired relationship with the EU, in the context, by the way, of a war on the continent of Europe. It is not going to upturn its entire —. [Inaudible.]

Mr O'Toole: Hang on one second. I let you in.

It is not going to upturn its entire relationship with the EU because a few unionist MLAs are ranting about it at Stormont. That is not going to happen. Here is the thing: grow up and accept the consequences of the Brexit that you championed. If you actually want this place to work, get down to real work rather than bringing this nonsense to the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, so I will not take any further speeches until after the question for urgent oral answer. The next Member to speak in the debate will be Mr Kearney.

Before I call the deputy First Minister — if Mr Buckley would get out of the way, thank you — I welcome Mr Jon Burrows as a new MLA for North Antrim. He was signed in in early August, and this is our first opportunity to give him a welcome. I trust that you will have a good time in the Chamber and that you are able to serve the people of that area well.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): Before I begin, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the tragic deaths of Vanessa Whyte and her two children, James and Sara Rutledge. Those were absolutely horrific murders, and I have no doubt that everyone across the House shares in the horror of what happened. It emphasises, once again, the absolute need for us all to work together to end violence against women and girls. I pay tribute to the dignity and courage of their friends and family, and I think, in particular, of the school friends and other schoolmates of both of those children as they start back to school this week, with the grief that, undoubtedly, they will feel.

We want to ensure that all women are safe and feel safe everywhere. That is why the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls addresses the whole range of gender-based violence, abuse and harm, including online. The framework is intended not to displace existing policy remits but to strengthen and coordinate the Executive response to challenging violence against women and girls.

The ending violence against women and girls change fund is a fundamental part of delivering the strategic framework, and it focuses on prevention. There are many excellent projects, including in our constituency of Lagan Valley, which work with expert organisations and the PSNI to educate on safety in online spaces. The Department of Health has sponsorship of the Executive's online safety strategy and accompanying three-year action plan, which was published in February 2021. Our officials are members of the online safety strategy cross-departmental implementation group and work closely with colleagues to ensure that we use every opportunity to protect women and girls and to ensure their safety. The UK Online Safety Act is also an important tool in combating online abuse and harms, and we remain committed to engaging with Ofcom on its implementation.

Mrs Guy: I thank the deputy First Minister for her response, and I echo her comments about those awful tragedies.

Does the deputy First Minister regard online safety for our children and young people as a priority? If so, is the online safety strategy and action plan that we have at the moment good enough?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. It is incredibly important that all the actions arising from that are fit for purpose. I have said to the House previously that I have had somebody charged and convicted under the online safety legislation. He pleaded guilty and is currently in custody. That is a demonstration, unfortunately, not only of the Act in action but of the need for the Act. I would like to get into a position where we do not need to use that piece of legislation, and that applies right throughout.

I take the opportunity to extend support to Simon Harris, who has been subjected to a number of threats over the summer, including another one in the past number of days. It is absolutely appalling, and it demonstrates that abuse targets not just women and girls — the focus of this particular piece of work — but, very often, those in public life across all political parties.

Of course, in this work, it is critical that we genuinely get the right actions to tackle that, should it be towards those in public life, women and girls — no matter where they are — or, in particular, children.

Ms Finnegan: I acknowledge the leadership that the First Minister and deputy First Minister have shown in highlighting ending the scourge of violence against women and girls. Making progress will require a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach. Can the deputy First Minister provide an update on how TEO is working collaboratively with Departments to tackle sexual violence against women and girls?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. It is one of the six key outcomes: working better together. That means all parts of our system working together to try to tackle it.

Just last week, we had the privilege and honour of attending an ending violence against women and girls conference at Craigavon Integrated College. There, we joined over 100 pupils from a number of schools and, in particular, the McNally family, who have done such incredibly brave work in the area. It must be so hard for them to talk about Natalie, describe who she was and step up time and time again, but they do that because they genuinely do not want the violence that happened to their Natalie to happen to another woman. I pay tribute to them. It was an absolute honour to be at that event with them. The event also demonstrated that it is not just about working across government and with local government but about working with young people and all parts of our society at the earliest possible opportunity to tackle misogynistic attitudes and the issues that, in turn, give rise to violence against women and girls.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the deputy First Minister for her reference to the conference that we attended on Friday. One of the issues that is really important to families who have experienced that type of terrible violence is the justice system and, in particular, the length of time that it takes for cases to come before the courts. That causes those families such anxiety. Will the Minister work in the Executive to ensure a much swifter response for those families?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. She is absolutely right: justice in Northern Ireland is much too slow. It really affects people, not just those who are waiting to appear before the courts but the victims' families, who have to suffer for many months if not years while they wait for their cases to come up in court. That is an unbearable anxiety for those families. Families need to see justice being done and they need to see it being done much more swiftly. I had the opportunity to return to the Bar a number of years ago, and I was genuinely shocked by the length of time that criminal cases were taking. I was involved in a number of cases, none of which got to trial over the couple of years that I was at the Bar. It is an urgent issue, and we need to tackle it. Justice must be swifter. I believe that we are the slowest across these isles. That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable for victims or their families, and we need to get on and tackle the issue and produce swift justice now.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. President Trump's unprecedented second state visit to the UK is an opportunity to showcase Northern Ireland's strengths, build relationships with the president and his team and boost trade and investment. Using the visit to build personal ties is particularly important given the UK-US economic prosperity deal and ongoing uncertainty on tariffs.

I will have the opportunity to participate in the state banquet at Windsor Castle on Wednesday 17 September, which is being hosted by His Majesty The King in honour of the president of the United States of America and the First Lady. As with all engagements, I will use the event to promote Northern Ireland as a great place to visit and in which to live, work and invest, and to remind the president about our unique connection to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. As always, I will use the opportunity to showcase the fantastic place that I am proud to call home. When I met the president in Washington in March, we spoke about golf and, of course, about Northern Ireland, and I will be keen to highlight how successful this year's 153rd Open has been.

It is vital to many businesses and communities across Northern Ireland that we not only reaffirm our unique position with respect to the president but cultivate a constructive relationship with the Administration that supports our exporters as well as encouraging investment. Through the Northern Ireland Bureau, we are developing those relationships with key stakeholders, many of whom are new in DC. It is not just about Northern Ireland benefiting from US investment but about how our companies can invest in and benefit the US as well.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for her answer and her work in that area. There has scarcely been a more important time to engage with the president of the United States.

The deputy First Minister had to step up on St Patrick's Day this year when the First Minister decided not to show leadership. What are the plans in that regard this time? Will the First Minister attend?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. At this stage, the First Minister will not attend the state banquet with President Trump.

I engage with people, politicians and leaders from all the different shades of political opinion. As far as I am concerned, it is not about what I feel about them or even about my view of their political opinion but about my being in this role and stepping up, showing leadership and engaging with people where there is particular interest and importance for Northern Ireland. I believe that that is what leadership is all about, and I certainly will not be found wanting when it comes to stepping forward, should that be to represent Northern Ireland at the D-Day commemorations, to talk to Prime Ministers, to go to London to lobby for what is best for this place and raise our issues at every opportunity or, yes, to go to DC to talk to President Trump and to attend those events.

When we met His Majesty The King, he was very clear about the fact that he wants the devolved regions and nations to participate in the likes of state banquets. That had not happened before during such state visits. They are unique and fantastic opportunities to engage with not just the president but the entire team that he brings with him. Many people will come to the UK as part of the delegation, and they are covering everything from trade to social links and departmental matters, which are things that go right through the Administration. There is a good opportunity to talk to a number of key people at such events, so I am looking forward to it. I will always stand up and speak up for Northern Ireland.

Mr O'Toole: Given the conversation that we have just had on violence against women, it is important to put on record the fact that Donald Trump was found liable by a jury in a New York court of sexually assaulting a woman and that there have been numerous other allegations against him. May I ask that, in your and your office's engagement with President Trump, while acknowledging his office and the importance of the United States to this place, we do not operate a values-free policy, whether that is in relation to violence against women, the ongoing genocide in Gaza or the use of the authorities in the United States to intimidate people? It cannot be a values-free engagement, so may I ask the deputy First Minister to ensure that it will not be?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will engage with the president of the United States because of the role that he holds, which is president of the United States. The US is incredibly important to Northern Ireland. I could outline many issues on which I disagreed fundamentally with previous presidents whom I have had the privilege of meeting, not least President Biden, but I went on and did what I did because of and for the people of Northern Ireland.

I will outline very quickly for the Member some of the key reasons why US investment is important. US investment in Northern Ireland has been £1·5 billion over the past decade; 32,000 employees in Northern Ireland are employed by US companies; 28% of all Northern Ireland employment by international companies is by US companies; there are over 50 Northern Ireland companies in the US; and the US is Northern Ireland's second-largest single export market. As I said, I will step up and speak up for Northern Ireland while others shy away from doing so, because, regardless of people's personal views or feelings, it is important to Northern Ireland and the UK, and I will be there to speak up for Northern Ireland and for Northern Ireland businesses.

Mr McGuigan: In her initial response, the deputy First Minister touched on the success of the Open. It was great to see that the promotion of the north Antrim coast flowed from the Open during the summer. Will the deputy First Minister give an indication of the projected economic impact of hosting the Open and say whether there are any plans to host it again in the near future?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. What an incredible success. The only thing that did not go to plan was that there was not a Rory win. We had a Rory McIlroy win just this weekend, however, and I extend my sincere congratulations to him for that. It did not come through for the Open, but we have a win now.

The Open was a huge success. It showcased our beautiful north coast. When I was speaking to people from all over the globe at the Open, they told me that they were blown away by how beautiful the scenery is and how fantastically organised the tournament was. Two hundred and eighty thousand spectators attended, with an estimated £213 million of benefit going to Northern Ireland. Anybody who tried to book a hotel anywhere up near that area for that week will know about that huge benefit. It was also really positive to see how many of the restaurants and local shops were full.

We learned from the previous time, when there was some feedback that the conditions for people who were attending the Open did not facilitate the same benefit to the local economy. That was addressed and addressed very successfully this time. It was a hugely successful Open, and it would be great to have the British Open back in Northern Ireland.

Ms Bradshaw: I fully agree that dialogue and engagement are really important, but I continue to be concerned that we have not yet seen an international relations strategy that would underpin all types of engagement on a world stage. I would appreciate an update on that.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member will know from her role in the Committee that international engagement policy is a non-devolved area, but there is much that we can do, and we do it across a number of areas, particularly through soft diplomacy, which is about reaching out through our offices in Brussels and in DC. Of course, those offices go well beyond those physical locations, as the Member will be well aware, but it is also particularly about working with Invest NI and Tourism NI to make sure that those two elements are fully integrated into the key messages.

I encourage Ministers to go out and tell our story. We must champion Northern Ireland at every turn because, if we are not doing that, who will? We are in our roles to be champions for Northern Ireland. We have a strong story to tell. Yes, of course, we have challenges, and, as we commence the new term, we must drive forward on delivery, but we have lots of good news to tell, and we ought to do that and champion that at every opportunity.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Mr Speaker, with your permission, junior Minister Cameron will answer the question.

Mrs Cameron (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): We are pleased that the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill passed its Second Stage before the summer recess. Ministers welcomed the opportunity to meet the Committee Chair and Deputy Chair to discuss the Bill before it entered the Committee Stage. We thank the Committee for its work over the summer months.

The Department has engaged with victims and survivors and Committee officials in preparation for the Committee’s further evidence sessions, which are scheduled to begin this week. We acknowledge that it is highly sensitive and complex legislation, and it is important that people have the opportunity to provide further views through the Committee process. We are committed to working closely with others to deliver this important legislation, and there is an opportunity to shape it further as it progresses through the legislative process. This work remains a key priority for Ministers.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the junior Minister for her response. I am sure that she will appreciate that many victims and survivors have expressed deep concerns about the posthumous date for redress, and, indeed, there are other concerns about the Bill. Will the junior Minister commit to listening to those concerns, and will she continue to engage with the victims and survivors of the mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for that important question. Yes, of course, we acknowledge that some victims and survivors were disappointed by the proposed 2011 posthumous date in the Bill. We are actively listening to their concerns, and we also welcome the Committee's views. There is no precedent for posthumous claims for an admission-based scheme going back to 1922, and it presents a number of risks. We need to make sure that we have a deliverable scheme that supports as many people as possible. There are important factors to consider, not least the need to strike a balance between the desire to make reparations for the past and the pressures felt by public services today that we are all acutely aware of, such as issues around health and education. As for affordability, in a perfect world, we would have unlimited resource, but we do not have that. We do not live in a perfect world, but we will, of course, listen and engage. We will watch as the legislation makes its way through the process, and the aim is to strike a balance that is fair for everyone.

Mr Dickson: I thank the junior Minister for the way the Bill is progressing. Has she or her civil servants had an opportunity to reflect on the recent television documentary that set out the situation in England regarding mother-and-baby homes? The lack of an apology from the United Kingdom Government means that we are at least a step ahead. Specifically, what liaison will her Department have with the authorities at Westminster to ensure that we get a both-islands approach to mother-and-baby homes?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for that important question. The public inquiry will tease out some of those issues, but, if the Member wishes to write to the office, we will ensure that he receives a full response.

Ms McLaughlin: I reiterate the point about the arbitrary nature of the date for posthumous claims. Victims and survivors need to be listened to with respect and dignity, and it is totally disrespectful to victims and survivors that that date still stands.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for her important point. I reiterate that we absolutely acknowledge the disappointment that has been expressed. There are others who are not so disappointed, but we understand that there is a range of views. We have to make sure that whatever we do is fit for purpose and meets the needs of the legislation. We will continue to listen in order to ensure fairness for victims and survivors.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As part of our ongoing commitment to ensuring that our circumstances are understood and appropriately reflected in policy and strategic decision-making within the UK internal market, we continue to engage with the UK Government across a range of forums. Those representations have been made at meetings of the Prime Minister and heads of devolved Governments, the Interministerial Standing Committee and the East-West Council, at which members of Intertrade UK were also present, and in many other engagements. Representations have also been made in the context of discussions on the Windsor framework and the UK-EU strategic partnership in the Interministerial Group on UK-EU Relations. Those engagements reflect our continued commitment to collaborative working with the UK Government but also to raising those important issues. We will continue to participate proactively in all forums and to advocate for Northern Ireland's interests at every opportunity.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, deputy First Minister. Do you agree that the Murphy review was a missed opportunity?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. It was absolutely a missed opportunity, which was deeply disappointing but, alas, perhaps not surprising. Our businesses face huge issues. I caught the end of the previous debate as I came into the Chamber for Question Time, and I was dismayed to hear those issues dismissed in such terms once again. In the final line spoken before I stood up, the leader of the Opposition, I believe, described it as a "nonsense" debate. It is an incredibly important debate. The people who decry so-called Trump tariffs and barriers to trade seem absolutely happy to accept all of the unnecessary bureaucracy, paperwork and process that amounts to non-tariff barriers not just between the UK and the EU but within the UK internal market. It is an absolute disgrace, and it needs to be addressed. The UK Government need to start taking it seriously. It is a huge cost to business, which is drowning in the paperwork. The UK Government promised the people of Northern Ireland unfettered UK trade: they must deliver.

Ms Ferguson: The recently published 'Independent Review of the Windsor Framework' notes that one of the most obvious benefits that can be attributed to the Windsor framework is dual market access. Does the deputy First Minister agree that we need to see the implementation that both the British Government and the Executive continue to emphasise, as well as the publicising of the commercial benefits of dual market access?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: At this stage, there is no evidence of any benefit from dual market access, and we continue to tackle the huge bureaucracy that it has brought to internal UK trade. There are, of course, different views on the issue in the Executive Office. I have asked for evidence of any benefit of dual market access: I have received no evidence that there has been any benefit whatever. Instead, we have got bureaucracy, paperwork and process, all of which is completely unnecessary. The UK Government need to step up, address that and start to work for business not just on this issue but for the UK economy as a whole.

Mr Gaston: On 28 May, an official told the Executive Office Committee that regulatory divergence from GB was no longer an issue. Deputy First Minister, given the motion that your party colleagues have brought to the Chamber today, do you hold the same view as your official? What does it say about the Executive Office's desire to address the issues that that remark was made in the first place?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As indicated, there will be a range of views on the issue, but I appeal to people to look at the facts, to listen to companies, to listen to what people are facing and to look at what the UK Government promised and at what promises they are not fulfilling. There are real challenges for businesses. It is correct to say at this stage that there is very little regulatory divergence, but we are still unnecessarily checking things at the behest of the Windsor framework, despite the promises that there was to be unfettered internal UK trade. Doing that is not proportionate. It is not based on risk, is completely unnecessary and is pushing the cost on to businesses. If, indeed, the UK-EU deal comes through, and there are, for example, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreements that remove any so-called advantages of dual market access, that would, in a practical way, smooth things further. It would not, however, remove the challenges that remain with customs paperwork or other processes that we were promised would be got rid of but have not been and are still in existence. The Government need to remove them now. They serve no purpose and are completely unnecessary. Get rid of them.

Mr Stewart: Despite the commitments from the British Government to raise awareness and provide training for companies in GB supplying Northern Ireland, many companies are now telling businesses here that they are simply not willing to supply Northern Ireland, because, in their opinion, it is just too much hassle. That is having a huge impact on the supply chain, and we are seeing rising costs on the back of it. Surely that is unacceptable, and the British Government clearly need to be doing more on the issue.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member is absolutely right. Some companies do not supply Northern Ireland because they do not understand the system. Some companies try to ask for various company numbers or are looking for processes that are not needed. I get it all the time from people who contact me. It takes a bit of time, but they can navigate the system and get the situation resolved. There are still requirements, however. Certificates are required by certain people. I was contacted by Roy from mid-Ulster. He was trying to bring tractors into Northern Ireland. He required four certificates, and he could not give the haulage company a specific date on which he would get them. He therefore missed the window, and those tractors were stuck in Scotland for four to six weeks, despite their being paid for in full and the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. That is not acceptable, and it is one of many different examples of, quite frankly, as I describe it, "the blob gone crazy". It is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. We need to tackle that. The biggest frustration that the people have about Governments — whether here, across the United Kingdom or across the globe — is the fact that it is so difficult to get things sorted because of the unnecessary, disproportionate and non-risk-based nonsense that people are putting in place. They need to get rid of the bureaucracy. It does not serve any purpose. Get it sorted.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: We know how important the memorial plaque is, which is why officials have engaged extensively with victims and survivors in recent months to ensure that they heard a wide range of opinions on the wording.

Draft options were shared with representative groups and individuals not affiliated with any group, as well as with the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse (COSICA) and the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS). A final draft has now been developed, reflecting the views shared during that engagement, and is now under consideration. We remain committed to progressing that important inquiry recommendation and are keen to move forward as quickly as possible.

Ms Egan: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. That is welcome progress. Can she provide reassurance that the most recent draft has the full backing of groups of victims and survivors?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member will be aware that the final draft is under consideration at the moment. Officials have undertaken quite a significant task to make sure that there is maximum buy-in and that views have been taken on the specific wording. Although the wording will not reflect exactly what everybody wants, because that is simply not possible, we have followed that process in order to try to get maximum possible buy-in. Hopefully, we will be moving on that very shortly.

I take the opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, for your help and support. I know that you have been personally involved in working with many of the victims and survivors over a long period. Thank you for your cooperation with the Department and with us to try to get the issue resolved.

Mrs Dillon: On the back of the question that Connie Egan just asked, can the deputy First Minister give a guarantee that the wording on the plaque will be reflective of the experiences and input of victims and survivors, and can she give us some sense of exactly what that engagement looked like?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. As indicated, that engagement was very much about communicating with groups but also with individuals and others outside those groups who are known to us, along with extensive engagement with the commissioner and officials who were working to develop that.

I am optimistic that the wording of that will reflect consensus across victims and survivors. Our aim was to try to get resolution to what has been an outstanding commitment to victims and survivors for too long. We are all on the same page with really wanting it to be resolved as soon as possible to make sure that victims and survivors can see what was promised to them reflected in this place but also so that we can then move on to look at the other outstanding commitments from that overall inquiry.

Mr Speaker: We will move on to topical questions.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The Executive are focused on delivery regardless of the challenges. There are challenges around the funding that is available and challenges in our system to make sure that it can deliver for people and that it is fit for purpose.

