Official Report: Tuesday 22 September 2026

Ms Flynn: It is my privilege to highlight the invaluable work of Inspire Wellbeing and the important role that supported accommodation plays in helping people to live well and independently in our communities. Inspire provides a wide range of services for people experiencing mental ill health, addictions, intellectual disabilities and autism. It provides practical, person-centred support at different stages of people's lives.

I recently had the pleasure of visiting Inspire's Altigarron Court service in west Belfast and, most important, of meeting some of the people who call it "home". It was brilliant to hear from the residents about what living there means to them. It means having their own home and independence, being part of their community and knowing that support is there when they need it. The exceptional work that is carried out by the staff and the positive relationships that they have built up with the residents were clear to see. The staff's support plays an important role in empowering people to live independently with dignity and confidence. That demonstrates what supported accommodation can achieve for people. It is about much more than providing a roof over someone's head: with the right home and the right support, people can improve their well-being, live in recovery and live fulfilling lives in their communities.

Supported accommodation benefits the wider health service, too, as it can and will help people to remain in their community, avoid unnecessary stays in hospitals, deliver better outcomes for those individuals and reduce pressure on our health service, which will ultimately deliver savings to the public purse. That is particularly important as we look towards reforming our health service and there is talk about shifting more care into the community. Supported accommodation should be recognised as a key enabler of that shift.

Figures that I received in response to a recent question for written answer showed that there were 8,446 new social housing starts between 2021 and 2026 but just eight out of those almost 8,500 homes were categorised as supported housing for mental health needs. Of those, only two, including Altigarron Court, were new builds, whereas the other six were just improvements. That is only two out of almost 8,500 new builds spanning the years since 2021.

There is a real opportunity to build on the excellent services that are already being delivered to ensure that supported accommodation is recognised as a key part of our future health and social care system. I finish by thanking the staff at Inspire Wellbeing for the work that they do every day with the people who live in their community and in supported living. I thank particularly the residents of Altigarron Court for welcoming me into their home and sharing their experiences with me.

Mr Wilson: The news brought to the Chamber yesterday by the Health Minister, Robbie Butler, on Daisy Hill Hospital maternity services has been met with great concern and great annoyance in the wider community. The public's reaction should come as no surprise, and it is well warranted. Daisy Hill is a much cherished local hospital serving a wide and very rural population in Newry and Armagh and south Down. Personally, I had a very good experience of the hospital in preparation for surgery last year, and I cannot praise the hard-working staff there enough.

Despite the good reputation of the hospital and its staff, there has been a theme over a number of years whereby various vital services in the hospital have been temporarily suspended. Temporary then became permanent, with services removed and undertaken elsewhere. Each one of those instances has brought the same public response: annoyance and a great sense of betrayal. People want to see services retained at Daisy Hill, and that includes the maternity services. Daisy Hill's maternity services are a vital part of the healthcare offering at the hospital, and the many people in my constituency and, indeed, neighbouring constituencies want to see that important service strengthened, not weakened to the point of removal.

Minister Butler's commentary suggesting that, if the situation does not change by early November, services will relocate to Craigavon, presents him with a real and pressing challenge. Instead of running down the clock, will the Minister and the trust redouble efforts to ensure that the necessary resources are secured to enable the services to continue at Daisy Hill? That is the ask of the staff and of the wider community. The implications for Craigavon are, of course, also considerable. I feel that the knock-on impacts have not been fully considered should a course of action be pursued that sees the service relocated there.

I am also deeply concerned about the confusion that the announcement has sown in the hospital and in the community. The announcements yesterday created more questions than answers. Indeed, the language used by the trust's chief executive, when he said that it was "more likely than not" that maternity services would move from Daisy Hill but that it was "not quite a done deal" in a way captures the attitude of senior decision-makers at the trust. That approach lacks a demonstrable determination to find solutions. I am not convinced by yesterday's reports that there is a firm willingness to find a solution in the short time available.

The words of Eddy Curtis of Save Our Services Daisy Hill reflect a common sentiment:

Why, indeed, does it always have to be Daisy Hill? Expectant mothers expect clarity, and it is important that Mr Butler MLA provides it. That is his challenge. This is a resourcing issue. It is not totally insurmountable, and I urge all those with authority to ensure that that important maternity provision remains on the site. The clock is ticking.

Mrs Guy: Over the weekend, I was contacted about an inspirational young woman taking on the Belfast Half Marathon to raise money for two wonderful causes in Lisburn: Live Life Well-Being Centre and Sensability. Massive congratulations to Anita Rydout for completing the challenge and raising thousands of pounds for her chosen charities in the process.

Let me tell you a little about Anita and why her achievement really stands out. Anita has autism and severe global developmental delay. She was assessed and diagnosed by the age of four, and at that time the prognosis for the future was uncertain. A school placement with Parkview Special School, followed by her adult placement at the Live Life Well-Being Centre, both in Lisburn and both wonderful, have helped Anita to thrive. Her journey to the Belfast Half Marathon started as a volunteer at Wallace parkrun, and that led to her taking part herself, with specialist resources and support to help her. She is now a member of Jog Lisburn Running Club.

Community, kindness and people believing in Anita have helped her to achieve something really remarkable. Alma from Caleb’s Cause describes Anita as her hero and as an inspiring young woman who refused to be defined by what others thought she could not do. In many ways, Anita embodies what Caleb's Cause is fighting for: ensuring that young people with complex needs have the right support, encouragement and opportunities to realise their potential. When we give people those opportunities, they can surprise us, inspire us and show us how much they are capable of.

Congratulations again, Anita. You are genuinely an inspiration.

Ms McLaughlin: I raise the issue of the continuing pressure facing parents, providers and workers across our childcare sector. At the DUP conference at the weekend, Gavin Robinson pointed to childcare as one of that party's biggest successes in government. He said that, because of the investment delivered by the Education Minister, mothers and fathers have been able to go back to work and families have more money left at the end of the month. That is not what I hear from families across this place.

Yes, the childcare subsidy scheme is a welcome support — nobody disputes that — but childcare costs continue to rise. In April 2024, when we got back, parents were paying £61·50 a day for childcare; today, they pay close to £75 a day. That is an increase of 22% over the past two years. That is not a big success of government; it is a failure of government. For a family needing childcare five days a week, that is an enormous amount simply to allow both parents to go to work. We are supposed to be further ahead by now.

The early learning and childcare strategy committed to increasing the childcare subsidy scheme from 15% to 20% from April of this year. We are in September, and that increase has still not happened. Therefore, we need to be careful about claiming victory on childcare. I still speak to mothers who are deciding whether they can afford to go back to work after having a child and to parents who are reducing their hours because the cost of childcare means that working does not make financial sense.

Providers are struggling too. Their costs are also going up with the cost of living. Small providers find it increasingly difficult to make the numbers add up, and we continue to lose experienced childcare workers because they earn much more elsewhere and there are not enough opportunities to progress.

That is not a sustainable childcare system by any stretch of anybody's imagination. The SDLP has consistently argued that we need to be much more ambitious. We have set out our childcare guarantee on how we could halve childcare costs by 2030 and ensure that no family is expected to pay more than they can reasonably afford.

It cannot be just about reducing bills for parents. We also need to properly fund providers and build a childcare workforce in which people can earn a decent wage, develop their skills and see a future for themselves. Childcare is economic infrastructure, and it affects the entire economy.

I welcome the progress that has been made, but the Minister needs to produce a real childcare strategy. What we have is not a childcare strategy; it is not what was promised. Parents pay more today than when the institutions came back. That is a failure across government.

Mrs Dillon: I raise the growing pressure facing the social care workforce delivering care in our communities. Every day, those workers provide an invaluable service, looking after our older people and those with complex disabilities and providing vital support to their families. Their work allows thousands of people to remain independent, live with dignity and, importantly, remain safely in their own homes. As we seek to reform our Health and Social Care system and provide more care closer to home, that workforce will become ever more important, yet social care workers are among the lowest-paid workers in that system, with no indication of when they will get the real living wage that the Minister has promised them.

Yesterday, we heard in news reports that the price of diesel has risen to over £2 a litre. That is beyond the means of most carers in the community, particularly in rural areas such as mine in Mid Ulster. People are suffering because of the reckless actions of Donald Trump in joining Israel in launching its war against Iran. That has had consequences for workers and families here.

Those consequences are particularly acute for some of our lowest-paid social care workers, who have no choice but to use their cars to travel between the homes of the people whom they support. While those workers are being asked to absorb higher costs, we must ensure that energy and oil companies are not allowed to use instability in global markets as an opportunity to protect or increase profits at the expense of ordinary people.

When prices rise, it cannot always be workers and families who are expected to carry that burden. There must be transparency on how increases are passed on at the pumps, and the British Government must ensure that global instability is not used to justify excessive or unfair increases at the pumps. Our MLA Declan Kearney has been clear in his statement today about the news that oil companies have quadrupled their profits. We are talking about billions of pounds: what a difference that could make across the world in tackling poverty. It is grotesque that, at a time when they are making those kinds of profits, our care workers are struggling to provide care to the most vulnerable. The irony of listening to the news this morning was to hear that the British Government's solution to assisting in the instability of access to fuel is to refuel war planes for Saudi Arabia. They cannot help to put fuel into the cars of care workers but can provide fuel for war planes. That just shows that it is policy.

The Health Minister needs to give an update on the introduction of the real living wage for the independent social care workforce and what measures he is considering to address increased fuel and travel costs for staff delivering care in our communities. It is not always about more money. Sometimes, it is about how we use the resources that we have. The Health Minister, like the rest of us, knows well —

Mr Speaker: Time is up.

Mrs Dillon: — that the cost of keeping people in hospital is astronomical.

Mrs Cameron: I welcome the announcement by Gordon Lyons, the Minister for Communities, of a £750,000 investment in the musical instruments programme. That is a significant and practical commitment to music, culture and community life across Northern Ireland. The programme is open now, meaning that bands, musical groups, schools and professional musicians can apply immediately for support to purchase good-quality instruments.

The scale of the impact of the programme is already clear. During the 2025-26 period, more than £1·1 million was awarded to over 90 bands, 12 groups and 28 individual musicians across Northern Ireland. That support enabled organisations and performers to replace ageing equipment, improve the quality of their instruments and create new opportunities for people to participate in music.

In South Antrim, we are fortunate to have many talented musicians and dedicated bands, which play an important role in their communities. Of course, we have many genres of band, and they provide much more than entertainment. They offer tuition, discipline and friendship. They give children and young people the opportunity to develop a skill, grow in confidence and become part of a team. Much of that work is sustained by volunteers, who give freely of their evenings and weekends. They teach beginners, organise events, raise funds and ensure that musical traditions are passed from one generation to the next.

Instruments are expensive, however, and their cost can prevent smaller organisations or young musicians from reaching their potential, so the Minister's investment is welcome and timely. It recognises the contribution that music makes to community cohesion, social inclusion and economic regeneration. It also ensures that support extends across a wide range of musical activity. The band strand is open to formally constituted accordion, brass, flute, pipe, wind and concert bands. A second strand supports professional and non-professional performing groups, including choirs, orchestras, community music groups, musical societies, schools and youth groups. A third strand provides support for individual professional musicians. That broad approach is important. It ensures that the programme supports our musical heritage while encouraging participation, developing skills and helping talented performers to progress professionally.

I commend the Minister for securing that £750,000 investment and ensuring that applications are now open. It is another clear example of DUP Ministers delivering practical support for individuals and organisations that enrich communities across Northern Ireland. I strongly encourage eligible bands, groups, schools and musicians in South Antrim and, of course, further afield to visit the Arts Council of Northern Ireland's website and apply before the deadline of 15 October.

Mr Gaston: Just last week, the remuneration board announced that it proposes to increase the basic MLA salary from £67,200 to £69,216 at the beginning of the next mandate, potentially to be followed by annual increases of up to 3% a year thereafter. The announcement comes just months after MLAs' salaries rose by almost 27%, from £53,000 to £67,200.

Within hours of the announcement, Michelle O'Neill was at the microphone, describing the latest proposals as "grotesque". She claimed that the issue of wages was not on Sinn Féin's agenda. Sinn Féin likes to portray itself as the party that stands up for the working class, often citing British austerity, but if that rise is so grotesque to Sinn Féin now, where was it when the legislation to establish the independent remuneration board came before the House?

The Bill to set the wheels in motion for the rise was sponsored on behalf of the Assembly Commission by none other than Sinn Féin's Sinéad Ennis. At Final Stage, Sinn Féin told the House that establishing the board was not merely the right thing to do but the:

Sinn Féin supported the Bill yet now cries foul.

Only Mr Carroll and I opposed the setting up of the board. We even warned that this was always going to happen. I warned that the legislation was a vehicle by which MLAs would receive a substantial pay increase without openly having to vote for it. That warning was dismissed by MLAs. The board then awarded MLAs a salary increase of over £14,000. My amendment at the Bill's Consideration Stage that proposed a proper 12-week consultation before the Assembly Commission introduced further legislation on MLA salaries and pensions was voted down by MLAs.

To Sinn Féin, the DUP, the Ulster Unionists, the Alliance Party and the official Opposition, the SDLP, I say this: you cannot build the machinery, turn the key to operate it and then express horror when it produces the very outcome that was predicted all along. The five establishment parties in the House deliberately created the system, decided its powers and voted it into law. Public services face cuts, and patients wait years for treatment, yet, five months into the financial year, the Executive remain without an agreed Budget. MLAs' most basic responsibility is to agree a Budget. There is no Budget, yet there is time to ensure that there is an MLA pay increase.

Mr Speaker: I call Jonathan Buckley.

Mr Gaston: That is why this place is out of kilter with the working public.

Mr Buckley: The debacle surrounding the compassionate, or not so compassionate, release of murderer Gary Anderson has left a deep stain on our justice system, which has been compounded by the fact that the individual is now at large and on the run. We can only begin to think how the Kelly family feel as they live day and daily with the fact that that individual is on the loose.

What causes me deep concern — I asked the Minister about this yesterday but did not get a fulsome answer — is the fact that, in Northern Ireland today, we have what appear to be no-go areas for prison officers. The Minister tried to shrug that off by suggesting that I would not want prison officers to be put in harm's way. She is right — I would not want that — but it is an absolute failure and a demonstration of the Alliance Party's weakness on law and order that that individual, Gary Anderson, and others who are out of prison on similar terms have no direct prison officer oversight while they are at large in the community in which they perpetrated their crimes, which in this case was murder. I am aghast that such individuals can walk about without even being handcuffed. It is an absolute shame and a disgrace.

Another point that I have been equally angered by and am puzzled about is the chaperone service: the escort service. Mr Durkan MLA, who is sitting in the Chamber, revealed on BBC radio that he had partaken in such a chaperone programme and went on to claim that former IRA prisoner Raymond McCartney had also acted in such a manner. I am at a loss, because I have never once heard of such a scheme that enables MLAs and former MLAs to chaperone those who appear to be dangerous criminals on our streets. I have heard of political policing, but this is political prisons. I cannot believe that the House is not in uproar about the fact that prisoners such as Gary Anderson are deemed to be releasable into the hands and custody of, for example, their uncle and that other prisoners have been released into the custody and care of serving MLAs —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: — and former MLAs.

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

Mr Buckley: There must be a statement from the Justice Minister, and there can never be no-go areas for anyone.

Mr Gildernew: Tabharfar an ráiteas seo as Gaeilge. Molaim do na Comhaltaí na cluasáin a chur orthu féin.

Mr Gildernew: Is léir dúinn gur beag muinín atá ag na daoine as an Aire Pobal i dtaca le cuid mhór ceisteanna. Tá sin ríshoiléir ó bheith ag amharc ar a bhfuil déanta aige don Ghaeilge.

Thug Conradh na Gaeilge an tríú hathbhreithniú breithiúnach i gcoinne an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin le linn an tsamhraidh. Is é an tuairim a thug an Ard-Chúirt — don tríú huair — go bhfuil an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin ag sárú an dualgais de réir dlí atá orthu glacadh le straitéis Ghaeilge. Tá dualgas de réir dlí ar an Aire Pobal straitéis Ghaeilge a thabhairt isteach go ndéana an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin a breathnú, agus d’fheall air sin a dhéanamh. Tá cúpla ceist ar leith atá ina néal os cionn an Aire chéanna, amhail an mhoilleadóireacht aige i dtaca le straitéis Ghaeilge, an chaingean dlí aige i gcoinne comharthaíocht dhátheangach in Ardstásiún Bhéal Feirste agus an easpa gnímh aige faoin straitéis frithbhochtaineachta.

Tá plean difriúil ag an Aire Pobal don Ghaeilge: plean le cosc a chur ar fhorbairt na Gaeilge agus ar fhás leanúnach na Gaeilge ar fud an oileáin seo. Tá sé de rún ag an Aire an bonn a bhaint ón Ghaeilge agus ionsaí a dhéanamh uirthi gach ré sholais. Is léir sin don tsaol. Ach ní éireoidh leis an Aire. Tá an Ghaeilge faoi bhláth, agus tiocfaidh rath agus bláth uirthi go fóill mar gheall ar na daoine sin a bhfuil grá agus meas acu don teanga agus atá ag obair go dúthrachtach ar a son. Níor chóir eagla bheith ar dhuine ar bith roimh an Ghaeilge.

Mar sin de, iarraim ar an Aire Pobal ligean as bheith ag cur in aghaidh na Gaeilge. Iarraim air straitéis Ghaeilge a thabhairt faoi bhráid an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin gan a thuilleadh moille.

Mr Carroll: This Saturday, as part of the Save Lough Neagh campaign, the March for Clean Water will be at Stormont. We will see fishermen, fisherwomen, farmers, swimmers, trade unionists and people from every community who have a stake in the future of the lough and the future of our planet. I wish them well, and I hope that people can join them at the protest. Those campaigners understand what the Executive do not: clean water should not be green or even orange. Clean water is a fundamental right. We need to stop the delay and the distractions, take on the polluters and save Lough Neagh.

The water in this bottle is from Lough Neagh. It came out of the largest freshwater lake on these islands, and it was given to me by campaigners. It is green, it stinks and it is absolutely toxic. Lough Neagh is the source of at least 40% of our drinking water. People are expected to drink this water, to bathe their children in it and to swim in it. However, I ask the MLAs here: would any serious, right-thinking person drink it?

Mr Speaker: Mr Carroll, you know that you should not use props. You have done it now, so you can put it away.

Mr Carroll: OK. I will put it there.

The water is choking the life out of the lough. It is real life; it is not a gimmick or just a prop. It is the reality of life for people in and around the lough. Swans have been trapped in the algae; young eels are suffocating; and biodiversity has been wiped out, summer after summer, since 2023.

It is not some accident; it is a political problem. The problem was created by the Going for Growth strategy endorsed by the Executive parties and the official Opposition, which handed the agri-food giants a fortune and a licence to pollute. It was created by factory farm after factory farm that was waved through on the lough shore. It was created by years of underinvestment in sewage infrastructure and by a total failure to crack down on polluters.

What has the party to my right — the DUP — been busy with lately? Not the lough, not dealing with pollution but trying to stoke up division around Drumcree and many other issues. I ask the DUP and the other Executive parties this: why are you not fixing the crisis you created in our waterways, instead of stirring up division and hatred? I encourage people to join the protest outside this Building on Saturday.

Ms Forsythe: Yesterday morning, I spoke here about the escalating cost of fuel, and I have been inundated ever since by people giving me real-life examples of how it is hurting them. Hard-pressed working families are struggling in every corner of Northern Ireland to fuel their cars and heat their homes as the nip of autumn appears in the air. It is devastating, and it will only get worse. We need to see some urgent action.

Farmers from across South Down have told me about how it is hitting them because, once again, our agri-food sector has been hit. We have an Agriculture Minister who has turned his back on the sector, and they feel that they have nowhere to turn for help with the fuel prices. In my area, the fishing industry relies heavily on fuel. They have pleaded with the Minister for a variety of things, and, again, he has turned his back on them. He has shut them out of waters where they can no longer fish, and now they have been hit with high fuel prices that are crippling them. We have manufacturing industries that run machinery, and, across the countryside, different equipment uses fuel.

In places like South Down and rural Northern Ireland, everything is further away. You have to travel further for healthcare, education and access to any service. People are struggling, and those who are already on the edge are struggling to access services and feeling the pressure.

We now need to see action, and everybody in the House should stand together on that. We are seeing the highest fuel prices that we have had in a long time. It will be a cold, long winter, and we need to see action.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. That brings to a conclusion Members' statements.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Mr Carroll's contribution, you ruled that it was not proper for him to have props in the Chamber, and that is right according to the Members' code of conduct. However, is it in order for the Member, after making his point — we are all concerned about Lough Neagh, particularly those of us who live on its shores — to continue to have said prop on his table? Surely that falls well below the conduct that we expect in the Assembly and what is in the code of conduct about what Members can and cannot bring into the Chamber?

Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your guidance on that. My point was that it is real water and not a prop or gimmick. I do not know whether Mr Buckley would prefer the water to spill on the carpet and get close to him. Does he not know that it is toxic and dangerous? I wanted to make sure that it did not fall and injure anybody. He needs to address the issue of Lough Neagh and not just ignore it.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Carroll used the bottle for effect: he is not supposed to do that. I note that other Members have previously used props. It is inappropriate, and that is why I asked Mr Carroll to withdraw the bottle. He chose to set it on the table. He probably should not have done that, but we will not make a big thing of it. He has been told that it is inappropriate, as have others on previous occasions.

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

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Today, I wish to set out the range of actions that my Department is taking to support veterans and their families.

I am committed to ensuring that veterans and the wider armed forces community receive the right support, delivered in the right way, that will best meet their needs. As Minister for Communities, I have consistently affirmed my commitment to veterans and have translated that commitment into a suite of actions that will make a tangible difference to the lives of those who currently serve in our armed forces, those who have left active service and their families.

Last November, the Assembly took an important and welcome step when it debated and passed a motion reaffirming that service leavers, veterans and their families should face no disadvantage in accessing public services. That remains my objective for the Department for Communities, the remit of which touches on almost every aspect of people’s everyday lives and delivers a wide range of policies, programmes and services, including all-important support to our citizens at key times when they most need it. Our veterans have given so much through their service, and I am committed to ensuring that that sacrifice does not disadvantage them in accessing their entitlements.

The armed forces compensation scheme provides important support to serving and former armed forces personnel whose injury, illness or death is attributable to service. Specific social security provisions ensure that compensation payments, including lump sum awards and guaranteed income payments, do not unduly impact on entitlement to benefits. My officials continue to work across government to identify opportunities to strengthen support for veterans, remove disadvantage for them and recognise their service and sacrifice. As part of that commitment, my Department introduced legislation to ensure that payments made under the Ministry of Defence's LGBT financial recognition scheme are disregarded indefinitely when assessing entitlement to specified means-tested benefits. The legislation also exempts those payments from the Department's compensation recovery arrangements, ensuring that recipients receive the full value of their financial recognition payment. That helps to ensure that receiving redress does not leave veterans or others at a disadvantage in the social security system.

I am resolute in my commitment to ensuring that any new scheme developed in my Department is viewed through the lens of the needs of veterans and their families. That is why I am also pleased to highlight that eligible veterans can benefit from the recently announced home heating oil support scheme, alongside the range of other support available to households across Northern Ireland.

On 26 May, in demonstrating my Department’s clear commitment to the armed forces community, I launched a dedicated veterans’ support line for Northern Ireland. That service is the first of its kind across the UK and represents an important step forward in ensuring that information and services are fully accessible to veterans and their families. The support line provides a telephone and text entry point to make the service as openly accessible as possible. On contacting the support line, veterans will receive a free and confidential needs assessment modelled on existing provision through the Make the Call service. The assessment will work with veterans to identify potential eligibility for benefits, support and services. The model has been developed in close liaison with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to ensure a seamless handover should a housing query be received through the support line.

My officials engaged extensively with veterans’ representative organisations in preparation for go-live to ensure that the model was developed in a way that addressed the barriers facing veterans in accessing services. Great attention to detail was paid to ensure that the service was established on the basis of principles of confidentiality and sensitivity and informed by the awareness of challenges most impacting on veterans and their families. Staff underwent a significant programme of veteran-specific training and worked with representative organisations in developing a collaborative approach and to facilitate soft handovers where necessary. Staff on the support line also received a high level of security clearance. It has been vital to get the service right so that veterans can benefit from a high-quality, confidential and trauma-informed model of support in which they can have full confidence.

To date, 95 contacts have been received by the support line. That modest uptake is fully in line with expectations of a service of this nature, and it will take time to continue to raise awareness and build confidence in the approach. To promote the veterans’ support line, officials from my Department have participated in a series of roadshows organised by the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner’s Office (NIVCO). Those events provided a valuable opportunity to raise awareness of the service and engage directly with veterans, serving personnel and their families. In addition, departmental officials attended Armed Forces Day events in Coleraine on 20 June, further supporting efforts to highlight the assistance available through the veterans support line and strengthen engagement with the armed forces community.