We have delivered, not least in getting the Programme for Government out and around £80 million of funding out through an early learning and childcare subsidy package and a £25 million package for early learning and childcare. We have published the framework to end violence against women and girls, including the delivery plan, and there is money on the ground for people. As mentioned, just this week, we had the release of some 50,000 additional inpatient, outpatient and diagnostic appointments to tackle the priority of the health waiting lists. So, there has been delivery. Perhaps we need to communicate it in a stronger way to make sure that people are aware of what has been delivered.

I am pleased that the Education Minister has published the SEN plan. There are over 3,000 additional SEN places, and I am pleased that, finally, today, no child is without a place. However, the key focus must move on to ensuring that those places are suitable and that parents can get confirmation of those places at an earlier stage. That has taken a huge amount of work because of the number of additional places that are required, but it is a demonstration of the Executive in action. It was a big challenge. It was tackled, and those places were created. It was not easy to do, and more needs to be done. The system needs to be improved, and I know that the Education Minister is up for that challenge.

Mr O'Toole: Saying that "more needs to be done" is a remarkable understatement. The deputy First Minister did not specifically address the point about the cheap headlines that her party and the Education Minister are chasing today around vulnerable kids and guidance in schools.

I want to ask one other specific question that relates to delivery. We set six tests for you, and one is very specific: will work have begun on a rebuild of Casement Park by the end of the mandate?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member has spoken a number of times on a number of issues already today, from the Windsor framework right through to the important issue about safe spaces for biological females. It is important not to dismiss those issues and to say that they are nonsense. That is absolutely wrong. If this place is going to work, you need to recognise that, while it may not be an important issue to you, it is an important issue to many other people.

I have outlined that, across a wide range of issues, the Executive are delivering not just the Programme for Government but a transformation board and transformation projects, looking at those budgets and looking into a three-year Budget coming down the line. We will do whatever we can to maximise the impact of what is a limited financial situation.

That has included actions such as getting real money into parents' pockets from the childcare subsidy, creating those 3,000-plus additional SEN places, and ensuring that the ending violence against women and girls strategy has been published and that there is funding out on the ground. Many things are happening that are improving people's lives. That includes the big issues, such as tackling health waiting lists.

The Member constantly goes back to the issue of Casement Park, while dismissing and demeaning everybody else for the particular issues that they question, but the reality is that, on health, education and trying to grow the economy and champion Northern Ireland, it is the DUP Ministers who have stepped up to do that time and time again.

This is an Executive that, across all parties, will be pushing as hard as possible to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland against our Programme for Government priorities.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. It is worth reiterating, time and time again, that terrorism was always wrong, that violence was always wrong, that there was never any justification for it and that there was always an alternative. I sit down and talk to victims' families, many of whom are still grieving and feeling the loss. They see the loss of their loved ones being mocked and laughed about and those who carried out those attacks being glorified. That is wrong. I disagree with the glorification of terrorism, should that be about the IRA, IRA prisoners, the UVF or the UDA. There is no space for that, it needs to go away and it is absolutely wrong. The police need to take a robust line on tackling the glorification of terrorism.

At the heart of everything that we do, we should always remember the victims, who are still mourning, no matter what side of the community they come from. Their loss is acute, and we must do more to talk about and treat these issues in a sensitive way and, of course, step up, listen and deliver for the victims and survivors of the Troubles.

Mrs Dodds: Deputy First Minister, many of us are really angry at the Secretary of State for running to Dublin for an agreement on legacy but not addressing the fact that Dublin has never admitted its role in IRA terrorism. It has not cooperated with the Omagh inquiry, and there has been no justice from the Dublin Government for, for example, the families of Ian Sproule and Lord Justice Gibson or the Hanna family. Will you assure us that you will do everything that you can to make sure that the issue of legacy addresses the core principle of justice?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely, the Member is correct. The approach to legacy must always have justice at its heart. Of course, the process has, at best, been opaque. The Secretary of State will deign to tell us what he has decided to do after his extensive consultations with the Irish Government. That is an appalling way to approach the issue. Victims should have been at the heart of the redesign of the process, and I do not get any sense that that has happened. The Secretary of State has asked for views and taken them in, and we are to wait to see what he will say in his judgements.

I notice that there has been a significant reshuffle of the UK Government. Frankly, the Labour Government have, thus far, been shambolic. It is time for them to get their act together. While I may not be optimistic, I am hopeful that a reshuffle is an opportunity for them to do so. The UK Government need to get a grip, be that on legacy or many other issues. They need to get a grip on our economy, on immigration and on tackling the internal barriers to the UK internal market, and they need to get a grip on legacy and start talking to the people who are most impacted on by it.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Sadly, throughout the year, we have seen demonstrations that have aspects that are hateful, unkind, unpalatable and entirely unacceptable. That happens throughout Northern Ireland in many different areas. First of all, we should recognise that it involves a minority of people. When we look at what happened over this summer and last summer, we see that a minority of people carry out those attacks. I believe that the vast majority of people are opposed to hatred and to any threat of violence or intimidation.

The Member will be aware of the fact that we are looking at a review of Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC), which is our good relations strategy. We have agreed to roll the flags, identity, culture and tradition (FICT) recommendations into that process as we move towards T:BUC 2, in order to take some of those challenges into account. It is important to say that there is absolutely no role for any paramilitary symbols, flags, activity, glorification or whatever it may be, and it is hugely hurtful to victims on all sides when those things are seen. In all our displays of cultural identity, we should be respectful. That does not always happen, and we have seen the worst of that from a minority at times this summer.

Mr McGuigan: The deputy First Minister mentioned T:BUC and Executive strategies. However, in light of those incidents, as well as the serious health and environmental concerns and risks that bonfires pose, does she agree that the current unregulated approach is not working and that political action is needed to end the cycle of having illegal, dangerous and hate-filled bonfires?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is important to point out that, across Northern Ireland every year, there are hundreds and hundreds of bonfires, the vast majority of which are displayed in an absolutely peaceful way as part of community celebration. Northern Ireland is not unique in that; the culture of bonfire building as a form of commemoration and celebration is common in many places outside Northern Ireland. However, there are a minority of cultural events and expressions not just with bonfires but across many types of occasions that cause offence, and those are key issues for us to tackle when moving forward with that review. They are not easy issues to tackle, but, again, I reassure everybody by saying that they should always remember that a minority is involved that we need to take on but that the vast majority of bonfires are cultural celebrations and commemorations that are displayed appropriately.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important and very relevant question. At the heart of all this must be a fundamental principle, which is that there should be safe spaces for biological females. That was at the heart of the court case. The court ruled that gender is based on biological sex. I was very disappointed in the Equality Commission's advice, but, alas, I was not surprised. A huge overreach is represented in its opinion on a possible interpretation of article 2. The commission should have stepped forward and stood up for women and to protect safe spaces for women. I welcome the fact that the Minister of Education did that today. Other Departments must look at the matter and make sure that we are continuing to do everything that we can to protect those who may feel vulnerable in some spaces.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Does she unequivocally agree that the response continues to leave women feeling vulnerable in places where they should feel safe, such as in single-sex changing rooms and toilets, and that any ongoing uncertainty that is caused by that delay from the Equality Commission is deeply frustrating, given the recognition of the common-sense reality that that judgement provided?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member again for her supplementary question. This is a matter of common sense. Women need safe spaces, women deserve safe spaces, and many women are demanding safe spaces because that is what the law is there for and is designed to do.

The Equality Commission had an opportunity to clarify and to give that certainty. It has not done so, and we could end up being the only part of the United Kingdom without that clarity and certainty. It is making an argument about there being no diminution of rights, but what about the diminution of my rights as a woman and the rights of women across Northern Ireland? We did not consent to have those damaged, dismissed or demeaned in the way that they have been thus far. It is time for common sense and for the Equality Commission to give clear advice and to make sure that it is providing, in legal duties, a safe space and a fair platform for our young girls.

Mr Speaker: Questions 2 and 13 have been withdrawn.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I met the Minister of Health, Mr Nesbitt, in November 2024, and we discussed nursing provision in special schools. I await the outcome of the Public Health Agency review of health needs facing children in special schools. Of course, my officials continue to work closely with colleagues in the Department of Health and the Public Health Agency to consider issues that affect all schools, including our special schools.

Ms Egan: I thank the Minister for his answer. As I am sure that he knows, nurses support children with the most complex medical needs. Will he make the case to the Health Minister that they should not only be retained in schools but reinstated in schools that have removed them?

Mr Givan: That was the basis of a meeting that I also held with the Chairman of the Education Committee, Mr Mathison, at which the case was made forcefully by principals in attendance about the need for medical professionals to be in their facilities. There was a period in which those services were withdrawn. The outworking of that meeting was a report that was commissioned by the Public Health Agency. I understand that that has been completed and submitted to the Chief Nursing Officer for assessment. I expect an outcome from that within the next number of months.

Mrs Mason: Minister, you will be well aware of the situation in Knockevin School. Can you give us any update on communication that you have had with the principal there? That school has had its onsite nurse removed. You will also be well aware of the growing medical complexities that that school is facing. Can you give us any update on what your Department is doing in that regard?

Mr Givan: Fundamentally, the Department of Health needs to ensure that appropriate health professionals are available. The particular interest is around making sure that allied health professionals are available to help to meet the need. Knockevin and other special schools have made the case — I agree with them — that there needs to be an enhancement and greater provision of medical practitioners in those settings. We have an increasing number of children who, thankfully, are living longer with complex medical needs. They are entitled to an education, but they can receive that education only in special school settings when they are in receipt of the appropriate and necessary medical care. The Department of Health is required to step up and support me, as Education Minister. It is something on which I engaged the Minister of Health, Mr Nesbitt. He has confirmed that he wants to support me in doing that. However, he also indicated the financial pressures that his Department, like my Department, faces. I will continue to champion the needs of our special schools so that they get the right support from our medical professionals.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate the efforts that you are making on this important issue. Will you outline further what your Department is doing to address the difficulties in accessing support from allied health professionals, given what you have said about the increasing demand and pressures on our special school system?

Mr Givan: I made a transformational statement about special educational needs in the Assembly in January of this year. I quickly followed that up by publishing the special educational needs reform agenda, and I followed up on that with a five-year delivery plan in February 2025, outlining the measures that we need to take to transform our special educational needs provision. That work continues. Funding was secured from the Executive for the transformation work, which will allow us to make some progress in respect of the funding allocations. However, I say this to Members from all parties: if you are serious about helping children with special educational needs — I do not question that you are — that needs to be followed through so that, when I go to the Executive to seek financial support for day-to-day or capital expenditure, we prioritise children with special educational needs. I need Sinn Féin, which holds the purse strings, to support me on that, and it also requires other Ministers, some of whom campaigned for canteens for prisoners, to recognise that we should be getting support for our children with special educational needs. All parties will need to support me as I continue to make the case.

Mr McGrath: I certainly back what the Minister has just said about helping those in our special needs sector. He referenced earlier some conversations that he had had with the Health Minister. Were there any discussions about autism diagnosis and trying to speed up that process? The impact of delay is seriously restricting the educational outcomes of those people because we cannot get that tailored package for those pupils as quickly as possible.

Mr Givan: The Member rightly raises the issue of the statementing process, which is often about carrying out the necessary assessments so that we can identify the needs. I have made it clear that we need to move away from a legalistic statementing process, because teachers can often identify that a young person or child, including those with autism, has additional needs, and we should be able to provide that support without having to go through an often litigious process during which parents are rightly fighting for their children. Part of the transformation that we announced in the reform delivery plan was very much about making sure that we are putting the right support in at the right time and not going through this bureaucratic process, which is often frustrating and delays the interventions that are necessary.

Mr Gaston: The same crisis is affecting all sectors of the education system. The principal of a mainstream nursery in North Antrim that is taking part in the standardisation day is faced with a situation where a number of pupils who were referred to paediatrics by their health visitors have still not been seen prior to starting nursery. The waiting list for an ASD referral is three years. The standardisation programme helpline does not know what to do to move forward. Minister, do you? Will you commit to reviewing the funding available to nurseries that are taking part in the standardisation programme?

Mr Givan: The Member has outlined issues that I am happy to come back to him on in correspondence. I think that the last point was to do with the standardisation process in nurseries. By that, I assume that he meant converting to full-time hours. Forgive me if I have misunderstood what he was trying to ask. The process around standardisation is one that we are taking forward. Starting this September, 2,500 places have been converted from part-time to full-time provision. That is a welcome increase in the ability of parents to have children in full-time places. We will seek to bring forward another 100 settings for the next academic year, and that will be another 2,000 places that we will move into full-time provision. That is a process that my Department, working with the Education Authority (EA), is carrying forward, and, of course, the criteria around that seek to ensure that there is fairness when it comes to the allocation of the standardisation process.

Mr Givan: Ensuring the safety of pupils travelling to and from school is paramount. Recently, I met the Minister for Infrastructure and representatives from the Education Authority to discuss collaborative measures to improve bus safety. We reviewed the current safety measures on school buses, such as special lighting that alerts other motorists to exercise caution as schoolchildren may be boarding or alighting the bus. I understand that we are the only jurisdiction to have implemented such measures on school transport, and we discussed ways to refresh and reinforce that messaging. Road safety education within schools plays an important role in shaping the attitudes and behaviours of children and young people and helps them to become safer road users, both as children and into adulthood. The school curriculum also provides an opportunity for teachers to address road safety at primary and post-primary level. The Education Authority encourages schools to follow the DFI road safety guidance that is available online, and it offers additional safe school transport information to support the road safety campaigns of the Department for Infrastructure and Translink.

Mr McGlone: Mr Speaker, I note that Deborah Erskine's question has been withdrawn, and, with your forbearance and permission, I take this opportunity to personally wish her all the best.

I will move on. Thank you for your answer, Minister. We have had a number of queries from constituents whose children have to walk along busy roads where the speed limit is 60 mph and there is no pathway or footpath.

Was that discussed at that meeting, or will the Minister chat to the Education Authority to establish whether, insofar as it is practicable, it could issue special bus passes in those circumstances?

Mr Givan: When I met Minister Kimmins about that issue a week ago today, we discussed a range of issues to do with the safety of children and young people when they are accessing public transport and stepping off buses, as well as what measures we might take to provide more information. For example, how can we provide better information to those who are in receipt of bus passes and to their parents?

We therefore discussed a range of issues, including the safe location of pick-up points. It is ultimately the responsibility of parents to make sure that they transport their children and young people to the appropriate pick-up location. The Member highlighted the issue of people walking along country lanes and so on. That is a concern for me as Minister, but it is also a concern for me as a parent that we try to make sure that parents transport children to the approved pick-up locations. It is important that those locations be chosen in a way that maximises safety.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Minister outline any conversations that he has had with transport providers, including Translink, about ensuring that the pick-up and drop-off points are safe and that providers will be flexible? As the previous contributor outlined, it is not just about getting children to the pick-up and drop-off points but about what happens when they get out of their parents' car and have to stand there, because those places are sometimes not very safe. A wee bit more flexibility from transport providers in rural areas might be helpful.

Mr Givan: It is a concern that we can all reflect on in our constituencies. Parents will want buses to pick up their children at the most convenient location, but there is also a tension, because providers, be they private bus operators or Translink, need to make sure that their buses access and stop at locations that are as safe as possible. Although everyone would like to be picked up from right beside their house, that is not always the safest location. Indeed, when it comes to having effective routes, it is not always possible to pick up everybody who is travelling to school on a particular route from their house, because of the time that it would take to have a collection point at each house. When it comes to not only the identification of safe locations but the effective operation of their routes, private bus operators and Translink constantly manage them to make sure that they are as safe as possible.

Mr Buckley: School transport safety is of paramount concern to parents. In that regard, I thank the Minister for his engagement over the past year to resolve an issue in my constituency in The Birches. Through the Minister's engagement, that rural area was able to ensure that it had a service for its pupils. Is the Minister content that he is ensuring that we get the best bang for our buck when it comes to relationships and contractual arrangements with Translink and other third-party bus operators?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments. He campaigned on issues concerning a particular bus route in his constituency, which we have now been able to resolve satisfactorily. When it comes to working on those particular issues, as I said to previous contributors, we are represented on the Department for Infrastructure-led strategic road safety forum. That forum brings together relevant Departments and organisations to make sure that, where we have a direct impact on road safety measures, the right people are there and engaging. My Department and the Education Authority contribute on that forum to the development of measures to try to make sure that we operate routes that are as safe as possible.

My appeal to the general population is this: when you drive near a bus that has pulled in, do not overtake it. I know that the Minister for Infrastructure wants to introduce legislation on that, but be aware that collisions often occur when young people are getting off a bus because a vehicle overtakes the bus. At times, those collisions have been fatal or caused serious injury.

There is responsibility on all of us, as road users, to be aware of what is happening around us and, particularly when it comes to school buses and the young people whom they transport, to be mindful of our actions as drivers.

Mr McMurray: Minister, as part of your discussions with the Department for Infrastructure and the EA, will you raise the matter of and support changes to the physical infrastructure leading to and from schools in order to ensure the safety of the pupils and staff who attend them? I am sure that that is an issue for many rural schools, not least those that have seen towns grow up around them, with the challenges that that poses. Rathfriland High School in my constituency faces that problem.

Mr Givan: The Member raises a good point. In the vicinity of the school environment, the Education Authority has responsibility for improving the management of vehicle movements; in the public highway, it is the responsibility of the Department for Infrastructure. We engage with DFI on where it can help to improve junctions where there are schools, and, indeed, at times, we push for reductions in speed limits. I have welcomed the continued roll-out of 20 mph limits at schools. There is an enforcement issue in that we need to remind road users of those, and I want to see greater visibility of the PSNI outside schools, particularly at peak rush hour, to send a message to road users to slow down. That is important, and it speaks to the point that I have responsibility, but, so, collectively, do other Departments and agencies, for ensuring that we maximise the safety of transportation around and in our schools.

Mr Givan: A technical feasibility report is being prepared by the project integrated consultant team in order to identify options and costs to provide suitable accommodation for Malone Integrated College. Once the feasibility report is complete, a review of the options identified will be undertaken by the Department's technical advisers. The technical feasibility report is due to be completed in October of this year. A business case to identify the preferred option will then be taken forward.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister. It sounds as though good progress is being made, but I impress on you how that school could benefit from a new build. It is incredibly diverse, and it has an excellent education and pastoral support system in place. It could do a lot better if it had a new school building.

Mr Givan: I agree with the Member's sentiments on the need for progress to be made on the school. We are at the point of completing the stage 1 process, but there are other stages to go through. I want that to advance so that the project is subject to moving forward on a construction process when the capital budget is available. We are not at that stage, so I will not say to Members, "Give me more capital funding, and I could deliver this school". We still need to go through the various stages before I can make the case either for identifying the capital funding within my Department or for making a bid to the wider Executive as part of the Budget process for capital funding to be released, but I absolutely share the sentiments expressed by the Member.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, Malone is a brilliant school, and it really deserves a new building. Is it not the case that, if the approvals go through, Malone will be added to a capital list that is already heavily oversubscribed? Can you give Malone and other schools in the constituency, including St Joseph's College on the Ravenhill Road, some sense of when progress will be made on that list? If you say that there is too much constraint, at least be honest today by and say when, you think, that might be delivered.

Mr Givan: It is not about Malone being added to a list; it is one of many schools that are on that list. Of the 28 post-primary schools on the list that were identified for new build, only seven have moved forward to the various design stages — 21 schools have not advanced at all — and the 28 post-primary schools sit alongside primary schools on the list. The list is extensive. If we were to continue with the current projected capital expenditure, it would take decades to deliver what is already on the list of schools that require a new build. That is why I have not been able, much as I would like to, to open up a new call for schools to indicate that they require a new build. There are many schools that deserve a new build, but, because of the insufficient funding, we have not been able to do that.

Capital funding has been given a SEN-first priority. We have spent £114 million on special educational needs provision to provide capacity in the school estate. That was not additional funding that we were given. That funding could have been spent on other capital projects, but we — rightly, in my opinion — have to use it to meet the needs of children with special needs. They have had the first call on that funding. That is why the challenge, collectively, goes out to the wider Executive. Whilst Members will rightly vociferously campaign for new builds in their constituencies, when it comes to the reality of decisions that are being taken in the Executive by their leaderships, that is not reflected in the allocation that comes to my Department. That is the honesty that people in the Chamber need to have about the reality of the decision-making process in the Executive.

Mr Martin: First, I thank the Minister for being in my constituency last week. His visits were excellent, and I know that the boards of governors and the principals very much appreciated them.

Minister, in a slight segue, you just referred to the capital list. How many schools in Northern Ireland are on that capital list and what is their status on it?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for having me in North Down and giving me the opportunity to visit the schools that I was able to attend. I thank him for the work that he does to campaign for those schools.

To give the precise number, 103 projects have been announced under the major capital programme since 2012. A further 11 projects were transferred from Fresh Start funding to the programme in 2024. Of those 114 projects, 40 are complete; seven are on site or have appointed a contractor; 14 are at the technical design and pre-tender stage; nine are at the spatial coordination and detailed design stage; six are at the concept design stage; 14 are at the preparation and brief stage; and 22 are on hold. One project is awaiting an integrated consultant team appointment, and another has returned to the strategic definition stage following reconsideration of the size of the school that is required and planning requirements on the preferred site that was identified. That outlines in detail the significant pipeline of work and the insufficient funding that has been allocated to my Department to take those projects forward, never mind wanting to add further capital projects that the education system requires and deserves.

Mr Beattie: That answer was really interesting and, in many ways, answers my question. It is the type of question that allows us to bounce around constituency areas, as the Minister well knows. I have written to him about Portadown Integrated Nursery and Primary School, which has already jumped through all of the hoops that it needs to jump through and is waiting for the land to be purchased for its rebuild. Is the Minister able to give us a timeline on any progress for that school?

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. He and others in Upper Bann have asked that question of me. That school is at the point at which it requires capital funding. It has completed all four of the stages that need to be completed. There is an issue regarding the council about the final site, but, like a number of schools, it is at the point at which it can move forward if there is capital funding available to do so. Frustrating as it is, the school is at a much more advanced stage than many other schools, but it is still waiting to get the green light as a result of my Department's insufficient capital allocation.

Mr Givan: A technical feasibility report has been completed by the integrated consultant team that identified options and costs to provide suitable accommodation for Tandragee Junior High School. A review of the options identified in the report was completed by the Department’s technical advisers in September 2024. A business case to identify the preferred option to be taken forward in design is being drafted by my Department’s economists and is at an advanced stage. It is anticipated that the business case will be finalised and that Department of Finance approval will be in place by the end of this year.

Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. When will construction on the new school start?

Mr Givan: I thank Mr Irwin for raising the issue. He pushes not just for that school but for other schools in his constituency.

Following the completion and approval of the business case, the preferred option will be progressed through the next design stages, which are stages 2, 3 and 4, so considerable work is to be carried forward before the school gets to the point at which we will be able to move towards allocating a contract for construction. Again, that will be subject to the availability of the capital budget.

Let me assure the Member of the fact that, as he continues to push hard for the schools in his constituency, I will continue to make all the representation that is needed in the Executive for what is required in terms of a significant, additional and sustained capital increase for the Department of Education. That is what we need to allow projects such as Tandragee Junior High School, along with other schools, to move forward.

Mr Givan: Parental participation is a cornerstone of the educational process and, indeed, success, with strong evidence linking parental engagement to improved outcomes. Recognising that, my Department has integrated parental engagement across strategies and programmes aimed at tackling underachievement.

Sure Start empowers parents as their child's first educators. Through shared reading and positive home learning, initiatives such as Getting Ready to Learn help parents to support language, confidence and communication. The SEN reform agenda also seeks to help parents to support their children. The RAISE programme promotes a whole-community approach to tackling educational disadvantage. Strategic area plans have been developed for each locality and have been informed by stakeholders, including parents.

Under the extended schools programme, schools receive additional funding to promote parental engagement and build stronger school-community links. Other geographically targeted initiatives, such as the full service programmes, Sharing the Learning and the west Belfast community project, support families through all phases of education, helping to reduce barriers and improve outcomes.

School attendance is also a key driver of achievement, and parents play a central role in ensuring regular attendance. To support that, the Department and the Education Welfare Service produced 'School Attendance Matters: A Parent's Guide', offering practical advice to help parents understand their responsibilities.

Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for all that he is doing to tackle underachievement. The Minister will agree that education in the home that supports the work of teachers is vital in tackling underachievement. Can anything more be done through targeted support so that there is greater engagement in education from parents?

Mr Givan: I echo Mr Harvey's comments. It is vital that we help. I know no parent who does not want to get the best educational outcomes for their children, but, often, they need help to do it.

There is support through the extended schools programmes. There is an uplift of around 15% for participating schools in their allocation to offer their parental engagement programming. In the 2025-26 financial year, almost £1 million of funding will be provided for parental engagement under the extended schools programme. When it comes to a bid from the public sector transformation fund for SEN reform, £27·5 million has also been confirmed by the Finance Minister. That will allow us to take forward a number of interventions over the next five years, including projects that will have direct interface with parents and carers.

We also have the Sure Start programme, which has been expanded to enable more children and families to avail themselves of that vital educational development. A 10% uplift in 2024-25 enabled 22 new areas to come into that programme, which supports 2,400 additional children and their families. There will be a further 11% uplift in 2025-26, and that will enable the introduction of an outreach provision to additional children and families who have been identified as being in need of Sure Start support and live outside the Sure Start geographical areas.

The Sure Start budget in 2025-26 will be £37·4 million: that is a significant increase. The Book Trust budget will be £75,000: that will help engage parents in reading. The Getting Ready to Learn budget will be £634,000.

Mr Speaker: Time is up on every front.

Mr Givan: All those measures are designed to support parents to support children.

Mr Speaker: We will move to topical questions.

Mr Givan: People choose to go into opposition because they do not want to take responsibility; others choose to go into government to take responsibility. I am a Minister who will take that responsibility seriously on behalf of the people who elected me, and I will take decisions. I am not here to passively occupy this post; I am here to get things done.

My track record in the Department of Education has delivered £14 million of funding to hard-working families through a new childcare scheme; 2,500 full-time places that were previously part-time in our nursery schools; new teacher recruits, who started on £23,000 when I came into office but are now on £31,500; a significant uplift in teachers' pay; a transformational programme of professional development for our teachers; and the establishment of a curriculum task force that will look at every subject to ensure that we are not just good in the United Kingdom but world-class. I am proud of the track record that I have delivered in the Department of Education, which is underpinned by the manifesto commitments that our party gave to the electorate.

Mr McCrossan: It seems that I have hit a nerve, Minister, but here is some truth: SEN kids are being failed and schools are crumbling on your watch; you have lost a court case against the integrated education movement; and you continue to spin things to suit your own case. Is it not the truth, Minister, that you have treated the Department of Education like your personal fiefdom, pushing through divisive change without consensus, ignoring consultation responses and leaving parents, teachers and pupils to deal with the fallout? When will you start governing for the whole system rather than for your own narrow agenda?

Mr Givan: The Member is absolutely wrong. He would know that if he had even looked at the court ruling on the Integrated Education Fund challenge to the strategy. That document was not published by me; it was published when Stormont was not operating. That was a settlement of the outworkings of a position that I had reached with the Integrated Education Fund, which took the case, as a result of my work to update the document on integration. The Integrated Education Fund agreed that I had got it right. Before I came into post, under direct rule, people had got it wrong. The most basic level of information would have saved the Member's embarrassment at getting his facts completely wrong.

I am proud of the Department of Education's track record. What we have achieved in the past 18 months will pale in comparison with what we will do in the next 18 months on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question that he has raised. It is an important one, and the deputy First Minister touched on it.

In May this year, I outlined my clear position on behalf of the Department in respect of such matters. I do not believe that a boy who identifies as a girl should participate in girls' competitive sports or that they should use girls' changing and toilet facilities. The UK Supreme Court's ruling in April made it clear that the interpretation of "male" and "female" in the Equality Act 2010 had to be based on biological reality. The 1973 regulations on school premises state that schools have to provide toilet facilities for those above the age of six on the basis of their being a boy or a girl. The ordinary and natural meaning of that is around their biological reality.

The position is one of common sense. Yes, absolutely, sensitivity is required in navigating those issues, but the position that I outlined in May has been affirmed in the legal opinion that I received, and that underpinned the decision taken for the Education Authority to immediately withdraw its unlawful and flawed guidance in the area.

Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his response. Like many parents, I welcome his guidance and leadership on the issue.

Minister, I would be grateful if you could outline your Department's assessment of the position of the Equality Commission on these issues.

Mr Givan: Following the UK Supreme Court judgement, rather than providing guidance, the Equality Commission said that that decision would be "highly persuasive" in similar situations, should they go to court or before tribunal. The Equality Commission then — wrongly, in my view — went down the route of issuing pre-action protocol letters to over 60 public bodies, I believe, including the Department of Education, to solicit their views. It then went to the High Court to seek some form of declaration to help inform how it would provide its own guidance. That approach is not the convention for how we take decisions on policy that can then be challenged and refined by the courts. It is highly irregular for the Equality Commission to act in the way that it has, and it is a waste of public funding, of which the Equality Commission is in generous receipt.

I responded to that pre-action protocol to indicate that it is a waste of public funding. It is also a waste of court time. The courts need to deal with serious issues and with the criminals that come before them, rather than the speculative approach adopted by the Equality Commission. I have shared the approach that I took of responding legally to the Equality Commission with the arm's-length bodies of the Department of Education, and I expect them to take a similar approach; indeed, I encourage all public bodies to treat the Equality Commission's endeavours with the contempt that they deserve.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. I recently published a written ministerial statement that set out my approach to the concept of "reasonable numbers" in the context of integrated education. That is a key consideration under articles 71 and 92 of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and is now further defined in the Integrated Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Put simply, the legislation requires that a school that is seeking to become integrated must be "likely to provide integrated education". That includes educating reasonable numbers of Protestant and Catholic pupils together, a principle that has been central to integrated education since its inception.

I will be clear: the Department will not apply a rigid, one-size-fits-all definition. I recognise that local circumstances vary. I believe, however, that meaningful integration must be grounded in a genuine mix of pupils from both traditions. Transformation should reflect genuine integration and not just a change in designation. Therefore, as a general principle, the Department will expect transformation proposals to demonstrate that a school is likely to attract at least 10% of its year 1 or year 8 intake from the minority religion or that 15% of the combined number of Protestant and Catholic pupils will be from the minority religion in the first year of transformation. The balance should improve over time, with an aspiration for there to be broadly similar proportions from both communities. My approach has been informed by the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) 'Statement of Principles'; by academic research, such as that on contact theory; and by the lived experience of integrated schools across Northern Ireland. I trust that that provides clarity to the Member and to Members more widely.

Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he provide an assessment of how schools that have previously transformed to integrated status have fared with regard to reasonable numbers? I am conscious of the fact that the controlled school sector is demonised by ideologues who preach about the label of "integration".

Mr Givan: Controlled schools often provide a higher level of integrated status demographically than some integrated schools. They should be given the respect that should be afforded to them.

In reviewing the demographic outcomes for schools that have transformed to integrated status, there are findings that should raise concern. Among six post-primary schools that have transformed, most have not met the year 1 target of 10% minority representation, and none of them approaches the 40:40:20 aspiration articulated by many in the integrated sector. In some cases, the proportion of pupils from the minority community is as low as one tenth of the majority.

The picture is similar in primary schools. Of the 25 that have transformed, many still show a significant imbalance, even decades after transformation. Some have fewer than five pupils from the minority community. Those findings suggest that transformation, unlike newly established integrated schools, is not reliably producing the reasonable numbers that define integrated education.

Mr Givan: I intend to bring forward a strategy on early learning and childcare in the autumn of 2025 that will support child development and make childcare more affordable, enabling parents to work. Recognising the need for immediate support, I secured £25 million of Executive funding in the previous financial year, followed by £55 million this year, to implement a package of measures. That investment has made a tangible difference to thousands of children and families across Northern Ireland. While I recognise that the Opposition want to portray Stormont as not delivering, those measures are being delivered by Stormont. For those who advocate not having this place, the measures would not have been delivered under direct rule. It is only because the Executive agreed to ring-fence and provide the funding, and I accept that it was supported by other parties on the Executive. A DUP Minister has delivered the scheme, having stood it up from scratch and implemented it. Many other Departments announce strategies and proposals that are never implemented. When DUP Ministers announce what they are going to do, they get on and do it, and that is what we have been able to do with that scheme.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. Has any assessment been done of how many additional parents have become eligible because of the extension of the scheme this September?

Mr Givan: Initially, the financial support was restricted to the nought-to-five age group, because that is the most expensive period for childcare. We had 16,000 registered people in receipt of financial support of around £180 a month per child. That has had a real impact, because we bolted it on to the UK tax-free scheme.

Having looked at further opportunities to expand the scheme, we have increased it to primary-school-age children, so it is now available from nought to 11 years of age. So far, with the scheme having just been extended, a further 4,000 people have registered, which means that 20,000 people are now in receipt of that financial support.

We believe that more people could tap into the scheme, so we continue to engage on the issue. I appeal in particular to the schools that provide wrap-around support to sign up to the scheme. We know, for example, that 70 schools are registered for the UK tax-free scheme, but only 14 of that 70 have signed up to this scheme. There is a minimal administrative process, and the Department will meet the costs of it. Some parents have appealed to me about schools, including some in my constituency, that have not registered for the scheme. All the support that a school needs to carry out the administrative work is there, but we need schools to sign up to the scheme if they are going to provide that support. We believe that thousands more people can avail themselves of the support that we have been able to bring forward.

Mr Speaker: Briefly, Minister.

Mr Givan: The transport policy has been in place for years. I agree with the Member: some of its outworkings provide challenges and frustrations for many parents. You need to apply for a school that you do not believe that you will attend in order to get rejected, and then you can go to an alternative school to qualify for a bus pass. I certainly share the frustration about that process. I want to carry out a review of the transport policy. The policy's operational implementation is carried out by the Education Authority. It reaches the decisions on the distance from home to school and tests the distance to alternative schools that you could attend based on the sector that you apply to. I understand and, indeed, share the sentiments that have been expressed by the Member.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister of Education.

Mr Speaker: Jonathan Buckley has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Health. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): When I spoke to Dr Cass, I asked her whether she was prepared to come to Belfast in order to conduct a short, sharp quality assurance review of our gender identity service. She has agreed to come with a small team of independent experts to do that in the coming weeks.

Mr Buckley: Minister, in all such discussions, I start from the position of common sense, namely that it is an indisputable, biological fact that a man is a man and a woman is a woman. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that any gender services that are commissioned by his Department will not affirm self-proclaimed definitions that deny biological reality and that, as reported in some cases, children as young as five will not be subject to manipulation or indoctrination in affirming a biological impossibility?

Will the Minister explain why he is undertaking the review now, rather than before he allocated £800,000 of public money?

Mr Nesbitt: I can confirm that the service will not be an affirming one. For the avoidance of doubt, when the Member says "affirming", I think that he means that, if a young person goes to the service and says, "I believe that I am the wrong gender", the service will immediately move to change their gender through surgery. That will not happen. Nobody will be coerced.

Why am I bringing in Dr Cass? It is because I heard people, including Members of the House and specifically Mr Buckley, claim or make statements in media commentary that implied that it is an affirming service. Indeed, he did so on the radio in a debate that included Alexa Moore from the Rainbow Project. Alexa made it clear that it is not an affirming service. She said that that is what they wanted, but they did not get it.

In order to tackle the misinformation from people such as Mr Buckley, I decided that the best way to assure ourselves that the gender identity service that we offer is Cass-compliant is to bring in an independent expert to review it, and who better as the independent expert than Dr Cass?

Mr McGuigan: Minister, what consultation was done with the LGBTQ+ community in advance of announcing the review? Further to that, what reassurance can you give that community, particularly the trans community, that this will not cause further undue delays in the provision of needed support and services?

Mr Nesbitt: We have had ongoing consultation with stakeholders on the design of our service but not with Dr Cass. That was my call. For completeness, I will share all the information. Dr Cass is coming with three other experts. Camilla Kingdon is a paediatrician and the immediate past president of her royal college. She is chair of the National Provider Network, the group that coordinates clinical approaches, education, audit and research across the new centres. Julie Alderson is a psychologist and the clinical director of the new Bristol service. She has also been a key figure in training our new staff on the shared holistic assessment framework that is used across all the new centres. By the way, when I say, "new centres", the Member will be aware that Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State, closed the gender identity service at Tavistock and is now creating six new regional centres in England. Finally, Judith Ellis is a nurse by background. She chaired the original multi-professional review group, which ensured that children and young people who were referred for puberty blockers had been through the appropriate consent, safeguarding and other processes. She has been a chief nurse at the Great Ormond Street Hospital, has had numerous other roles and has a lot of experience in education, quality assurance and setting standards.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for coming to the Chamber to answer the question for urgent oral answer. Many years ago, I visited Brackenburn Clinic and engaged with the healthcare professionals who were there, and I can confirm that they worked in the very best interests of the children and their families and their particular circumstances. Given that Cass is almost infamous in the whole public discourse, did you consider engaging somebody else with that professionalism to carry out the review?

Mr Nesbitt: The answer to that is no.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Minister for his answers so far and for giving us this information. This is a process question. There has been £865,000 allocated. Is the review of the implementation of the services that were already in place? The review is due to last for just two days. Can you give us an assurance that those who are in the system at present will continue to receive the services and that the review will only impact on future service delivery?

Mr Nesbitt: Just for the record, the investment is £806,000, not the figure that the Member mentioned. That is for the service going forward. Very little has changed except that, previously, we had two services: a children's service known as KOI — Knowing Our Identity — and an adult service. The Member is well versed in health and social care provision, and he will be aware that it is far from unique for a move from one to the other not to mean being in one on a Sunday night and in the other on Monday morning. You hit a cliff edge and go back on a very long waiting list. That is why we decided that we needed the single lifetime service. The big changes are the ones that are Cass-compliant, which put a greater emphasis on psychological and psychiatric interventions. It is my understanding that, since the service began in 2014 — the money for it was signed off in 2013 — very few people have been referred to England for surgery. Very few.

Mr Carroll: Minister, this morning you attended, alongside me and other MLAs, a mental health awareness event in the Long Gallery. What assessment have you or your officials made of the impact of implementing a Cass report mark II in the North? How will that impact on the health and mental health of trans and non-binary people who, as the Minister will know, already suffer from higher rates of mental ill-health and isolation due to the anti-trans rhetoric that is directed at them? I share the concerns of the Member for South Belfast at inviting Hilary Cass over here, given her report and how it has been discredited across the board.

Mr Nesbitt: I note the Member's comments. The previous Government in London, in which Victoria Atkins was the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, wanted to bring in a temporary ban on puberty blockers. Eventually, the Executive joined in, extending that ban to Northern Ireland and, as the Member knows, that is now an indefinite ban, pending the results of clinical trials on puberty blockers. When I spoke to some of the families and the young people who wanted access to our gender identity service — Know Our Identity — it became clear that the wait was way too long. In fact, they were saying that there is not even a waiting list: the service was simply not taking new referrals because it was not resourced. The consequence of that was that loving parents, who wanted to do their best for their children, were turning to private providers. Who in the House, as a father or a mother, might not think that they would do the same thing? One example that I was given — I think that I am right in this case — was of a private provider who was Spanish, based in Romania and prescribing puberty blockers out of Singapore. Where was the safety or regulation in that? However, because I was being told that the only reason why people are going to the private providers is because our service exists only in name for young people who want to get a new referral to it, I decided that we must find the money to make the service work.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Minister. This is a sensitive and difficult subject. I reflect on the fact that we were not on our own in expressing some concerns, given that two very senior members of the Minister's own party expressed the same concerns. My question is very specifically about consent, because that is a really important issue for parents. If a young person is referred to the gender identity clinic, as it is now constituted, before the Cass review, do they have to have parental consent? The Minister said that "very few people" were recommended for surgery, so will he elaborate on that a little bit more and tell the House how many were actually recommended for life-altering surgery, bearing in mind that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland believe biological sex to be a reality in fact?