The impacts of the support line are already clear. Each contact received from a veteran represents much more than a statistic. Each call has been a reaffirmation of our commitment to veterans: to listen to them and to seek to understand the challenges that they face and provide advice and support in response. Each call answered is confirmation that we will meet them at their point of need and respond. Each call answered is a difference made to an individual and/or a family.

Looking ahead, I confirm that my officials will continue to develop the programme of outreach to support and promote the veterans support line, increase awareness of the assistance available and extend our engagement with the wider armed forces community across Northern Ireland. As Minister, I will also continue to engage directly with veterans and their families in demonstrating my commitment to meeting their needs in the right way and at the right time. Over the coming months, I will build on my engagement with the armed forces community through a range of events in partnership with the office of the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner and in identifying further opportunities where we can develop our policies and practice. It is in that spirit of partnership that I reaffirm my commitment to engaging, listening and acting on the views expressed through the lived experience of veterans, their representative organisations and their families.

Whilst the support line is a significant outworking of the Department's programme of activity to remove disadvantage for veterans, wider activities are planned to ensure that other areas in the Department are equipped to meet the needs of the armed forces community. Since May 2026, 48 members of staff in the Department have received veteran-specific training, with a plan for a wider roll-out to jobs and benefits office staff on a phased basis over the coming months. Feedback from that training has been positive, with staff reporting increased awareness of veterans' issues and greater confidence in dealing with veterans. The training is central to ensuring that my Department is well equipped and informed to address issues and challenges facing the veteran community, thereby sending a strong message of delivery.

Additionally, I have brought forward a range of other actions to enhance wider engagement and coordination with veterans and armed forces representative organisations to ensure that the services that we provide can meet their needs. Notably, I have appointed a senior official at deputy secretary level as the strategic lead for veterans' issues in the Department. The strategic lead will act as a single point of contact for veterans' support organisations on policy issues and will lead on strategic engagement with the veterans community. A strategic liaison group has been established and has met twice since its inception in May 2026. The group comprises officials from across my Department and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive alongside the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner and representatives from the Office for Veterans' Affairs and veterans' services for Northern Ireland. The group will be a key mechanism in monitoring uptake of the veterans support line, identifying any emerging policy issues and gaps in provision and developing a coherent approach to strategic engagement with the veteran community. That will instil a strategic, ongoing focus on veterans’ support in the Department; ensure that policies and services are informed by the lived experiences of veterans and their families; and promote a joined-up approach to service provision.

Collaboration with the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner and the Office for Veterans' Affairs is also supported through the development of a trusted partnership relationship whereby representatives can liaise directly with my senior officials on cases that are already in the system across a range of issues including housing, access to benefits and employability. Over the coming months, I will seek to expand and develop that approach.

From a housing perspective, my Department and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are cognisant of the armed forces covenant, ensuring that the armed forces community is treated fairly and receives the support that it needs in relation to social housing allocation, homelessness and disabled facilities grants.

The Northern Ireland Housing Executive's approach aims to ensure that members of the armed forces community are not discouraged from seeking housing assistance and are able to access services without unnecessary barriers. It supports the principle that members of the armed forces community should face no disadvantage in accessing housing or homeless services.

Access to social housing in Northern Ireland is provided through the housing selection scheme, which assesses applicants on the basis of housing need within the statutory framework. Members of the armed forces community are assessed in accordance with the same legislative and policy framework as all other applicants. Any household that presents as homeless will be assessed as per the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. The Housing Executive works to assist all applicants through its housing solutions and support service to find the best possible solution for their housing needs. All circumstances or needs, including those related to their service history, will be taken into consideration during the assessment.

We know that leaving the armed forces can create a real risk of homelessness, and the Housing Executive reflects that in its housing and homelessness assessment process. Individuals can approach the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in person, by telephone or by email to apply for housing and homelessness assistance. For those who may not meet all four statutory tests to be classed as a full duty applicant homeless, the housing selection scheme includes 50 points under the "Other Homeless" category relating to leaving armed forces service accommodation.

The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is a key partner in the veterans support line and has established a dedicated hunt group for any queries emanating from the service. Designated NIHE staff have also received additional veterans-awareness training to ensure that individuals receive a fair service and are not disadvantaged by a lack of understanding of their context and experience. As part of the application process, consideration will also be given to making a referral to the veterans support line, which provides additional help beyond housing, and for other relevant floating support referrals that may be of benefit to the applicant. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive continues to engage with the Department for Communities, the Veterans Commissioner/NIVCO and other key agencies in the delivery of the veterans support line and is a core member of the Department's strategic liaison group on veterans.

Earlier this year, I took the decision to disregard war pensions from the calculation of income for the affordable warmth scheme. That was primarily because veterans were being treated differently from other disabled people whose disability-related benefits were already excluded from the scheme income threshold. That ensures that the affordable warmth scheme is aligned with other benefits and payments, including discretionary support grants, universal credit, housing benefit and home improvement grants.

Taken together, those actions demonstrate my Department's commitment to upholding the principles of the armed forces covenant and ensuring that members of the armed forces community in Northern Ireland face no disadvantage when accessing the information and support that they need. The Department for Communities has led and continues to lead the way in delivering positive change for veterans. My Department remains steadfast in its commitment to continue to deliver with empathy and understanding; to work to level the playing field for veterans; and to replace mistrust with confidence in services that are finally delivering the right support in the right way to meet veterans' needs. I am committed to broadening and deepening that work so that more veterans and their families can benefit from the public services that they deserve.

For those who have given so much, I commit to ensuring that their contribution is met, in some part, by public services that meet them at their point of need and deliver with the respect, sensitivity and understanding that they are due. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr Durkan: Thanks to the Minister for the statement. The Minister says that veterans should not be disadvantaged by receiving compensation or recognition payments, and I agree; nobody should be. Will he explain why a worker on low income who receives an overdue backdated pay rise or a recognition payment is not only not protected — we have heard time and again that that cannot be done — but penalised? We have seen that happen with classroom assistants, health workers and others, yet another group receives specific protections. Is that a fair and consistent approach to take?

Mr Lyons: My desire is to make sure that everybody is treated in the same way. My actions have ensured that, for example, people who are disabled and are members of the armed forces community are not treated any differently from anybody else. The Member mentioned another situation. In that scenario, members of the armed forces community will be treated in the same way as the others whom he mentioned. I know that there is some disagreement on what that treatment should look like, but I am trying not to give preference to anybody. On each specific issue, everybody, no matter their background, be they a civilian or a member of the armed forces community, will be treated the same.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Minister, you have said that any new scheme that is developed by your Department will be viewed through the lens of veterans' needs. Would it not be better to view your policies through the lens of objective need, whereby those who are most in need are prioritised, regardless of background or occupation?

Mr Lyons: I am trying to make sure that no one is disadvantaged specifically because of their service. I also have a legal obligation, however, to give due regard to the issues, because the armed forces covenant is in place in Northern Ireland. I therefore have specific responsibilities in that regard. We deliver our policies on the basis of need, but what I am ensuring is that no one is disadvantaged because of their service and that people are treated fairly and equitably. That is something that everybody should be in favour of.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his continued commitment, and that of his Department, to our veterans in Northern Ireland. On the back of his very welcome statement, I ask why the Armed Forces Bill has not gone to the Executive in order to allow a legislative consent motion (LCM) to be brought to the House.

Mr Lyons: I very much welcome the work that the Government are doing on the Armed Forces Bill, which will extend the duties and responsibilities of public authorities, including the devolved Administrations, under the armed forces covenant. In the first instance, it will be for the Executive to support a legislative consent motion's coming to the House. The LCM should be tabled by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. I have spoken to the deputy First Minister, and she has no objection whatsoever to an LCM's being tabled. I hope that the First Minister will also recognise the importance of the issue.

The First Minister has been very clear that she is a "First Minister for all". She has frequently talked about the importance of equality and parity, and I hope that that will extend to everybody in Northern Ireland, including members of our armed forces community. If she truly is a "First Minister for all" and wants to make sure that people are not disadvantaged because of their service in the armed forces, I hope that she will do the right thing and allow an LCM to go through the Executive and then come to the House, as that would ensure that people are treated fairly and without disadvantage.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister for his statement. I ask him to give us a wee bit more detail about the training that he talked about. What makes it veteran-specific, and what is included? It would also be really useful to understand how much it has cost per head for the 48 recipients of the training so far and how jobs and benefits office staff will be recruited.

Mr Lyons: I hope that the Member will be pleased to hear that funding for the training has come from the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust. It is really welcome that that funding has been provided at no cost to the Department. Had there been a cost, I would have been happy to pay it in order to ensure that people got the support that they needed. That training has not come at any cost to the Department, however, and I look forward to its being rolled out further so that more people can understand what needs to be done.

I recognise how important it is for veterans and their families to feel safe and confident when accessing the support line. Staff have received specialist training on the issues and challenges that veterans face. Furthermore, staff have the appropriate level of security clearance so that we can protect confidentiality and build trust and confidence for those who use the service.

Dr Aiken: I declare an interest as an armed forces veteran of 32 years. I also welcome the Veterans Commissioner to the Gallery and thank him very much indeed for the hard work that he has done.

Some Members: Hear. Hear.

Dr Aiken: Minister, the most important questions for members of the armed forces community are around confidentiality and security. Will the Minister further advise whether people who are involved in dealing with members of the armed forces and the armed forces family have been security vetted in an appropriate way by the appropriate authorities so that they can have and can retain that confidence?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I can confirm that to the Member. I understand how sensitive the issue is. I also understand that, in these early stages, we still detect some reluctance to pick up the phone, to make the call, because veterans are unsure what will happen if they mention their circumstances to somebody at the other end. That was one of the primary reasons that we put the phone line in place and have ensured that staff have been trained. The Member will understand that I cannot go into the detail of it, but I assure him that everyone has received an appropriate level of security clearance as well.

One of the reasons that I wanted to give the statement to the House today was so that I could explain that and give answers to questions such as the one that the Member asked. I want to ensure that there is confidence in what we are doing. I want people to feel that they can come forward. We care and we want to make sure that everybody is treated equally. That is what I am doing through this, and I hope that other Members in the House will send that message back: it is something that can be trusted and something that we can have confidence in, so, please, call the line and use the other resources that are available, because that will help to make a difference to our armed forces community across Northern Ireland.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

The Minister said that 48 members of staff have received veteran-specific training. Will the Minister outline how many members of DFC staff have received bespoke disability and inclusion training in this mandate?

Mr Lyons: That is a considerable number of people. I do not have those specific figures with me, but I am happy to provide that information to the Member. Again, this is about equality. It is about people being treated fairly and ensuring that we have the staff in place who understand the needs of specific groups. That is why I have introduced the hotline. That is why we are doing training and extending that training, and I will follow up and provide the Member with that information.

Mrs Erskine: I, too, welcome the Veterans Commissioner to the Gallery today and thank him for the work that he and his office are doing with the veterans community. It is much appreciated.

Minister, I welcome your statement, particularly in reference to the motion that was passed in the House on the need to support veterans. Unfortunately, other Ministers in the Executive have been lacking in that area. For example, the Infrastructure Minister wrote to the Executive Office Committee to say that there was no agreed position on the covenant.

Mr Speaker: Your question, please.

Mrs Erskine: I am incredulous at the Infrastructure Minister's providing no support to veterans, especially when it comes to public transport. Do you agree that Ministers need to put their prejudice aside, recognise the importance of the motion that was agreed in the House and support people living in our communities across Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. Just as a reminder, the Armed Forces Act 2021 introduced a legal duty on certain public bodies to make sure that we have "due regard" to the principles of the armed forces covenant. We cannot pick and choose which laws we wish to follow. When there is a duty on us to have due regard, we have to follow that. We have to make sure that we are doing what is required of us in legislation. The Armed Forces Bill will ensure that additional duties are placed on a number of other areas. Transport will be one of them, so the Department for Infrastructure needs to get ready to make sure that it has all its bases covered and knows what will be required of it.

I have gone further than what is currently required under legislation because it is the right thing to do and I want to make sure that I completely fulfil my responsibilities under the armed forces covenant. That will soon extend further. It will extend to here, so it is right and proper that Ministers get prepared for that, but they should not have had to be forced into it. They should be adhering to those principles already.

Ms K Armstrong: I declare an interest in the matter. Minister, to outline why this has come about, will you confirm the barriers that were identified by veterans when they tried to access services that were delivered by or funded through the Department for Communities?

Mr Lyons: One reason that there is reluctance among members of the armed forces community to use the Make the Call service or other advice or support services is because they are worried about revealing their employment history and being open about their service. People should never be fearful or ashamed of doing that in any way, but they are made to feel that way by some people in Northern Ireland.

The service has been set up to make sure that there is a space for people to call, knowing that those on the other end of the phone have the appropriate training and security clearance for them to be able to talk about their individual circumstances with confidence. Those were some of the messages that we got from veterans, representative organisations and the Veterans Commissioner's Office. That is why we have put it in place and clearly why there has been an uptake that has gone up in the past few weeks. I have no doubt that it will continue to go up as that confidence is built.

Mr Boggs: Minister, you say that you are demonstrating your commitment to those from what you refer to as the "armed forces community": why are you not as committed to people who live in poverty, those with an LGBT community background and those from all backgrounds who continue to be failed by the fact that you have not delivered an anti-poverty strategy or an LGBTQIA+ strategy?

Mr Lyons: First, as I said, I have a legal duty to make sure that I have due regard to the principles of the armed forces covenant, so I am following what the law requires me to do. Making sure that people are treated equally is also the morally right thing to do.

On the other issues that the Member has raised, he will know, as he is now on the Communities Committee, that extensive work is being done on the anti-poverty strategy in particular to make sure that we do not just have a document that sits on a shelf but one with measures that will make a difference. I have listened to some of the concerns that people have expressed on that, and, unfortunately, more work needed to be done. That work is progressing.

The Member raised the LGBT strategy. One reason that it has stalled is that we do not have agreement in the Chamber on some of the most fundamental principles of what would be in that strategy. There is huge disagreement, as we have seen only in the past few weeks on so-called conversion practices and the difficulties with that. We will struggle in the time that is left in the mandate to get something that commands the support of the House.

I am doing what I can right now on this issue. Rather than making sure that one group is prioritised over another or gets special treatment, I am making sure that everybody is treated fairly. I hope that, as a new Member, he will go to the First Minister and say, "You say that you are the 'First Minister for all' and that you are here to represent everybody equally in Northern Ireland. Therefore, let us debate the legislative consent motion on the Armed Forces Bill on the Floor, so that we can demonstrate that not just with words and rhetoric but with action". I leave that challenge with him.

Mr Wilson: Minister, I welcome your comments about how veterans feel that they have to evaluate their personal security when making contact with the various benefits processes. I get that, because, only last week, I worked with a veteran who had redacted a lot of the information that he had sent through. I appreciate your commentary on that. I assist genuine people in dealing with your Department's welfare and benefits processes, so I want to know this: what is the impact on somebody's existing benefits entitlement, should they receive a payment from the armed forces compensation scheme?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for that question. I confirm that any payments from the armed forces compensation scheme will be fully disregarded when assessing entitlement to universal credit. That approach also applies to war pensions payments. The first £10 of a war pensions payment or armed forces compensation scheme award that is made due to injury or disablement is disregarded when assessing entitlement to pension credit.

Mrs Dillon: As Minister for fairness, equality and non-discrimination and being good to everybody and treating them in the same way, will you support my colleague Colm Gildernew's Housing (Amendment) Bill on the basis that it discriminates against no one and would give everyone equal access to protection and support when they are at risk of homelessness? That would cover everybody, including those about whom you talked in your statement. That is actually about equality. It is about looking after everyone. If that is what you want to be Minister for, why not put your money where your mouth is?

Mr Lyons: That has absolutely no relevance to the statement in front of us. Why does she not ask questions about people's equality and how they have been treated? Why does she not ask questions about how we can better support our armed forces? [Interruption.]

She had the opportunity to ask the questions; it is now my turn to answer [Interruption.]

She may not like the answer that I am giving, but perhaps she could give me the respect of allowing the question to be answered.

If she was here last evening, she will have heard the concerns that I had about Mr Gildernew's Bill. She will shortly hear from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and others about the issues that we have with it. My offer to Mr Gildernew to work together on it stands. The fact that the Member asked a question that bears no connection to the subject at hand says more about her and her party's approach to the matter. I put the challenge to her that I put to Mr Boggs: if she is so concerned about equality and people being treated fairly, will she support the legislative consent motion for the Bill? She has set herself up as someone who cares about equality and fairness, so is she prepared to do that? Is she prepared to —?

Mrs Dillon: Is "she" my name?

Mr Lyons: I think that I am referring to her in the right way. Is "the Member for Mid Ulster" more appropriate? I put a challenge to the Member for Mid Ulster: will she encourage her fellow Member for Mid Ulster to allow that Bill to come before the Chamber so that we can vote on it? All that we have seen from her today is distraction.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his continued commitment to our veterans community and those who have sacrificed and served for the freedoms that we have today. I declare that I am the daughter of a proud member of the Ulster Defence Regiment who served to fight the evils that came to Northern Ireland.

Minister, the Veterans Commissioner, whom I welcome today, has done a fantastic job in raising and highlighting the issues. Will you continue to engage proactively with the commissioner's office and encourage other Ministers to do the same?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. I pay tribute to the Veterans Commissioner for the work that he has done and how he has invested in the issue. I also thank the staff who support him and the groups and organisations that he has brought together to be such powerful advocates on the issues that matter. I encourage others in the Executive to engage with him to better understand those needs. The Minister of Education has commented about what he is doing on this in his Department. Much can still be done in other Departments, including the Department of Health. We have a new Health Minister, and I hope that good engagement will begin there soon, because many of the issues are faced by people who also have health needs. It is important that we have appropriate liaison there as well and bring forward proposals that ensure that we not just keep the law but properly adhere to fulfilling the principles espoused in the armed forces covenant.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. You stated that the staff who received training received a high level of security clearance. Did any staff not clear the barrier of that security clearance? Are there any members of staff in your Department about whom you have a security concern?

Mr Lyons: I certainly have no concern about any individuals. Nothing like that has been brought to my attention. The Member asked specifically about individuals: I do not have that information with me now, but, if we can, we will furnish him with it.

Mr Stewart: I too welcome the Veterans Commissioner here today and declare an interest as a serving member of the Army Reserve. I pay tribute to the 40,000-plus service personnel and veterans here and agree with the Minister's statement. I am sure that he will agree with me about the great work that our charities and voluntary organisations do in working with veterans, particularly around mental health. Will you give an undertaking, Minister, about what your Department and the support line service will do to work to hand in glove with them to ensure full maximisation of the services that they provide?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. I thank all the organisations that have been involved in promoting the line and those that we are able to refer to if there are specific issues that do not come under the Department's remit. We are grateful for the opportunity to work with them. The ability to help and deliver for our veterans does not lie with one Department alone or even with government alone; there are other organisations that can help.

I am committed to ensuring that we have good working relationships so that we can provide the support and assistance needed. There is an incredible support network here, including organisations and charities that do brilliant work. I have had the opportunity to meet many of them. They are trusted, which is why so many members of our armed forces community use the services that they provide. I want to make sure that government can be trusted as well. That is why I have put in place that specific service. I encourage the Member to promote it to others. As he will be aware, we have many veterans and members of the armed forces community in our constituency. I hope that they, too, will avail themselves of that service.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, you can be sure that you have one friend in Mid Ulster. I appreciate that you do not have many others, but you have one friend here.

You talked about collaboration in your statement. What level of collaboration was there and with whom, and what plans are there for future collaboration?

Mr Lyons: There has been extensive collaboration not just with members of the armed forces community but with many of their representative organisations and, obviously, the UK Government. I was pleased to host an MOD Minister in Northern Ireland earlier this year, as well as representatives from other Departments. There has been a high level of collaboration. I hope that that will continue, because, as I said in my answer to Mr Stewart, the issues cannot be dealt with in isolation. I want to make sure that there is a community of support, including charities, organisations, representative groups and the Northern Ireland Executive. It is important that the Armed Forces Bill pass so that those duties can be extended. It is not just the current responsibilities that need to be dealt with; we also have new areas coming in, such as social care, childcare, employment, personal taxation, benefits, criminal justice, immigration, citizenship, pensions, compensation and transport. I hope that people wake up to the fact that that support is needed and will support the Bill.

I am not sure about anybody else in Mid Ulster, but I am glad that the Member has proudly declared that he is my friend today. I hope that he will follow up on that later as well.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. I also thank our veterans. Will the Minister confirm what resources he has allocated and what he is considering allocating in the future to the outreach programme? Is the NI Veterans Commissioner contributing to the cost? I am aware of the work that the Minister has done with Connect Through Service (CTS), and I thank him for that.

Mr Lyons: I have already stated that the Armed Forces Covenant Fund Trust is helping to fund the ongoing training. I am glad that that has happened and hope that it will continue. I have been able to manage it within my Department's current staffing resource by reallocating some members of staff to that work. However, those who have been trained will still have the responsibility and the ability to work in other areas of the Department as well. Cost should not prohibit us from making sure that people are treated fairly, but that has been manageable. I am glad that we are able to do that, because it is the right thing to do.

Mr Martin: The Sinn Féin First Minister stated earlier this year that the armed forces covenant was a matter for the UK Government. She said:

I point out the simple irony that British forces not only protect the UK but provide free defence security for our neighbour the Republic of Ireland. I am not sure whether the Sinn Féin Members opposite support or oppose that. Minister, was the First Minister correct in her statement?

Mr Lyons: No, she was not. She was wrong. I hope that the First Minister will correct the record on that one. It is clear that the Armed Forces Act introduced a legal duty to have due regard to the principles of the armed forces covenant.

Let me be clear: the armed forces covenant applies in Northern Ireland. I am doing the work that I am doing because I want to make sure that it applies equally. It applies in law, and I want to ensure that the Armed Forces Bill will apply here so that the benefits that service personnel in the rest of the UK will get will also apply here. The responsibility is not simply for the UK Government; we have responsibilities here. As Ministers within the United Kingdom, there is a responsibility on me, on Michelle O'Neill and on every other Minister. We cannot pick and choose which responsibilities we take on.

Mr Burrows: It comes as no surprise that the party that still eulogises terrorists cannot support our veterans. Does the Minister agree that our veterans suffer issues of homelessness and that there are particular issues in Northern Ireland in that they do not feel safe living in certain areas? How does the Minister propose to ensure, or how is he ensuring, that those issues do not present a disadvantage when it comes to housing assessments?

Mr Lyons: That is exactly why I am doing the work that I set out in my statement and why my Department is working with the Housing Executive to make sure that those particular issues that people face, which still present a barrier, can be addressed. That work had not been progressed before I came into post, but I made it a priority. As a result, we will see the positive changes that are needed. That does not mean that we will get it right all the time, but the point of the work that I am doing is to raise awareness in people's minds and make people aware of the issues that veterans face. The training that will take place in the Housing Executive will contribute to solving the problem that the Member referred to.

Mr Chambers: Does the Minister agree that, given that we recruit men and women to put their lives on the line to protect our nation and that those men and women put planning their future welfare on hold until after finishing their service, at which time they may have sustained life-changing injuries, the community has a moral responsibility to recognise and accommodate their unique and special post-service circumstances?

Mr Lyons: I do. I thank the Member for setting that out in the way that he did. We need to make sure that people are not disadvantaged because of their service and the circumstances that they face or because of the time that their service may have taken them out of the country and what that might have done to their housing situation, or because of whatever else. It is important that we ensure that there is no disadvantage. That is what we are trying to do through the responsibilities that are placed on us by the armed forces covenant. I welcome the statement that the Member made.

Mr Gaston: I welcome the Minister's statement and his continued support for our veterans community. How many of the 95 contacts that have been made to date have resulted in a veteran receiving a benefit, obtaining accommodation or being referred to mental health services? Will the Minister commit to publishing those figures on an ongoing basis in order to demonstrate the need for the service for veterans who were not successful through existing channels or simply did not feel safe to reach out and ask for help until the service was put in place?

Mr Lyons: We will be doing work to analyse that. In the meantime, I can tell the Member that, so far, many of the calls that we have received have related to benefit entitlement. I hope to have fuller information on that and will consider how that could be published. I want to be careful because of sensitivities and confidentiality. We are trying to build up people's confidence to call and will need to be careful about anything that could potentially identify someone. I still believe that it should be possible to publish that information, but I am giving that caveat because I want to make sure that we do not do anything that affects people's confidence in calling the system. I will be happy to keep the Member updated on that.