Mr Nesbitt: I will come back to the Member on the exact number, because I do not have it to hand. Consent is a crucial issue. Knowing our Identity, or KOI, is a service that comes under the child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), and, as with all CAMHS services, parental participation and consent are required. The one caveat is that there are such things as the Gillick competence and Fraser guidelines for healthcare. They could — not "will" — be applicable, but that depends on the age and competence of the child. The Gillick competence and Fraser guidelines help people who work with children to balance the need to listen to children's wishes with the responsibility to keep them safe.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber today. I want to reflect on the fact that we need to move away from the argument of whether something is gender-affirming and really take cognisance of the fact that trans people exist. Trans young people exist, and they should be included and welcomed in society. Today is not a great day for some young people, who might feel that the measure paves the way for bullying, in particular, in their schools. What plans does the Minister's Department have to ensure that any new service, following this review, will align with international best practice, including the World Health Organization's classification of gender incongruence, which brought gender care out of mental health and into sexual health?

Mr Nesbitt: On the Member's last point, I have met families who are not happy that the pathway into Knowing our Identity is via CAMHS, because it is a mental health service. I am aware of that, but we have not been able to come up with a suitable alternative, so I am afraid that CAMHS it is.

I agree with the Member that we need to move away from the debate about whether it is an affirming service. That is because, first of all, it is not an affirming service. There is no point speculating about it: that is the fact. Secondly, the debate should be about what is best for those young people and their families.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber today. The media reported that children who are as young as five access gender services in Northern Ireland. As a mum of a five-year-old, I know how young and vulnerable those children are, and they are just learning to count. Will the Minister ensure the protection of our young people in the service by ensuring that they are not subjected to any life-changing medical interventions?

Mr Nesbitt: I acknowledge the statistic that the Member brought up about the five-year-old. I want to be clear that that did not happen on my watch; that was some time ago. I have already made it clear to the House that there will be no attempt to persuade, coerce or force a young person to move towards the most radical and life-altering step of surgery to alter them physically. The service will start with an emphasis on psychological and psychiatric support. There will also be speech therapy. The idea is to try to help.

I found that surprising about the five year old, but I suppose the argument is this: if you are a young person and you are really concerned about who you are and are literally not comfortable in your own skin, do you have to be a certain age before you are allowed to talk to somebody about it? I do not think so, and I do not think that parents think so either.

Mr O'Toole: It is important to talk sensibly about the issue and to unpack some myths. It is important, first of all, to say that trans people exist and trans young people are members of society who deserve healthcare, support, respect and esteem like everybody else.

Earlier, two things that feel like myths were mentioned. Partly, they were mentioned to discredit them, but they need to be properly discredited. The first is that care generally means that young people are pushed towards immediate surgery, and the second is that people are coerced. Will he outline whether he has any evidence of either of those things happening in Northern Ireland? I would like to hear it, because I am not aware of any campaigner or medical practitioner who would ever advocate immediate surgical intervention or coercion at all. Does he want to unpack those myths and reject them? Some people are desperate to push the myths about what it means for what is, after all, a small and pretty vulnerable group of people and their parents?

Mr Nesbitt: Let me put it this way, which, I hope, will be an assurance to the Member: if I were given incontrovertible evidence that that sort of thing was happening and was being promulgated by a member of the workforce delivering gender identity services, I would want to eyeball that person and say, "At least one of us has to go".

Miss McIlveen: Will the Minister confirm, as referenced in the media, that the Rainbow Project was part of the gender clinic review group putting pressure on the clinicians to ignore the Cass review recommendations and, as such, was briefed on the Minister's plans before they were brought to the Executive? If so, how appropriate was that?

Mr Nesbitt: The stakeholders, including the Rainbow Project, were brought into discussions about the way forward. That is entirely consistent with co-design, so I do not get the implication in the question that, somehow, that was wrong. The matter of regret for me is that it asked for and was given permission to talk to the wider stakeholder group about what we were proposing. I do not believe that the media were stakeholders, but they became aware of it and published that information. It would have been much preferable if it had come, as is normal, through the Department of Health.

Mrs Dillon: In relation to the previous response, do you agree that, across the Executive, we have been clear, whether we are talking about victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence, victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse, victims and survivors of mother-and-baby homes or those who, unfortunately, suffer suicide in their families or addiction, that, in every instance, those most impacted and those who understand it should be engaged with and listened to and that that is exactly why the Rainbow Project was involved in that conversation?

Mr Nesbitt: Just before I respond to Mrs Dillon, I want to address something that I have not addressed, which is the idea that the plan was in the public domain before I briefed the Executive. I can confirm that that was the case because we did not make the announcement; it came via the Rainbow Project.

To Mrs Dillon, the beauty of the National Health Service — the glorious, glorious concept — is that it does not matter who you are. If you need health and social care, you get it for free. Yes, all of those groups — those vulnerable groups that were let down by people like us, people in authority, be they politicians or people who were running institutions or whatever — have been hurt and let down, and they all deserve our attention. If anybody is trying to say that we should deliver health and social care only for the people whom we approve of, then, once again, count me out.

Mr Martin: I think that the Minister has answered this, but I will give him the chance to be clearer. In answer to the supplementary question from my colleague from Upper Bann, he used the word "surgery". I will rephrase the question: does he agree that any counselling service for gender dysphoric children that the new service will provide will not be gender-affirming?

Mr Nesbitt: It will not be gender-affirming. If you mean that somebody is going to come in and say, "I believe I am a girl, not a boy", we will not simply say, "Right, we are going to make that happen for you".

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister for coming to the House. Will he outline how he will include buy-in into the future services from the sector and the individuals that this concerns, given that, previously, they have felt that they have been ignored or excluded from previous reviews? They have indicated that, currently, they have no faith in what they are calling "this two-day review", especially as they believe that the Department trailed out the previous and earlier review for years.

Mr Nesbitt: Stakeholders were involved in the discussions that have led to this lifespan gender identity service. My officials have assured me that that has happened and that stakeholders are as happy as possible with what we propose. They also believe, as I do, that what we are doing is compliant with the Cass recommendations. When Dr Cass comes, she will do that short, sharp quality assurance that that is the case. There is no need for stakeholders to be involved in that, because the four people will be talking to the clinicians and the team who will deliver the service to make sure that everything is as we believe it should be. That is the nature of an independent review.

Ms Forsythe: We know the pressure that the Executive are under in the current financial climate, especially with the health budget. The choice to fund the gender identity services is a choice over something else. In the interest of full transparency, what is the £806,000 that has been awarded for? Is it for the set-up? Is it the full cost for 2025-26? What are his plans and foresight for what the annual cost of running the service will be?

Mr Nesbitt: I will run through some of the costs. The Member's opening remarks take me back to this point: we do not decide who does and does not deserve to have access to medical health and social care services for what they need or believe that they need. We will not cherry-pick on that. A lot of the money will go on staffing and the workforce for the new service. There will be a psychologist, which comes in at over £100,000, and there will be a service manager, a practitioner, another lower-band psychologist, administrative support, a medical secretary, a nurse, a pharmacy technician — that sort of thing. The figures all add up.

Mr Bradley: Earlier, the Minister referenced "we", not "I". For the sake of clarity, will the Minister define who "we" refers to in his conversation?

You talk about experts. My daughter is a nurse practitioner. She is my expert: she is whom I take my advice from. I would like you to explain to the House who is giving you advice, because this is certainly not your decision. You are acting on behalf of others who are making a decision, and you are the frontman.

Mr Nesbitt: I am afraid that I am at a loss to remember when I said "we" rather than "I", but, as a general rule, if I say "we", you can take it that I mean "I", because I am the Minister, and the buck stops with me.

Regarding the advice that you get, I am sure that your daughter's is first class. My advice has come from, for example, officials, CAMHS and the Knowing Our Identity service — people who are professional, expert and experienced in such things — and we have taken those ideas and consulted on them, as we should do. Maybe not in every debate or every day in the House, but that is a staple of how we deliver government services. We talk about co-design and co-production. That is how we have got to where we are today, and it is not the first time in this role and certainly not the first time in life that I have been given advice and thought, "I would like to bring in a little independent expert advice for some quality assurance".

For example, I am reluctant to raise it, but, regarding the water issues at the maternity hospital, the Member will know that options were put to me with a recommendation for a specific option, and I refused to accept it. I said, "No, I want to bring in an independent expert to review and quality-assure what I'm being told, and then we will move forward". As with this, it does not delay moving to delivery, because I said to the trust, "You can go on with the design and continue to talk to consultants and experts about delivering your preferred option, and let us hope that that is where we end up". In the same way, the recruitment for the other posts that I have mentioned today and for those that I have not mentioned will continue, so bringing in Dr Cass and colleagues for a couple of days will not delay anything.

Mr Gaston: Will the Minister confirm that the cost of the gender identity service is not a one-off cost but an annual cost of over £800,000; that this is only phase 1 of that service and a second phase to involve GPs will result in additional costs to the public purse; and that there are currently no costings in the public domain for medication, surgery and other treatments? Saying that the figures all add up, Minister, does not cut it with me. Let us be honest with the public: how much will the service cost?

Mr Nesbitt: Obviously, there will be recurrent costs. It is not a service that will last until the end of the financial year or for a single financial year. With no disrespect to the Member, I think that making that point is redundant. As to the other costs that he mentions, I am not aware of any costs for primary care or for general practitioners. They will refer into CAMHS as they do for a lot of other issues. If the Member has fact on that that I do not have, I am more than happy to look at it.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions on the question for urgent oral answer.

Mr Kearney: Those paying attention to the debate — that is, if they are not preoccupied with cost-of-living pressures or concerns about housing and hospital waiting lists — could be forgiven for being perplexed as to what this rinse-and-repeat demand to dismantle the Windsor framework is really all about.

The most recent data from Queen's University's 'Testing the Temperature' research has provided a snapshot of public opinion on, among other things, the Windsor framework itself. That polling shows that 58% of those surveyed think that the Windsor framework provides "unique economic opportunities" for the North. Invest NI asserts that the Windsor framework puts the North in the advantageous position of being the only global region able to trade goods freely with both the British and EU markets.

There have been various references to the FSB in the debate to date. The FSB has also called for a pragmatic and business-focused implementation of the Windsor framework, which is in all our interests. That is why the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee exists: to ensure the smooth and democratic implementation of the commitments that were made in the Windsor framework.

The consequence of Brexit has been to create multiple challenges, which need to be carefully navigated. Of course, none of that was ever in the thought process of the Brexit cheerleaders. Like lemmings, they simply followed the mantra to get it done. Meanwhile, back in the real world, others have worked to straighten out their mess. We continue to do so.

The fact is that the majority support for the Windsor framework across the North stands in direct contradiction to the DUP claims that are contained in the motion, so what is the motion really about? The repeat posturing of the DUP on the Windsor framework has more to do with its own electoral and political pressure, as the TUV snaps at its heels. It is increasingly obvious that the DUP's political agenda is being set by the TUV. The 2027 Assembly election beckons, and we can expect a lot more of that between now and then. In reality, the debate is simply a proxy for intra-unionist competition between those two parties. It is nothing to do with being solution-focused in the interests of businesses, employers, workers or families. Truth be told, the motion is a distraction brought to us by the very people who campaigned for Brexit and, 10 years later, are still complaining about how it has all played out.

It is time for the DUP to get real. The Windsor framework, friends, is here to stay. Here is a wee word to the wise: the DUP should stop mixing up the implementation of the Windsor framework with the pressure that it is under from the TUV. Everybody sees that for what it is. It would be much better if it were to finally accept reality and join the rest of us in being solution-focused and maximising opportunities for local businesses and the regional and all-Ireland economies.

Mr Martin: The leader of the Opposition is not here. I cannot remember the exact phrase that he used, but "grow up" was perhaps it. The last time that I was told to grow up was maybe at school, but I am also pretty sure that my wife might have referred to that at some point during our marriage. I want to develop that a wee bit. I listened to the Member opposite, and I listened to the Member for Upper Bann. I have found a bit of the debate quite condescending. If the Members opposite brought a motion before the Assembly on something that they were passionate about, such as a united Ireland, for example, obviously, on this side, we would argue against that, but I do not think that we would demean the very nature of what they were bringing. The debate today has been demeaning. You may not agree with the issue that we are outlining with the framework. The Alliance Party might not agree, either. However, we are entitled to do so, because there are lots of people — not all people — whom we represent who care very passionately about the issue. It is their constitutional right to care about it. That is the tenor that has been outlined.

Notwithstanding that, our party has been very clear and continues to be clear about the barriers to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are unacceptable, and they undermine our internal market. I have no intention of repeating the points that were made by my colleague from East Belfast; instead, I will, for anyone who happens to be listening to today's debate, give some real-world examples of what this means and what the operation of the protocol means for our constituents.

We are more than aware that, when we make an online purchase, perhaps on Amazon or eBay — other services are available — we see the dreaded pop-up that says, "Not for postage to Northern Ireland" or, "The seller will not post to Northern Ireland". That affects buying simple items. We also know that data from the Consumer Council supports that contention. In fact, even the recent ushering in of new arrangements around GPSR and business-to-business parcels is creating its own problems. Those consumer issues should be a concern to all of us.

Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will indeed.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much, Peter. There is another concern that should be expressed. I cannot understand how Members on this side of the House have been approached by lots of companies and individuals telling us about the real and significant problems, yet they do not seem to be talking to anybody else in the Chamber. Can you think of any particular reason why that is the case? Is it, in fact, a case of Alliance, the SDLP — well, there is nobody from the SDLP here — and Sinn Féin being disingenuous?

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

Mr Martin: The Member should be a barrister. He asked a question to which he knows fine well the answer. I simply suggest to the Member that you perhaps need to come to people on these Benches if you want something done about this. Perhaps the feeling among businesses out there is that, if you go somewhere else, no one will care. It is a wee bit like this debate.

The IOD has said that its members are experiencing greater levels of bureaucracy when doing business GB to NI and that it makes it more costly to do so. If it makes it more costly for business, it makes it more costly for the people whom we serve and for consumers.

Another industry that will soon face problems, as my party colleague Carla Lockhart pointed out in Parliament last week, is the car industry. Northern Ireland is being placed in an impossible position. While the rest of the United Kingdom will operate its own approval-type system from 2026, Northern Ireland will remain bound by EU rules. The result is that cars approved for sale in GB may not be registered here in Northern Ireland. It will mean less choice for families who need to buy a car, higher prices for consumers who are already under pressure and job losses in an industry that sustains over 17,000 individuals and generates £3 billion a year in our economy. I would have thought that those are things that we would be concerned about. In fact, the leader of the Opposition raised the cost-of-living crisis, but he is not even here to listen to this speech. In Committee last year, we heard about EU proposals that could see treatments for conditions such as cold sores and dandruff become prescription-only medicines. If adopted, that would place serious pressure on the Department of Health, GPs and pharmacies and also see serious delays for consumers who wish to purchase medicines. On the Committee, we are waiting to see what the EU does, as we frequently do, before deciding how we will respond.

As a key component of the motion, we are asking for the Government to listen to the concerns of businesses here and in GB and to protect consumers and the integrity of our internal market. The remaining challenges cannot be addressed through improvements to the operational framework. No degree of tinkering can remove the overarching need to restore the democratic right of the people of Northern Ireland to make and change their own laws. My party will continue to work to secure the removal of the framework arrangements and will campaign with all those across the United Kingdom who are determined to see the end of the internal borders and barriers within our own country. Mr Speaker — sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I promoted you there — I ask Members to support the motion.

Mr Honeyford: On the first day back, this is the first motion. A couple of weeks ago, we had an announcement that 19,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 24 are not in education, training or employment and have absolutely no hope of anything in the future, yet the DUP brings a motion on the Windsor framework. You could not make this up. It is negative and anti-business. It is not about jobs, skills or stability. It is just more drama and more of the DUP talking Northern Ireland down, as it continually does. The previous Member who spoke confirmed that this has nothing to do with the economy or business; it is about their constitutional rights. That is all that this is about. However, the bit that the DUP cannot get its head around is that it holds the responsibility for the Windsor framework. It did not fall from the sky. It is a result of the choices that you guys all made all those years ago. That is why we got a hard Brexit: your obsession with it, your objection to softer deals and your collapsing this place. You created the conditions for which we needed the Windsor framework. The problems are your own. If you want to go and talk about it, have a committee somewhere in a room, and go and deal with your problems, but do not bring to us your "no, nay, never" politics, which are anti-stability, anti-investment and anti-opportunity, when we want this place to move forward.

You asked what business wants. Over the summer, I spoke to representatives from the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the CBI, and I met representatives from the FSB twice. They all want stability and less drama in order to allow businesses to operate. They want us to stay out of the road and allow businesses to make money. Business is crying out for stability and certainty. It does not need the DUP to talk this place down.

Let us talk about facts. Northern Ireland to GB trade is up by 12%. Actually, it is 12·4%, which is more than 12%. GB to Northern Ireland trade went up by 16% in the past year. Our economy is growing faster than that of any other region in the UK. The UK economy is not growing at any rate, but, for the first time in a long time, we are better than anywhere else as the UK limps along. That is thanks to access to the EU markets and the UK market.

You quoted the FSB, but, actually, the motion completely misquotes it. Steve constantly makes a declaration of interest at the start of every contribution, so I might as well copy him. I am a member of the FSB, and I declare that. I have huge respect for what it does. I come from a business background. However, there were 778 responses from the 5·5 million businesses that are in the UK. The FSB itself said at Committee that that is not representative of 5·5 million businesses. Of those 778 responses, 112 were from Northern Ireland. The FSB does not claim that a third of businesses have stopped trading, so for the motion to do so is not only inaccurate but a downright, complete manipulation of what was said.

I want to give a positive story about a business in Upper Bann that is in an area that will come into Lagan Valley after the next election. We keep hearing in this place that we have not seen dual market access. I have talked about Coca-Cola and that success. I have talked about Monster Energy drinks and that success. I have talked about PRM Group, and Marks and Spencer was mentioned. There has been an increase in business in 1,000 lines for Marks and Spencer in Lisburn because of dual market access. There is also Leckey. I could go on. I will talk, however, about Leprino in Magheralin.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that the biggest challenge that is being outlined to us all is, I suggest, if my connections with business are anything to go by, access to workforce and Brexit's being a block to workforce?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Honeyford: Yes, 100%.

On Friday, I met representatives from Leprino, which was Glanbia. Michelle Guy and I met them to talk about skills and the problem that they are having in bringing in workforce. They are bringing in skills, and apprenticeships are growing. The degree pathway is coming in, but there are also opportunities for people who work on the ground floor, as they are able to be promoted from within. That company will grow by 15% in the next two years. Leprino is moving all its production to Magheralin in Upper Bann. What is the reason? I did not say anything; I just asked why it is happening, and the simple answer was that it is because of Brexit and dual market access. From here, we can access Europe, the South, with the all-island economy, and GB. Leprino is creating jobs and more employment in the area to add to the success of Coca-Cola, PRM and Leckey in my constituency.

It is a joke that, on the very first day back, a negative motion has been tabled that is inaccurate, looks backwards and completely talks us down rather than allowing this place to grow. Alliance, however, will always tell the story of creating jobs and skills, bringing investment and wanting to see opportunities, be they in Upper Bann, Lagan Valley or North Antrim. We want this place to do well. We want it to be better for people and to create jobs and put money in their pockets.

Mrs Dodds: Mr Speaker, I apologise: my phone went off; I forgot to put it on silent.

The protocol and its successor, the Windsor framework, have overshadowed political and economic life in Northern Ireland for far too long. We have heard a range of views on that today. We have seen the sneering — I see it again from the Member opposite — from nationalists, with unionists expected to, "Suck it up". We have experienced all those things in the Chamber today, but we will continue to talk about the Windsor framework and the protocol because that is important. It was heralded as a solution —

Dr Aiken: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mrs Dodds: Yes.

Dr Aiken: It is only a wee short one, Diane. A Member talked about the changes in rates of trade back and forth. Has anybody identified the fact that those changes in trade equate to the diversion? If anybody were to look at the trade back and forth across the Irish Sea rather than just through a particular bit, they would see clearly where the trade diversions lie. When we talk about respectful debate, I wonder whether people will bother to do a critical analysis of the trade figures. Over to you. Thank you, Diane.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member, and I will come to some of those issues.