Mr T Buchanan: I join others in welcoming the Veterans Commissioner to the Public Gallery, and I thank the Minister for the work that he has been doing and that he continues to do for our veterans, who are so often left behind. Will the Minister provide further clarity on the role of the strategic lead?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I will be happy to do so. I appointed a senior official in my Department as strategic lead. That is evidence of my ongoing commitment to leading on delivery for veterans across my ministerial portfolio and to ensuring that there is a continued strategic focus on removing disadvantage, where it exists. The strategic lead is the lead point of contact in the Department for strategic policy issues relating to veterans, ensuring that any issues that impact on veterans and their families are routed effectively. The role also includes responsibility for leading the Department's strategic engagement with veterans and representative organisations. The strategic lead chairs the newly established strategic liaison group, which comprises representatives from DFC, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and veterans' representative organisations, including the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner's office, the Office for Veterans' Affairs and Veteran Services Northern Ireland.

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

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I beg to move

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

Ms Forsythe: As the House is aware, the call for evidence for the Committee Stage of the Regional Balance Bill commenced before the summer recess and is about to conclude. The Committee has received around 25 responses, and more will likely follow. To allow the Committee time to conclude its scrutiny of other Bills and to take some time over the recently received responses to the Regional Balance Bill, the Committee agreed to seek an extension of the Bill's Committee Stage until 8 January 2027. The Committee will endeavour to conclude its deliberations well in advance of that date. In any event, the Committee believes that the conclusion of its deliberations by the date in the motion will allow the subsequent stages of the Bill to be concluded in good time before the Assembly dissolves. On behalf of the Committee, I therefore commend the extension motion to the House.

That concludes my remarks as Deputy Chairperson. I will speak briefly as a DUP MLA. I congratulate my colleague Sinéad McLaughlin on bringing forward her Member's Bill. Regional balance is something about which many of us in rural constituencies feel very strongly. I am always keen to make sure that it is not just a case of the north-west versus Belfast. We also have the south-east and Fermanagh. Although the Bill sits with the Economy Committee, it is widely recognised that regional balance is about more than just the economy. It is about infrastructure, health and access to all services. I look forward to getting into the detail of the Bill in Committee.

Mr Nesbitt: I simply want to put on record that my party supports the motion. As a Member for Strangford, I look forward to the Bill's implications for regional balance, particularly on the Ards peninsula.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I beg to move

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

Ms Forsythe: As the House is aware, the call for evidence for the Committee Stage of the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill commenced before the summer recess and will conclude just before Halloween. This is a relatively simple Bill, with lots of regulation-making powers. It does complicated things in order to promote renewable electricity generation in Northern Ireland. To allow the Committee time to conclude its scrutiny of other Bills and to allow a little longer for respondents to the call for evidence on the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill to reply, the Committee agreed to seek an extension of the Bill's Committee Stage until 29 January 2027. The Committee will endeavour to conclude its deliberations well in advance of the date in the motion, which should allow sufficient time for the passage of this Executive Bill to conclude prior to dissolution. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee, I commend the extension of the Committee Stage to the House.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No other Members have indicated that they wish to speak.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The debate on the Second Stage of the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill was not concluded upon the Assembly adjourning on Monday 14 September. I return to the speaking list. I call Mr Paul Frew to continue his contribution. Paul.

Mr Frew: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to speak for long, as I have already gone through the Bill at great length. Many's a time we see tattered flags on lamp posts, which we all want to see taken down, but having gone through the Bill and spoken on it, I feel that the Bill is in tatters. It is a reckless Bill. You do not need —.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Ms Bradshaw: Many of your colleagues have spoken and tried to decimate the Bill, but not one of them has come up with a workable alternative. Your party has held the role of First Minister or deputy First Minister since the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) report came out. You have had years to work on a solution and you have not yet articulated why my Bill would not work or what your alternative is. I would appreciate it if you spoke to that. Thank you.

Mr Frew: I thank the Bill sponsor for her intervention. I spoke at length — over an hour — on decimating the Bill and telling the sponsor how it would not work. The Bill sponsor did not encourage interventions at that time, and did not make interventions. There were times when I was talking about the very serious issue of members of the security forces losing limbs or losing their lives when, in the past, they had to remove symbols and flags that were booby-trapped. That was a very, very serious aspect. The Bill sponsor was on her phone when I was speaking on that.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will, yes.

Ms Bradshaw: I found your contribution to be entirely inflammatory. It was wrong. There is no way that I would like to see anybody be harmed in this process. That is why I have said that an outside contractor, who is trained in health and safety and all those aspects, should be involved, and that the police could come in and provide support. You were talking about something that happened many, many years ago. It was absolutely wrong and abhorrent of you to try to bring that into this debate. We have moved on many years. Who would be planting those devices? Who would be doing that? You have not articulated that. Who are the masked men who would be putting those devices up?

Mr Frew: I thank the Bill sponsor for her intervention. Again, I welcome it; I missed it when we spoke previously on this motion. I went to great lengths to say what I said, because the Bill puts a burden on the Department and states:

so individuals would be put at risk. A departmental official, engineer or contractor may well be trained in health and safety, but a contractor is not trained in defence, security or the threat of terrorism. Does the Bill sponsor not realise that we still live under a threat of terrorists? It may well be diminished, and those terrorist organisations may well be diminished, but they still have the potential to murder our personnel, be they a government official from the Department, a contractor working for a Department or a member of the police and security forces. My father, who drove a lorry, was deemed to be a target because he happened to draw stones in and out of a military camp or building site that happened to be a police station. That threat is real. I bring it up because you place a burden on the Department for Infrastructure. It:

I have no doubt, and it is not far-fetched to say, that a terrorist outfit would use that as a new front to attack and put in jeopardy the lives of members of the security forces, and, for that matter, the life of even a government official. They did that in the past. They killed census workers who were going from door to door, so never underestimate the potential terrorist threat in this country.

The Bill sponsor's middle-class thoughts on this really betray her stance because she is not deep down into the ground. She is not working with communities; if she were, she would see that the Bill is unachievable. Its objectives and aims are unachievable because it does not include the community in the decisions and preparations to try to remove flags. There are many on these Benches — on both sides of the House, I am sure — who work with communities, even, at times, with people who we do not want to work with on a daily basis, and we try as best we can to remove the flags in the areas where we can.

We also know —

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will in a wee minute, once I advance my argument.

We also know that when that goes wrong at community level, if a flag comes down, 100 may well go up in its place, so there is a real potential that that may spin out of control because of the Bill.

I will give way to the Member.

Ms Bradshaw: First of all, I find it really offensive for the Member to say that I do not work in working-class communities. I spent 19 years of my life doing that. I have consulted widely on the Bill in my community, including in places such as Erinvale, where there are loads of flags and residents say that they were not put up by people from there.

I want to get to the point, however. You, and your colleagues Mr Kingston and Mr Brooks, said that you negotiate the removal of flags, which would indicate that you know who put them up. Under the Roads Order — [Inaudible.]

Ms Bradshaw: No, let me finish. Under section 87 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, if the Department knows who affixes flags to a lighting column, it can issue a fine. You all said that there is existing legislation. That is existing legislation, so if you know who put the flags up, you should be giving that information to the Department for Infrastructure so that it can issue fines. However, you are not doing that, and that is why my Bill needs to come into force. Existing legislation does not address the issue, and that is why I want to place a duty on the Department to take the flags down, because we do not know who puts them up.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will in a wee minute.

The Bill sponsor puts my argument for me, in that this legislation will be just as worthless as aspects of other pieces of legislation. When we go to the community and ask whether it would be possible for flags to be removed, even for a period of time, or even replaced because they are tattered, we do not necessarily know who put them up. In some instances, we do know, but, in those instances, it is usually the police who come to us to ask us to influence the people who put them up. That shows that current law in this area is not fit for purpose, and this legislation will go just the same way.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Paul, will you turn around and face the Chair, please?

Mr Frew: Sorry, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I should always be addressing you. I know that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am not precious. It is just that we had an issue with microphones yesterday. There is no issue with you, but you seem to be talking to the Bill sponsor rather than to the House. Thank you, Paul.

Mr Frew: Forgive me, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am just passionate about this subject, and I lapse at times.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will give way.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Frew. The Bill sponsor cites examples of current legislation that is not being followed. Does that not just show the folly of this Bill in that we are trying to duplicate a process that is not being followed by certain Ministers? She chides the Member for not giving examples of an alternative that is going to work. I suggest that this blue paper certainly will not work, and is not an example of how to deal with this situation.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. He is absolutely right because he works in North Antrim, as I do, and he sees the difficulties when it comes to flags and emblems. I note that the Bill sponsor was wanting the intervener to give an intervention, but I will certainly give the intervention.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. That is exactly the point. My Bill places a duty on the Department to remove the flags because in the current legislation — whether public order or advertisements legislation — there is a reliance on the Department or a council to know who put the flags up. However, we do not know who is putting the flags up, which is why we have taken the actors out of it and put the onus on the Department to take them down. The existing legislation does not work because they do not know who puts them up.

Mr Frew: I thank the Bill sponsor for her intervention, but, if it was such a good idea for the Department to take down flags and emblems from street furniture that it owned, it would do it. DFI would already be doing it if it helped the community and did not cause a chasm between the Department for Infrastructure street lighting division, let us say, and the community — the people who live in the houses. That is my point: this will cause a chasm. It will mean that DFI Roads officials, whom we deal with daily and weekly, could well become the target of threats from the community.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will in a wee minute.

That is not acceptable and should not be the case, but some of us, especially those with the threat of terrorism hanging over us, live in the real world.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. I see it from the opposite side because, from my experience, the Department for Infrastructure is seen as the inactive element that does not remove flags. Every summer, I get hundreds of contacts from people asking me personally to remove flags and to go to the Department about it. I encourage people to phone the number and report the flags that they are concerned about. I do not know who puts up those flags because they are put up at 2.00 am or 3.00 am, in the hours of darkness, and there is no negotiation with local people, because it is done by people from outside the area. Can you understand why we need a process that the majority of the community trusts? At the moment, the regulations — the rules — are not being applied, and people have to live with flags, of all hues and colours, that they do not want.

Mr Frew: I agree that there is an issue in the community with people having to live, work, travel and commute under flags that they do not like or respect; I get that. What I am saying is that the Bill will not achieve the sponsor's desired outcomes. That is the issue. There is a perverseness with this. I know the sponsor does not mean this, but, many years ago, in my constituency, about 12 people got out of work one lunchtime and went into the town to remove flags, which is something that the Bill wants to achieve. Each one of those workers was arrested for breach of the peace. Those are the sensitivities around this subject, and that is why, when I read the Bill, I was aghast. I could see that there was no way in which these clauses would achieve what the Bill sponsor wants to achieve. I get what she wants to achieve — I would like to see it too — but the Bill is not the vehicle by which to do that. That is my point.

I went through the Bill at great length. I will give way.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Frew. Do you agree that the Bill will put a burden on the law-abiding citizens who put a flag up and take it down, not on the people whom the Alliance Party claims that it wants to target? Those people will not apply via the portal; they will pay no attention to the law. That is why, at the end of the day, the Bill is not workable: it does not target the right people. We hear all this chat about DFI, but what about Northern Ireland Electricity? What about councils? Have we ever bottomed out who is actually responsible? The Bill refers only to the Department, and, if I cast my mind back, I recall that even the Minister was not sure who the Bill would put responsibility on for taking flags down. If there is a noble cause to take forward, this Bill certainly will not do it. It is not going deal with paramilitary flags; it is not going to deal with flags that are offensive to people. Instead of listening to grassroots communities, the thought police of the Alliance Party once again think that they know better.

Mr Frew: The Member makes a valid point, because he lives in the real world. We can have all the text that we want on a blue page, but, if it is unenforceable and unachievable, we will have legislation that is not worth the blue paper that it is printed on. That is the issue. The Member is right: law-abiding communities — the people who respect law and order — who put a flag up could now be criminalised. When it comes down —.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Ms Bradshaw: First, that is not what is in the Bill. The only penalty, the only fine and the only offence in my Bill is where somebody seeks to "obstruct" removal. As I said, under the Roads Order, if somebody puts something up, they can be fined. Existing legislation says that, but my legislation does not, so please do not misinterpret what is in the Bill.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for that intervention and for putting me right in that case. However, here is the truth: those in law-abiding areas will try to adhere to any regulations or laws that are placed upon them, but there are areas of this country where you cannot even collect TV licence money or take planning enforcement action. There are shrines and monuments that do not have planning permission, yet they do not fall foul of the law. As I said at length last week, there are posters and billboards that have been put up by people who should know better, and they will not give two toots about the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill. That is the truth.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member. You will be aware that I have included billboards on public property. They are included. As my colleague Andrew McMurray said in the debate, we want to see consistency in approach. Whether it is a Sinn Féin billboard in a certain area or any other billboard, we just want to see consistency.

On the issue of law-abiding citizens, if people are trying to celebrate a royal wedding or commemorate something in their constituency, I do not see any reason why they cannot engage with the Department and say, "By the way, we're going to have this street festival for a week. Here's why we are putting up flags. Here's when we are taking them down". What is unreasonable about that? If you are content and assured and feel very much a sense of belonging in your community, there is no issue there. It is about the people who put up flags that have swear words, intimidating flags or flags that celebrate terrorists. Those are the flags that the Department would have an automatic duty to take down. Again, I do not see how that is unreasonable.

Mr Frew: The Member says that in an intervention, but that is not what her Bill says.

Ms Bradshaw: It is.

Mr Frew: The Bill refers to "a new housing development". It could be any flag.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mrs Erskine: The Member touches on a very important point. I have a concern about the word "vicinity" as well, because that is not defined in the legislation. I struggle with this, and I wonder whether it is just an outright ban on flags, because, when you look at clause 2, you see that there are very few places where you can fly a flag that are not sensitive.

Mr Frew: The Member raises a very valid point in her intervention.

I really welcome the intervention by the Bill sponsor, because I missed that the last time that I was speaking. The Bill sponsor talks about the detail of the Bill. Clause 1(4)(d) states:

For clarification, will the Bill sponsor — I am able to take an intervention — tell me what "an excessive period of time" means?

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Ms Bradshaw: You will recall that I put the proposal out to consultation, and I prescribed certain categories of time periods. The FICT report suggested a week, so I put a week, two weeks, a month and two months. I got a lot of criticism from the Orange Order and unionist parties about the fact that — . [Inaudible.]

Ms Bradshaw: I listened, Timothy. That is the point.

I got a lot of criticism from people who said, "The marching season is three months", so I asked, "Should we remove that time frame and allow —?". If the flags go up for five months and the marching season lasts for three months, I think that a reasonable person — again, it keeps coming back to the reasonable person test — would say that five months is an excessive period of time. However, after the marching season — up to the end of September, for example — we have to allow for the fact that it may take a few weeks for people to get ladders or cherry pickers. Again, we are trying to be reasonable. That is the reason for the wording.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind everyone that this is not a back and forth, even though you are looking for information. It is about the general principles. We are not going through Consideration Stage. I ask Members to bear that in mind.

Mr Frew: OK, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I take that point. However, a lot of this detail adds to the principles. I will not ask the Bill sponsor to intervene on every question that I raise, but maybe she will address some of them when she is summing up.

Clause 1(4)(e) states:

Is it wrong or right to commemorate? Is it a negative or a positive to commemorate? I could commemorate a lot of stuff that I believe to be true, right and righteous and that has everything to do with sacrifice, but terrorist outfits could say the same for the terrorist dead — people who were blown up in the course of their activities. Does commemoration mean the same for them as it means for me?

The Bill states:

What is meant by "disrespectful manner"?

The crux of my questions and the reason for my asking them is the fact that the Bill sponsor is putting the onus on the Department. The Bill states:

That puts a further onus on the Department. The Department for Infrastructure not only has to remove the flag but has to decide whether it is a good flag or a bad flag. The Bill creates a flag police in the Department for Infrastructure, and I am not sure that that is the best place for it, when we consider the advice that we get from time to time from the PSNI about the removal of flags, the putting up of flags and everything that goes with that.

Clause 2 is "Sensitive places", and my colleague has already touched on that. What is "a shared communal place"? It lists "an interface area". There is great tension in interface areas, especially in Belfast. There is not so much in North Antrim or anywhere else, but there is in Belfast. You can see a scenario where the law enforcement agencies — in this case, the Department for Infrastructure along with the police and the contractor — could well take flags down from one side of an interface on one day and then decide, after eight hours, to move into the other side the next day, and that would cause a great gnashing of teeth. There will be an escalation of violence at the interface: not only will more flags be displayed, but there will be actual violence. The crux of the matter is that we are dabbling in something that we have struggled with for decades, and the Bill will not do it.

The Bill states:

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will in a minute.

How far away from a library does that mean? Is it half a mile? Is it a mile? Is it out of sight? Remember that young people can go to a library to get a book about flags in order to learn about the flags of the world, and that is not perceived as a problem.

Then the Bill states:

A shopping centre is a piece of private land.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Ms Bradshaw: It is outside. The Bill does not speak to the private compound of any business, including a shopping centre.

Mr Frew: The Member can sum it up in her winding-up speech at the end, but what about the car parks of a shopping centre, because that is still private land? There will be issues with that.

The Bill also states:

What on earth does that line mean?

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: What will it mean for the legal enforcement of the Bill?

I will give way.

Mr Gaston: Clause 2 on sensitive places states that the Department "may". The Alliance Party is trying to instil the thought police into the Department.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, can you speak into your microphone, please? We are having difficulties.

Mr Gaston: Bringing it back to the real world, I will give the example of Cullybackey. The Bill states:

We can read further down the Bill and see that it lists a school. Public authorities are exempt and can fly the flag without any problem. However, you can have a case where, for three or four months of the year, there are flags along the adjoining footpath. Are you trying to say that the school is permitted to fly the flag but that those who put up flags every year along the main street of Cullybackey will have to apply and go through the process? If they do not do that or if the flags are deemed to have been up for too long, the Department may take them down.

I move back to the billboard that the Bill sponsor was keen to say would be covered by the Bill. The problem in Newry was that half of the billboard was deemed to be on private land and the other half was on public land. Sinn Féin used that fact to say, "Nothing to do with us, guv; it is on private land". How will your Bill deal with an issue like that? I have yet to be convinced that the Bill will deal with anything. It will create more problems and more interfaces. It meddles in a section of our community, and it will raise tensions. The Alliance Party is absolutely oblivious to what it is trying to foist on communities.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention. I am sure that the Bill sponsor will address those points when she is on her feet. All of that is caveated by the fact that clause 1(7) states:

I was deeply offended when Belfast City Council decided to light up City Hall for what it termed "International Safe Abortion Day". I find that —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Paul, that is well outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr Frew: If a public authority such as a council were to decide to display a flag that I do not like along the whole of Royal Avenue or around Donegall Square, by the look of things, I would have no redress to challenge that.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Ms Bradshaw: As I have just outlined, the flag in that case would be in the compound owned or controlled by a public authority or private business. A council could therefore erect a flag on their grounds, but the only authority that has ownership over the lighting columns is the Department. Councils do not have the authority to put up flags up and down Royal Avenue or anywhere else.

Mr Frew: I thank the Bill sponsor for her intervention. That is useful.

I will close on this, because I have previously spoken at length on the issue. I worry about the Bill. I do not believe that it would do what it says on the blue pages. I believe that it would create further tension and difficulties in our communities. One does not need to have the foresight of Cathbad the druid to know that the Bill would not be good for Ulster. It would make community tensions worse, not better. It might even lead to further tension, segregation and division. That is something that we are trying to fight against, not encourage.

I ask the Bill sponsor to think again about proceeding with the legislation. I mean that respectfully and honourably. I have said that I appreciate everybody's hard work on their Members' Bills. I appreciate what their Bill means to them, the work that they have to do and the hoops through which they have to jump. We, however, have a right in this place to scrutinise law and a responsibility to pass appropriate law, and I do not think that the Bill passes the test.

Mr Wilson: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill, but, first, I will address a comment that I heard last week from the Alliance Benches. It was, in my view, a typical Alliance response to what were well-articulated comments on the unworkability of the Bill, and my colleague has ably made more such comments in his contribution. Sadly, however, that critique was conflated with somehow being an attack on the Bill Office staff. I am by no means alone in believing that the legislation is vastly unworkable. Many other Members have raised similar concerns, but that is not a reflection on the hard-working Bill Office staff. Rather, it is a reflection on the Bill sponsor and supporters of her Member's Bill, which must be able to stand up to scrutiny. The process of scrutiny inevitably involves criticism of the Bill and the dissecting of its components to determine what it would mean in reality. It would be unwise of the Assembly simply to rely on the arguments of the sponsor of any Bill alone. We all play a part in what is an important process, ably facilitated by the Bill Office. I record my gratitude to the Bill Office staff, who have an ever-expanding workload.

The Bill sponsor knows what she wants to see in her vision for Northern Ireland, and there is nothing wrong with that vision. Indeed, I do not think that any of us would disagree with Northern Ireland's reaching its fullest potential, but, much like what the Bill tries to do, glossing over the hard practicalities and deep complexity of life in Northern Ireland will not create meaningful change or make a difference. It could literally make things worse.

The first few lines of the Bill demand an action by saying that the Department "must", but it then relinquishes any authority at all by referring to the broad parameters of "public interest". Then, unhelpfully, it hands the Department for Infrastructure a very big ball of tangled string by relying solely on the Department's opinion. Is the opinion of the Department reliable, unchanging or even realistic? Would that opinion change depending on who ultimately was leading the Department or on the internal unit that would be given the monumental task of enforcing the legislation in its current form on our streets?

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Wilson: I will, surely.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. I think that you have just made my argument for me. I want to see a robust, workable, consistent Bill, which will hopefully become an Act of the Assembly, in place, so that, regardless of who the Infrastructure Minister is in the next mandate or beyond, the general, wider public knows exactly how flags will be treated, and it will not be at the whim of a Minister. I will give an example in my summation of where there are differences in policy around that. It is about consistency. You have just made the argument as to why we need it here; because of the complexity of our Administration.

Mr Wilson: Thank you. I would make a further point: I have not been here overly long, but one thing that I have noticed is that, on these Benches, we are quite willing to give way. In the past few days, I have seen real reluctance from your party members to give way. It was quite evident in recent times, perhaps because the tone of the debate or certain criticisms from these Benches were not particularly welcome. I put on record that I am proud of my party for its willingness to give way and allow debate to take place. The Speaker is also keen to see that happen.

Would the "opinion" that is referred to in the Bill change depending on what party held the Ministry? That is one of several important questions. I cannot resist the urge to refer to my constituency and, of course, the infamous Sinn Féin billboard at the Egyptian Arch. The Bill covers that very subject, as I note that, under "Interpretation" at clause 7, billboards are mentioned specifically. When I look at the facts of that particular billboard case and apply the rules, I wonder genuinely what the outcome would be. Of course, I am speaking about something that I have already dealt with: I tabled a motion back in January, which was backed by the majority in the House; I contacted Newry, Mourne and Down District Council's planning division to request enforcement action; and I contacted historic environment division, given that the Egyptian Arch is a listed structure and therefore planning permission for such a billboard to be installed so close to it would be refused. Those combined actions resulted in the billboard's coming down, and rightly so.

I wonder whether, if the provisions in the Bill were in operation, those actions would be taken by the Department under the leadership of a Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister. There is no doubt that there would be public interest in doing so, but whose "opinion" would count? Would the Minister be consulted? I assume so. Therein lies my scepticism about the effectiveness of the Bill in its current form. In the billboard case, the Infrastructure Minister was largely indifferent to an illegally erected structure, bearing her party logo and located on DFI property beside a listed structure, namely the Egyptian Arch. What faith can we therefore have if the Member's Bill should pass and become law?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. It could be that it goes right to the very top because the Bill does not define who actually makes the final decision: who decides or has an "opinion" on what is a good flag, a bad flag, a bad billboard or a good billboard. It could, however, be a local office. It could be a regional office manager who decides that. That might create a patchwork throughout Northern Ireland when it comes to what is considered to be a good flag or a bad flag.

Mr Wilson: Yes. I agree.

It has been said repeatedly that the Department for Infrastructure has enough to be getting on with fixing our roads, replacing our footpaths and ensuring that our motorways are up to spec.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for giving way.

Knowing what we now know, and having read the blue pages in front of us, can the Member set out what is in the Bill, if the same situation were to happen again, to enable that billboard at the Egyptian Arch to be taken down in a more timely manner? All that I see in the Bill is that it is open to political influence and "opinion". It uses the word "may". All that we would have is more problems. The issue of a billboard's being erected, half of which was on DFI land and half on private property, has not been dealt with by the Bill sponsor. What is your understanding of that? Does the Bill give the Department any power to go on to private property that is adjoining public land to remove a billboard?

Mr Wilson: The Member makes a very good point. My understanding of it is that the portion that is on DFI property — or public property, if you like — should be subject to that type of Bill. I am not sure that private property should be treated any differently if it is within very close range of the street, any street furniture or sensitive place — [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Gareth. The Member is on his feet and has a right to be heard. Go ahead.

Mr Wilson: Thank you.

Even with a Minister who is, ideally, fully committed to the Bill's objectives, does the Bill sponsor really think that DFI has the capacity to meet the Bill's objectives in its current format?