At a time when people expect unionists simply to, "Suck it up", the tone from the Members opposite in the debate has been appalling. The Windsor framework and the protocol were imposed without the support of unionism. They handed lawmaking powers in vast areas of our economy to Brussels, and they drove that trade border through our internal market in the United Kingdom. What was heralded as a solution has left us with a core problem. Let us be absolutely clear and honest today: the core problem is that EU law still has primacy in Northern Ireland. Therefore, businesses face obstacles, consumers still pay the price and the democratic deficit is as glaring as ever. That is why this is important, and that is why we will hold to our mandate to restore Northern Ireland's full and equal place in the United Kingdom.

The findings of the Murphy review confirm what we suspected all along. Instead of tackling the root issues, the report fell short. It avoided hard questions, and it failed to challenge the core assumptions of the protocol. Lord Murphy and his colleagues described some of the problems that businesses and consumers face, but shining a light on a problem is not the same as solving it. The central difficulty is a constitutional one — yes, the Member is laughing. I know that you do not like that, but, in a respectful debate, you would acknowledge that it is important to this side of the House. That laughter is appalling. The constitutional difficulty is the imposition of foreign law in this part of the United Kingdom without democratic consent. That is the truth of the matter.

The review was hamstrung from the beginning, because its terms of reference insisted that any recommendations carry cross-community support. In practice, that gave nationalists a veto over the outcome, hence the attitude that we see in the Chamber today.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: I will if you give me one minute to finish this point.

The result was inevitable: no challenge to the Irish Sea border; no demand for the repatriation of powers; and no recognition that genuine change will require fresh legal arrangements with the EU. In short, the Murphy review ducked the fundamental question of how to restore Northern Ireland's full place in the United Kingdom's internal market. It was a tick-box exercise rather than a serious attempt to resolve constitutional and economic damage.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way, and I will try to be brief. She mentioned cross-community consent and cross-community views. First, I have never ever demeaned or diminished unionist opposition to the protocol: I have not.

Mr Buckley: You did it earlier.

Mr O'Toole: Let me just say that being robust and challenging is not the same as being disrespectful, Mr Buckley.

The Member talked about cross-community consent, but is it not, by definition, impossible to have cross-community consent on a post-Brexit arrangement because Brexit, by definition, does not have cross-community consent?

Mrs Dodds: I will address your first point. I find it a bit rich of you to say that you did not have a demeaning attitude. You were the person who told us to "grow up" and sort it out. That attitude to what is a fundamental question for unionism shows us all what Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin are all about.

Let me be clear about the Windsor framework. It continues to drive up costs, reduces consumer choice and diverts supply chains, which goes back to your point.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Dodds: Oh. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.]

Mr Gaston: Well, it did not take long. On our first day back, we have already seen the sneering of the nationalist and republican alliance in the House. It has re-emerged after the summer break, all to hide their embarrassment at the decision and the call that they made for the rigorous implementation of the protocol. That is the very action that brought the barriers to the businesses that they rubbish in the House today.

The motion is one that all unionists will support and that all democrats should support. It is a nonsense for some in the Chamber to call themselves a Social Democratic and Labour Party, yet back a state of affairs whereby, in over 300 areas, we are subject to laws that we do not make and cannot change. It is hypocrisy for the Alliance Party to claim that it is concerned about building a united community while treating unionist concerns with contempt, trampling on the very principle of cross-community consent that it claims to champion. Sinn Féin failed to move the border by the gun or the bomb, but, under the protocol, Larne has become a frontier town, with the border shifted to the Irish Sea.

Unionists in the House were elected on a clear mandate on which all unionists were agreed and united: the united unionist declaration that was agreed under the auspices of the Orange Order. The protocol must be rejected and replaced with arrangements that fully respect Northern Ireland's position as a constituent and integral part of the United Kingdom. Once upon a time, Mr Gordon Lyons said:

Where is he today? He is sitting at the table of the protocol-implementing Executive. The DUP went to the public with seven tests for returning to the Executive and claimed success. In February 2024, Gavin Robinson had an article in the 'News Letter' with the headline:

In April 2024, he told the BBC that the sea border would be gone by the autumn. Jim Allister challenged that spin and betrayal and was dismissed as a dead-end unionist by none other than protocol-implementing Mr Paul Givan. It turns out, Mr Givan, that Jim Allister was dead right. The motion exposes the truth. Northern Ireland continues to be governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. We have an internal trade border that partitions our internal market. Day by day, we are being aligned into an all-island single market, which is a stepping stone out of the United Kingdom.

The Murphy review, which was published last week, showed that the Government have no interest in addressing any of those issues. Those who claim to oppose the protocol, yet implement it in Stormont, need to face reality. Stormont has become the instrument of colonial rule and of the protocol.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Whilst I agree that the motion lays bare the situation that faces small business under the Windsor framework, would the Member accept that, in not having this place and his right to articulate that view, he would, essentially, be surrendering it to a UK and Labour Government, who are intent on hardening it even further?

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention, and I look forward with the hope that, in a number of years' time, we will have a Reform Government that will give many Labour MPs their P45 — much to the displeasure of the Ulster Unionist Party, which seems to prefer a Labour Government.

I come to this point: the challenge for unionists is to match their actions to their words. As far as the TUV is concerned, there can be no Stormont Executive as long as the protocol exists. If the situation is as bad as you have outlined in your motion, why are unionists still implementing it? The protocol has to go. It is as simple as that. There cannot be a protocol and an Executive: it is one or the other. The Assembly can debate motions such as this, but unless unionism gets serious, unless it refuses to be party to its own destruction, London will not take one blind bit of notice.

The logic is simple: people were promised one thing; they have been delivered another. I am happy to give way quickly.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for that. Is it the Member's view that we would get a better deal, as my colleague has just outlined, under direct rule? I ask because, in the past, given the Irish language and abortion issues, that has not always been the case.

Mr Gaston: My challenge, in my few seconds that remain, is this: dead-end unionists were right. Take the abortion issue: what has this place done? That was the big thing. Stormont had to be here to stop abortion; Stormont had to be here to stop all those issues coming in.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. I call Mr Buckley.

Mr Gaston: The DUP held the position of power but did nothing about it.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Please take your seat. I call Mr Butler to make a winding-up speech on the amendment.

Mr Butler: Mr Speaker, it is not the first time that people have made that mistake. Mr Buckley is about 20 years younger than I am, but I will take the compliment

— and on the posters in Lagan Valley, if a few more had made that mistake and voted for me, I might have been in Westminster, but anyway —.

Mr Buckley: Or vice versa.

Mr Butler: That is a debate for another day.

The Windsor framework was heralded by some as a solution, but, really, it was a deal that sold the people of Northern Ireland the false promise of delivering on the promises that were made by Brexit. In reality, what it did was entrench the Irish Sea border, which tethers us to rules that we do not write.

The Member for Lagan Valley was right to point out some trade figures. There are some winners; there have been some losers. In Lagan Valley, there is a manufacturing company that uses steel that is tied to an EU tariff, which makes them uncompetitive with GB production to produce something that goes to the Republic of Ireland, and they are now out of that equation. That is the reality. I will name-drop two of the businesses that he talked about, because they are two fantastic businesses in Lisburn: Leckey and PRM Group. If you were to look at their books, you would see that, year-on-year, before Brexit happened, their profits went up. Do you know why? It is because they are darn well-run businesses with a vision. Yes, Brexit happened, but they took it in their stride because they had good business acumen. It was not Brexit or the Windsor framework that made them good: it was the sound management and leadership in those companies. They would have succeeded anyway.

The motion calls for the outright end of the framework. I share the deep frustration that drives it, but our amendment takes a more forensic approach. It shines a light not only on the failures of the framework but on the failures of the so-called safeguards: the Stormont brake, the consent mechanism, the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee and the UK Government's supposed role as guarantor of the Union. Those were dressed up as protections, yet every one of them has failed to prevent divergence within our internal market. They are, at best, paper shields.

Although I chair the AERA Committee, I am not speaking as the Chairperson. What I see, however, on a regular basis, is that we are dealing with greater areas of divergence. We see tractors, trailers and lorries sitting in ports in Scotland, which cannot come across because of paperwork and inefficiencies, but I tell you what: we can see drugs coming up through the Republic with no borders or difficulties. There does not seem to be the same challenge to that, yet we are talking about trade and people going about their ordinary, everyday business.

Our amendment recognises the practical costs that burden businesses in Northern Ireland. This is not just the fault of Brussels but of our own Government in Westminster who add red tape, costs and delay.

Worse still, major regulatory changes on food and on plant and animal health that we have recently heard being heralded in the reset deal will probably not come to fruition until the end of 2027 or perhaps into 2028.

We have an opportunity, however. We can sit idly by and watch divergence happen and make things more difficult for businesses, or we can do something that has already been done in Wales, where the opportunity was recognised, given the ongoing conversation between the EU and London, to stop works on Welsh border control posts until such time as it makes sense to continue. That is why our amendment calls for action now. The Government must and can invoke article 16 and pause further implementation of the deal until after the UK-EU reset negotiations in 2027. Herein, however, lies the good news for people who seek to apply the protocol and the Windsor framework rigorously: article 16 is a full and equal part of the text of the Windsor framework. It could be rigorously applied, and then, potentially, everybody would be happy. To do otherwise, however, would be to follow blindly the faithful implementation route and tighten the knot that already strangles Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom.

This is not about rhetoric. I was a Remainer. I voted to remain and would do so again. Mr Gaston was right, and I agreed with him up to a point. He said that Mr Allister was absolutely right, but Mr Allister was absolutely wrong on Brexit. It was the Ulster Unionist Party that warned of what would happen and recognised that, because we have a border here, things would be difficult and Northern Ireland would be treated differently. Mr Allister did not have that foresight at the time. The TUV needs to take an equal burden of the fallout from the protocol rather than just blaming the DUP.

Unionists are facing in one direction, however. This is really a good moment, because we are not tearing strips off each other today. As long as the DUP keeps its posters out of Lagan Valley, we will be all right. Let us stop talking about betrayal. Let us stop talking Northern Ireland down. Plenty has been said in the debate with which we can agree. I believe, for instance, that Mr Honeyford genuinely has at heart —.

Mr Speaker: Your time is up too, Mr Butler. You are waxing lyrical there.

Mr Butler: I thought that I had 10 minutes.

Mr Speaker: You have only five minutes. It was a nice try to get 10. [Laughter.]

Stand up, the real Mr Buckley. You have 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

For the first day back, it has been a spirited debate, but it did not take long for some of the typical accusations and slanging to come from across the Chamber. First, there was a tantrum from the leader of the Opposition, Mr O'Toole, who told us to "grow up". Does that not summarise the SDLP's approach to unionists' concerns about the Windsor framework and the protocol? That party's leader said that there could be civil disobedience "at a very minimum" if it did not get its way on post-Brexit conditions. We then had Sinn Féin tell us in the Chamber that it is "solution-focused". It was not solution-focused when it did not want even so much as a camera at the border or when Michelle O'Neill and Mary Lou were breaking down fake bricks at the border. Was that the constructive, solution-focused mindset that we so often hear about in Sinn Féin's media lines? Absolutely not.

We then had the Alliance Party tell us that it is a champion of small business. It was no champion of small business when it voted through over 300 areas of law with scant scrutiny, to the detriment of small businesses, and no scrutiny for dealers of second-hand agricultural tractors, who face the myriad of bureaucracy associated with a framework in respect of which — let us be real, folks — it called for a worse version to be rigorously implemented. The Alliance Party has more faces than the town clock. Mr Honeyford said that the motion is not about jobs, stability, investment or our economy.

Mr Honeyford is fundamentally wrong on every item. Each of those issues is contained in the motion.

Members opposite want to say, "My goodness, how dare the DUP bring up the issue of the Windsor framework in its first motion for debate after we come back?". Why did we do that? We did it because it affects so many sectors in Northern Ireland, whether that is farmers on the one hand — we already know their credentials when it comes to farming — or, on the other, small businesses. What about the consumer who faces increased costs for parcels —?

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

What about the consumer who faces increased costs in accessing cars? Mr Honeyford may not remember — maybe a summer mirage is affecting his opinion — what he said when the second-hand car dealers came to Stormont. What did he say? Mr Honeyford said, "It seems like you guys have got the worst of both worlds", yet he talks today about dual market access, reverting to his media type rather than identifying facts.

I will give way to Mr Frew.

Mr Frew: He must have been told off when he made that statement.

The Member is right to point out the demeaning attitude of the parties across the way to the debate and the issues that businesses and consumers face, but would they dare to tell businesses and consumers to grow up?

Mr Buckley: The Member is absolutely right. I would argue that we have had a spirited debate, because the issue fundamentally matters.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

The issue matters. Whenever we come to issues of such importance, we have to remember that we have been here before. Whether we are talking about Brexit itself or any version that followed, they have not enjoyed the unanimous support of the House. Arrangements post Brexit — this should concern any Member who understands Northern Ireland politics, its complexities and the need for cross-community consent — have never enjoyed cross-community consent in this place. That should be of concern, and that in itself merits debate in the Chamber.

Mrs Dodds raised a salient point. We are dealing with the consequences of a Brexit deal that was botched by consecutive UK Governments. The truth is, however, that, until this UK Government deal with the fundamental heart of the issue, which is that we have the continued application of EU law in this place, there will always be regulatory barriers and divergence that affect consumers and businesses alike. That is a statement of fact. Members can revert to media lines about the Brexit deal and about what happened, what did not happen and whose version of Brexit it is, but this version is clearly that of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. They called for it, championed it and ensured that barriers were put up to prevent consumers from accessing goods across Northern Ireland.

I have often heard in debates in this place that Northern Ireland voted to remain. Folks, if every Member who voted that day in Northern Ireland had voted Remain, guess what: Brexit would still have happened. Members are deluding themselves and confusing the people out there. We have to get back to the fundamentals. There is dwindling business support for arrangements that cripple industry. What industry? The movement of parcels, consumers, used agri-food vehicles, cars and veterinary medicine. In a previous debate, I outlined more than 30 areas of business that are affected by the Windsor framework, yet Mr Honeyford and others in the Chamber tell us, "I have heard no concern. I have no concern. The place is booming".

There is a survey by the FSB that some try to discredit, but what does it state? It states that 58% of businesses that were surveyed had moderate to significant challenges operating under the Windsor framework. Now, they are not the only ones with challenges. Due to the toxic nature of the debate, which people like you have introduced, anybody who is against the framework is deemed to be against stability, jobs and investment. People have been afraid to speak out, but no more. They are speaking out and calling out the disruption that they face. Now, the challenge is to the other parties. Are they prepared to champion business? Are they prepared to put their heads above the parapet, admit that they got it wrong and set about putting it right? If the Assembly approached the debate collectively, with the understanding that the Windsor framework is creating barriers for consumers and businesses, we could get real about dealing with the issue. I have no doubt that the Europeans would listen if some of their lapdogs on the Benches opposite came to that realisation and spoke up for Northern Ireland businesses.

We then had the Murphy review, which has been touched on. The Murphy review identified some of the core issues, but it fundamentally failed to bring forward proposals that would deal with the issue substantially. Why was that? There was an in-built veto to that very review that said that, unless a recommendation was likely to gain cross-community support, it could not prosper. Where is the irony in that?

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: No, not at this point.

There is an irony that a recommendation from that review requires cross-community support, but the very arrangements that were being reviewed, which have no support from unionism in this place, are not subject to cross-community support.

Folks, we have to be real. We have to help businesses, but, whilst people in the Chamber want to continue to bury their heads in the sand and ensure that businesses cannot get to the issues of barriers to trade and divergence of trade and consumers continue to face the repercussions of increased costs, we are fighting a losing battle. Whilst some across the House may not agree with me constitutionally or understand why I feel, as a unionist, that the agreement is so wrong, you will agree with me in the future when it shows that businesses and consumers from nationalist, unionist and other backgrounds alike—

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: — face continual barriers, increased costs and a lack of consumer choice.

Mr Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Question Time, I asked the deputy First Minister for an update on the international relations strategy. She responded by saying that international engagement as a priority area is a non-devolved area. There is a full directorate on intergovernmental international relations, and one of the key strategies should be an international relations strategy. Will you please review Hansard to see whether the deputy First Minister misled the House?

Mr Speaker: I am happy to do that.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease while we change the personnel at the Table.

Mrs Guy: I beg to move

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

Please open the debate on the motion.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am proud that our first motion after recess focuses on children with special educational needs. That group of children and their families feel largely invisible and forgotten until the annual SEND crisis placement comes around. Placements are an acute issue that is worthy of our time and scrutiny. We are now a week into September, and the fact that we still have children who are without a school place, or who are unable to access their place, is a scandal. It is a consequence of a failure to plan properly for those children.

It is so important today that we understand the full extent of the crisis in SEND. There is a hidden group of children who are absent, on reduced timetables or informally excluded for reasons related to the school environment. I cannot give you a figure for them because the Education Authority (EA) does not capture that data. We also have 2,500 children going through the statementing process who need support. There are also issues with transport related to safeguarding concerns, with escorts not having completed AccessNI checks. As the two amendments highlight, there are acute concerns around workforce, particularly classroom assistants, with a concern that the Department may restrict one-to-one support. We have seen nursing support withdrawn from some special school settings. We do not have enough special schools in Northern Ireland, and those that we do have are having to support children with ever more challenging needs. The transition between stages of education is woefully under-resourced, leaving children without suitable options post-16 and post-19. Those points illustrate a much bigger crisis than simply placements, so much so that we are having an inquiry in the Education Committee into SEN provision.

Behind every statistic is a child and a family left living with the stress, uncertainty and injustice of their child not receiving the education to which they are entitled. To quote the independent autism reviewer, Ema Cubitt:

It is our job to acknowledge system failures, but I acknowledge the brilliant work that is happening in our schools. In my constituency of Lagan Valley, as in every part of Northern Ireland, there are wonderful teachers, classroom assistants and health professionals who pour their energy into helping children to thrive. Special schools and mainstream schools alike are doing incredible work, often against the odds. They deserve our thanks and support. For the families being failed and abandoned, our job today is to demand accountability.

Let us look now to the annual placement crisis. Children with statutory statements are left without a school place at the start of term. Others are allocated a place that looks fine on paper but is impractical, inaccessible or unable to meet their needs. Others are placed in contingency arrangements that are far from acceptable. Some receive only a few hours of home tuition, some wait indefinitely for special school places and some are offered a school that cannot meet their needs, yet we do not have clear data on how many children are affected. The Education Authority created over 1,300 places last year. I acknowledge that effort. However, even it admits that that approach is unsustainable. Schools that took in extra children last year cannot keep stretching endlessly. We are now staring into an even worse crisis in 2026.

I want to make a point about the role that schools can play. I completely agree that all schools need to open their doors to children with special educational needs and disabilities not just because it is the right thing to do but because I hear time and time again that the schools that do so quickly find out that all children benefit. The schools that outright refuse to take children without providing any rationale for that should be held to account. However, some school leaders have genuine concerns about the resourcing, staff and building requirements that they need to ensure that they can give all children what they need to thrive. The issue is ensuring that resources are planned. Letters from the Minister in June and from the EA chief executive later in June are not a strategy; they are too little, too late. The system is surviving on firefighting and goodwill, not on planning or resourcing.

When the SEN reform agenda and delivery plan was published earlier this year, there was hope that it might finally chart a way forward, and we welcomed its ambition at the time. However, look at it closely. There are no clear timescales for delivery, no detailed breakdown of costs, no workforce planning in partnership with the Department of Health and a worrying reliance on pilots and aspirations rather than hard commitments. Parents who have been failed for years do not need more

strategies; they need action, services and support, and they need them now.