Existing laws have obviously been tentatively used, given the real complexity of the issue, with particular reference to flags. There has been much mention of that in the deliberations on the Bill so far.

Do I feel that the Bill in its current format will deliver what the Bill sponsor wishes? No. The reliance on what are clearly wide variables, using terminology such as "opinion" and "public interest", does not reflect the realities and complexities of divided communities. Rather than enable us to heal from or deal with division, the Bill could easily do the opposite, and that is why I will not support it at this stage.

Ms Sugden: I begin by acknowledging the work that the Member has put into bringing the Bill before the House. That is important, because I do not want my concerns about the Bill to be interpreted as suggesting that there is not a problem here; there absolutely is. Flags should not be used to intimidate people, to mark territory or to tell someone that they are not welcome in a place where they live. There is no legitimate cultural defence for the display of the flag of a proscribed organisation, nor should any of us be comfortable with flags being erected anonymously, left indefinitely and eventually hanging in tatters from public property. At the same time, legitimate cultural expression is legitimate cultural expression. The respectful display of a national flag or an emblem associated with cultural celebration or commemoration is not equivalent to intimidation or paramilitarism. Shared space should not have to be culturally empty space either.

The difficulty is working out where the lines sit in practice, and I have considerable sympathy for the Member, because she is trying to do something that, frankly, government should have done a long time ago. We have talked about the issue for years. We established the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition, and its final report was published in 2021, yet, here we are, five years later, still debating who is responsible when flags are attached to public property, what powers exist, who should exercise them and what happens when nobody is prepared to act. That is a failure of government, so I genuinely commend the Member for what she is trying to do: fill a vacuum that continues to cause distress across communities in Northern Ireland.

I know what it is like to bring forward a private Member's Bill on an area on which government has not acted. You do so because, if a private Member's Bill does not try to move something forward, nothing happens at all. However, there are realistic expectations of what a private Member's Bill can do, and I am increasingly concerned that we are coming up against those exact limitations with this Bill.

I have listened to the contributions over the last number of days and weeks, and I am quite sympathetic to a lot of what has been said. The central question for me is not whether something needs to be done — it absolutely does — but whether the Bill creates the right architecture to do that, and I am not convinced that it does. With a private Member's Bill, scope is entirely limited, and the scope that is needed to address the issue needs to be much broader, which, again, is why I am sympathetic to the Member, because it is government that needs to be doing that.

As others have said, the obvious issue is about responsibility, and the Bill places responsibility primarily with the Department for Infrastructure. I appreciate that there is a practical logic to that, in that what we are talking about is attached to street furniture, much of which belongs to DFI, but the decisions that the Bill asks officials to make are not really infrastructure decisions. If something creates a road safety hazard, that absolutely is an infrastructure issue, but deciding whether a particular flag is intimidatory, threatening, offensive, abusive, insulting or antagonistic —

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I am not trying to have a gotcha moment, but the Member will be aware that section 78F of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was inserted by the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022, placing a duty on the Department to consider its actions in that space. A lot of the wording from that portion of the Act is in my Bill. The Department for Infrastructure does have a duty in that space. It may feel a wee bit abstract because of the nature of its departmental responsibilities, but a core part of that Department's statutory functions is to ensure that it takes account of the issues that the Member has just outlined.

Ms Sugden: I thank the sponsor for making that point. That is fair, but, given the limited scope of what the Bill can achieve, it has to be put into a much wider context. I do not necessarily agree that the Department for Infrastructure should do that. It should be done at a much more senior, overarching level, given the nature of the issues that it raises, such as intimidation or distress and community issues. We are asking DFI to make profoundly difficult judgements, involving law, policing, equality, human rights, culture and community relations. Do we really want the Department that is responsible for fixing potholes on our roads to be responsible for that?

I would be the first to say that this is one Government and that you should all be working together, but the reality is that you do not. Certainly, if someone is going to take the lead on this, if anything, it has to come from the Executive Office. Indeed, when the Bill was first tabled, my assumption was that that was where it would have gone. That summarises my concern about where the Bill sits. I just do not think that DFI is the appropriate body.

As well as that, we would be putting civil servants into an extraordinarily difficult position. When we contact them about issues to do with the roads, we receive a fairly processed response. This issue, however, comes down to people's opinions and community relations, which goes outside what we should expect DFI to do. I take the Bill sponsor's point; I am not sure that that was the right approach. It is what it is, but I am not sure that I want to move forward with it. If they remove a flag, one part of the community may accuse them of suppressing legitimate cultural expression. If they leave it in place, someone else will say that the Department has tolerated intimidation. That is already a concern. More often than not, I have contacted DFI locally in relation to removing not just flags but political placards on roundabouts and things, and it is reluctant to do any of that because of the community pushback that it will get.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes, go ahead.

Ms Bradshaw: What you have described there is the status quo. People are flying their flags unauthorised, but, when others contact the flags reporting line or go to the Department on any number of issues to raise concerns, none of those matters are dealt with. There is a complete imbalance where the silent majority of people, who are aggrieved by flags and emblems, have to tolerate them. You are wrong: there is no balancing act at the moment, and everything is going in one direction.

Ms Sugden: I agree, and that is why I pre-empted my contribution by saying that there is an issue. Something needs to be done, but this is not the right vehicle to do it. The responsibility should not sit solely with the Department for Infrastructure, whose remit is considerably different from what we are trying to do here. The Member has approached it from a practical perspective, because this is essentially about street furniture that belongs to DFI. To me, however, this is much wider than that, in terms of community relations and intimidatory behaviour. Ultimately, what happens now are the issues that I am outlining. It just does not happen, because DFI does not have the confidence to do that and it does not fall within its remit. All of this needs to happen at a much more holistic level.

We will end up in a situation where we do nothing, and that makes me conflicted about the Bill. I absolutely agree that something needs to be done, but I do not agree with how we are doing it. Therefore, I will not support the Bill, but nor will I suppress it; I will probably abstain. If anything, there is a good conversation to have about what the Government are failing to do. I commend Ms Bradshaw for being the one to bring the matter to the House, but, unfortunately, this is not the right practical thing to do.

I am also concerned about the language in clause 1. There is a significant difference between "intimidatory or threatening" and something being "offensive". People are entitled to be offended, but that does not automatically mean that the state should remove the thing that offends them. Indeed, there are flags, posters, political messages and symbols that I personally dislike, but that cannot be the test. Terms such as "offensive", "antagonistic" or:

need considerably more examination. The debate over recent days and weeks has demonstrated why that should be. Members across the House have produced examples and have asked, "Will this or that be caught? What about a national flag, a sporting emblem, a political solidarity flag or something associated with a particular commemoration?". If reasonable people across the House are asking those questions, can we say that the Bill can confidently be interpreted and implemented to address those concerns?

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. I will use a flippant example, but it points to some of the issues that may arise. I may not agree with a sporting team's flag. My husband supports a sporting team. However, if somebody puts up a flag in the vicinity and somebody else takes offence to that football team's flag being there, they can put that into the online portal. We would be using Civil Service time, energy and money to pursue all of that when the Department should be going out and fixing the lamp posts that the flags are on and fixing the potholes. It seems pretty flippant, but that is what the Bill could create: a really bizarre situation in which people just take offence at anything.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Member for the contribution. That is kind of what I was setting out when talking about which Department is the appropriate one to address the issue. Again, we could take offence at anything that is hung off a lamp post. On what basis do we bring it down? Do we bring it down because we disagree with it, or is it genuinely intimidatory, meaning that we, as elected representatives, have to respond to that?

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Go ahead.

Ms Bradshaw: As outlined at the start of the Bill, there is the absolute duty under those "intimidatory" categories, and there is then the "presumption". To enact the presumption and work your way through it, there is a process through which departmental officials would have to look at the vicinity, the circumstances and the reason for the flag being flown. As the Member said, maybe a sporting tournament or something similar is coming up. There is no automatic premise that departmental officials or their contractors would take flags down in the scenarios that you outline. Again, it is not about one or two complaints and then the Department jumps. There is a balancing act, and we have talked about striking the balance in that presumptive "reasonable person" test.

Ms Sugden: As with all these things, there is context, and that is important. I am pleased that that is featured in the Bill, but, again, is it the Department for Infrastructure that should be considering that context? I am not entirely sure that it is. If anything, you would nearly need to build a new unit into the Department that looks at that specifically. Again, it is not something that I am concerned about. Ultimately, I am not sure that any of us wants to see a new commission, but, if we are genuine about tackling the issue, we need to find something. Otherwise, the Bill will be voted for or not voted for. If it is not voted for, we will do nothing more.

I always come at this from a practical perspective and interest. I am loath to burden a Department that I spend hours and days writing to on issues that they cannot fix when this should be the responsibility of someone else. That is the balance that we, as elected representatives, need to consider as well. If we put those responsibilities on to a particular Department, that comes at a cost in resource and in balancing what is there and prioritising — we hear that word more often than not — and —.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Dickson: On the issue of resource, the reality of the situation is that Northern Ireland is beset by sectarian flags; flags that communities do not want; and flags that communities are intimidated by. The Bill gives the opportunity to regulate and deal with those circumstances, and that will come at a cost. It is a cost that the community wants. Our constituents tell us that they want us to spend money on this. At various times of the year, I regularly receive complaints from residents about having flags taken down, and it is not just about whom you go to and whom you ask. Yes, of course, there will be a cost involved in that, but that is what the community wants us to do. People want us to spend money doing that.

Ms Sugden: Through the Chair, I appreciate that. Equally, however, I receive an awful lot more correspondence about people wanting their roads to be fixed and their street lights to be lit. That is the balance that we will have to decide on: what is the priority? To be fair, I also receive correspondence expressing concern about flags, but that is nowhere near the scale of the other correspondence. That does not mean that the issue is not there. It just means that, if we are to make this decision, we have to recognise what the consequence of that will be. I am not sure that this vehicle is worth it.

I will say it 100 times over: what the Member is doing is commendable, and the Member is absolutely right to tackle the issue when the Executive have not, but I am sure that the limitations of a private Member's Bill meant that she had to it in a way that means that it is not the appropriate vehicle.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Go ahead.

Mr Dickson: I do not want to press too hard on the point, but, in the debate, we have not heard from any side of the House — certainly not from one side — what the alternative to the Bill is; indeed, Ms Sugden should also address that. There is a clear requirement from the community that we deal with this as a societal matter in Northern Ireland, but we hear no alternatives.

That is why it is important that we not only commend Paula's work to deliver the Bill to its Second Stage but ensure that it passes Second Stage and moves to Committee Stage, where many of the detailed questions posed by you and others can be addressed and where we can invite all the appropriate organisations to make their views on the Bill known, so that we can dig down into it, and, yes, cost will be part of that as well.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Claire, before you resume, I remind everyone that the debate is about the general principles. Stewart outlined a point about alternatives and the fact that the Bill would go to the Committee for its consideration, but Members absolutely have the right to talk in general about that. Continue, Claire.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for giving way. I listened to the Member for East Antrim's point, but is that not an example of what I mentioned on a previous day of the debate, which was "Sir Humphrey" syndrome, whereby people say, "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do it"? That is not the way to approach the issue.

Ms Sugden: I think so. The House has been criticised in the past for not writing good legislation. I have done that myself. I absolutely support the principle, but I do not support the vehicle.

With reference to some of Mr Dickson's points, I fully expect, given that he has colleagues in the Executive, that he will use that leverage to encourage his colleagues to do something in that respect as part of a collective Government. I know that people will shake their head and say, "That is not realistic", but that is what you do when you agree to be in government. You try to make those changes from within, and, if you cannot, that is for you to answer.

I cannot remember Stewart's other point, but I do not want to wax lyrical about why I do or do not agree with the Bill. I do not think that anyone in the House does not recognise that there is a problem. I hope that each of us will take that responsibility forward in the new mandate and say that we will tackle the issue head-on and use a vehicle that will look at it in a way that is sympathetic to all the concerns related to it. I do not think that that is what the Bill is.

Stewart's point was that we can deal with such issues at Committee Stage, but I have an issue with the fundamental structure of the Bill, and I am not sure that amendments will fix that. If anything, any amendments that I would propose would probably not be within the Bill's scope and therefore would not be accepted. I am not sure that we can do what needs to be done in order for me to be content with our taking it forward. It is only for that reason that I will not support its progression to Committee Stage, but, again, I will abstain, because I am trying to be balanced about what we need to do.

I will not continue for much longer, because I am starting to repeat myself. I commend the Member for what she is trying to do with the Bill. I do not think that it is the right vehicle. The Department for Infrastructure is there to do the things that we expect it to do, but the issue needs to be dealt with in a manner that is much more overarching and preferably by the Executive Office. I am mindful of the fact that the nature of many of the issues, particularly those concerning community relations, means that the Bill needs to be held by the Executive Office.

I will put this back to all the people who are concerned: hold us, as politicians, to account on what needs to be done.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: I was just wrapping up, but yes.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to touch on her point about community relations, because that is really important. When we look at constituencies such as mine, we see that there have been good working relationships. When the Twelfth demonstration happened in Irvinestown, GAA flags that were up to celebrate a local club's sporting achievement came down to facilitate the Orange. However, if we impose regulations on communities, some communities may feel tension as a result. We need to work with communities, rather than impose things on them, because that creates bad community feeling.

Ms Sugden: I agree, but, to be fair to the Bill sponsor, we are not doing that. The response is to recognise that we need to do something, but, equally, I agree with Mr Brooks that it is not the right thing just because it is the only thing. I certainly charge the —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: OK.

Mr Brooks: The Member has spoken eloquently about the Bill. She has given a number of reasons for why she feels that it is not the right vehicle, yet she has said that she will abstain. I understand the wish to be balanced, but I encourage her to have the courage of her convictions, even though her reasons may differ from mine, and say that the Bill is not the right vehicle. If it is not the right vehicle, we should vote against it.

Ms Sugden: It is not the right vehicle, but it is the right principle, and for that reason —.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes. Go ahead.

Ms Bradshaw: We are meant to be discussing the general principles of the Bill. I take on board the Member's point about there being a cross-departmental element involved in community relations — the Department for Communities and the Executive Office have responsibilities, for example — but an amendment could be tabled to have some sort of interdepartmental unit do the assessment. That would sit neatly within the Bill. It would certainly not be outside its scope. Amendments to the Bill can be tabled following the scrutiny stage before being voted on at Consideration Stage. If the Member supports the principles of the Bill, I therefore encourage her to support its getting to Committee Stage so that we can find a mechanism for such decisions to be taken transparently.

Ms Sugden: Thanks very much for the intervention. I appreciate that both Members want me to vote with them. The difficulty for me is that, yes, I support the principles of the Bill, but the context is the Bill that has been drafted. We will not be able to change it in any substantive way that will make me content with it, so I feel that I cannot vote for it. To address Mr Brooks's point, I will not vote against the Bill because I genuinely support its principles. Despite my perhaps not reaching the conclusion that some Members want me to, there is value in my saying on the record why the issue is important and why something needs to happen. I cannot vote for the Bill outright, because its context is the bit that is important to me. I am genuinely on the fence, because the Bill is right, but it is also wrong.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes, I will. It will be the last time.

Mr Gaston: We have heard that the principles are right but that the vehicle is wrong. The Member has articulated that, because of its overarching responsibilities, the Executive Office should take the matter forward. Time and again, however, as the Member will know from her experience on the Executive Committee, which is a lot more vast than mine, that TEO is where things go to die. [Laughter.]

If we are to wait on legislation coming from the First Ministers, we will be here for a few mandates yet.

The Bill sponsor, when she intervened, spoke about creating a new body. In my speech, I outlined my concerns about having a Parades Commission mark II. If we are to tackle the issue, the Bill has to be narrow and deal with terrorist-related flags. The Bill is so wide-ranging and has such wide scope that it takes in the national flag. Unless the Bill sponsor looks at dealing with the flags that are a problem through a mechanism that will work, there will not be buy-in from unionism for a Parades Commission mark II. I ask the Bill sponsor to reflect on that when introducing legislation in future. A body that dictates what is done to this country's national flag will not get buy-in from me. We have seen what the Parades Commission does to parades across the country. Unionism has learnt from the mistakes of the past.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, I ask that you return to the principles of the Bill. Thank you.

Mr Gaston: There endeth my contribution.

Ms Sugden: Mr Gaston articulates a lack of confidence in public services and in institutions generally. If we were to create any new commission, we would need to make sure that that would not happen.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: No. I will try to finish my contribution.

I disagree slightly with Mr Gaston. This is not just about paramilitary flags. I take great exception to seeing the Union flag flying tattered from a lamp post. I would like to see such flags being removed much more swiftly, and even other flags. I will not say that I take offence at certain football flags, but, as a Coleraine fan, I probably do.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: OK.

Mr Gaston: When it comes to Union flags, I share the Member's displeasure and annoyance: if somebody takes the time to put up the national flag, they should take it down before it gets tattered. In such cases, however, the flag is on DFI property, Northern Ireland Electricity property or council property, so, as things stand, the owner of that property can take the flag down. We do not need new legislation in order for that to be done.

Ms Sugden: I slightly disagree. Yes, there is legislation in place, but it is not being implemented. Again, I maintain that the Bill is not the right vehicle, but it is important that we strengthen existing legislation in order to give statutory agencies the confidence to take down such flags. Alternatively, we need to direct them in some way because, right now, they are passing the buck, whether it be the Housing Executive, DFI or the police. Nobody wants to do it. All of them are overwhelmed by their other day-to-day concerns, so it is easy just to say no.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes.

Mr Brooks: They are overwhelmed, and the Bill would mean that they would be even more overwhelmed. For example, any of us in Belfast who have asked for speed bumps for areas will know that there is a list of hundreds of streets that want them. I think that, on average, one street gets done every year. Just because there is a list of things that need to be done sitting in DFI does not mean that there is the resource or willingness to do everything on it. DFI has to consider the resources that it has available.

Ms Sugden: I think that you made the same point as me, so I will let that stand.

I do not want to go on past the lunch break. I commend the Member for what she is trying to do. I charge the Executive, and any incoming one, to address the issue in the right way. We are all sitting here as potential Members of the next Assembly. It is on us to try to take something forward in a more collaborative way. However, the Bill is not the right vehicle in which to address the issue. We would be setting ourselves up for a competition between public services, which is something that I am not sure we need. The matter needs to be taken forward separately from our issues with public services.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak will be Deborah Erskine, who has indicated that she would prefer to start after Question Time.

As Members know, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, and Deborah will be the first Member called to speak.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Just bear with me a second, Mr Speaker. Apologies.

So far this year, 48 people have lost their lives on our roads. Road safety remains a key priority for me. My thoughts are, first, with the families and friends who have been for ever changed by the devastation of losing a loved one on our roads.

The work of the latest road safety action plan continues at pace, and I continue to prioritise strategic interventions that will impact on road safety across a number of areas, including policy and legislation, enforcement, communication and awareness and active travel. Next week, we will see the introduction of graduated driver licensing (GDL). GDL has the potential to deliver significant road safety benefits. I am taking that step ahead of any other jurisdiction on these islands, because the evidence is clear and the human cost of inaction is too great. Shortly, I will launch a consultation on modernising drug-driving laws. We know that drugs can seriously impair a person's ability to drive safely, and evidence suggests that drug-driving is an increasing concern. As patterns of drug use, vehicle technology and enforcement methods have evolved, it is important that our laws keep pace. The proposals are about creating a modern and effective framework for tackling drug-driving and improving safety for everyone who uses our roads.

Public consultations on speed limits and safer journeys to school have been completed. Work progresses on the introduction of a lower legal alcohol limit, a review of the level of speeding fines and the development of new scheme proposals on the regional strategic transport network, targeting the routes with the highest collision rates, where engineering solutions would mitigate risks.

As Members are aware, I have not yet taken final budget decisions for 2026-27. Given the recent increase in road deaths, however, I have already committed £872,500 to enable the relaunch of key road safety advertising campaigns, ensuring that vital messages continue to reach road users, while longer-term budget decisions are being considered.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for her response. Minister, given that every one of those deaths represents a family that has been left devastated, will you set out what specific intervention your Department has identified as the most effective in reducing road deaths? Has such a measure been implemented on the highest-risk roads and accident black spots throughout Northern Ireland?

Ms Kimmins: In response to the Member's initial question, I outlined the broad range of interventions that I have been making and continue to make and those that I plan to make in the future. There is no single intervention that has an impact across the board, and that is why we need to have a collaborative approach with the Road Safety Partnership across a number of areas. We are continually looking at the causes of road traffic collisions, particularly those that result in serious injuries or fatalities. In any such incident, the PSNI investigation helps to establish why it happened, and there are various reasons.

GDL is a good example of how we have taken on board evidence. Key to my decision to take GDL forward was evidence that 17-to-23-year-olds are disproportionately represented in figures for fatal and serious road traffic collisions. We have seen across the world such measures having a beneficial impact and reducing numbers of collisions. That is one aspect of the work that I have done that is evidence-based, and I hope that we see the benefits of that sooner rather than later.

Mr McAleer: Minister, I am glad to note that you will soon launch a consultation on reforming drug-driving laws. Will you give us some more information on what will be proposed?

Ms Kimmins: I am glad that the Member has raised that issue. As we know, drug-driving is an increasing concern. The current legal framework for tackling drug-driving in the North is based on proven impairment, an approach that has changed little over many decades. As drug-use patterns, technologies and enforcement methods have evolved, it is important that our legislation keeps pace and provides an effective framework for protecting all road users.

The consultation seeks views on a range of proposals to modernise the North's drug-driving laws, and the proposals include creating a new two-tier system that would retain existing impairment offences whilst allowing offences linked to specified drug limits; new offences covering driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of a vehicle while over the legal limit for a specified drug; powers to specify drugs and limits through future regulations and being able to update them if, for example, patterns of drug use change; a statutory medical defence to protect those who have legitimately been prescribed relevant medicines for medical or dental purposes; penalties aligned with existing drink-driving and drug-driving offences; and exploring the potential introduction of rehabilitation courses for drug-driving offenders.

As I said, I plan to launch that in the very near future, and I really encourage everyone to look at the proposals and invest some time in responding. This is another key intervention that, if we can get it right, can make a massive difference to those who use our roads.

Mrs Guy: Minister, I welcome anything that you can do to improve road safety, especially in the vicinity of schools. In Lurgan, the new campus at St Ronan's College, which is fantastic, has been attracting pupils from Aghagallon, Aghalee and Ballinderry, and parents have been lobbying for a safe crossing at Bells Row. Your officials committed to doing an assessment of that at the start of the new term, so I am hoping that you can give us an update on when parents can expect to see some action on that.

Ms Kimmins: First, I commend St Ronan's. I am very familiar with it. I know that that has been a fantastic development and will be a huge boost for the community and for the staff and the pupils, who are very proud of their school. I can get further detail for the Member on where that is at. I do not have that to hand, but I am keen to provide an update so that the school and the parents are aware of what work has been done and what they can expect in the future.

Mr Durkan: The Minister has outlined some welcome measures that are progressing to improve road safety and reduce the risk to road users. Some of those measures have been in the pipeline for a while. I did not hear anything about the road safety concern that I hear most from constituents, and that is around e-scooters and similar vehicles. What plans does the Minister have and what action will she take to combat that scourge?

Ms Kimmins: As constituency representatives, we are all too familiar, unfortunately, with the dangers of e-scooters. The Member will know that it is illegal to use e-scooters on our public roads and public spaces here, so anyone who is using an e-scooter illegally may be subject to enforcement action by the PSNI. We have seen more of that action taking place.

At present, my officials are continuing to monitor the progress of the e-scooter rental scheme that is taking place in Britain as well as the ongoing legislative changes that are aimed at strengthening e-scooter legislation in the South of Ireland. That analysis will be important, and, once it is available, my officials will provide advice to me to consider the way forward here. I think that it is really important that we look at what is happening elsewhere to inform what we are doing rather than trying to reinvent the wheel and do something very different. As I said about GDL, an evidence base really strengthens the case for moving issues like this forward and ensures that, when we do make changes, we do them properly.

The Member will also be aware that I recently released a campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of illegal e-scooter use and the need for owners to take personal responsibility. To address ongoing concerns about e-scooter use, I have instructed my officials to undertake a departmental call for evidence to gather the views, concerns and experiences, which I think are key to a lot of this, of the public and any interested parties or organisations. That will also help to inform the way forward from here.

Mr Speaker: Many Members, when they come into the Chamber, sit and observe who the Minister is speaking to and then move when the Minister has finished speaking. Other Members do not. One of the rules of the Assembly is that you do not walk between a Member who is speaking and the Member whom they are speaking to. I ask Members to observe that rule, because it is downright bad manners not to do so. I will call Members out for that in future.

Ms Kimmins: As I have said in previous responses, road safety remains an absolute priority for me and my Department, and we are committed to working proactively to make our roads safer and to address the needs of all road users. We are acutely aware that children and young people are amongst the most vulnerable groups using our roads, particularly around schools.