The Minister will, of course, talk about funding, and that is reasonable. More schools than ever are operating in a deficit, but, while rightly pointing to his constrained budget, the Minister also continues to champion additional bureaucracy instead of creating a single management authority. He has put no plan in place to rightsize our school estate. In opposition to the independent review of education, he championed Strule, which is taking an incredible amount of capital funding. This is about making hard decisions, which he appears incapable of doing in this context. Of course, he was happy to resign his position as First Minister to collapse the Assembly. It cannot be denied that those two years being lost made this situation substantially worse. That decision, which he was happy to make, made this crisis deeper. The constant collapse of this place is contributing to the funding issues in Education and other Departments but, specifically, the crisis impacting on the SEN system. We need an area planning approach to SEN, not just ad hoc letters and last-minute scrambling. Every child should have the option to be educated in their local community without families being put through the stress of fighting for transport or waiting months for a placement.

Let us not forget the workforce. Classroom assistants, teachers and therapists are crying out for investment, training and support. They are the backbone of SEN provision, and, without them, any strategy will fail. The workforce plan needs to be done in partnership with the Department of Health, and there should be a joint budget.

Two amendments have been selected, and both add to the debate. Procedurally, we cannot pass both amendments, but that should not lessen the points that they raise. Gerry Carroll's amendment rightly calls for a guarantee that every pupil who needs one-to-one support from a SEN classroom assistant will receive it. That is a simple and basic commitment, and I hope that the Minister will make that commitment today.

Timothy Gaston's amendment highlights the vital role of classroom assistants. Too many are in temporary contracts, and too many are underpaid. There are also too few opportunities for career progression. Ulster University research from earlier this year showed that 82% feel that they are unfairly paid and that over three quarters want a clear career pathway. Those workers are the backbone of SEN provision. They deserve respect, stability and investment.

The truth is that we have reached a point where the system is being propped up by goodwill, exhausted parents and overstretched staff. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair on the children whom we are here to serve. Today, let us be clear. The Minister must provide clarity on the number of children who remain without an appropriate place; he must publish clear, costed and time-bound plans for delivery; and he must prioritise those children and families, because they cannot wait any longer.

Mr Gaston: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. The Assembly has before it a motion highlighting the ongoing crisis in special educational needs provision, and I commend the Alliance Party for bringing it to the House. It is timely, given that it is the start of another school year. The issue has received quite a bit of focus in the press, but I trust that the debate will result in changes that will be well embedded ahead of next year's commencement.

Members, the crisis is real. Children with special educational needs, their parents and the staff who support them face daily challenges. Before the debate, I was contacted by a primary-school principal, who rang the preschool standardisation programme helpline only to be told that there was no money in the budget to address the issues that she highlighted. The issues were those that I attempted to raise during Question Time. The North Antrim primary school to which I refer has a nursery of 26 children. The children are supported, from 9.00 am to 1.30 pm, by two members of staff, one of whom is six months pregnant. Out of those 26 children, two await ASD assessments and require one-to-one support. Those children were referred to paediatrics by their health visitor and still have not been seen. That is alongside a plethora of other needs among this year's intake, such as behavioural problems, medical issues and toileting concerns. In the current set-up, those children cannot safely access their nursery education. The health and safety implications are profound. Urgent attention from an educational psychologist is required so that those children can access the preschool education that everyone is entitled to. The questions from the principal are these: who covers the toilet breaks in her nursery class, and who provides consistent support for children with complex needs? I want to leave those questions with the Education Minister. I hope and trust that he will come back on them.

The motion rightly draws attention to the lack of strategic planning, the number of unplaced children at the start of this academic year and the urgent need for clarity on the implementation of a SEN reform agenda, but let us be clear: none of those reforms can succeed without the dedication of the classroom assistants who work daily with children with SEN. They support children with challenging behaviours, those with emotional regulation issues and those who require personal care. Often, support with learning is individualised to meet the needs of the pupil in the classroom assistant's care. My goodness, they often go far and beyond their official duties by becoming a vital part of the classroom experience for all the pupils who are there.

Despite their value, those staff face systematic disadvantages. Around 68% of classroom assistants are on temporary contracts, many of them for multiple years. Nearly 14,000 classroom assistants are employed on such insecure terms due to fragile SEN funding arrangements. As we heard, surveys show that 82% feel that they are not fairly paid and that 87% support clear career pathways that are tied to training and experience. A workforce that is insecure, overworked or undervalued cannot provide the stability and consistency that children with SEN need. High turnover and low morale risk the quality of education and the well-being of the vulnerable children in their care. Repeatedly leaving classroom assistants, who are recognised as invaluable members of the school's educational team, without any guarantee, when the school year ends in June, that they will have a job in September is not a situation that would be tolerated in any other field of employment.

Tellingly, it is a gender issue too. 'A profile of Classroom Assistants in Northern Ireland', which was produced last year by Ulster University, revealed that 96% of classroom assistants are female. Supporting classroom assistants, therefore, is a matter of fairness, justice and equality for women in the workforce.

Those highly skilled, dedicated, professional ladies must be properly valued and given the stability that they deserve.

Our classroom assistants are asking for what is fair and reasonable: job security, fair and consistent pay, accredited training and defined career progression. Those are not luxuries but are essential for effective SEN provision. Supporting them is inseparable from supporting the children. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr Carroll: I beg to move amendment No 2:

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

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

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I commend the Members of the Alliance Party who tabled the motion. I disagree with nothing in it, but it needs to be strengthened, hence the amendment in my name. I am happy to support the amendment in Mr Gaston's name. I am at a loss as to why the amendments are mutually exclusive, but that is where we are.

If you talk to any parent or education worker — I speak as somebody with several family members who teach, including in the SEN sector — they will tell you that the Executive are failing pupils with SEN. Each year, children with additional needs are treated as, at best, an afterthought. Last week, parents of SEN children found out about school transport arrangements at the last minute. Some were informed as late as Sunday night — the evening before their children were to return to school. Others did not find out at all. They just had to hope that the school bus would show up the next morning. Many children were stranded, left without any transport to school. The EA and the Minister promise that things will improve, but, every year, the chaos continues. Shamefully, pupils are left without school places, and decisions on school placements are made too late, which has knock-on effects on transport, childcare and much more, including people's life and routine. It is a perpetual crisis that only seems to get worse each summer.

I note that some progress has been made in SEN provision. It seems — I emphasise "seems" — as though fewer pupils are waiting for school places this year than last year. There is some long-overdue progress, but, crucially, a lot more information is required on whether pupils are in the correct educational setting. I welcome the fact that a note on that will come from the Minister, but at least six children — one child is too many, as the Member for Lagan Valley said; six is far too many — with SEN remain without a school place. A further 100 children will not have a full-time school place until Halloween due to ongoing construction works. That is totally unacceptable, Minister. You need to sort it out; your Department needs to sort it out ASAP.

At a protest this morning organised by Alma White and the campaign group Caleb's Cause, we were told that families are at breaking point. I support Alma, the other parents and their campaign. The current situation is totally unacceptable, and something urgently needs to change. Support should not cease when a young person leaves school, but, unfortunately, it does, and parents and carers are forced to pick up the pieces.

Change should start with how we value and respect the education workforce. The Education Minister has shown a remarkable lack of respect for education workers. He is ignoring the red flags that they and their unions have raised, and he has attempted to criminalise them for engaging in lawful strike action during school inspections. That is not to mention the fact that more than 1,300 transport and catering workers are still on temporary contracts. There are 15,000 classroom assistants on temporary contracts. They deserve job security and fair pay.

Classroom assistants are routinely subjected to violence at work and are hugely overstretched and underpaid, yet their work is transformative for thousands of pupils with special educational needs, especially those who receive one-to-one support. In making a statement on SEN reform in January, the Education Minister set alarm bells ringing by talking about how one-to-one support from classroom assistants is:

It is true that not every child needs that kind of support, but families of SEN pupils and trade unions saw that as a warning shot, laying the groundwork for reducing numbers of classroom assistants. Perhaps that is where the Minister wants to get to, but it is for him to clarify whether he will go there.

No matter how much the Minister dresses up the plans as giving schools greater flexibility or listening to "emerging evidence", families and the education workforce saw this attack for what it was: a cost-cutting exercise to strike fear into the hearts of families of children with disabilities and undermine children's basic right to education. That is totally unforgivable. If it is otherwise —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes, I will.

Mr Brooks: This is a genuine question. Does the Member have any evidence that one-to-one support is the best route? I respect the jobs that all of those workers do, but, surely, when it comes to education policy, we all want to be informed by what is the best route for our children, rather than other concerns. If there is evidence that one-to-one support is the best route, I would like to hear it from him.

Mr Carroll: It absolutely is, if you speak to people who need one-to-one support or if you speak to classroom assistants and parents. [Interruption.]

I gave way to you: give me a wee bit of respect, Mr Brooks. The onus is on your party colleague, the Minister, to provide evidence. He is claiming that one-to-one support needs to be restricted, so he needs to provide that evidence. You need to speak to your party colleague and ask him to provide that to the Assembly.

If the Member undervalues or does not respect, understand or appreciate the role played by classroom assistants, I advise him to go to schools that work with and support children with special educational needs. You are trying to downplay the importance of their work, but it is on you to speak for yourself and defend that. [Interruption.]

Do you want me to give way? Do you want to speak? Go ahead.

Mr Brooks: I was just pointing out that I literally prefaced my remarks by saying that I acknowledged the excellent work that classroom assistants do. You are misrepresenting what I said. That is clearly not what I said.

Mr Carroll: No, definitely not.

The Minister needs to clarify his plans for classroom assistants. To go back to the previous comment, if he has real, existing evidence or research to justify reducing or cutting one-to-one support for people who already receive it, he needs to provide that to the House, to the Education Committee and to other Members. To my knowledge, however, he has not yet done so.

I encourage Members to support my amendment, but, if they do not, I appeal to the Minister to address the points contained in it.

Mr Baker: It is really sad that we are here again today to talk about the failures in special educational needs that our children face daily. I cannot describe how angry and frustrated I was before recess that we could not get the Minister to come to the Chamber to talk about the plans for families who had not been placed at that time. Their numbers were in the hundreds, and they just needed communication. Communication and a bit of respect cost nothing, but we did not get it. If you are going to prioritise, I advise that we prioritise the most vulnerable children in our society. That means that we have to do everything possible, which means working together. I will not stand here and completely blame the Minister for everything that has gone wrong in the past, but he can very much change the future. That is about getting it right from the very beginning.

My first speech in the Chamber was about special educational needs, making the point about early interventions being key. I made a Member's statement this morning and used one of my own cases as a parameter for success going forward, were we to somehow be successful. I gave the example of a family with a set of twins who are going into nursery school. That should be the happiest time for parents, grandparents and the whole family, when they have the experience of seeing the children off to their first day of nursery. One child got a place, but the other child did not. The child who has special educational needs was the one who did not get a place.

What will it mean for that family if we do not make changes to policy, investment and prioritisation in the Chamber? That child will always watch as his sibling progresses and gets his place at the same time as their peers. The other child may not even get transport to school if it is needed. If he is lucky enough to get a place, his transport may fail because we failed at the very start. When you do not have the placements right, that rolls on into transport. That creates a vicious circle for families, and it will happen again when the children go into secondary school. Even though they are well known in the system and they may have their statement, they still have to fight for that support and for that place. Lo and behold, it may not even be the right place.

What we have seen and what we may hear today is that we have progressed some sort of measure from last year: the number of children who are not placed is in the single digits. One is far too many, but the reality is that there are hundreds of children who are not in school this week because their place is not ready. We all know, and the argument has been well rehearsed, that those places could also be the wrong place. What does that mean? It means that children end up on a reduced timetable, thus losing out on vital education. It is so unfair.

We then have the same schools doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to those on free school meals, those living in deprivation, newcomer children and children with special educational needs. They are doing it all. They really are doing a great job, but not everybody is pulling their weight, and that is the sad reality.

Talk to parents. Really listen to them. What I have heard in the past couple of weeks is, "What we are getting now are special schools on the cheap". They are not getting that integrated education. Far from it. We have children going into specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS) placements or into units, or whatever you want to call them. Some could be in P2, while others could be in P6. That is insane. What we have there is placement by numbers. It is all data, but when you drop into the weeds of that, you will quickly find that, in the past number of years, children in their hundreds, if not in their thousands, have been placed incorrectly. That is the real scandal in all of this.

How do we go about providing the right placements? How do we go about making sure that children are placed at the same time as their peers and then not waiting at the front door for transport, which is what I have heard this year? Minister, that can be done only by prioritising our children with special educational needs. That is a SEN-first approach. That is a child-centred approach. That is what we need. I am quite happy to be here to support you in doing that. What we do not need to hear is the bluster that sometimes comes across in here. We heard it in Question Time earlier on, when you set out the finances. Then, however, when you were asked a different question, your response was, "Look at my success over the past 18 months". Please tell us that you will drive delivery for children with special educational needs in the time that we have ahead and before the end of this term.

Mr Martin: I commend the Member opposite for making a very passionate speech about special educational needs and not making it political. I mean that genuinely, Danny.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue today. I start by recognising its sensitivity for many parents in Northern Ireland. I also recognise the amazing work of our special needs teachers, who work under sometimes very challenging circumstances. I also pay tribute to the amazing children, some of whom have those particular needs, and the parents who care for and look after them on a daily basis. I will come back to that later on, but I am sure that everyone in the Chamber recognises that the current system is simply not good enough and does fail some children in Northern Ireland.

To pick up quickly on Mr Carroll's statement, what we actually want is not necessarily for every child to have a classroom assistant, because that may not be the best intervention for every child. There may be better interventions that deliver more support, more help and more positivity in that child's life than one-to-one support will. There are lots of measures, but we have to bear in mind that we want the best for the child. That should be at the core of whatever the policy driver is.

It is worth quickly noting a couple of pertinent facts. We know that one in five children in our education system now has a special educational need. That is about 70,000 children across Northern Ireland. About 8% of children subsequently have a statutory assessment. We know that demand has risen significantly in the past number of years, and the EA has responded in the past five years by creating an additional 6,000 SEN places. Expenditure by the Department has increased over the past seven years by 164%, rising to £670 million a year.

As I mentioned previously, I recognise that there have been, and remain, significant challenges in the system. That has led to some heartbreaking cases emerging. Members of the Education Committee have sat through some of those stories. There has been an erosion of confidence among teachers, principals, parents and carers in the system's ability to support some of our most vulnerable learners. It would be foolish of me to say anything other than that.

One of the key strategic shifts that we need is to move away from a system that operates on a tactical basis to one that is more strategic in its thinking. Simply put, let us prepare not for next year but for the next 10 years. The Minister, who will, I feel confident, speak for himself on the issue, has already committed to do that. A plan — it was called 'Operational Plan 2', I think — has been designed to ensure that, in future, planning is not emergency planning but future planning. That will break the cycle that Members have mentioned today.

As the Member for Lagan Valley said, we need additional special schools. There are eight in programme as part of the Department's new SEN capital agenda. We also have a SEN reform agenda, of which, as I mentioned, I have a copy with me. It is a comprehensive plan. We know that its cost is just over half a billion pounds. That half a billion pounds is not in the Education Minister's gift. It is not particularly in the Finance Minister's gift, but it is in the Executive's gift. As was made clear and as the Member for West Belfast noted, we have a SEN-first agenda, so I am sure that the Minister in front of me will look for support from other Ministers and Executive parties —.

Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will indeed for the Chair of the Education Committee.

Mr Mathison: The Member mentioned the cost of the delivery plan. It is not broken down into clear cost lines for all the actions. Does the Member not think that having a more detailed cost analysis would help us to decide what we really need to deliver from the plan and should prioritise?

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

Mr Martin: Outstanding. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I agree with the Member, but I will give him a line from the end of the document:

It sounds to me as though the costing is being worked on but that key inputs from delivery partners have to be fed in. I do not disagree with the Member, and the Minister may touch on this, but that statement is in the document, and I assume that the costing is being worked on.

There are targets. We will not fall out over them. The proposers of the motion would like to see clearer delivery targets. I note that there are hard targets for year 1 in the document already and starting targets for all other themes. I understand that those targets are linear. Perhaps the proposers of the motion would like harder targets: those may come with additional information as the Department works through the detailed costings for the plan. Let us be honest, however: the Education Committee wanted this document. We talked and talked about it, we wanted to see it, and we got it. It is a complex and important document, so I am not overly surprised that we are still waiting for some detail on it. These are big issues to solve, as every Member has said.

I have 15 seconds left. The Education Minister is passionate about making these changes. Our party is wholly committed to standing behind him in making them, because we know that, at the end of every policy, there is a child with a family —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your 15 seconds are up.

Mr Martin: — and their own individual story.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As this is Jon Burrows's first opportunity to speak as a private Member, I remind the Assembly that it is the convention that a Member's inaugural speech be made without interruption. However, if the Member chooses to express views that would provoke an interruption, they are likely to forfeit that protection. Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Burrows: This may be the first time in quite a while that I will have spoken for five minutes without saying something controversial, but I will try. Thank you for the warm words of welcome that all Members have given me. If I looked somewhat surprised when some Members walked over, shook my hand and said, "Welcome. You are a great addition to the Chamber", it is because they have blocked me on Twitter. There are at least four of them. I will go through my profile and see whether there are any more.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, Colin Crawford, and not because that is the convention. I have been in North Antrim for the past four weeks, speaking directly to constituents. They told me that Colin had spent nights on the street when it was dark and dangerous. He had been in their homes at times when they had suffered real bereavement and crisis. In their darkest hours, they looked to Colin, and he was always there.

He is not a man who is interested in climbing the greasy pole or in advancement. He is not even a man who is interested in being in the public eye. He is interested in helping people and, in that sense, he is a rare person in politics. I am glad that he is now part of my constituency operation and will be helping me to deliver services across North Antrim.

North Antrim is a wonderful constituency. I will say this, and some people will certainly agree: it is the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Burrows: There is nothing controversial in that, and I have a strong evidence base for it that I will come to now. There is no other place in Northern Ireland that has not one but two UNESCO world heritage sites: the Giant's Causeway and the wonderful Moravian village of Gracehill. My constituency has the only UNESCO world heritage sites in Northern Ireland; the best coastline of the island of Ireland; the best whiskey in the world; the Dark Hedges; and all those other things, so I am absolutely honoured — I will try not to get emotional in saying this — to represent it. That is why, when I was under serious threat from dissident republicans — I have lived at 10 addresses in the past 25 years — I lived in Ballymoney for 10 years and nothing could budge me from there. I had bulletproof windows and blast-proof doors, and letter bombs were sent to me, but I was not for leaving.

It is a wonderful constituency, but it has a lot of problems. The farmers, who are the heartbeat of the constituency, are in the armlock in society between trying to look after our climate for the future and allowing people to have a livelihood today. They are not listened to enough in this place — I hope that that is not a controversial statement — about the inheritance tax proposals that pose an existential threat to them in Northern Ireland. I will support our farmers.

I will also support people who experience social housing issues. To be frank, I was shocked when, on my first day, I walked into Drumtara estate and had to pinch myself to be sure that I was in a first-world country, because it looked like a third-world country. Not only had people to wait years for social housing; they then had to wait years for basic repairs. There were homes with missing tiles, when people had been asking for them for months. I had to ask myself, "How did we put a man on the moon many years ago yet we cannot replace tiles?". There was grass that was uncut because the Housing Executive and the council could not agree on whose responsibility it was because a child's bike had been left in the middle of a grassy verge and whoever had the contract to cut the grass could not lift the bike away. It took an intervention from a councillor, backed up by an MLA, to get the grass cut. Those things simply are not acceptable.

Of course, the constituency has a lot of problems with immigration. I will stand by the lawful immigrants of North Antrim. My granny was treated by Filipino nurses, and my family is eternally grateful for their care and diligence. I have supported the lawful migrants. I will always call out violence — unlike some people, I do not think that there is ever justification for violence — but I will have the honest conversations about asylum, illegal immigration and the fact that we ask the people in our society who have the least to take the biggest influx of newcomers, which puts pressure on access to social housing, health and education.

I turn to education as I come to the conclusion of my remarks. I listened to constituents, and, when I did my research, I found that that was one of the top five things that people contacted the previous office about. They wait too long for statements of educational need and have to go too far for a school once they get one. I agree, therefore, with the substance of the motion. I also agree with Mr Gaston's amendment, which states that we need to value our teaching assistants. If this constitutes a conflict of interest, I declare that several members of my family are teaching assistants. We say that we value teaching assistants, but that is not shown in their pay packets or in their terms and conditions. They carry out a vital role for society, and I want to support them. I am happy to support the motion and Mr Gaston's amendment.