The Member will be aware that we met to discuss the pedestrian crossing at the Prince Charles Way roundabout. I am pleased to advise that work is progressing well to deliver the proposed toucan crossing. Officials have received the initial design from our traffic signals contractor, and consultation with the PSNI on the relocation of the 50 mph speed limit to facilitate the crossing at that location has been completed. Subject to there being no objections, we anticipate its delivery within the current financial year. In the meantime, other concerns about driver behaviour, such as speeding or other inconsiderate behaviour, should be directed to the PSNI in the normal way through its non-emergency telephone number.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her answer and for coming to the school to speak to the local school council. I appreciate that the crossing will be completed and installed. However, my understanding was that that would done before Christmas rather than before the end of the financial year. Will the Minister elaborate on whether it can be done more quickly — before Christmas? If it is not, you are talking about almost another school year without a safe crossing.

Ms Kimmins: The Member makes a valid point. Obviously, we want to move at pace. As I outlined in my substantive response, there is still a process to go through, and we have to allow for any input into that. Subject to no objections being raised, we should be able to move ahead. I do not have the exact date, but we kept it broad with "within the current financial year". That may be before Christmas. I can try to get a more detailed update from officials to see whether that is likely, because I, too, would like to see it moving, particularly when we have got to this stage. It is progressing well, and we are well on track for its delivery. People want to see it sooner rather than later. I will be happy to provide that update to the Member.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, I commend you on the work that you have done around safety, particularly for young people and children attending school. The work that you have done in response to the death of one of my constituents on the road has been greatly appreciated in my local area. What specific action are you taking around safety at schools, and what messaging can we put out? Last week, I had a call from a concerned principal whose school has a crossing in operation. Even parents who are dropping children off to school are running the red light. What action can the Department take to tackle that?

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her comments. I am keen that we do as much as possible in the rest of the mandate to improve road safety, particularly for children and young people going to and from school. Following the roll-out of the third tranche of the part-time 20 mph speed limit schemes at 40 schools across the North and given my Department's commitment to and focus on improving safety, particularly around rural schools, many of which are on roads that have a 60 mph speed limit, I have asked officials to identify other schools that could benefit from the temporary 20 mph speed limit. That work is ongoing. I look forward to making an announcement on that in the not-so-distant future.

Additionally, I was pleased to announce the publication of the '2026 Speed Limit Review Consultation Response Report' on 12 July this year, which sets out the findings of the recently undertaken public consultation. There was significant interest in that because it sets out proposals around permanent reduced speed limits in the vicinity of schools and more built-up residential areas. That will not only improve road safety but encourage active travel, so there will be a double impact from that work. I am keen to progress that further to ensure that our roads are safer for all road users — everybody who is out and about — not just the people who get behind the wheel. The Member will also be aware of the work that is progressing on the safer journeys to school programme, the school bus legislation and the range of measures in and around that to enhance road safety going to and from school.

Mr Harvey: Minister, in light of your commitment to road safety, will you provide an update on the proposed pedestrian crossing at Assumption Grammar School, Ballynahinch, following the unfortunate incident when a pedestrian was knocked down? It is a matter of real concern for families and staff. I would appreciate a clear timeline for action.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for raising that. Officials undertook a pedestrian survey on the Belfast Road in Ballynahinch in March of this year. The outcome of that assessment was that the location met the Department's criteria for consideration of a controlled pedestrian crossing and was added to the list of potential schemes. Whilst the location has met the assessment criteria, identifying a suitable position for a controlled crossing remains challenging.

That section of the Belfast Road, as the Member is probably aware, has a significant number of private accesses and a junction, as well as on-street parking activity, all of which can be restrictive in determining a suitable location that can safely accommodate a crossing that would comply with road safety and accessibility standards. In addition, pedestrian desire lines along that corridor do not necessarily align with locations where a crossing could be most readily provided.

Those factors require careful consideration as part of the design process. Officials will, therefore, undertake further site assessments and engineer investigations during the detailed design stage to identify whether a safe and practical crossing location can be achieved. The design process will also take into account any future development proposals in the area that may influence pedestrian movements, traffic patterns and the most appropriate location for crossing facilities. In the meantime, officials have assessed existing signs and road markings in the vicinity of the school and will replace existing school warning signs on both approaches to the school and refresh associated road markings.

Whilst that is probably not the complete answer that the Member would like, I hope that it shows the willingness and work that is ongoing to achieve a safe and suitable crossing. If the Member wishes to continue to stay in contact with officials as we go through that process, we would be happy to keep him updated.

Ms Hunter: Minister, I welcome the work that you are doing to keep young people at school safe. As elected representatives, we are often inundated with requests for pedestrian crossings. Many have found that process time-intensive. Why is the process so time-intensive? Furthermore, a high number of applications seem to be rejected by your Department. Will you tell us more about that?

Ms Kimmins: As someone who has always been raising those issues in my constituency, I know how important it is to get safe crossings and what the Department calls "local transport and safety measures" to enhance road safety in all constituencies. The answer that I provided to the previous Member outlines some of the challenges and complexities that are associated with something that could look straightforward but that has a number of considerations that have to be taken into account when going through the process.

We have clear guidance and policy on how we assess and on the criteria against which those assessments are carried out in determining what meets the assessment criteria. Some applications probably move more quickly than others depending on the location. It would not be fair for me to say that that is the case for all, because sometimes it is not. Budget is also an issue, and we have lists that are prioritised. I mentioned in my previous response that that location was on the list. A number of factors can have an impact on timescales.

Whilst I have a limited budget, I have so far identified £8·4 million in my budget for this year to maximise road safety benefits, where we are looking at having more crossings and such things that can improve road safety and enhance active travel opportunities by enabling people to walk or cycle safely. My particular focus is on children and young people, because, if we can start to develop those norms, they will always do it.

I hope that that explains how we get to that point, but, if the Member wishes to raise specific locations, she can write to me.

Ms Kimmins: When I announced the audit, earlier in the month, the Department outlined concerns about governance and control matters in NI Water, and I will require further assurance on the adequacy of NI Water's risk management, governance and systems of internal control.

The Department's concerns were intensified recently due to insufficient assurance; several raising a concern investigations; legacy and current breaches of a "Dear Accounting Officer" letter about the use of confidentiality agreements; procurement and contract management practices; and observations by the Department's representative on the NI Water board. I also wish to receive an assurance on compliance with 'Managing Public Money NI' and whether key decision makers have clear sight of information to support effective decision-making.

It is incumbent on me, as Minister, to satisfy myself that the organisation's internal checks and balances are operating effectively and that its systems and processes are robust, effective and fit for purpose, especially as the company receives approximately half a billion pounds in taxpayers' money from my Department each year. The audit will provide an opportunity to assess governance arrangements thoroughly, support better planning and ensure full transparency for partners, stakeholders and the public.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. In the summer of 2025, we saw the outcome of your Department's forensic review of NI Water and read in the regional press about NI Water's leadership. You have now commissioned a further review, which your permanent secretary characterised as a familiarisation exercise. Judging from your answer, I am not sure whether you share that view. What timelines will have to be met, what targets will have to achieved and what thresholds will have to be reached for further action not to be taken?

Ms Kimmins: I hope that what I have outlined today demonstrates how seriously I am taking the issues that I have identified. The House relentlessly says that I need to give NI Water more money, but I need to ensure that the money that we give it is used properly. I say without prejudice that we have a number of concerns, and it is imperative that I satisfy myself that those concerns can be addressed. That is the rationale behind the investigation.

The Member asked about timescales. I will publish the terms of reference once we have finalised them. I expect the audit to take around two to three months. I want it to be efficient but also thorough.

Mr Boggs: Minister, I welcome the steps that you have taken to ensure that the correct checks and balances are in place for what is a publicly funded organisation. Who will undertake the audit?

Ms Kimmins: I have instructed the group head of NI Civil Service internal audit to progress the forensic audit. As I said, I have asked for it to be done as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. I hope that that answers the Member's question.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, you referred to the half a billion pounds that your Department gives NI Water. Do you have total faith in the leadership team at NI Water?

Ms Kimmins: I have no reason to doubt it. The point of the audit is to assure us that everything that is done in the organisation, particularly on governance, meets the standards that we expect. I have outlined my concerns about what has led us to that point. I am pleased that NI Water has said that it is willing to engage and be cooperative as part of the audit. The Member will be aware that I carried out a different forensic audit last year. This audit will further satisfy our concerns, and I hope that we can get a positive outcome to the issues.

Mr Stewart: Accountability and transparency are essential, Minister, particularly where public funding is involved, as you will know. You touched on the audit's remit. Have any individuals, be they internal or external to NI Water, come to you to raise their concerns about tendering practices and the awarding of contracts by senior officials in NI Water? How deep will the deep dive go in investigating those practices?

Ms Kimmins: In my initial answer, I said that several raising a concern investigations have been carried out to date. That is on the public record. The concerns that I mentioned have intensified recently owing to insufficient assurance, coupled with the raising a concern investigations; legacy and current breaches of a "Dear Accounting Officer" letter about the use of confidentiality agreements; procurement and contract management practices; and observations by the departmental representative on the NI Water board. As I said, I also wish to receive an assurance on NI Water's compliance with 'Managing Public Money NI' and on whether key decision makers have clear sight of information in order to support effective decision-making.

That is probably as much as I can say until the audit is complete, but it is my intention to be as transparent as possible in order to ensure that the Assembly is kept updated on what comes out of it.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for announcing the investigation, especially given that, in approximately the past year and a half, NI Water has spent £225,000 on investigations, the outcomes of which none of us knows. Minister, can you assure us — the public — that the audit will not be a toothless tiger, that it will not shy away from difficult questions and investigations into accountability and proper governance, in NI Water and at the Department, and that it will look at what appears to have been a very vindictive approach by NI Water to a key whistle-blower?

Ms Kimmins: The Member referred to one aspect of why we are carrying out the audit. I hope that it has been made clear that that is part of the picture. Both I and my Department have concerns about a number of different areas. That is the focus of the audit. For me, it is about getting a clear insight into the issues and being able to satisfy ourselves.

The next steps will be dependent on what comes out of the audit. I hope that it gives confidence to the Assembly that I take the issues very seriously. Sometimes, in isolation, they do not look like massive issues, but, given what I have outlined here today, the severity is clear. I think that it would be remiss of me not to take the action that I am taking. Without going into any detail, I want to ensure that the audit is done without prejudice and that we update the House appropriately on the other side of that. I will make sure that the Member is kept informed at that stage.

Ms Kimmins: Public transport use during the 2026 Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann was exceptionally strong, with Translink carrying more than 1·7 million passenger journeys across its bus and rail network during the eight-day event. That represents an increase of over 620,000 journeys compared with the same week in 2025 and reflects the scale of the transport operation required to support what was the world's biggest celebration of Irish music and culture. Translink operated an enhanced programme of bus and rail services throughout the event period, including additional capacity, special services and late-night transport provision to help people travel to and from Belfast safely and efficiently. Demand on some services exceeded the forecast expectations, but, overall, customer experience remained generally positive.

The Department, Translink and their partners will use that experience and lessons from the 2026 fleadh to inform planning for the festival's return in 2027 and for other future major events. I was really pleased to come together with my colleague the Economy Minister, Belfast City Council, the Lord Mayor of Belfast, Róis-Máire Donnelly, and other key stakeholders and partners to get that planning under way now and to ensure that next year's fleadh will be even bigger and better than ever.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much. As you say, Minister, it was a huge success. I know that communities in South Belfast were expecting congestion, but we did not see that, because people used public transport. It shows what can be done if capacity and resources are available to your Department.

It was great to see that meeting take place yesterday to plan for next year. In light of that planning, what lessons have been learnt by the Department about the approach? What do you think of Belfast's ability to host major events such as the Fleadh Cheoil?

Ms Kimmins: I used the train a number of times to go up to the fleadh and saw just how busy it was. The main lesson for me is that public transport must be embedded in major event planning from the outset. The scale of the fleadh required months of close coordination between the Department, Translink, Belfast City Council, the PSNI, Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann and other event organisers on traffic management, pedestrianisation, park-and-ride, enhanced rail capacity, bus diversions, late-night services and clear public messaging all in advance of the event. We all had to work together, and we saw that happening really well.

The event also demonstrated that Belfast can successfully accommodate very large visitor numbers when transport planning is integrated with wider event planning. As I said, whilst demand on some services exceeded initial forecasts, the overall transport operation supported the safe and efficient movement of people throughout the city. During the fleadh, we tried to respond to those increasing numbers. We recognised early on that the numbers were much bigger than what was initially anticipated. I pay tribute to Translink and my staff who were able to adapt and upscale the provision to deal with that. That is something that we heard back from people on the ground.

As I said, planning is already under way for the welcome return of the fleadh in 2027. The Department will use the operational data, customer feedback and partner debriefs from 2026, which are key to all of this, to shape next year's transport plan and support the delivery of future major events.

Mr Kingston: Will the Minister outline the ongoing action that is being taken to prevent the travel of non-permitted vehicles through the core of the city centre, the old security zone, whilst still allowing buses to travel through it? Sometimes there are cars travelling through the area that are not permitted to do so.

Mr Speaker: Briefly, Minister.

Ms Kimmins: The city centre was very closely monitored during the fleadh, and I was in the engine room where all the different partners worked together. We saw in real time that those issues could be picked up on straight away. Translink has its own area at the Laganside bus centre. When I visited the staff there, work was ongoing: they could see where issues had arisen and were able to respond as quickly as possible. Getting somewhere as quickly as possible to address an issue requires collaboration with the PSNI and other partners. It is not an easy task, but there has been learning for next year. We adapted some of the road closures, and additional road closures were put in place when we realised what was needed. The learning is key to how we plan for not just the fleadh next year but all major events that can impact the city.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Ms Kimmins: As I have family who live in Derrybeg, I was very aware of the situation when it happened. My colleague, Councillor Aidan Mathers, had reported it to NI Water, which is responsible for waste water and sewage, as the Member will know. NI Water responded that evening and cleared the blockage. To my knowledge, the issue has now been resolved. It was a disgraceful issue, and it was horrendous for anyone who was affected. We were glad that, once it was made aware of the issue, NI Water was on-site that Monday night and resolved the issue.

Mr McNulty: Minister, you are the responsible Minister. Industry experts have said that your three-pronged approach is not touching the sides of the desperate state of our overburdened waste water system, which is blocking housing and economic development. How is your Department identifying the areas with the highest need and remedying the sewerage capacity? Can you reassure the residents of Derrybeg that the ongoing overflow of raw sewage onto the footways and carriageways in front of their homes will not happen again?

Ms Kimmins: The Member will know that the work I continue to do with all partners has targeted investment where it is most needed, and we saw the result of that in the additional houses that we were able to have built that had not initially been planned. We have seen over 4,500 additional houses being built in the past 18 months because of the unlocked capacity.

The challenges are huge, and the Member is fully aware of the rationale behind that. We are in a Budget negotiation, and I have made it very clear to the British Secretary of State that it is an issue that cannot be ignored. We need the funding to deliver waste water infrastructure that is fit for purpose because none of our other priorities can be addressed without that. However, as a member of the Infrastructure Committee and as an engineer, the Member will also know that NI Water has the operational responsibility to identify the areas of need, not the Minister. However, I will continue to work with NI Water to ensure that we continue to deliver and make progress. I will certainly continue to stand up for people here to get the investment that we need to do that.

Ms Kimmins: As I said, we are currently finalising the terms of reference. Once they are complete, I will publish them and keep the Assembly informed.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for the answer. I am sure it will be no surprise to her, because it is in the public domain, that a senior member of NI Water, who is no longer there, had a close working relationship with a former colleague of the Minister's from Sinn Féin, who used to sit on those same Benches. Will the forensic audit look at the relationship between those people?

Ms Kimmins: I am not familiar with what the Member is alluding to. However, any employment matters are for NI Water. At this point, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the matter.

Mr Speaker: Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Ms Kimmins: I look forward to the Member's contribution to the debate later this afternoon. We have some way to go with the Bill, and I will respond to it accordingly. However, my focus is on finding a way forward, because this issue is not unique to one part of our community, or whatever way you want to put it. It is an issue that the vast majority of the public want to see addressed. I will certainly play my part in that and work with all partners to ensure that we find a way forward. We have been working with the PSNI and other partners to address these issues where they arise, balancing that with my Department's statutory responsibilities around road safety and other matters.

Mr Speaker: I remind Mr Wilson that we do not normally ask Ministers hypothetical questions.

Mr Wilson: Thank you. I am probably stretching my credibility here then, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.]

However, to finalise this while we are in this vein, it also suggests that opinion is important. You have given me an answer, but I think that you can give me another answer on whether it is your opinion that the illegal billboard should be removed.

Ms Kimmins: There has been a lot of debate about who will make decisions. As the Speaker rightly pointed out, we cannot give hypothetical answers. Whatever the outcome of the legislation, I as Minister, or whoever is in place, will be bound to abide by that. What that will entail remains to be seen. Given the length of the debate and the huge interest from across the Benches, it could be another few weeks before we get to that point.

Ms Kimmins: As the Member knows, that is an issue for Translink, and it has published a consultation on it. I want us to do as much as we can to encourage greater public transport use, but I am very cognisant of the fact that Translink's budget is hugely constrained. We are in Budget negotiations with the British Treasury because we recognise that, without sufficient funding, Executive Ministers face very difficult situations. I will continue to work with Translink to ensure that we can avoid at all costs what some of those proposals outline. Without giving an opinion, because I do not think that it would be right for me to do that as Minister when Translink is currently consulting, I have concerns around some of the proposals. I want to see us doing more to maximise public transport use instead of doing something that could potentially deter that. Budget is the key aspect of that, and I am standing up to ensure that the Secretary of State and the British Treasury recognise the needs of the people here.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister. I welcome some of that, but I did not pick up you saying that you are opposed to the cuts. If you did, I apologise. Maybe you can clarify your position. There is concern about hospitality workers and low-paid workers getting home late at night. I am sure that you know that Translink's equality impact assessment (EQIA) said that the cuts would fall on section 75 groups the hardest. I am working alongside campaigners, trade unions and environmental campaigners. Will you be willing to meet us to hear our concerns about the proposed cuts?

Ms Kimmins: The consultation is key. That is why I encourage everybody to have their say and provide input. I have serious concerns about what is being proposed. I also have to recognise that Translink's financial position is hugely constrained, but what that achieves in respect of the cuts that are being proposed — I do not know whether it would have the desired effect. On balance, we have to allow the consultation to take place, but, in any discussions or engagement that I have heard or been part of, there is a very strong feeling about that, and I have no doubt that that will be reflected. However, I continue to encourage everybody to feed into the consultation. In the meantime, I am continuing to negotiate a budget that will ensure that we never have to come close to that.

Ms Kimmins: The Member will be aware of the very positive feedback that we got about the current signage in the Gaeltacht Quarter. I was delighted to be down to see the implementation of that in recent months. Based on that positive feedback, I have asked officials to complete a scoping exercise for the potential expansion of that pilot, which would extend dual language signage along the full length of the Falls Road within the Gaeltacht Quarter, which is not currently covered by the pilot. In order to complete the scoping exercise, officials will need to undertake an assessment of existing signage along the route, complete the design of any new bilingual signs, process the new authorisation, identify funding and programme the sign erection works, which may take a number of months. Certainly, it is something that I am committed to doing. It is a really positive addition to the Gaeltacht Quarter and, indeed, west Belfast.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Minister for that positive response. It is a historic event, particularly in the Gaeltacht Quarter. Obviously, the Minister is aware — she mentioned it — that the geographical area of the Gaeltacht Quarter has been extended. Given that extension, will the Minister confirm whether the pilot scheme will be rolled out to cover the whole new geographical area of Ceathrú na Gaeltachta

?

Ms Kimmins: Certainly, we can consider that as part of the scoping exercise. It would really maximise what it has brought to the area. I do not even think that I expected the huge positive reaction that there would be to the signs going up. People really noticed and welcomed the signage. It really reflects the growing interest in, and discussion around, the Irish language. It is so difficult to even get a space in an Irish language class now because there is such a thriving community that continues to grow. Initiatives such as this really bolster that and encourage more and more people to get involved. It is a good opportunity for us to build on what is already in place.

Ms Kimmins: As I set out in my previous responses about the investigation, we are keen to look at a number of areas further. I have set out my concerns in that regard. It is an opportune time to really reflect on that and ensure that we can satisfy ourselves that public money is being in spent in the way in which 'Managing Public Money NI' sets out. It is an opportunity for us to engage very closely with NI Water to address those concerns, and I hope that we are able to do so. However, as Minister and someone who, every year, allocates a significant quantum of funding to NI Water, which we know is financially constrained and requires significantly more investment, it is important that I have that assurance going forward. A number of issues led to this. I am satisfied that the process that we followed in the Department had explored every option to date. However, this was my next step and it had to happen.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for that answer. The Minister will be aware that there are significant issues with virtually every arm's-length body that we have in Northern Ireland, and it just seems unusual that Northern Ireland Water, in particular, has been brought to the fore with this investigation. Bearing in mind the scandals that we have had in the past — until the audit has been completed, I am not for one moment suggesting that there might be a scandal to be found in Northern Ireland Water — can the Minister give any confidence to the people of Northern Ireland that we are not looking at another significant issue here?

Ms Kimmins: The Member has rightly pointed to other incidents that have happened in the past. Ultimately, we are looking at the issue to ensure that it is not significant, if that makes sense. It is to satisfy ourselves that things are being done correctly and that the oversight that is required is taking place. I say that absolutely without prejudice. I urge the Member to take that into consideration as well. The purpose of the audit is so that we can look at that in greater detail based on the concerns that we have at the outset, get those assurances and satisfy me, as Minister, and the Department that things are in order.

I do not underestimate the significant work that all ALBs have to do in managing a budget in a constrained situation. However, it is important that the guidelines are followed and we have complete oversight of how that money is being spent, particularly in a difficult financial situation across the Executive.

I certainly hope that, on the other side of this, we have a positive outcome, but, until such times, I cannot comment on what we could or could not expect. I refer to the Speaker's comments earlier: it is a very hypothetical question. It is important that we let the audit take its course and see what comes out of it.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister for Infrastructure.

Mrs Erskine: Let me begin by saying something that, I hope, should be uncontroversial in the Chamber: there is a responsibility on all of us to ensure that people can live in Northern Ireland with respect for one another regardless of their nationality or cultural identity. We should oppose intimidation and threats, but I have significant concerns that the Bill goes beyond dealing with genuinely threatening or criminal behaviour and creates a framework that could place legitimate cultural expression at risk. That is why I cannot support the Bill.

As some of my colleagues have said, the Department for Infrastructure will become the flags police as a result of the Bill. I assure the House that, in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I have more people battering down my door asking for potholes to be fixed, roads to be made safer and public transport to be expanded than I have people asking for DFI or the police to take action on flags.

The Bill gives the Department for Infrastructure a statutory duty to remove flags or emblems attached to public street furniture where it considers that removal to be in the public interest. On the face of it, that sounds straightforward, until we look at what the Bill means by "public interest". Under clause 1, there is a mandatory duty when the Department considers that a flag or emblem is:

At the start of my contribution, I said that I have no difficulty with the principle that genuinely threatening or unlawful displays should be dealt with, but the Bill goes considerably further than that. There is a presumption in favour of removal where, in the "opinion of the Department", a flag or emblem is:

Those are serious powers, and some of the language is inherently subjective. What one person regards as offensive another may regard as an important expression of their identity. What one person considers antagonistic another may regard as an entirely legitimate expression of their culture. What exactly constitutes a display that demarcates an area, particularly when "vicinity" is not defined? That is referred to in clause 1(3)(b). What is an "excessive period of time", as outlined in clause 1(4)(d)? What does it mean for a display to be:

Those are not minor questions. Rather, they go to the heart of whether people can have confidence that the legislation would be applied fairly.

The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) acknowledges that flags and emblems are:

and that legitimate cultural expression must be recognised. I welcome that acknowledgement in the EFM. Recognition in the EFM is not enough, however. The protection must be clear in the legislation itself.

As we know, Northern Ireland has a complicated history, with a range of traditions and identities. Flags are used for national celebrations, cultural events, sporting occasions, commemorations and community activities. We all differ in how we feel about the flags that are used for those events.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Yes.

Ms Bradshaw: You asked about flags displayed for the purposes of celebration and commemoration. That is made clear in clause 1(4)(e). Moreover, there is the online portal in clause 3, whereby the Department may be notified by people about what they have displayed, their reasons for doing so and their views on the display of the flag or emblem. That would allow people to explain why flags are going up. Do you know what I mean? Under that clause, a person can outline how a celebration, for example, is important to their community.

Mrs Erskine: Yes. Given Northern Ireland's history, commemorations are important to many people. I will come to clause 3 later, but the one thing that I will say at this juncture — I will probably repeat myself later — is that commemorations for the likes of hunger strikers and terrorist organisations that glorify terrorist actions that resulted in people in my community being murdered and maimed are not fully dealt with in the Bill. Take the example of the online portal in clause 3. The people who erect such flags are not going to log on to a portal to give reasons for why they are putting them up. I do not think that they will do that.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for giving way. Earlier in the debate, I talked about flags of a loyalist nature. I gave the example of the historical UVF flag and that of the modern-day paramilitary group and spoke about how dates can be used to cloud the waters. Does the Member agree that, on the republican side, the flags that go up for a commemoration of the hunger strikes or some other kind of IRA commemoration are the tricolour, which is the national flag of the Irish Republic, and the Starry Plough, which, as I have said previously, has socialist connotations. It is therefore not always clear what the purpose of a flag is and whether its display can be interpreted in the context of the commemoration that is taking place. It can be argued both ways.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for his intervention. He makes an important point. Every year, my local newspaper carries stories about how Union flags will go up in towns and villages in my constituency for the Twelfth or for Ulster Day to celebrate and commemorate events that are important to our cultural identity. Flags and emblems that go up when organisations are being celebrated for incidents in which people were killed are not the same, however. They are very hurtful for people in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, who, day and daily, have to drive past such flags in their communities. I do not see attention being paid to republican flags and emblems in the same way as attention is being paid to loyalist and unionist culture, which is vilified and demonised.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. Again, she is making the case for my Bill. We want consistency. It may be that national flags go up that are not inherently intimidating, and that is why I included the provision to determine whether a flag or emblem has been displayed for an excessive period. I did so so that it covers a period of celebration or commemoration, as opposed to being the long-term marking of territory.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Bill sponsor for her intervention. However, I would argue back that I have said that the unionist and loyalist community is often vilified and can often feel that it bears the brunt of the media commentary around flags and emblems rather than the republican and nationalist flags and emblems; there does not seem to be the same attention given to them. That is why, under the Bill, I am concerned that we would see an influx for one community of their identity and cultural expression.

There are times when people put up flags because they are proud of who they are and where they come from. That should not automatically be treated with suspicion, particularly when we look at the Union flag around the Twelfth celebrations. The Bill says:

However, that is only one factor in a much wider, public interest assessment. The problem that I have with that is that some communities cannot even bear the sight of a Union flag, the flag of this country, for literally a couple of weeks in the summer. Those flags are flown for a celebration and commemoration, but I agree with Members on these Benches and across the House that we do not want to see the Union flag flown to the extent that it is in tatters. Putting that expression across takes working with the community as well. There are communities in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone where towns are mixed or are nationalist or where unionists are a minority. They still live in that community and they still want to celebrate their cultural expression, but they may fall victim to the legislation simply for wanting to express that cultural identity.

The Department must also consider whether the display is "disrespectful", whether it has been displayed for "an excessive period" and whether it complies with a future code of practice. That means that significant aspects will ultimately depend on guidance and the interpretation of officials rather than being clearly established in primary legislation. That brings me to one of my biggest concerns: that the Bill places considerable decision-making power in the hands of the Department for Infrastructure.

The Department will effectively determine whether a particular display is sufficiently "offensive, abusive, or insulting", "antagonistic", "intimidatory" or otherwise contrary to public interest to justify removal. However, there is no guarantee, as my colleague Mr Frew pointed out, that every official will interpret those terms in precisely the same way. There is a real danger that communities could look at essentially similar circumstances and receive completely different treatment. If we are going to pass legislation dealing with cultural expression, consistency must be at the heart of it. The Bill's sponsor has said that, but I have concerns around how that will be enacted when you look at the different divisions within the Department for Infrastructure. Before the sitting was suspended, Ms Sugden spoke about perhaps even having to create another division in the Department for Infrastructure to deal with the issue. That would add another layer of costs that the Department might incur.

People need to know what the rules are before enforcement takes place. The definition of the word "vicinity" is important when it comes to clause 2. Clause 2 outlines the "Sensitive places" where a flag flown nearby may be deemed for consideration by the Department. Earlier, I said that I struggled with that, and I still do.

Is the Bill sponsor trying to ban flags outright? As I said in my intervention to Mr Frew, if you look at the list in clause 2, you will see that there are very few places in which a flag can be flown. The term "vicinity" could mean anything. It could mean 1 metre, 5 metres or even a complete exclusion zone. The Bill sponsor will remember that the House passed legislation on safe access zones, and we looked in detail at what exclusion zones would look like and what they might mean. Clause 2 is extremely broad when it comes to the different places that may be deemed "a sensitive place".

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. Again, it might be the way in which we have ordered the clauses, but the Bill's starting point is that we want to allow people to have celebrations and commemorations without interference with the erection and affixation of their flags and emblems. They can use the portal. If they want to celebrate in their community, they can use the portal and let the Department know, and it will leave the flags alone. The focus of the Bill is on flags that are put up without people knowing their purpose and those that are left up for a long time. It is not about trying to curtail anybody's cultural identity.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Bill sponsor for that intervention, but there is still a long list of places where people can use the portal to speak against a flag being flown by a particular community.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Yes, I am happy to give way.

Mr Brooks: It raises a question about some places, such as the Newtownards Road in my constituency. It very clearly goes through the heart of a loyalist, working-class community. It is also "an arterial road", which the Bill refers to as one of those sensitive places. Not only on 1 July or 12 July but throughout the summer marching period, that road is used for band parades, given the number of bands based in its proximity. I wonder whether the Bill sponsor wants those flags to go up and come down again between each one of those parades rather than those flags going up during the summer period in which all those festivities take place, as happens at the moment.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, there are such places — I have some in my constituency — where there is local agreement on what happens with the flying of flags. Again, that points to the fact that good community relations have enabled that to happen in those communities. That points to my concern that imposing things on communities has the opposite effect; it has a chilling effect.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I believe that even law-abiding citizens will not use the portal, because a person could notify the Department for Infrastructure that they are going to line the footpaths of the Newtownards Road with Union flags on every other lamp post, but another organisation could come along the very next night and put up paramilitary flags. The law-abiding citizen who applied to the portal could well be incriminated as a result of flags that they did not put up.

Mrs Erskine: That is a very good point. My contribution focused on people who act unlawfully, but, when we look at it from that perspective, we see that people might question whether they should use the portal at all. That goes to the question of whether the Bill is workable or enforceable by any stretch of the imagination.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. I am a bit confused, because the Bill does not stop anyone from having a celebration. It allows people to apply to put flags up for a time and to get agreement on when to take them down again. I am concerned, because there seems to be a belief that only one community will be affected. I come from a mixture of lots of parts of our communities, and, believe me, a lot of people say, "We want to have respect for flags. We do not want them to be tattered and torn. We would really appreciate knowing when flags will go up, when they will come down and who will take them down". The Department for Infrastructure would not be under pressure to remove those flags if the groups, which you say have good community relations, used a formal process to make an application to put flags up and if they took them down again.

I am sick to the back teeth of being the one to say, as I regularly do, "Stop complaining to me about flags that you do not like. Take it to the DUP or the Ulster Unionists, the parties of the other MLAs in the area, because you do not talk to them". [Interruption.]

They do not talk to you about that, because they come to me to ask about flags and raise their concerns. They ask me about their concerns. When I send them next door to Mike Nesbitt or up the street to Jim Shannon, they go, but they feel as if they are being ignored. Where are the good community relations? There should be somewhere where those people can go to check, "Are these legitimate flags? Do these people want them up for a celebration? I can see that, and I understand when they are coming back down". I think that it would help the wider community and improve community relations.

Mrs Erskine: I will take you to Fermanagh and South Tyrone any day, where you will see good community relations happening where flags fly. In an intervention earlier, I pointed to Irvinestown, where the Twelfth was happening and there was a GAA club that had done very well. I see my colleague from Fermanagh and South Tyrone nodding her head because we recognise this in our constituency, where dialogue between the two communities happens on an organic basis.

Ms K Armstrong: There are more than two communities.

Mrs Erskine: Well, I am sorry, but it is a mainly nationalist community and a unionist community, and they had dialogue, spoke to one another and came to an agreement. If they had to go through a portal to do all that, there could be concern and worry about what that might mean for community tensions. Would one be deemed sufficiently offensive compared with the other? That is a concern that I would have if the Bill were enacted.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I congratulate her, because, through her remarks and her intervention, she has teased out and exposed what the Alliance Party wants to do here. The Member who intervened said that, if people in her constituency have a problem with flags, she sends them to the UUP or the DUP. Not once were Sinn Féin or the SDLP mentioned, so we can see clearly where the Bill is going and which side of the community is going to be affected.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: There are a lot of interventions. I am very popular. Mr Frew is right. I said earlier — [Interruption.]

Hold on a minute. I said earlier that I had a concern that the unionist community and the loyalist community were going to bear the brunt of the legislation. We have just seen clearly from the Member's intervention that that is the case. I am happy to give way to Mr Brooks.

Mr Brooks: That is absolutely the case. If the Alliance Member's contribution has done nothing else, it has shown us that her party has no traction, no influence and no interest in loyalist working-class communities, and perhaps working-class communities as a whole, because, when working-class communities are affected, what does it do? It sends them to the DUP or the UUP. "Send them on up the road. That has nothing to do with us. Those are not our communities, so we will not bother. We do not have traction or influence there. We do not have people we can speak to there. We do not do the work there. We do not build the connections there. We just want to dictate to those communities".

Mrs Erskine: That is the feeling within communities. I am happy to give way. I am being very generous.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member very much. When a tricolour went up in Portaferry, I could not send people to the SDLP or Sinn Féin MLA offices, because there are none in my area. I work extremely hard in my Strangford constituency, to the extent that my staff and I are in and out of loyalist estates where the DUP does not go. I do work with people —.

Mr Brooks: Where?

Ms K Armstrong: The West Winds. The Glen. The Bowtown. I do not see very many people attending the community meetings there. I say to the Member that there are more than two communities. There are a lot more people out there who are not just nationalist and not just unionist. There are also nationalists and unionists who are concerned about the flags. A portal is not something to be afraid of. A portal gives people on the ground the opportunity to see who wants to put up these flags, when they will be put up and when they will be taken down.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for her intervention, but there is a Sinn Féin councillor in her constituency.

Mr Frew: Yes.

Ms K Armstrong: No there is not.

Mr Brooks: SDLP.

Mrs Erskine: SDLP.

Ms K Armstrong: There is one.

Mrs Erskine: Yes, so there are people. There is no SDLP MLA in my constituency, but there are SDLP councillors. I work with all of them across the political divide. The one thing that I will say is that, in the example of Irvinestown that I pointed out, no political representatives were involved in the discussion. That points to the good community relationships that exist there between, I have to say, mainly two communities, which shows that they have tolerance for each other's celebrations and cultural expression.

Clause 2(1)(e) specifies that sensitive places would include "a place of worship." Sunday Orange services happen pretty much weekly in the summer, and there will be churches across Northern Ireland that have a flag outside their property. As I said earlier, there are people in our communities who cannot stand the sight of a Union flag. Churches would fall victim to the legislation: they would be investigated for having a flag outside a place of worship, because that would be seen as a sensitive place. Somebody could report that. When you look at the different places listed, including leisure centres and council facilities, you have to wonder how the proposals would be workable.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Yes.

Mr Brooks: The Member's point about places of worship is interesting. I do not see anything in the Bill that suggests that a person who complains about a flag outside a place of worship would have to be a member of that congregation or place of worship. Anyone who passed by that flag and deemed it inappropriate could complain about it, even if there was consent from the place of worship for it to be outside. The Department would still have to consider that on the same basis.

Mrs Erskine: Absolutely. Again, for me, that demonstrates that there would be a chilling effect on cultural expression.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: I want to move on, if that is OK.

The Bill specifically identifies schools, medical facilities, leisure centres, libraries, shopping centres, arterial roads and public parks, and it would also allow the definition to extend further. In other words, we are talking about a very substantial part of everyday public life. The legislation would not deal with a handful of exceptional locations; it would potentially affect displays across towns, villages and rural communities throughout Northern Ireland. It would have a chilling effect.

Clause 3 would require the Department to establish a procedure — potentially an online portal — by which people could notify the Department about a flag or emblem that has been displayed or is intended to be displayed. As we have talked about, it would also allow members of the public to submit their views on particular displays. We should carefully consider what that could become in practice. Would we be creating a system in which members of the public could, in effect, report their neighbours' cultural displays to the government? Could a community celebration result in a series of complaints because another person — it might take only one person — disagrees with the symbolism? Could the Department become overwhelmed with complaints? What safeguards would exist against vexatious or politically motivated complaints? The Bill does not provide sufficient answers to those questions. Clause 3(a) states:

that they are going to fly a flag and state their reasons for doing so. Although I believe that the intention of the Bill sponsor is to crack down on paramilitary and terrorist flags, clause 3 would create bureaucracy for communities. I genuinely believe that it would not work in practice. We have had a bit of a discussion about some of that. The people who fly such flags will not sit down and input information into any online portal. I want to consider the issue from the perspective of the constituency that I represent.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Yes.

Mr McMurray: The Member has repeatedly made the point about people who put up such things under the cover of darkness. Would the Bill not present an opportunity to the organisations that take such pride in the flying of the flag? I think that the intent of the Bill is to allow for that pride in the flag and that expression. There has been miscommunication, or even a misunderstanding. There are certain organisations out there that display flags very well and respectfully, and there are people who simply do not.

The Bill seeks to make that differentiation and address cases involving the people who do not do it with good intentions.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for his intervention. That points back to Mr Frew's intervention, in that we could create a system that victimises someone for being lawful. Under the system, that person could input into the portal, yet somebody else could come along under the cover of darkness and put up flags of paramilitary or terrorist organisations. It is about the practical outworkings of the legislation. We cannot have that situation. The Member is actually agreeing with those of us on these Benches about the difficulties that could be created by the portal.

Fermanagh and South Tyrone is home to communities with strong traditions and identities. We have towns and villages where annual celebrations and commemorations are an important part of community life. People should be able to celebrate their culture and express their identity and not have to fear that an official's interpretation of a vague term in legislation could result in their community display being removed. That does not mean that we should not look at the limits; of course there should be limits if there is genuine intimidation, a genuine threat, criminality or a clear public safety issue, but those limits should be based on objective and consistently applied criteria. I will come to that later in my contribution.

Clause 4 requires the Department to produce a code of conduct and sets out a number of organisations that must be consulted. The Assembly should not pass significant powers but leave fundamental questions about how those powers will operate to be dealt with later in a code of practice. The public should be able to understand the essential rules from the legislation itself. If the code of practice is to determine what constitutes an acceptable display, how long a flag can remain in place and how cultural celebrations will be treated, Members need to know considerably more about the framework before giving their approval. That is why I cannot give approval to the Bill today.

The Bill would create a new criminal offence. Clause 5 makes it an offence to obstruct the Department or somebody acting on its behalf in the removal of a flag or emblem. A person who is convicted could receive a fine of up to level 3 on the standard scale. I understand why obstruction can be considered to be unacceptable where lawful removal is taking place, but we are creating a criminal offence in legislation, where the underlying decision to remove a display can involve subjective judgements. The underlying decision-making process here must be questioned. Before somebody can be held criminally liable for obstructing the removal, there must be absolute confidence in the process. We recently saw how confidence has been undermined in the case of the Parades Commission.

Clause 6 allows the Department to request PSNI assistance if there may be a breach of the peace or an offence under the Bill. The PSNI is under enormous pressure already. The Member's Minister will know that acutely, being a Justice Minister. I fundamentally believe that the PSNI's resources should be focused on tackling crime and maintaining public safety.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for giving way on that point. One thing that strikes me about the Bill is that there is a reliance on the PSNI to carry that out, but no consideration is given to the civil disobedience that will be caused by doing it. I have not been in the Chamber for much of today's debate, but I have been present at other times. I am sure that the Member will agree that the only solution available in any such circumstances is engagement with local communities to get their willingness to buy in. I am sure that the Member would agree that any other option, regardless of which community we are talking about, will cause civil disobedience, which will actually make matters worse for the communities from which we are talking about removing such flags.

Mrs Erskine: I absolutely agree. I do not think that the Member was in the Chamber for my remarks earlier on the —.

Mr Clarke: Sorry.

Mrs Erskine: He apologises, although I am sure that he will watch back my contribution. I talked about my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where such issues are resolved through community dialogue and people working together, without even the input of political representatives.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Yes, I am happy to give way.

Mr Clarke: That leads me on to a very good example from many years ago. I got into trouble for suggesting this. I worked with a local community in an area where, at one time, probably around 2007, there were about 70 paramilitary flags. We engaged with that community to get those flags taken down and have them replaced with the colours of the country. People benefited from that community engagement and buy-in, and that paid dividends tenfold. There was also an understanding locally that those flags would then come down at the end of the marching season. That is a good example of how community engagement with those responsible for putting up some flags can work. Taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut does not work, however. We have seen police go into areas, both nationalist and loyalist, and remove two or three flags, only for 20 or 30 flags then to be put up. Combine that with the potential for civil disobedience: it would be a disaster. The only way in which to address the issue is through community engagement and cooperation, not by taking the hard attitude that the Bill takes.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for his intervention. He touches on very important points. I have done a very good job of promoting the good community relations that we have in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, but there are areas of the constituency where, as I have pointed out, terrorist flags — republican flags — that I deem to be offensive and insulting fly. The police would find it very difficult to go into such areas, because there would be a security threat to officers.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Member for giving way. She makes some really valid points. We have seen in the past couple of weeks that, because of threats to their safety, even prison officers are not able to go into some areas. Do we really believe that we will see a situation in which we send in hard-working DFI staff, potentially with contractors, at the cost of dear knows how many thousands of pounds, who will request but have no guarantee of getting police support, to take down flags only for dozens to go up thereafter? What will happen is that the low-hanging fruit, such as the flag of our country, will come down, while the paramilitary ones, which are the most difficult to get to, will sit there for eternity, because no one can go near them as a result of threats.

Mrs Erskine: Absolutely. I wholeheartedly agree with the Member for East Antrim. That is exactly why I am concerned about the Bill and the chilling effect that it will have on, I —

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: — will say, one community, which is the unionist community. I will give way to Mr Clarke.

Mr Clarke: The Member for East Antrim's point exemplifies another problem, which is that the way in which the Bill is drafted means that the onus is on the Minister for Infrastructure to act. I do not mean to be disparaging to the Minister, but, with respect, given her track record on the issue at the Egyptian Arch in her constituency, I do not see her giving an instruction for republican flags in republican areas to be removed. Given how the Bill is drafted, there is a danger that the onus would be placed on the Minister, regardless of whom the Minister is now or in the future, to act. It might be suggested that a unionist Minister would take down only republican flags and that a republican Minister would take down only loyalist flags.

Mrs Erskine: Exactly. I am sure that that is not what the Alliance Party wants to see. That would pit two communities against each other.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: I will give way to Mr Frew.

Mr Frew: That is exactly what clause 6 would do. It states:

The Bill sponsor is looking into the future and saying that, by the actions of the Department, a criminal action of breach of the peace will take place, with the Department bringing in the police to assist it in removing flags. What should happen, perhaps by way of an amendment to clause 6, is that the legislation should state that the Department may seek advice from the police on whether a flag or an emblem should come down at a specific time.

Mrs Erskine: I am happy to give way to Ms Bradshaw.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. As you will recall from my opening remarks, there have been approximately 600 — I think that the figure is 604 — requests for advice from the PSNI over the past four years, and zero flags have come down off the back of those requests.

Mr Frew: What does that tell you?

Ms Bradshaw: It tells me that there are people who have a veto over our communities and that they are the only ones who have any power. It is about time that we, as a civilised democracy, took that power back.

Mrs Erskine: Who are the people whom the Bill sponsor believes have a veto over communities?

Ms Bradshaw: The people who are putting the flags up, and the people who could, potentially, create community tension if the flags come down. Those are the people whom the Members on your Benches are siding with. I want to see the power taken back from those people so that we can take those offensive, intimidatory flags down and allow our public spaces to be shared by everyone.

Mrs Erskine: I have just outlined my concerns for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where republican flags are flying. I am not siding with that community, and I do not have a veto over it. Who are the people over whom the Bill's sponsor is saying these Benches have a veto? Where is the veto coming from?

Ms Bradshaw: I am saying that the so-called community representatives who threaten and say, "We'll stir up civil disobedience", or whatever term you want to use, have the veto. When, on the advice of the PSNI, the Department decides not to remove flags, it is because unelected people in the shadows have said, "If they come down, more will go up or there'll be trouble". As a society, we should take the power back from them, regardless of whether the flags are republican, unionist, or whatever, and put in place a system to allow our public spaces to be shared. There is a framework. We need consistency across Northern Ireland. It is wrong to say, "OK. This is too difficult an issue. Let's kick it into the long grass for another 20 years".

Mrs Erskine: I very clearly outlined at the start of my contribution that I do not side with anybody who puts up flags that are of a paramilitary/terrorist nature. I do not side with those people.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for giving way. This typifies the attitude of the Bill sponsor: "Take my Bill. Adopt my Bill. Over to you, guv; here's the problem".

The Member said that there have been 605 interactions with the police in the past 12 months. She said that none of those resulted in flags coming down. I am afraid to say that she is wrong, because I have been approached in my constituency on numerous occasions, and I have worked with the community to try to get flags down. Equally, I have worked with the police for nationalist flags to come down, and they worked with the nationalist community and got the flags down. It is wrong for the Member to sit here and mislead the House by saying that no such flags are ever removed — absolutely wrong.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I received information as part of a freedom of information request. I am happy to lay it in the Library for anybody to see it.

Mr Brooks: That is not a point of order.

Ms Bradshaw: He is saying that I am wrong, so let me correct the record. There were 604 requests made over the past four years for advice from the police on what would happen if flags were taken down. Off the back of those requests, no flags came down. There may have been instances of local accommodation, but I am talking about the specific requests for advice from the PSNI. I have the figures and the details, and I am happy to provide them after this.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you for that clarification.

Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During Mr Clarke's intervention, the Bill sponsor stood to try to speak over him, and when she realised that she could not do that, she made a point of order and continued to give a contribution instead. Is that appropriate?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): So far, the debate and conversation have been reasonably well mannered, which I appreciate. Yes, sometimes, we get slightly overexcited about these things in the heat of debate. I know that there is no intention to do that. On this occasion, I think that everybody has learnt a lesson. Thank you very much, Mr Brooks. Over to you, Mrs Erskine.

Mrs Erskine: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Yes.

Mr Clarke: I was on my feet when the point of order was called, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I took my seat, as per the protocol of the House. However, I stand by my comment that I believe that the Member misled the House, because there is a difference between referring for advice and working with the community to bring flags down.

The point was that, in her clarification, it was the latter. My point is that there are many examples. I am sure, as the Member shares the same constituents as me, that the PSNI has approached her on occasion to see what she can do in the community to remove flags. Often, that is successful, and often it is not. However, to allow the House to leave today with the perception that there has never been any accommodation with the PSNI is absolutely wrong, misleading or whatever else Members wish to call it.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: I just want to come back on that point. I would hazard a guess that most Members have had a phone call from the police for a conversation about flags. I would be shocked and surprised if that was not the case. I have received such phone calls in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and I am sure that many Members across the Chamber have had similar calls.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member talks easily about paramilitary flags and flags that are clearly offensive. The reality, however, is that the emails that we get from constituents are not always about paramilitary flags; they are about flags, including national flags, that are in more of a grey area. What is obvious from the Alliance Party is the sneering. Of course, we all want to break the hold that paramilitaries have over working-class communities. I am with you on that, but there is a degree of sneering about going to community workers and trying to get an agreement at a community level.

I think that it was Nuala McAllister, a colleague of the Bill sponsor, who chided these Benches on a previous occasion and said that she got emails from members of her community about flags and worked with them to get them taken down, and she thought that we did not do that. Often, we are able to mediate and get flags brought down by talking to people in our communities, working with our communities and ensuring that we find reasonable accommodations. Sometimes, it does not work, but, at times, we can get the flags taken down.

It might surprise Members on the Benches to my left, but colleagues have been approached by Members of their party to see if the likes of the DUP can be influential and talk to people to whom they cannot talk. Sometimes, we are chided for engaging with members of our community on the ground whom the Alliance Party sees as being beyond the kind of people that it wishes to deal with, but it is happy to ask other parties to do that because they have links in those communities, work in those communities and are able to have influence where the Alliance Party does not.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for his lengthy contribution, and he is absolutely and fundamentally right on that point. We have all had conversations. As the Member for South Antrim Mr Clarke said, we have all engaged with the police on flags and emblems in our constituencies, so it is important that we do not allow to go out from the Chamber today the notion that we have not had that engagement with the PSNI on the issues.

I return to my point: we should be careful about creating circumstances where officers are required to become involved in disputes about whether a particular cultural display is offensive or has remained in place for far too long.