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

Mr Burrows: Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Despite that reminder about your time being up, Mr Burrows, all Members, including me, wish you well for the times ahead. I will call —.

Mr Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Nesbitt, I am duty-bound to remind you that, as a Minister, you probably need to do this from the Back Benches.

Mr Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Burrows made his maiden speech seven hours and 18 minutes after the first session that he was available to attend. Can you check with the Speaker's Office whether that is a new record?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I can check with the Speaker's Office whether that is a point of order, perhaps. [Laughter.]

The question will be noted and referred to the Speaker's Office. I am sure that, if it constitutes a point of order, you will be provided with a reply.

I call Mark Durkan.

Mr Durkan: The new start that September brings should be a month of promise, maybe not for the Assembly but for the children who are starting a new school or a new school year. For most families, it brings hope and excitement, but, for too many parents of children with special educational needs, it brings only anxiety and exhaustion. That is the exhaustion of a parent who has had to fight every day just for their child's most basic right: an education. It is unacceptable that any family should be left in limbo, not knowing where their child will be come September. We need the clarity that the motion seeks on the number of pupils who have been impacted, because an allocated place on paper means little if a child cannot physically attend. Families deserve certainty, not crisis management year after year.

We also know that demand is only increasing. The EA estimates that, by next year, an additional 1,000 SEN places will be required. Minister, what work is happening now to ensure that those places are available so that we are not back here in 12 months, facing even more chaos and distress for even more families? Inclusion must be more than a slogan. SEN cannot be seen as just an add-on; it must be embedded as a standard across all schools.

We also need to recognise the wider impact on teachers and school leaders. Burnout levels are soaring, and the unions have been clear that the lack of SEN support contributes to unmanageable workloads and staff leaving the profession. Our classroom assistants and SEN staff are the backbone of our education system, yet they have been consistently undervalued and let down. Despite their passion and vocation, many have been forced out of posts that they love. Too often, I have heard about and from dedicated staff who are leaving to stack shelves in supermarkets because they can earn more money with less stress and greater job security. That is a damning indictment of how the system treats those who give so much to our children and, by extension, how it treats our children.

Families feel unheard and unsupported. They have told us that year after year. The independent autism reviewer, Ema Cubitt, has warned that "trust has been eroded" through:

Too many parents feel blamed for school avoidance when, in truth, their children's needs have often simply not been met. I recently spoke to a mother — many of us will have many similar stories — who told me that, from the very start of her son's education, she knew that he needed extra help. Yet the diagnosis that, she knew, he needed did not come until he was practically finished primary school. At every turn, there was a hurdle, such as waiting lists and delayed assessments, and, while the system stalled, her son lost years of required additional support. When a placement was secured, it was simply a stopgap. He was placed in a class not because it was the best option but because it was the only option. We have seen that story on repeat: parents fighting the system and burning out while children pay the price, only to face another cliff edge, as others have mentioned, when the child reaches the age of 19. The Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) could not have put it more plainly in the 'Too Little, Too Late' report when it said that our system has failed to plan ahead, failed to listen and failed to act with urgency. As one parent told the commissioner:

Both amendments reflect real concerns from the coalface. We support those calls, which reinforce the same basic point: SEN provision cannot function without valuing and resourcing the people who deliver it.

The dire situation is a direct result of the Executive's failure to plan ahead, to properly resource our schools and to give SEN staff the fair pay and recognition that they deserve. Instead, every year, we have the same sticking-plaster approach. It is time to rip off the Band-Aid and treat the problem before any more children are left scarred by the system. We have to do better. Early intervention and timely support must be the foundation of how we support children with additional needs and their families, because every child deserves the chance not just to survive in our education system but to thrive in it.

Mrs Mason: For every child, the first day of school is crucial. It sets the tone for the year ahead. It is a cherished family memory that parents will carry with them for the rest of their lives. It marks the next big step in their child's life journey. While most families arrive early to capture those moments on camera, too many families of children with special educational needs are not standing at the school gates. Instead, they are anxiously waiting at home, clinging to the hope that a place will be found and their child will get their first-day memory too. That situation is not a one-off or an exception; it is an all-too-common reality for children with special educational needs in our education system.

Right now, there are vulnerable children and their exhausted families still waiting for confirmation of a suitable school place that meets their needs. Some are waiting for classrooms that do not even exist yet. Yet, what does the Department do? It records those children as though they have already been placed, when the truth is that they have no classroom to enter and no education to access. That is not just an administrative failure but a moral failure. The stress and anxiety that those families feel are a direct result of the Department and the Education Authority failing to plan strategically to meet the needs of our children.

For the families whose children have secured a place, the barriers do not end there. On the first day of term, many were left stranded, with children unable to get to school because appropriate transport had not been put in place. Just think about that: a child with special educational needs finally secures a place, and the family is ready to go, but they are left with no way to get to school. For families who were already feeling abandoned and exhausted, that was the final blow. It lays bare the neglect and the lack of foresight from the Minister and the Education Authority in meeting the most basic needs of children with special educational needs. Let us be clear: those families are not asking for special treatment; they are just asking for fairness. They are asking for the chance for their children, who are ready to learn, to start school just like everybody else.

Every child must receive not only a place but the right place, one that is suitable, supportive and equipped to meet their needs. When a child enters a classroom, they must have wrap-around care to help them thrive. Frustratingly, that is just not the case. They must get the transport that they need to get there safely and comfortably. That is not optional; it is essential. Today, I call on the Minister to come forward with real solutions and to guarantee that every child will be placed in the right setting and get the full support that they deserve, because our children cannot and must not continue to be left behind.

Ms Brownlee: This matter affects not just our education system but the lives of thousands of children and families across Northern Ireland: the state of the special school education system. As we know, every child, regardless of their needs, has the right to equality of education. However, the reality for many families and children who have special educational needs is far from ideal. Despite recent significant efforts and incredibly positive steps, we are still in a challenging situation.

The placement of a child with special educational needs is complex. Whilst I have always understood and advocated the importance of prioritising those children, I did not fully grasp the intricacies of securing the right placement until I became a parent myself. Now, as I navigate the process alongside many families, I have a deeper appreciation of the challenges involved, even when a placement is secured, due to the nature of special educational needs. It involves much more than bricks and mortar. It needs a supportive and skilled workforce; access to the correct equipment; specialist input such as occupational and speech and language therapy; flexibility; and communication, because SEN is not straightforward. We are guided by the child, and that takes time, and parents need support in this too. Sometimes communication is one of the key factors for all involved.

It is not just about Education and the Minister. We understand that there are responsibilities for Health. We also have to realise that there will be a significant impact on our economy, with more parents struggling to remain in employment and carers struggling financially. Sadly, some children who have not been supported will even end up in the justice system.

What has become incredibly clear to me is the invaluable impact made by our classroom assistants, teachers and school leaders. Their dedication and support when working in incredibly challenging environments is absolutely vital to ensuring that every child receives the education that they deserve. They truly are the backbone. Therefore, I am pleased to see that the long-standing pay and grading issues have been resolved by the Minister, with increased pay secured and career progression pathways announced. Those steps are absolutely critical, as our education workforce is the foundation on which a strong and effective SEN system is built.

We are aware of the environment in which we operate, with almost one in five of our pupils identified as having special educational needs. As it stands, nearly 30,000 children have a statement of SEN, and the number is growing. Despite the best efforts of our educators, support staff and health professionals, we know that we struggle to meet the demand.

In recent months there has been positive progress. Some 1,374 new SEN places have been created across more than 150 classrooms. Last year, in my constituency, £7 million was invested in special schools, and we have seen improvements in placement rates. That is a step forward, but it is just the beginning. We need to be really honest about the scale of the challenges that we face and honest about priorities. When the Minister speaks and seeks support in the Executive to fund his SEN reform agenda, we must be there to support him.

Parents and children are experiencing real frustrations with the current system. The lack of available spaces in specialist settings is one of the most pressing issues. Families are being left with no choice but to expect and accept placements that are not ideal, and, in some cases, children are being left behind.

We know that the SEN reform agenda is ambitious. I acknowledge the £27·5 million investment and the commitment to new builds, but, again, we must be honest: the gap between what is needed and what is provided is widening, not narrowing. We must push for more funding, more spaces and a system that genuinely meets the needs of every child not just on paper but in practice, and that will require the support of every Member.

Every child deserves the opportunity to thrive, and that cannot happen unless we provide the right support at the right time in the right place. We owe it to every child in Northern Ireland to ensure that they are not left behind.

Miss McAllister: It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in this situation again, alongside many parents and families across Northern Ireland whose children, whilst they have been allocated a place in a school, have not been allocated one that will meet their child's needs.

I want to focus my remarks on the cooperation or lack thereof between the Departments of Education and Health and on how we can get answers to the questions that have been asked. I saw the Minister of Health. He has now left the Chamber, but I thought that he had come in for the debate. It is really important that we should have more than one Minister present where issues and motions touch across Departments. That is something that we should look at as an Assembly, so that, when we need to work together, we can have both Ministers, either at a Committee or in the Chamber, to ask questions of. There is not just a need for communication from the Education Authority to parents. If we are not having improved communications between Departments, how do we expect it to filter down to the ground and to the people that it affects? We need to see practical solutions that will work, and then we will see an improvement for children accessing those places, whether that is through transport, construction work at schools or additional staff.

One of the issues that I want to focus on is the need to improve the nursing tasks in schools. The fact that the Minister decided, I believe, in May to remove nursing tasks in our special needs schools was much to the confusion and not just the disappointment of many people, particularly those who look to the health sector, because delegated nursing tasks were removed as being authorised under direct payments. People who were not essentially qualified could not carry out the tasks, yet we were going to expect classroom assistants to do it because, let us face it, it was going to fall upon classroom assistants to pick up the slack, and that is just not acceptable. It is another consequence of a fall between the cracks of the reality of what it means to be a special educational needs school or to operate within a special educational needs system.

I have had the opportunity over many years from being on the council and in the Assembly to visit special schools across Belfast. Specifically, I mention Cedar Lodge in my constituency of North Belfast and Fleming Fulton. Those schools are absolutely fantastic. When you go there and meet the pupils, you cannot help but feel happy at how happy and supported the children and the community are. Many of the principals and the teachers will reflect on how different it is now compared with years ago and feel that some of the services continue to be stripped away, in particular the health services. We do not yet know how many speech and language therapists are needed, how many psychologists are needed or how many nurses are needed for particular schools, because that work has not taken place. I ask the Education Minister whether he has had any direct conversations with the Health Minister in progressing that joined-up workforce planning across both Departments, because it is particularly important.

I also want to touch on the issue of the individual child. I have heard about the special needs children getting classroom assistants when they are placed either in the mainstream schools or in SPiMS units or children who have attended a mainstream school from primary 1. I do not sit on the Education Committee, but, on the Health Committee and in constituency-based work, we hear time and again that one-to-one is not always the best way forward. It has to be individualised, and it has to be best for that child's needs. Unfortunately, parents wait far too long for those assessments. How many children do we still have on the waiting list to be statemented? That is just to get their statement. How many years must they then wait to get the services that they provide?

If the Minister has not already, I recommend that he visit Belfast Boys’ Model School in North Belfast, because they run a different model of operation from other schools that basically cares for the individual needs of each child. We have to be realistic about the fact that there are some schools that do not put up their hand and take in children where it is needed. Fundamentally, at the heart of this are young people and children, and we need to ensure that their needs are met.

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

Mr Sheehan: This summer, we have seen yet again a crisis in special educational needs placements, with hundreds of children and their families facing an anxious and agonising wait for support and certainty. While, on paper, the number of those awaiting placements has been reduced significantly, that does not tell the whole story. Many of the so-called placements offered to families do not exist in reality.

Some children are on reduced timetables, while others are placed in schools where the necessary facilities, required staff and wrap-around support have not yet been put in place. Families still live with uncertainty, anxiety and stress as they try to plan for their children's future. That is not a success story but a damning indictment of a system that, year after year, fails to plan, fails to prepare and fails to meet the needs of our most vulnerable children.

The problems go deeper than a few delayed placements: they are systemic. There has been a marked and sustained rise in SEN diagnosis, the trajectory of which was crystal clear, yet the Education Authority and the Department utterly failed to plan strategically for that rise.

There has been the continuing failure of the Department of Health and the Department of Education to work together, as Nuala McAllister has just mentioned, in any meaningful way to provide joined-up support for children with additional needs. We have interrogated officials, as well as the allied health professionals union, and none of them was able to tell us how many children with a particular need are in our system and how many children with speech and learning difficulties need behavioural therapists and occupational therapists. That information just does not exist.

There is a deliberate over-reliance on our non-selective schools and schools in working-class communities to carry the heaviest burden of SEN provision. A few months ago, just before recess, senior leadership figures in the Education Authority revealed to me that not one grammar school had been asked at that stage to establish specialist provision. I had to drag that answer out of an official. I had to ask him at least five times how many grammar schools had been asked to set up specialist provision, and none had. That is an absolute disgrace. Those are often the schools with the best resources and the most resources, and they should share the responsibility of supporting some of our most vulnerable children. That is not inclusion. It is not fairness, and it certainly is not planning.

We have also seen failures beyond the classroom. Just last week, parents contacted my colleague Danny Baker distraught because their children had been left waiting for school transport that never arrived. Families who secured a placement for their child now discover that the bus is not turning up to get them. How can that be acceptable?

The Education Authority and the Education Minister have failed those children time and time again. Hundreds of children with special needs still do not have a suitable placement. Many of those who do cannot get the support that they need or transport to get them there.

Sinn Féin is clear: we need a SEN-first approach that puts the needs of the children at the very centre of the placement process, not as an afterthought. We need proper forward planning, real collaboration between Health and Education and an end to the practice of expecting the non-selective sector alone to deliver inclusive education. Every school, including the grammar schools with the greatest resources, must take their fair share of responsibility.

At Question Time today, I heard the Minister again say that he needs more resources from the Finance Minister. Let me remind him that, Audit Office and PAC reports reveal that, despite the fact that hundreds of millions of pounds of funding has been put into special educational needs, neither the Department nor the EA was able to show value for money or efficiency. The Minister has his own budget: he can prioritise to where that budget is directed. If he does not want to prioritise funding for children with special educational needs, he should say that.

Our children deserve better. They deserve dignity, certainty and respect. They deserve a system that plans ahead and works for them, not against them.

Mr Brooks: I welcome Mr Burrows to his seat and to share in his good wishes to Colin Crawford. All of us who sat on Committee with him recognise the tribute that Mr Burrows paid to Colin, and I stand with him on that.

Today's topic of discussion is familiar to us all in the Chamber, and I have said that before.

All of us — I include the Minister in that — share the ambition to aspire to more and to work to deliver better for our young people with special educational needs. That is reflected in the fact that, earlier, we had Mr Gaston commend the Alliance Party and my colleague Peter Martin commend Danny on his speech. I say to Mr Burrows that that is not a normal occurrence: do not get too used to it. We all want every child in Northern Ireland to have a happy and fulfilling educational experience that develops them to their potential.

Nobody expects the transformation of SEN services to happen overnight. We all understand those who have been at the coalface. We have heard of classroom assistants, teachers and parents awaiting placements who, at times, have had reason to lose faith and confidence in the system. Nevertheless, I believe that those most involved in the sector understand the situation and want to see progress. The concerns raised in the motion and the call for more action and clearer timelines are, no doubt, reflections of the urgency that is felt by parents, educators and communities. That said, I want to respond with a recognition of the ambitious path that has already been charted by the Minister and the careful work that is under way. In February of this year, the Minister published what was, perhaps, the most ambitious SEN reform agenda in a generation and, alongside it, a five-year delivery plan designed to ensure that children with SEN receive the right support at the right times. I was going to go on to expand on and to go through some of the outcomes framework and so on, but the discussion that took place between my colleague and the Chair of the Education Committee has probably shone more light on some of the views around that than I am likely to. Work is ongoing on that, as my colleague highlighted.

The catalyst for the motion being tabled is frustration around the annual issues regarding placements. I understand that, as it stands — perhaps, the Minister will clarify this in his remarks — we have few or no children currently awaiting a placement. I understand that that does not mean that all is well, as we have heard in the Chamber, and I do not seek to portray that it is. Issues remain with children awaiting facilities to be completed and built, and there will be parents who will appeal for a different placement — some justifiably so. I do not think that anyone stands here to paint a perfect picture. Equally, however, we should not dismiss the progress that there has been, for political means. We know that the estate is in a poor state and requires vast investment. It was slightly disingenuous of the Member who spoke before me to suggest that the Minister has a budget and could, therefore, prioritise as he wishes. We know that there is a shortfall in the budgets; we know that the block grant is not meeting needs, so —.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Sheehan: The point that I was making was that there has not been real accountability of the funding that has been given to special needs, thus far. If the Minister can demonstrate value for money with the funding that he is putting into it, all of us would be in a different position when it comes to going to the Finance Minister, on his behalf, to ask for more money.

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

Mr Brooks: The Minister will, no doubt, deal with the points that the Member has raised, but we are all aware of the vast amount of investment that would be required, particularly around the estate and so on, to make the right provisions available to enable these children to have the right places and the appropriate setting. We all know the challenges around that — I do not want to underplay them — but I am sure that the Minister will address the points that the Member has made.

We recognise that, due to the issues with the estate, some of the placements can be suboptimal compared with what we aspire to, ideally. Indeed, we know that it is not what the Minister aspires to, not least through his plans, as outlined, for new special schools in the future. However, rather than standing still, he has been working to ensure that, as the estate sits, it is used to its full potential, be that through creating further classrooms where space or resource allows or undertaking a refurbishment, as was the case in my constituency where a decision was made to refurbish the old Elmgrove Primary School to allow Greenwood Assessment Centre not only to move in but to expand its services. Not so long ago, Members were raising issues that had been raised by families of children who attended Greenwood — a wonderful school, which, admittedly, operated in less-than-optimal facilities at times. There we have an example of what can happen: the Minister recognised that the plans for a new special school at the Orangefield site could not come quickly enough; he visited the school; he listened to the issues; he saw the potential; and he moved to ensure that, while we awaited the investment for the new special schools, new places and new spaces would be made available in the near future by swelling the estate.

I share the ambition of the Minister, and all in the House, that, in future, SEN children will be notified of their placements no later than any other child. Addressing the fundamental challenges on that front will, as we have said, take significant investment from the entire Executive when they consider their priorities. Whilst I understand to some degree that it is motherhood and apple pie to say so, we have always supported the need for a less siloed and more joined-up approach across the Executive.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. That concludes the list of Members who indicated that they wanted to speak, so I call the Minister of Education to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you, Members, for bringing the motion forward and for providing the opportunity to respond to myriad issues relating to the provision for children with special educational needs. Members' contributions have reflected the different aspects that we need to consider.

First, I commend Jon Burrows on his maiden speech and welcome him to the Assembly and to the Education Committee. I know that that will be the first of many contributions by him on education, and I look forward to working with him on the Committee. I commend him absolutely for his public service during a very difficult period, which he reflected in his speech. Having to move home on no fewer than 10 occasions is appalling for anybody, but it was done in the service of others and for the greater good of our society. We commend you for that service, and for the desire to continue public service in your new role in the Assembly. We look forward to working with you in the days and months ahead.

Having spoken to families, teachers, classroom assistants and pupils in many educational settings, I know the anguish that they feel about this issue, and the needs that they feel need to be met. As a responsible group of legislators, we all want do more. I think that everybody in the Chamber wants to do more. I listen to contributions from others and understand the frustration that people can have, but, at times, there can be an attempt to dehumanise some people and say that they have no empathy. It is sometimes said that MLAs or Ministers do not have an interest in these matters, and that somehow their lives are wonderful and perfect, which is not the case. On this issue, every single MLA has different needs that they are having to meet and are supporting their families and constituents who are in similar positions, so we all feel a collective responsibility. As Education Minister, I feel, more than anybody else in the Chamber and anybody else in society, the need to do more and want to have the support to do more. Therefore, I welcome the interest of Members and the opportunity to outline what we are trying to do.