There are also financial implications associated with the Bill, and the Minister for Infrastructure will be glad to know that I am concerned about the implications that the legislation will have for her budget. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum acknowledges resource and staffing implications for the Department and the PSNI. Those include the online notification system, preparing a code of practice for removing flags and emblems, potentially using contractors and the policing costs when PSNI assistance is required. Yet the cost of developing or modifying the notification procedure cannot currently be quantified, and that should concern us. With crumbling public services, the Bill will add to the issues that the Department for Infrastructure in particular has with resource and spend. It is laughable that a lamp post that the Department would have to intervene to remove a flag from might have a broken street light at the top of it or be due to be removed from a community, yet the Department would, at a cost to the public purse, have to step in to remove a flag that could have been removed through the likes of the community engagement that we on these Benches have just talked about. That engagement happens organically in an awful lot of places and, I would hazard a guess, an awful lot more than has been described in the House.

Mr Bradley: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to put the emphasis on community engagement. Every year, without fail, I get a telephone call from the organiser of a major competition in my area to engage with people who put flags up about taking them down for the tournament. Every year, I go to a councillor; every year, the flags are taken down. It is about community dialogue. In the area where I live, it is the same thing. I go to a councillor, who organises for the flags to be removed. Why are we not putting the emphasis on community engagement instead of on legislation?

Mrs Erskine: I totally agree with the Member. That happens more often than not. Community engagement happens all the time in Northern Ireland, but it is not reported on.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Think of the richness of that community engagement, with communities talking to one another and to their elected representatives. Think of the cost to the Department for Infrastructure of having to set up a new division to concentrate on flags. We have DFI Roads for potholes and the street lighting division for street lights. There would then be the cost of creating a brand new division on flags in the Department for Infrastructure. How perverse is that?

Mrs Erskine: Mr Deputy Speaker, if you will give me leeway for one second, that will allow me to point to the point that Mr Frew makes. In this Chamber, we debated the appointment of a climate commissioner. That appointment would cost the public purse £1 million every year. How much will this cost, particularly if we have to put in place a body in the Department for Infrastructure, as has been said in the debate? The cost could be astronomical for something that, again, happens organically in towns and villages across Northern Ireland — it does not get reported on — where there are good community relations, and the Bill could destroy some of that by imposing things on communities.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way: she has been generous with her time today. In my opening remarks, I said that there were great protocols in some areas. A lot of people are responsible with their flags. My Bill is about tackling the areas where there is not good community dialogue and a community does not know who is putting the flags up in its area. I am not saying that all areas are bad — amazing work goes on — but the Bill is designed to tackle the problematic flags.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Bill sponsor for her intervention. My point is that those areas are in the minority in Northern Ireland, but the problem is that those are the ones that get reported on most and that the media fixate on.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: We have just discussed the fact that there is always community engagement going on. I fundamentally believe that the Bill sponsor is going to do a catch-all scenario that would be implemented for everybody, including when it comes to the "low-hanging fruit" that Mr Stewart talked about.

I am happy to give way to Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much. The Bill sponsor says that it is about certain areas, but the Bill is so wide-ranging, covering:

I absolutely believe that the Bill sponsor is, to use the phrase that Mr Frew coined, not in touch with the reality of what the blue paper in front of us means. It is a massive, wide-ranging Bill that will introduce interface areas where there have not been interface areas and cause controversy in areas that have been settled communities for years. You go a lot further than trying to tackle the flags that all Members want to ensure are brought down from lamp posts. You go after the national flag. You go after —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — the law-abiding organisations —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — that put flags up and then take them down when they should.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston, thank you very much or your intervention, but your remarks need to come through the Chair. You do not harangue a Member who is speaking from where you are. You have been in this game long enough to know that you do not play that game.

Over to you, Mrs Erskine.

Mrs Erskine: Mr Gaston, unfortunately, was not in the Chamber when I dealt with that point. I know that he will watch back my contribution on the point that I made. I touched on places of worship, church services and the fact that churches could fall victim to the Bill. I am sure that he will watch back my contribution on that.

Ms Brownlee: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Ms Brownlee wants to make an intervention first.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Member for giving way. The Bill sponsor raised the point that she knows the areas that are challenging; she seems to know where they are. Would it not be better to find out where those areas are, underpin that knowledge with data, bring in the communities, engage with them and try to sort this out from a community perspective rather than trying to legislate for those communities?

Mrs Erskine: Absolutely. The Member for East Antrim makes an excellent point. I know that she loves to have data when looking at legislation, policies and strategies. Can the Bill sponsor provide data on what Ms Brownlee has mentioned? I think that her suggestion would be a better solution than implementing legislation that will impose a cost on the public purse.

Ms Bradshaw: OK. I know that there is academic research on the mapping of it. However, last week, my South Belfast colleague Matthew O'Toole asked about areas such as motorways that are not alongside an established community, for example. You cannot have dialogue with people in such places.

I want to pick up a point that keeps being raised. You talk about places of worship: there are Catholic churches that have flags put up outside them. [Inaudible.]

Ms Bradshaw: No, there are.

Mrs Erskine: Yes, I know.

Ms Bradshaw: So that would be deemed a sensitive place.

On new housing developments, you say that you need dialogue, but, if nobody has moved into the houses, whom will you have dialogue with? Clearly, it will be people from another area.

On interface areas — come on, guys — we should be trying to neutralise those spaces as opposed to trying to inflame the situation there.

Mrs Erskine: You are creating new issues in areas.

Ms Bradshaw: I am not.

Mrs Erskine: Yes, you are. I said very clearly —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mrs Erskine, through the Chair. Thank you very much.

Mrs Erskine: Sorry.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I know that, in the enjoyment and speed of the debate, there is a temptation to speak directly to one another and all the rest of it, but we have conventions in the House. You know what you are doing, so through the Chair, please.

Mrs Erskine: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. The tone has been good so far. I apologise for that.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: You are creating new scenarios as a result of that. I have said clearly that there are people who cannot stand the sight of a Union flag, no matter where it flies in Northern Ireland. We have mentioned places of worship, and I outlined examples that would be given. That is a concern of mine. That is why I cannot support the Bill.

I am happy to give way to Mr Brooks.

Mr Brooks: Thank you. Again, we have an example where the Bill sponsor does not want to deal with the more awkward issues. I return to the Newtownards Road and the area around Pitt Park in particular. It is a loyalist working-class area that has been attacked and where people were killed by gunfire from the tower of the Catholic church that sits just across the road from it. I am not here to besmirch that church, but what I am saying is that the geography dictates that you have a Catholic church that faces out on to that area, and nobody would say that the Newtownards Road is not a largely loyalist area. Would the Bill proposer say that that traditional loyalist community on the largely loyalist Newtownards Road was not allowed to express its cultural identity through the flying of Union flags, for instance, because of its proximity to a Catholic church that belongs to a neighbouring community but happens to face out on to the Newtownards Road? Those are some of the quirks that the Bill proposer has to deal with. We have to get into those sorts of difficulties rather than just the generalities, because those are the things that the Department will face if it comes up against the Bill.

Ms Bradshaw: May I make two quick points, please?

Mrs Erskine: Yes.

Ms Bradshaw: First, you say that I am creating those scenarios. I picked them out of the code of practice from the FICT report that all five parties were involved in, so I have not started prescribing new areas.

The church scenario is a really good one. That is a sensitive place.

I have included in that clause that the views of people living in the vicinity would be taken on board. It is not a sledgehammer: there is an ability to have the dialogue that Members keep talking about.

Mrs Erskine: There would be even more dialogue were we not imposing legislation like this on communities.

Ms Forsythe: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: I will give way, and then I will make some progress, because I have been on my feet for quite some time.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that it is concerning and, again, highlights the dangerous nature of the legislation that the Bill sponsor cannot open her mind to see the unintended consequences of creating interfaces and bringing unrest to the communities that have not seen it in many years?

Mrs Erskine: Yes. The unintended consequences of the legislation are manifold. We talk all the time about the need for good community relations. I genuinely believe and fear that community relations could suffer as a result of implementing and imposing the legislation; not negating the fact that it could also place local DFI staff and police officers in a very difficult situation, because community tensions will have risen as a result of the legislation and how it will be implemented.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be glad that I am going to make some progress with the rest of my contribution.

At a time when public services are under financial pressure, we need to be certain that this is an appropriate use of public money. As I have said throughout my contribution, where a flag or emblem is genuinely threatening or intimidating, is associated with a proscribed organisation or creates a public safety problem, there are already laws and powers that can be used to deal with it. Where there is criminal behaviour, it should be dealt with as a criminal behaviour issue. Where there is intimidation, it should be dealt with as intimidation. Where there is a breach of the peace, the police have responsibilities. I question whether we need a new statutory framework that gives a Department such broad discretion over cultural displays in public places. We should instead look at an approach that protects communities from intimidation whilst giving proper protection to legitimate cultural expression. I say it again: that is done through the dialogue that happens almost monthly or weekly on some of the issues that arise with flags and emblems in our constituencies. It means having clear definitions; it means having consistency; and it means ensuring that no community feels that its identity is being singled out or treated differently.

Northern Ireland has made enormous progress in learning how to live with difference. That does not mean that we should ignore the very real sensitivities around flags and emblems, but neither should we create legislation that risks turning cultural expression into a matter for bureaucratic judgement. Is there a genuine public safety issue? If the answer is yes, there should be action. However, if the answer is simply that somebody finds a particular expression of identity offensive, we need to be extremely cautious before giving the state the power to remove it. Freedom of expression includes expression that some people may dislike. Cultural identity must be respected across the community, and legislation designed to improve community relations — as, I think, the Bill sponsor intends — should not inadvertently create a new source of division.

The Alliance Party has spent years telling us that it is about creating a shared society. We want people to live side by side together, and that is why I said that there has been enormous progress. Yet the mechanism that it has chosen is one that gives civil servants the power to decide which expressions of identity are acceptable in public spaces.

The real test of the legislation is not whether Alliance can identify a flag that it dislikes but whether it would be equally comfortable with exactly the same powers being exercised against a symbol that it supports, such as an LGBT flag or a transgender flag. Such flags may be offensive to me and to some people who live in my community, and, as such, they would be subject to the legislation. When I was a councillor, Alliance did not like Fermanagh and Omagh District Council's flags and emblems policy, because it could not fly the Pride flag. We therefore have to ensure that there is consistency in the argument.

I want Alliance to answer this one simple question: would it be equally comfortable if a departmental official were to apply that very same subjective test, decide that a symbol of importance to its community was "offensive" or "antagonistic" and order its removal?

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: I am happy to give way.

Ms Bradshaw: Yes, without question. When it is Pride Week in Belfast, put the flags up and take them down. I know, however, that the organisers of Belfast Pride would use the portal. That is the point. People would then know why the flags were up and who would take them down.

Mrs Erskine: Alliance would also hit out at the people objecting to those flags.

Ms Bradshaw: No, we would not.

Mrs Erskine: Yes, you would. I have seen it happen before. I therefore have significant concerns about the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill as drafted.

I have spoken at length today. I have allowed a lot of time for interventions, and I am grateful for all those interventions. I appreciate the information that has come back to me, but, for the reasons that I have outlined today, I cannot support the Bill in its current form.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much for your Frew-like contribution.

Mrs Cameron: At the outset, I acknowledge the serious amount of work that the Member for South Belfast has put into her Member's Bill. It is not an easy task to undertake. I had a very uncontroversial Member's Bill go through successfully in the previous term, and I know what that meant to me as an individual. I therefore sincerely appreciate the work that Paula has put into the Bill. I know that it is well-intentioned, but it is very contentious. That is why we continue to debate the Bill at length. The debate has been extensive, but that reflects the sensitivity of the subject and the very serious practical questions that the Bill raises.

The flying of flags is a visible and practical demonstration of the esteem in which communities hold their cultural traditions and value their national and religious identities. The Democratic Unionist Party is committed to supporting that legitimate form of expression, not undermining it. We will always defend the dignified display of the Union flag, the national flag of our country. Equally, we will never make excuses for the display of flags or emblems connected to proscribed organisations or anything that glorifies terrorism and violence.

There are principles on which the House should be able to agree. Flags should not endanger road users. National flags should not be defiled or burned. Displays should not promote proscribed organisations, glorify violence or be erected with malicious and illegal intent. They should not be left lying in a damaged or tattered condition, and, where possible, they should be displayed with local agreement.

None of those principles requires the extensive regulatory system proposed in the Bill. We believe that the focus should remain on voluntary action, about which we have heard so much this afternoon, and on local engagement and agreement, rather than on a top-down legislative regime.

Northern Ireland already has experience of regulatory structures governing cultural expression. My party opposed the establishment of the Parades Commission, which has, too often, imposed illogical and disproportionate restrictions and heightened tensions rather than reduce them. The system now being proposed by the Alliance Party risks repeating those mistakes rather than learning from them.

Clause 1 lies at the centre of our concerns. It places a statutory duty on the Department for Infrastructure to remove a flag or emblem from public street furniture where the Department decides that removal is "in the public interest". The use of the word "must" is significant. That is not simply an additional discretionary power that the Department may use when it is safe and proportionate to do so. Once the Department reaches the relevant opinion, it is placed under an obligation to act. Clause 1 states that a display must be removed where the Department considers it to be:

or connected to "a proscribed organisation." If a display amounts to criminal intimidation, stirs up hatred or invites support for a terrorist organisation, that should be dealt with using existing criminal, terrorism and public order legislation. Those are, properly, matters for law enforcement.

Instead, the Bill asks officials in the Department for Infrastructure to make those highly sensitive legal, political and community relations judgements. Those officials are employed to maintain our roads, bridges, street lights and drainage infrastructure. They are not police officers, lawyers or community relations adjudicators. What training will enable a DFI official to determine whether a particular flag is likely to arouse fear? What evidence will be required? Will the decision be made by a local roads engineer, a new central departmental unit or, ultimately, the Minister? The Bill does not provide adequate answers.

Even more concerning is the presumption in clause 1 that it will be in the public interest to remove a display that the Department considers to be "offensive, abusive, or insulting".

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for giving way. From your reading of the Bill, is it clear, at any point, who will be in charge of determining whether such flags will remain up or come down? Furthermore, if that new unit — that Parades Commission mark II for flags — is enacted, how many staff will it require and what will be the cost to the public purse? From what I have seen to date, the Bill sponsor has not been able to give facts and figures on how much that will cost DFI.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for North Antrim for posing some very legitimate questions. They need to be answered by the Bill sponsor.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Cameron: I will, indeed.

Mr Brooks: Further to the point that was raised by the Member for North Antrim, not only is there an issue around the administration of the provisions but, as we have said previously, there is the issue of enforcement. We know that, when the police have had to remove controversial bonfires, it has cost hundreds of thousands of pounds per incident. Belfast City Council does not allow us to see how much it costs, but when it brings in masked contractors who are dressed all in black to remove controversial bonfires, again, I suspect that it costs tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pounds. That is the kind of enforcement that will have to be repeated in every town and village in this country. How much will that cost the Department for Infrastructure?

Mrs Cameron: I thank my colleague for that intervention. He, too, has raised very legitimate points about the cost of all that. In today's constrained budgets, we know how needed those pounds and pence are in other places. I fear that the Bill will not only lead to more disruption and community tension but the costs will be — in reality, it is very much like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Mr Brooks: That is right.

Mrs Cameron: We have so much more to do with the resource that we have in this place. We do not have enough, and we know that. Our health service needs it. Our Police Service needs more resource to deal with criminality and real life, quite frankly, in Northern Ireland.

Miss Hargey: I thank the Member for giving way. I have listened to all the Members who have spoken. When I spoke on the Bill previously, I said that it is not perfect and work needs to be done. That is why my party wants it to go to Committee Stage; so that we can work through it. I get the feeling that your party will block it or use the petition of concern. I have not heard what your alternative is. You have highlighted issues around bonfires and costs. Those situations arose because there were sectarian and racist displays on bonfires, and they were not dealt with. There was no community engagement. In fact, there was a refusal from communities to deal with those issues.

I will also pick up the point that you made, David, about the Newtownards Road and the flying of flags at St Matthew's Church. There are nationalist homes that face out on to the Newtownards Road, but there is a huge peace wall that segregates them from the road because the homes were attacked. Flags are flown there provocatively outside the church and alongside those homes. How do we deal with the issues that residents are raising? You give the impression that it is a unionist road or a loyalist road, and that is it, but you completely neglect to think about the residents and neighbours who live on the Newtownards Road just behind the huge peace wall. There is an absence of community engagement or resolution, so, in that absence, who else needs to step in to deal with the issues? What is your alternative? I have not heard anything.

The fact is that the DUP is blocking the establishment of a working group to take forward the FICT recommendations. You will also block this Bill, which means that you do not want to deal with these issues; you want to continue to keep your head in the sand, ignore the issues and pretend that they will go away. The reality is that they will not go away. We all have to sit around the table, and it is in the absence of a working group to look at the FICT recommendations that Paula has introduced the Bill. What is your alternative? What are you proposing? None of the existing legislation is working in the way that it should, and local accommodation is not working because you do not even recognise, in your own words, that there is another community there. That has not worked. [Inaudible.]

Miss Hargey: You did not mention it once. You said that it is a loyalist/unionist area, but that is not the case, because there are nationalists who also live on the Newtownards Road. You did not mention that once. What is the alternative? How do you propose to deal with the issue, other than by saying, "Everything is OK here. Nothing needs to be done"? I have not heard that from any of you on that side of the Chamber.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I remind Members that, when they are making interventions, they should do so through the Speaker. That seemed as though you were making an intervention to Mr Brooks. I can understand why you might want to make an intervention to Mr Brooks, but that is not what we should be doing. Deirdre, you have been around long enough to know that. [Inaudible.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): There you go. Pam.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for giving way. Deputy Speaker, in addressing the point that has just been made, you will be glad to know that I will not get into a discussion about the geography of east Belfast, but I did recognise that the church is there and that it belongs to a neighbouring community in the Short Strand. I might not have said "Short Strand", but I talked about the neighbouring community.

The point that I was making, to make it relevant to the debate, is that that is one instance that I am familiar with in east Belfast. There will be numerous instances across the country of areas that are divided and where one community lives right beside another. I speak for loyalist working-class communities but also for republican working-class communities in this regard: that does not mean that those communities should not be allowed to express their identity. It is about how we do that in a respectful way but without whitewashing it. The problem is that, if you try to impose this on working-class communities, you will end up bringing one flag down only to see it replaced with three, four or five flags. It is a case of rinse and repeat. How will the Department or any enforcement body that is set up deal with that when it happens again and again and again? It is pie in the sky. I understand that people wish to do something, but just because we have something in front of us does not mean that it is the right answer. Thank you for allowing the intervention.

Mrs Cameron: I appreciate both of those interventions. It demonstrates how serious a conversation we are having.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Cameron: I will in a wee minute.

We do not want to make things worse or exacerbate problems. We have heard such good examples today. One size does not fit all in this place. What happens in the constituencies of East Belfast, West Belfast or Fermanagh and South Tyrone can be very different, but we could take very good examples of the best of human behaviour, such as we have heard about from my colleague Deborah Erskine today, and try to apply that to the best of our ability across this country without the need for portals and desperate amounts of money being thrown at legislation that gives police more responsibility, more cost and more grief and gives DFI workers more grief and more responsibility. We could do things better.

I will give way to Mr Gaston at this point.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for giving way. We have heard time and again, "What is the alternative?", being thrown back at this side of the Chamber. The alternative is fulfilling the legislation that is there. If that is not working, it is about holding the statutory bodies to account to fulfil their duties, instead of creating more bureaucracy and wasting more public money setting up a body that I do not believe will work. It is proposed to set up a body that will fail. If the PSNI will not go into an area at the moment, it is not going to go into an area based on any new legislation. That is the elephant in the room. Any legislation that comes forward will not change that. If the police determine that it is too dangerous or that it is against the community's wishes, as it stands, to go into an area, they are not going to hold a contractor's hand under the new provisions in the Bill.

Surely the best place to start to look at this would have been the DOJ. I presume that the Bill sponsor has not been speaking to her Minister and party leader, but that would be the vehicle to start looking at this, in order to understand why the police are not fulfilling their duties. It is not just about creating more legislation for the sake of it, but that seems to be the place that this House wants to get to. The liberal elitists of the Alliance Party believe that, just because we have something in a Bill, that means that we are doing something about the issue. How about your Minister engages on it and fulfils her duties, or is that an operational issue?

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for his intervention.

I was speaking about the presumption in clause 1 that it is in the public interest to remove a display that the Department considers "offensive, abusive or insulting". We have to point out that there is no general right to be offended. In a free and democratic society, freedom of expression necessarily protects views and symbols that some people may dislike or disagree with. The Union flag may represent national pride, constitutional identity, remembrance and sacrifice to one person, such as me, while another person may claim to find it offensive. That objection alone cannot be sufficient reason for the state to remove our national flag. The framework that is proposed in the Bill would effectively place the onus on communities that have engaged in legitimate cultural expression for many years to rebut a presumption against their display.

The explanatory and financial memorandum acknowledges the relevance of freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 9 also protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, while article 11 protects freedom of assembly. However, no full human rights and equality impact assessment has been published alongside the Bill. That is a serious omission, given that the legislation would create a presumption in favour of removing displays that are associated with national, cultural, political or religious identity.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Cameron: I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

Ms Bradshaw: Just for the record, when I introduced my proposals, the Bill Office had to assess my Bill against human rights considerations. The Bill was sent to the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for their comments. Whilst I am not under an obligation in that regard, we have tested it.

Mrs Cameron: I appreciate that clarity from the Bill sponsor. The presumption in clause 1(3) also applies where a flag demarcates a place:

The dignified display of the Union flag in a neighbourhood does not automatically mean that those responsible are claiming exclusive ownership of that area. Flags are flown for many legitimate reasons, including celebration, commemoration, remembrance, cultural expression and pride in our national identity. Communities and neighbourhoods have the right to display their national flag in a dignified way. That right to cultural expression should not end at the entrance to a public building.

The Bill also expects DFI to decide whether a flag is being displayed for an excessive period or in a disrespectful manner, and neither expression is adequately defined in the legislation. I agree that anyone who takes responsibility for erecting a national flag should take equal responsibility for removing it before it becomes faded, torn or tattered. Leaving a damaged flag hanging from a lamppost is not a demonstration of respect, and we have heard that from across the Chamber today. However, what else might the Department consider to be disrespectful? Would it relate to the condition of the flag, its location, the manner in which it is attached or the period for which it has been displayed? What is an excessive period? Is it a week, a month or the duration of the traditional season of celebration and commemoration? Those are not, for many of us, minor details. They will determine when a community may display its national flag and when DFI may remove it, yet the answers are not contained in the Bill. They are left to the future code of practice required by clause 4. Members are therefore being asked to approve the legislative framework without seeing the rules that will govern its practical operation.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Cameron: Go ahead.

Ms Bradshaw: I addressed the excessive period issue earlier. You may wish to reflect on what I said by reading the Hansard report. However, a lot of that is taken from the FICT code of practice, which, obviously, is not set in stone. The basis, however, was there for anybody who was preparing for this debate to look at, and, as I said earlier, all five parties were represented on that commission.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for that intervention. Previous proposals for codes governing flags suggested narrow periods or specific exemptions around Easter and the summer months. We do not know whether a code produced under the Bill would take a similar approach. Any outcome that restricts legitimate cultural expression to narrow, centrally determined windows would damage rather than improve community relations.

Clause 4 requires the Department to consult various organisations and:

However, consultation does not amount to consent. The Department could consult all the bodies listed in the Bill and, ultimately, disregard much of the advice that it receives.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. She referenced a very interesting point that has been a continual theme on these Benches: the real risk of generating rather than solving community tension. Does the Member agree that not only is that an important point of consideration — indeed, elected representatives should engage proactively in lowering tension in their local areas — but that, where accommodation could be found, that would be the best way to progress? More worrying is that the Bill seeks to put DFI staff in the centre of those contentious issues, be they flags of national identity or otherwise, and ultimately distract them from the real priority work, which is on our roads, our drainage systems and, indeed, the wider Northern Ireland infrastructure problem.

Mrs Cameron: I thank my colleague for that intervention and agree completely on that.

It is also important to correct claims about the FICT report. The report did not agree or recommend a statutory code of practice that would restrict the right to fly a flag through an online notification system with imposed time limits. Its commentary was intended to inform further discussions, recognising that any lasting solution must command cross-community support. We can safely say that the Bill does not. It attempts to bypass that requirement for political and community agreement, which is majoritarianism rather than consensus. A code of practice would not be subject to the same Assembly approval process as regulations. It could be reviewed and changed under successive Ministers. One Minister might decide that a flag could remain for a particular period, while a future Minister could adopt a substantially different approach. That is too much discretion to place in the hands of one Department and one Minister on an issue as sensitive as cultural and national identity. There are no adequate safeguards against political interference, nor does the Bill establish a clear and accessible appeal mechanism for individuals or organisations that believe that a removal decision was wrong. Would a community group have to pursue a costly judicial review to challenge DFI? The Bill does not tell us.