That is why I was disappointed in Michelle Guy, who proposed the motion. There were comments from others that rightly challenged me, and I expect to be challenged, but to throw in comments such as "too little, too late", and then go on the attack about Strule, controlled schools and a managing authority, demeans the MLA for Lagan Valley. It demeans the issue that we have come here to debate when she launches a broadside on other political matters.

Mrs Guy: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: The Member has said enough, and I would rather prevent her from saying more things of a political nature given the attacks in which she engaged.

When it comes to these matters, it is important that we address and deal with them with the urgency that they require and are fully aware of the challenges that exist. Those challenges did not just materialise in June when I corresponded with schools, nor did they materialise in March, contrary to what the Chairman of the Education Committee pronounced in a statement. I do not know where he has been, how he engages with his member on the Education Authority or how he has failed to listen to me for over 18 months —.

Mr Mathison: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: I am not going to give way.

I do not know how he has failed to listen to me for well over 18 months, when I have repeatedly outlined the significant challenges in special educational needs. For a cheap political shot, he puts out press releases about people being asleep at the wheel. Far from it being the case that I am not aware or am not seeking to take action, it is the Member who needs to be much more proactive.

Whilst this is the first motion today that has, rightly, been brought forward by the Alliance Party, the first inquiry that the Committee called for and took forward was not on special educational needs, which was the number-one issue — people said that it should be SEN first — but on relationships and sexuality education (RSE) so that the Chairman would know whether a three-year-old should have trans guidance withdrawn. I look forward to the Chairman's remarks. Where was the priority when he put it to the Committee that it should have an inquiry into that issue rather than this one?

Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Committee now intends to have an inquiry into this issue. I will support it. I held inquiries as the Justice Committee Chairman. I worked proactively with his party leader in that role, and we produced sound evidence. I welcome the fact that he now wants the Committee to look into the issue and have an inquiry. That will help the whole system to respond. I look forward to the Member's trying to justify why he led the call for the RSE inquiry, which, 12 months later, still has not even reported. Where is the efficiency? Where is the discharge of the duties of the Chairman of the Committee in that issue? I say this to the Committee: get on now with an inquiry into special educational needs. You will have my full support in doing so.

When we look at the particular issues around the Education Authority, we see that we stood up the SEN task force in February. The permanent secretary and the senior team in my Department were briefed. I was briefed three days later. Those briefings were about responding to the task force that had been set up. During that meeting back in February, we dealt in detail with that particular issue. Officials and the EA worked closely together. I acknowledge that some Members have put on record their appreciation of the work that the EA took forward. It was carried out in conjunction with representatives of my Department, not least the permanent secretary. It engaged with schools. I talk about this issue every week with my senior officials to make sure that we have suitable placements in place. I have been proactive on all those matters, week in, week out.

We can look at addressing placements for children with statements of SEN. I continually reiterated my commitment to ensure that all children with statements of special educational needs have a school placement that is appropriate to meet their needs. That is, and it will continue to be, the primary focus for my Department and the EA. Parents of children with SEN want the same as any parent, which is for their child to be happy and thriving in a school setting that meets their needs, to enjoy the benefits of a full and enriching curriculum and to be supported by staff who are appropriately skilled and resourced. Those are reasonable expectations, yet, all too often, I have heard from families and spoken with teachers who have little confidence in the current system's ability to meet children's needs. I recognise that it is unsatisfactory that, by the end of June each year, not all children know what school they will be going to. That is not a position that any parent wants to be in.

It is important that we recognise that over 6,000 additional special educational places have been created between 2020 and 2025. This year alone, 1,374 additional special educational places have been created, involving 29 classes in special schools and 128 specialist provision classes in mainstream schools. By September 2024, 178 new specialist provision classes had been created, providing more than 1,450 places in special schools and specialist provision. As of 5 September this year, no children with a statement of SEN were unplaced. That means that 100% of children now have confirmed placements. However, despite the huge amount of work, and Members have reflected on this, that has gone into achieving that, 80 children across 17 schools are unable to attend school on a full-time basis until preparatory work has been completed for their classrooms. The EA has worked with schools to put in place contingency arrangements for those children. By way of comparison for full transparency and accountability, on 3 September last year, the position was that 15 children with statements of SEN remained unplaced and 121 could not access full-time education. Therefore, it is important that we acknowledge that the process for securing placements and notifying parents of those placements is more complex for children who have a statement of SEN, as the statutory assessment process is ongoing throughout the year.

I recognise that all our schools are inclusive of children with SEN and that we work under the presumption of mainstream education for our children, but there are some children for whom that is not the best option. Some require a smaller classroom environment with more targeted intervention, and that is when specialist provision in mainstream schools is not the most appropriate option. The willingness of our schools to step up and adapt existing classroom spaces is welcome. However, to meet the needs of our children who have statements of SEN, we must increase the proportion of schools that offer specialist provision above the 26% that already do. If we are to provide the right places in local communities where children live, we need all our schools to work with the EA to ensure that such local provision is available. The EA will continue to engage with our schools, and I encourage schools to proactively engage and to explore possibilities and options for offering specialist provision within their school structures, whether that be by utilising existing available space or facilitating the placement of modular units on their sites. It is only through the continued professionalism and commitment of our schools that the needs of all our children will be met.

When it comes to forward planning, the EA published operational plan 2 earlier this year. It sets out the key area-planning activity to provide a network of sustainable schools. The operational plan includes addressing key priorities in primary, special and post-primary education, with a particular focus on meeting the increasing demand for SEN schools. The plan responds to projected changes in Northern Ireland's pupil population, which is projected to decrease overall in the next 10 years while the demand for SEN places is expected to increase. My Department will continue to work with the EA to secure provision for children with statements of SEN. There is much good work going on in our special schools and much specialist provision to meet the needs of our children, but we must continue to meet the increasing demand in future years. The level of need will increase again in 2026, and it is only through continued engagement with and support from all education stakeholders, including school leaders, boards of governors, sectoral bodies and Departments, including Health, that the system will be able to meet the increasing demand.

There is a need for capital investment. That need continues to grow. In the past two years, placements have required investment of over £109 million. The Department simply cannot meet that pressure and children's needs with its existing level of capital funding whilst keeping all schools open and safe. Therefore, in coming weeks, I will bring detailed plans to the Executive for a flagship Executive-led and Executive-funded SEN capital investment programme. That decade-long investment programme will expand, enhance and restructure SEN provision across special schools and mainstream settings, moving decisively from reactive yearly planning to a strategic and sustainable approach. I look forward to securing cross-party support to deliver lasting change for children and young people with SEN.

On SEN reform, the motion calls for clear timescales and resource requirements for the delivery of the SEN reform agenda. The indicative timescale of five years for implementation of the SEN reform delivery plan was predicated on additional investment of in the region of £570 million. I simply cannot deliver transformation on that scale with the current Education budget. Members will no doubt be aware of the financial pressures that we face, not just in Education but across the Executive. I am committed to delivering SEN reform as quickly as I can with the resources available to my Department, but it would be wrong to commit to clear timescales in the absence of any certainty about the additional funding needed to deliver the scale of transformation required. I have been successful in securing some investment, which has allowed progress to be made. I was successful in the bid to the public-sector transformation board, and the Finance Minister confirmed £27·5 million of funding over four years. That represents only 5% of what is needed, but it provides investment to take forward a number of priority projects. I can provide clear timescales for the 13 projects that will be funded from the transformation budget and will do so in due course.

As we conclude the debate on the motion, I acknowledge that it is an issue that Members have, rightly, spoken passionately about. We have a collective responsibility for it. I will not shirk from my ministerial responsibility to lead on those issues. They require support from different Departments and the Executive collectively. I will test the Executive commitment to it when I bring forward my capital programme. I trust that it will be supported.

At the heart of all this, beyond the political commentary, there are families and children who need hope. We can talk about failure, and, in some instances, it has not been what it should have been. However, we also need to give hope that we have a clear plan. I do, and we are delivering it. I want to do more, and, with the support of everybody in the Chamber, I trust that we will be able to meet the needs of those families and, importantly, their children.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for that response. I call Gerry Carroll to wind on amendment No 2. Gerry, you have up to five minutes.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions. As we heard in the debate, one in five pupils has special educational needs. In the past decade, the number of children with a statement of SEN has increased by 85%, but, unfortunately, the funding has not increased to match that need. That is the crucial point. The lack of planning and investment in our education system is failing children, families, communities and, crucially, education workers. The Minister tried to do a lot of deflection. He needs to take responsibility and act on those issues.

I support Mr Gaston's amendment, as I said at the start of the debate. It recognises the important and undervalued work of classroom assistants. It calls for more-secure employment contracts, fair pay and better terms and conditions. I am still unclear as to why it is not compatible with my amendment.

If classroom assistants were fairly paid and their working conditions were safer and more sustainable, every child could have the support that they need. If the Executive were properly to invest in education rather than firefighting, we might avoid the same old crisis that we have witnessed year after year. People simply do not buy the excuse that there is not enough money to repair the schools that are crumbling around us or to pay teachers, classroom assistants, cleaners, caterers and transport workers a decent wage. Contrast that with the fact that the head of the Civil Service recently had her pay and pension hiked with no performance review. Today, the news broke that she is set to get a further £16,000 pay increase. Most classroom assistants earn just above that, despite the increase that they received. There is plenty of money for who and what the Executive consider to be important.

Refusing to invest in SEN provision is a political and moral failure. Empty words and consultations, in which the responses of the workforce and families are ignored, mean absolutely nothing. I urge the Minister to listen to the experience of pupils, their families, teachers and classroom assistants. Research from SEN Reform NI and Caleb's Cause found that just 47% of parents who were surveyed received their child's statement within the legal time frame. That is totally unacceptable. Some 77% said that their child with SEN did not have equal opportunities in the education system compared with their peers without special educational needs. That is a crucial point that the Minister fails to grasp. It touches on the heartbreaking example that Danny Baker gave about twins in West Belfast.

We have plenty of plans, strategies and roadmaps — we are roadmapped up to the ears — but there is little by way of action. The message from the experts by experience is resounding. We need to reverse the damage that was done by a decade of chronic underfunding. We need systemic reform, and that does not mean fewer classroom assistants. The Minister should focus his energies on that instead of trying to poke trans and non-binary pupils and people in the eye by removing guidance. He talked about having a political focus and about distractions; I think he is quite distracted by trans people and those who do not fit his narrow view of the world.

I will move on. It is worth reminding the Member for North Down that it is a political issue and, of course, a political Chamber, not some apolitical chamber for a bit of craic. Members from his party talked about how classroom assistants may not be the best-case scenario or needed in every situation.

Maybe not, but the drive and the motivation behind their points and those of their Minister is about cutting costs and scaling back. I trust the experts, education workers and families rather than any party that tries to scale back on the basis of those points.

I join others in welcoming the Member for North Antrim to the Chamber. I might well be one of the people who blocked him on Twitter. It was probably warranted and required, but, hopefully, if I extend that nice welcome to him, he will support my amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Timothy Gaston to wind on amendment No 1. He also has five minutes.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. How do you follow that for a winding-up speech?

I certainly welcome the warm words for and recognition of classroom assistants and the vital role that they play. Walking through the Lobbies to call for it is one thing, but delivering real change for the sector is another. The Department needs to address the issue of job security urgently. Finishing work in June, not knowing whether there will be a job for you when school returns in September, is simply not good enough. Secure contracts, fair pay, progression routes and more stable SEN funding are required to deliver the change that is needed.

The motion and my amendment highlight the need for cooperation with the Department of Health. Like others, I was heartened to see the Minister of Health in attendance for part of the debate, but that hope soon waned when he made his pointless point of order and then left, which told me all that I needed to know about his attitude to the subject. Tackling the issue requires cross-departmental planning to ensure that educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and paediatric referrals are available to support the children and the classroom assistants who work with them. The Department needs to design a progression framework for classroom assistants that is linked to accredited training and qualifications. That could include recognising existing skills, offering further professional development and creating promotion opportunities for the sector. That may mean engaging with the General Teaching Council, training providers and unions.

Since 96% of classroom assistants are women, improving their conditions will also require the Department to review gender pay and employment equality issues. MLAs who vote for my amendment will effectively be demanding action to end what is, in practice, the systematic undervaluing of women's work in the sector. If my amendment is passed this evening — I trust that it will be — I trust that the Minister will return to the Assembly with a report that outlines how many classroom assistants have been moved on to permanent contracts since the debate; the pay structures and progression routes that have been established; and how workforce planning is being integrated with SEN reform. Most important is that I pass that over to the Education Committee to ensure that it keeps a focus on the issue and on what has been agreed today in order to hold the Minister to account for delivering the will of the Assembly.

Mr Baker cited a constituency case that highlighted how twins had been treated differently. No child should be treated differently. No child should be left at home while their brother or sister gets the opportunity that the child who has been left at home also deserves.

I will finish by commending Mr Burrows on his maiden speech. I look forward to working with him in North Antrim. Many of the things that he highlighted are things that we have in common. I also pay tribute to his predecessor, Colin Crawford. Throughout his time in Stormont, Colin has been a friend. We started at the same time, and, indeed, we walked out many of those early days and experiences together. I wish Colin all the best. He has moved on and taken up a role with you, Jon. Colin is a genuine guy, and he will be very good and give you great service in your constituency office.

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

Mr Mathison: I begin by adding my words of welcome to Mr Burrows. I look forward to working with you on the Education Committee. I add to the tributes to Colin Crawford, whom I worked with for a short time on the Committee. I found him to be a gentleman. I suspect that you, Mr Burrows, may express your views slightly more forthrightly than Colin ever did at the Committee, and I look forward to that. I wish Colin all the best in his future endeavours.

I was going to begin my remarks by saying that it was to be welcomed that we have had a debate with such a positive tone and one that parents of children with special educational needs who were watching would feel had adopted the approach that is required, through taking the issues seriously and ensuring that the difficulties, challenges and distress that parents have been through over the past number of months were properly acknowledged. The Minister, however, had other ideas, making some highly personalised attacks and using some really interesting distraction techniques in order to deflect from the issues. That was entirely unnecessary, because I agree with much of what he said in his contribution, and I want to support him. It was disappointing that he felt the need to personalise the debate in the way in which he did. I will leave my remarks there in that regard, because, ultimately, the debate is about the parents, children and young people who need effective SEN services, not about personalities in the Chamber. I reiterate, however, that my record on and commitment to delivering the reform of SEN services is very clear.

Let me speak to some of the facts that the Minister highlighted. He referenced comments that I made about a freedom of information request that I had submitted to the EA asking for some specific information about when the Minister was formally notified of the scale of the challenge of placements for September 2025 and about the likely numbers involved. That freedom of information request came back stating very clearly that officials were briefed on the scale of the challenge in February 2025 and that the Minister was formally corresponded with in March. At no point have I suggested that that is when the SEN crisis began, and to suggest so is clearly an exaggeration and a misrepresentation. I will, however, highlight the point that the Minister was aware of likely numbers probably much earlier, but he certainly was as of February 2025. I therefore question why he waited until June 2025 to go out to schools to ask them whether they would please help. I do not think that it is inappropriate to say that that was too little, too late. I do not, however, discount the work that the Minister has delivered in this mandate on the SEN reform agenda, nor do I doubt his officials' commitment to delivering on it.

Moving on, I do not intend to rehash what has already been covered in the debate. The motion is clear in setting out the problems in the SEN system and in what it is asking for, and it seems that there is going to be support for it across the Chamber. I will add to my colleagues' comments about the amendments. We have no issue with supporting them, and I find myself in the very strange position of saying that I agree wholeheartedly with pretty much everything that Mr Gaston said today.

Mr Gaston: You have seen the light. [Laughter.]

Mr Mathison: I record my appreciation for the engagement that I have had with classroom assistants in Castle Gardens Primary School in my constituency. They highlighted very clearly to me the level of disparity between the different contracts that exist, even within one school, as well as the pay and job security disparities, the pressures that that puts on staff and the impact that it has on their morale. I therefore fully support the proposals in Mr Gaston's amendment. On Mr Carroll's amendment, I absolutely agree that the system should deliver a one-to-one classroom assistant for those children who require one. We should, however, also be open to creative thinking on the best way in which to meet children's needs effectively.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for allowing me to intervene. I welcome the news during the debate that the Education Committee will carry out an inquiry into SEN provision. That is really important. Given some earlier comments from Members about the need for engagement with the Department of Health, I encourage us to have that engagement. We also need to get an understanding of the savings and efficiencies that could be made were Health and Education to work properly together. Children's needs could be met so much better and in a much more efficient way if we had good, proper collaboration between the two Departments.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for the intervention. I am conscious of time, but, yes, we would be keen to engage further with the Health Committee. I felt that our concurrent Committee meeting in the previous session was really effective in drawing out some of the challenges around workforce and some of the lack of data that we have on the workforce that is even present in the education system from the health sector.

It has never been acceptable that children with SEN are routinely left unplaced at their key transition years in our education system. It is not acceptable that, despite years of the problem being highlighted and after multiple reports and recommendations, which have been referenced here today, the Department has still not got to grips with the problem. I do not underestimate the scale of that challenge — that is not said lightly — but it is clear to me that, if that was how we ran the mainstream admission system, parents would be outraged. However, we seem to have reached a point where it has become normalised for our children with SEN to remain unplaced, particularly at key transition years.

It is important to challenge any narrative that this year was, in some way, better because the raw numbers may have been lower. Of course, it is welcome that no children are officially unplaced at the moment. However, we were clear when we heard evidence from the EA in Committee that the director who was speaking in that evidence session would not let members make the statement that that was an improvement. He was clear that it is not an improvement. He was clear that the level of pressure and leverage that they had to apply to schools to get those children placed was unacceptable. He did not have confidence that, for the year ahead, there was a clear road map, a clear pathway for ensuring that children would be placed. That is simply because he does not have the resources at his disposal to ensure that, when he approaches a school and asks them to take a placement, he has a mechanism to say where the placement will go. It is an ask; it is a request. We would not accept that in the mainstream system. We would not consider area planning to be that we ask schools whether they would like some more places. That is not how it operates.

I do not downplay the challenge to the EA and the Department in dealing with the issue. We have already heard that the numbers of children presenting with SEN are rising. Money is in short supply, and the Minister does not tire of reminding us of that. Crucially, as I have referenced, we operate a system where schools seem to behave as independent entities and can say no to a specialist provision if they wish to. I know that schools do that for a range of reasons: they do not have confidence that they will be supported; they are worried about whether there will be enough resource; or they are worried that they will be asked to deliver something at the eleventh hour, with not enough time. However, with all those caveats noted — I say this in good faith — I ask the Minister to come back to the Assembly with a clear plan for how he will deal with placements specifically and how he will ensure that, in the areas and the schools where it is identified that placements are required, the placements will be delivered in those settings. It cannot be enough to just ask politely for schools to help. We have to go beyond that.

My time will not permit me to speak to the delivery plan in detail, but it is welcome that a plan around transformation has come forward. However, it is a big, complex document. It is ambitious in scope, and, by that definition, it is difficult to track and measure success, so we need the Minister to set out clearly what the delivery plan will do to make parents and children feel that the system is different and that something has changed. We have 18 months left of the mandate. We are in year 2 of the five-year plan. We really are at the point where parents are impatient for delivery. When will things change?

The challenge is clear, and I am not here to attribute blame to anybody. There have been years of systemic failure, but I have no doubt that the people working on the issues in the EA and the Department are committed to delivering change. However, we need to be realistic about where we are. Resource is extremely scarce. We are beyond further reviews, pilots, trials, testing and reviewing. We need to be clear: where can investment be delivered in the transformation plan for it to make a real difference? Families and children need it desperately. We cannot waste any more time in this mandate with pilots. We need to move beyond that.

We also need assurances — clear assurances — that the failure to effectively and appropriately place our children with SEN will not be repeated on this Minister's watch. I hope that we hear that coming through clearly.

I hope that we can move the tone of the debate on. I look forward to the Education Committee's inquiry into the matter. I have no intention of personalising that debate. I want to hear the evidence of parents, children, young people and teachers and to listen to them. This is not about political point-scoring. It is not about personal attacks. It is about delivering for the children who need it in our system.

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

Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, please be courteous enough to remain quiet until we properly conclude our business.