The reporting mechanism proposed in clause 3 is equally problematic. The Department would be required to:

— potentially through an "online portal" — allowing people to notify the Department that they had displayed or wished to display a flag. Other members of the public would be invited to submit their views.

The sponsor may describe that as a voluntary notification procedure, but it risks becoming a de facto authorisation system. If notifying the Department or complying with the code become important considerations in whether a flag is allowed to remain, people will reasonably conclude that they are expected to register and provide reasons before displaying their national flag. We absolutely oppose any requirement, whether explicit or implied, that people must notify the state or seek its approval before engaging in a legitimate expression of British identity.

The Bill does not require an objector to live in the area concerned. It provides no threshold for the number of objections needed and no proper safeguard against coordinated complaints from people with no connection to the local community. How will DFI distinguish genuine, local concerns from an organised political campaign? Will anonymous complaints be accepted? How will repeated or automated submissions be identified?

The online portal could quickly become a grievance factory for those who wish to suppress or undermine expressions of British culture and identity.

One of the central weaknesses of the Bill is that it appears to give primacy to those who object. We have heard repeatedly that it will give people a voice, but what about the voice of residents who support the respectful display of their national flag? What about those who value an established community tradition? The vast majority of flags are displayed without acrimony or opposition, yet the Bill imposes a disproportionate burden on legitimate community organisations because of a smaller number of genuinely problematic displays. Those who are responsible for displaying the symbols of proscribed organisations are hardly likely to complete an online notification process to provide their details and comply with a departmental code. The people who are most likely to comply are those from responsible organisations that are not causing the problem in the first place. The Bill may therefore regulate legitimate cultural expression while failing to deal effectively with the very displays that cause the greatest concern.

There are also substantial questions about enforcement. Clause 5 creates an offence where a person:

Before creating a new criminal offence, the Assembly should be satisfied that the original removal decision will be transparent and consistent and that those who make it are properly accountable. The Bill does not define obstruction or expressly provide for a defence of reasonable excuse. It places departmental employees or contractors at the centre of situations in which opposition to a controversial removal could become a criminal matter.

Clause 6 permits DFI to:

if it believes that:

That wording is important. The Department "may request assistance", but the Bill does not require the PSNI to provide it. The police must remain operationally independent in deciding how they deploy their resources. Therefore, DFI could have a legal duty to remove a display without a guarantee that police support would be available to enable its staff to do so safely. Who would carry out the removal in those circumstances? Will DFI Roads employees be sent to potentially volatile situations, or will specialist contractors be appointed? What security arrangements will be needed, and at what cost? The explanatory and financial memorandum acknowledges concerns about enforcement, staff safety, external contractors, financial implications and the risk of reprisals. The Bill does not resolve those issues. It merely allows the Department for Infrastructure to ask the police for help.

There is also no certainty that removing a flag will resolve the matter. A flag that is taken down without local consent may be replaced within hours, potentially with several more. Legislation cannot manufacture community consent. In some circumstances, blunt enforcement could escalate the very tensions that the Bill claims to address.

The financial consequences are also very unclear. The costs of the Bill are, by the Bill sponsor's admission, not presently quantifiable. The number of complaints that are received by public bodies about flags and emblems is not known. Neither the scale of the problem nor the cost of the proposed solution have been properly established. Nevertheless, DFI will be expected to establish an online portal, develop and review a code of practice, process complaints, assess community opinion, make legal and cultural judgements, organise removals and potentially employ specialist contractors. Those resources will have to come from somewhere. Every Member knows the pressures facing DFI. Every day, constituents contact our offices about potholes, deteriorating roads, blocked gullies, flooding, defective street lights and road safety concerns. It demonstrates a remarkable lack of awareness to place a new, costly and disproportionate duty on that Department while our roads network is in such poor condition and our waste water system remains in crisis. Residents will rightly ask why DFI is being instructed to police cultural expression when it is struggling to deliver its core responsibilities.

The Bill's interpretation provisions also demonstrate its potentially extensive reach. It says that:

Therefore, the Bill is not limited to flags. Could it capture political posters, commemorative banners, protest materials or displays that are associated with international events? What constitutes a "similar medium of display"? What about "Happy 50th Birthday" or "Happy 60th Birthday" on a sheet stuck up at a roundabout? Some people might find that offensive. [Laughter.]

Such questions matter, because the legislation creates duties of removal and an offence connected to obstruction.

We accept that there may be a need to clarify the responsibilities of DFI, councils and the PSNI, which could help secure timely intervention where action is genuinely necessary, lawful and proportionate. Moving from existing permissive powers to prescriptive duties will not necessarily achieve that, however. It may instead create further confusion, bureaucracy and confrontation. The DUP believes that concerns should be addressed primarily through voluntary action and local agreement, not through a draconian set of laws that runs contrary to mutual respect and cultural accommodation.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Cameron: I will indeed.

Mr Buckley: The Member is absolutely right. That is primarily where action should occur in legitimate confrontations about flag-flying and cultural respect. Does the Member agree that, where there clearly are threats, intimidation or paramilitary or illegal activity, that is for the existing statutes to deal with? We have terrorism legislation and public order legislation. Regulations are already in place for DFI and other agencies. Does she agree that the legislation that is already in place must step up and that enforcement must be applied, instead of our creating blanket legislation and another layer of regulation that, ultimately, will lead to a less productive DFI?

Mrs Cameron: I thank my colleague for that comment. I wholeheartedly agree. He has not, I think, been in the Chamber for the entire debate, but we have heard much today about community cohesion and the good community work that goes on around the country, where agreement is often reached and people respect one another's wishes and cultural identities. The most effective progress has come through patient, and it is patient, community engagement that involves residents, local representatives, Churches, community organisations and statutory agencies. That work is not always easy or immediately successful, but it can recognise local circumstances, and it seeks consent rather than confrontation. That is to be welcomed.

The Bill risks undermining arrangements that have already been established to deal with disputes in communities across Northern Ireland. It would create a centralised reporting system, empower DFI to adjudicate on highly subjective matters and leave essential conditions to a future code that Members have not seen. We all agree that flags associated with terrorist organisations should not be displayed. We also agree that national flags should be treated with dignity and be removed before they become damaged and tattered. Recognising those principles does not require us to support the Bill, however. The Assembly should not pass legislation simply because Members believe that something must be done. We must be satisfied that the proposed solution is necessary, proportionate, enforceable and capable of operating fairly. The Bill does not meet that test. It risks regulating legitimate cultural expression while failing to deal with those who already ignore the law. It places inappropriate and potentially dangerous responsibilities on DFI. It creates insufficiently defined powers, inadequate safeguards and uncertain financial consequences. Above all, it would proceed without the cross-community engagement that any sustainable approach to flags, identity and cultural expression requires. For that reason, I cannot support the Bill at Second Stage.

Ms Forsythe: Never have I received so much correspondence and wider contact about an issue than I have about this Bill. Many people have raised huge, valid and legitimate concerns. I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into the Bill, and I give credit to the Bill sponsor for that, but it is reckless legislation with far-reaching consequences. Throughout the debate, which I have listened to from upstairs and in the Chamber today, there has, unfortunately, been a tone of disdain and a somewhat patronising attitude from the Alliance Benches towards those of us from a unionist culture.

The Alliance Party believes that it sets the standards, decides what is reasonable and decides how people should live. We cannot forget that Alliance was the party that tore down the Union flag from City Hall. It now wants to tear it down from unionist communities across Northern Ireland. Our deputy leader, Michelle McIlveen, spoke at our party conference at the weekend, where she said:

In the build-up to the Bill's Second Stage, I received a lot of correspondence from fellow Linfield fans about the graphic in which the Alliance Party once again took aim at that football club. It seems to be a no-go football club for Alliance, although I quite like the kit colours and wear mine with pride. The Alliance Party does not like unionist culture and it does not like Linfield. Who is next?

In the EFM, the Bill proposer indicates her view that the Bill is:

Of course, if it were not, the Assembly would not have the necessary legislative competence. My understanding is that the Member is not a lawyer and does not have legal qualifications. With respect, we have seen fiascos involving the Alliance Party, including the law on naming sex offenders being struck down by the High Court for being incompatible with the convention, and the Minister of Justice's more recent error regarding football banning orders, so we can be forgiven for having little confidence in some of that party's analysis. The Bill is legally incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

My colleagues have set out at length the political and practical problems throughout the Bill. In truth, it is another means by which the Alliance Party is trying to extend its campaign against expressions of cultural identity. I will not rehearse the many examples of that, but I am sure that colleagues will intervene as they see fit. Clause 1 would confer on DFI the power to remove flags for specified reasons. It is important to note that the removal of flags, not least the national flag, would clearly be a matter of significance and controversy, and would therefore involve paragraph 2.4 of the ministerial code and section 28A(5) and section 28A(10) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. DFI would not have the lawful power to remove such a flag if it were a matter of significance or controversy. That would require Executive agreement.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. She has declared her love for Linfield, but I am glad that she is wearing sky blue, which is the colour of Ballymena United.

Does the Member agree with me that the very fact that the Alliance Party and the Bill sponsor have targeted Linfield Football Club because of its colours and flag, including when a previous Alliance Party Member tackled Linfield about the colours of its away top and linked it to a paramilitary force, tells you all that you need to know about the Bill sponsor and that party?

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for his intervention. I agree: there is a great team in Ballymena as well. Frankly, Alliance's sheer exception to the colours of orange and purple, and the outreach of that, says it all about how the Alliance Party looks at many of us.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Some Members may roll their eyes at the commentary about Linfield Football Club, but it is a very serious issue. The club's fans took considerable exception to the club's being drawn into the political field by the Bill sponsor on what is already a contentious issue, given that, as my colleague Mr Frew said, that club was targeted previously. Is that not an example of how the legislation could really damage and upset existing community relations? I am sure that Linfield Football Club did not want to be associated with the Bill, and that is but one example. You could roll it out with regard to multiple community organisations: for example, veterans and their flying of flags, or even religious organisations, as I see a lot of "Jesus Saves" flags now flying from lamp posts across the country. The Bill has the potential to insert DFI into problems with not just national symbols but community-related and religious symbols.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member —.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way, considering that I spoke for a lengthy period earlier. I wish to make an important point. We have talked a lot in the Chamber recently about how terms such as "harm", "anxiety" and "fear" should be defined. It is exactly the same when it comes to the Bill: how somebody feels about a flag or emblem could create a very difficult situation and raise the community tensions that we have talked about today.

Ms Brownlee: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Member for giving way again. If the authors of the Bill have struggled to get the imaging right around this, it gives no public confidence whatsoever in driving it forward. Does the Member agree?

Ms Forsythe: Absolutely. I thank all my colleagues for their interventions. To Ms Brownlee's point, yes, it is about public confidence. Every time that something else went out from the Alliance Party about the Bill, it seemed to antagonise people, and the rate at which I got responses became stronger. To Mrs Erskine's point, we talked, throughout her contribution, about how far-reaching the unintended consequences would be. On Mr Buckley's point, it is the lack of definitions in the Bill that gives rise to that. Anything could appear in a graphic, and anything could be drawn into the conversation. The legislation gives no protection to the Union flag, the Ulster banner, military flags or anything of that nature. To me, it is cultural; it is any type of flags; it is the community flags; it is the messaging. It is very concerning that anything could be next.

Back to my point about significance and controversy. It would require Executive agreement. That is an important point to note. The Member is getting close to reaching into that sphere with the Bill. That speaks to the point about unintended consequences.

I believe that clause 1(2) demonstrates some of the legal incoherence of the Bill. It includes the creation of an objective test — what is "in the public interest" — but, in the same sentence, inserts a subjective test of:

Colleagues have spoken about that. That is a dangerous line to have in the Bill. In that statement, who is "the Department"? Clause 7 defines "Department" as "the Department for Infrastructure", but what does that mean? A Department is not a person.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yeah.

Mrs Erskine: Again, the Member makes a very important point. As we touched on during contributions, that could be anyone from a Minister, right down to our sectional engineers and local divisions. It will create massive inconsistencies in how some of the legislation is applied as well.

Ms Forsythe: Absolutely. That is why I ask whether:

refers to individuals on the ground, a senior civil servant, a panel, a board or a Minister. Who is "the Department"? It says:

DFI workers who are fixing potholes out on the road often experience the front-facing aggression of unhappy members of the public. We have seen that many times. It could be much the same in this case. The term:

is very loose and needs to be defined. The objective test of what is "in the public interest" is set and then contradicted by inserting a presumption into the subjective test at clause 1(3) that creates a list of factors. Clause 1(4) goes on to provide for that presumption to be rebutted, but enshrines no evidential basis for the rebuttal or the objective test to be applied. It therefore includes an objective test on which the Department will make a subjective decision, and presumptions limiting the subjective test, which may nonetheless be rebutted without an objective or evidential standard for rebuttal. Does the Member not understand how that looks legally illiterate?

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yeah.

Ms Bradshaw: I think that the Member is missing the entire purpose of the Bill. It is about ensuring that our public property, in the form of our lighting columns, is not abused through the use of flags or emblems. The alternative would have been for me to bring forward a Bill that placed a duty on the Department to remove all flags — anything that is affixed to such property. Your colleague Mr Buckley referred to article 87 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. That imposes a fine only on people who know what happened, so the existing legislation does not cover this. You have said, "Oh, there's these tests", but I have tried to allow a process to be gone through. The alternative for me would be —. A lot of my voters would be like, "No flags at all", so an alternative could have been to just have a duty to remove all flags.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for her intervention and for confirming that what she actually wants is to just remove all flags. That is what I am actually trying to point out —

Ms Bradshaw: What?

Ms Forsythe: You said that your alternative would be to do that, so you wrote this —. Sorry, through the Speaker —

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member take a moment to reflect on the words that have been said? It is quite an intolerant and illiberal position for the Alliance Party to suggest that, apparently, its voters are of the disposition to remove all flags, but the Member has come with legislation that she believes tries to strike a balance. I say that it is far from striking a balance, because all that it is doing is moving this particular landmine right into the breast of DFI, which will have to deal with the consequences.

Ms Forsythe: Absolutely. I thank the Member for that intervention. As I said, the presumption is to remove the flags. You see that as you read through this. I agree with the Member's point.

Clause 2 contains a list of sensitive places, but, again, they are not clearly defined. It does not require such places to be treated as sensitive; it just confers a discretionary power that the Department may treat some places as sensitive. What does that clause actually do? It beats up the air with some virtue signalling. It looks like you are trying to set out different places that may or may not be sensitive, but, having read it, I ask whether there is anywhere in Northern Ireland that cannot be captured as a sensitive place. We have got:

Then:

Subsection (3) also refers to "any other place". That is really dangerous. It does not narrow down what is considered to be a sensitive place, and, to me, it reads as if anything could fall under that.

Clause 3 provides a requirement to create a procedure, which has been much spoken of. Look at the funding of that procedure. Deborah Erskine touched on that as well. I do not know whether it has been costed and what degree it is supposed to have. There is the setting up of the portal and how that is to be staffed. Who is setting the policy of it? What is the process of it? It does not sound like something that is not going to cost an awful lot of money. Quite frankly, it does not look like it will stack up very well, and it does not look like the best use of public money.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Mr Gaston: The Bill sponsor in an intervention said that Mr Buckley had used the Roads Order. The fundamental flaw in that was that it only covers those who can be identified as having put up the flag. Surely, if this is going to be voluntary, the same will apply to this, because it is no different. You will only be able to criminalise through a fine if somebody has been sucker enough to have gone on to the portal and put in their details to say, "I am putting up the flag. This is my responsibility". It completely misses the point. Deal with the flags that are the issue through the existing legislation and leave alone those who put up the national flag and take it down after.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for the intervention. He makes an excellent point. Who is going to put into a portal, "I am going to do this", and then be incriminated on the back of that?

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Ms Bradshaw: There is nothing in the Bill or in the EFM at all around criminalising people who engage with this process. The only way that somebody will be on the wrong side of the law is if they try to obstruct the removal of flags. You used the word "criminalising" in the wrong context, and I am going to err on the side of assuming that you have misinterpreted my Bill, but I think that it is quite devious.

Ms Forsythe: I think that calling me devious is a bit close to the line, but I fully understand that the offence that is being created is in clause 5 and exactly what it is. Perhaps I used the language differently, but I was responding to Mr Gaston's point about why you would put your name on to something to get yourself into further trouble. Perhaps "criminalising" is not the word, but the sentiment —.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for giving way. Just a moment ago, the Member was listing some of the issues around what this is going to cost the Department and the pressure that that will place on it. The Bill sponsor has been very quick to get up to answer your other point. I know that she has been frustrated about the number of contributions in the debate and the fact that some of the points have been repeated. I have heard the points around costings repeated again and again, yet I have not heard any response from the Bill sponsor that gives us any detail to show that she has given any consideration to what this is going to cost or of the impact that it will have on the normal, everyday duties of the Department for Infrastructure.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to review the use of the word "devious". I am not entirely sure whether it was directed towards Ms Forsythe or me, but, surely, it is unparliamentary and shows a Member under pressure and one who cannot stand over the Bill that she has brought before us.

Mr Speaker: While we always encourage Members to use parliamentary language, there is no list of words that can or cannot be used. However, we encourage Members not to be offensive to other Members. That does not always work, but we encourage Members not to be offensive to other Members. Generally, the spirit has been quite good. There has been a lot of debate, but the spirit has been quite good, so carry on.

Ms Brownlee: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: I just want to say, "Thank you, Mr Speaker". Some might be offended, but I am not a snowflake. I will give way to my colleague.

Ms Brownlee: If the Member was offended, maybe she should report that through an online portal. [Laughter.]

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. The point that has just been made misses the point —.

Ms Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As I said yesterday to the Benches opposite, it is difficult to hear from here when Members turn their backs and direct their words to the colleagues who sit behind them. It is really difficult to hear.

Mr Speaker: That is a fair point, Ms Mulholland. Members should speak through the Chair. Even when referring to someone who is sitting behind you and it seems rude to have your back to them, talk through the Chair, please. They will hear you very well.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. The Bill sponsor completely misses the point about the offences. The point that we made earlier and the point that she was making relates to this issue: when you put your name into the portal and put up Union flags, if, the very next night, UVF flags go up, that will be attributed to you on the portal. It will probably go from the Department to the PSNI, which means that you are labelled as someone who is connected to the UVF. That could have massive effects and impacts on you and your family when it comes to law and order. That is the dangerous point here. It is not an actual offence of instructing the Department to take flags down, breaching the peace or the like; it is the fact that your name is now associated with parliamentary flags because you had to put your name through a portal in order to put up a Union flag.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for that. On Mr Brooks's point, I do not know whether the Bill sponsor wants to provide details of estimates of the core costing of the process.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for letting me come in. A financial assessment has been done. Committee members have that; it is in the EFM. It is estimated at around £27,000-plus per year. That is on the basis of an average of 165 complaints a year. It has been costed through. It is there, it is in the EFM, and members of the Committee have the full paper.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for her intervention. I do not think that it is valid to cost the Bill on the basis of complaints. If you are to require a portal entry for every flag that is being put up or for every celebration and commemoration, there will be a lot more of those entries than the number that lead to complaints.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Mr Speaker, I will be clear and loud in the Chamber so that Members can hear me. I will also be very careful with my words and language.

Does the Member agree that the figure of £26,000 is for the birds?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Buckley: When I first made a contribution on the Bill as the Committee Chair, I made reference to the fact that Birmingham City Council had spent £2·6 million of public money to remove Union flags and English flags. I said it then, and I repeat it now: Belfast is no Birmingham. We have a proliferation of flags for different causes, issues and historical events. How could anybody conclude that this will cost £26,000? It is insulting to the intelligence of Members in the Chamber to think that they will believe that that figure is in any way accurate. I understand how it has been calculated, but, considering the huge costs associated with Birmingham City Council, it could not be further from the truth. I certainly do not want to see anywhere in the region of millions of pounds being spent on taking down flags or helping to create online portals so that people can register complaints. I would much rather see DFI getting £2·6 million to fix the potholes, fill the drains and ensure that we have a planning system that is fit for purpose.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way on that point. We have spent the past couple of hours hearing DUP contributions about how there is great communication, great engagement and the vast majority of flags come down within a reasonable time, so what the Member just said contradicts that.

Mr Frew: That is not what we said.

Ms Bradshaw: That is exactly what you said. The record will show that, for the past two hours, you have said that there is great work, and that I applaud and recognise that, and now you are saying that the problem is a lot bigger than your colleagues have been indicating all afternoon. You cannot have it both ways.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for her intervention. Her contribution was maybe verging on devious.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Mr Buckley: I am sure that the Member will agree that there is always an attempt by the Alliance Party to misrepresent. Let us look at its actions and what they result in. When the Alliance Party voted to remove the national flag from City Hall, what happened? There was a proliferation of flags. Who, for one moment, thinks that, if DFI has to put itself in the difficult conversation where it is making the decision and where it has a portal for those who want to complain, that will not have the same result?

Many different flags from many cultures are flown in Northern Ireland. Many are put up and taken down respectfully, but that does not stop those who may be vexatious about a certain flag from making a complaint to a portal and DFI having to answer to that. It has been a complete misrepresentation from the Bill sponsor. I thought that she would want to approach the debate in a mature fashion, so that Members could air the grievances that they clearly have and therefore perhaps see whether the Bill was workable.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for his intervention.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for giving way. I cannot believe the costing of £26,000 that the Bill sponsor has outlined. I talked about bonfires earlier. I understand that that is a different issue, but the PSNI said that the removal of bonfire materials at Bloomfield Walkway and Cluan Place in my constituency cost it £188,000, with roughly £115,000 of that being for officer overtime alone. Those were two locations in east Belfast, and, yes, they were bonfires. We are going to have DFI officials chasing all over Northern Ireland to bring down flags. Clause 6 states that, where there is likely to be a breach of the peace, they will be able to get assistance from the PSNI. The idea that that will cost £26,000 is for the birds, as my colleague said. That may be the costing for some minor administration of it, but, when it is taken into account how it will be enforced, the cost will run away.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: OK. Maybe Ms Forsythe will make some progress now.

Ms Forsythe: Yes. Thank you to the Member.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Mr Gaston: Just before the Member moves off the issue of costings, to put it into context, that £27,000 relates to one hour from two constables and one hour of inspector time, which is £143 per hour. That shows that the PSNI is being deployed and is going to certain situations where a flag needs to be taken down. However, if we are to take at face value what Ms Bradshaw says, her intent is to remove paramilitary flags. Do you really think that two constables and one inspector is all the manpower and woman power that the police will need to take down a paramilitary flag? I do not think so, and that, once again, comes back to the elephant in the room, which is that no contractor will take down a paramilitary flag without the police being there. If the police are not willing to do that at the minute, they will not do it with a contractor.

It is day 3, and the elephant in the room has still has not been addressed. If the police will not do it, the subcontractor will not do it. What is the Bill sponsor's plan? Are you willing to put those people in danger? If the police are saying at the minute that it is not safe to go into those areas and that they are not taking down those flags, how will this legislation be any different from the powers that the police currently have? If it is not safe today, it will not be safe tomorrow. Your £27,000 is a fanciful number.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member allow me to reply to that?

Ms Forsythe: Yes, that is fine.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member.

The police agreed that they would support the contractors in taking down the recent flag at the bottom of the Lisburn Road and Sandy Row, so the police are willing to provide support. The fundamental point, however, is this: why are we giving cover by saying that, because it is too difficult a problem to address paramilitaries, we should just allow them to continue to assert their coercive control in those communities?

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for that, but she is misinterpreting the point. We should look at it from the wider perspective of the PSNI's role and the other issues involved. There were some serious crimes committed in my constituency over the weekend, and I have just come from a meeting of the all-party group (APG) on domestic and sexual violence. When I then look at what is being expected of the PSNI in the Bill, I think that it needs a lot more work.

We have talked at length about cost. Much like a lot of other private Members' Bills, the Bill is not fully costed, which is something that I have repeatedly raised at the Finance Committee. The procedures here differ from those in Westminster, whereby the full costing does not come through in such a way as to have been foreseen, outlined and tested.

It is not just about the funding aspect of creating the new procedure in the Bill but about what the procedure would look like. My colleague Deborah Erskine talked at length about what the expectations are for the portal. It is built upon the code of practice in clause 4, but, taken together, clauses 3 and 4 read to me as though the portal would set up a mini Parades Commission but for flags. We all know what disasters we have had with the Parades Commission in the past, as well as the current disaster that is being ironed out.

I am concerned about the huge process involved. The Bill sponsor talked about the number of complaints and their cost, but I can think only of how many things are not complained about in my area, because, as Deborah said, people work with the community. People do not complain, things go up and down and everyone works together, but what would happen if they were required to use the portal every single time? I do not even know what size of domain would be required, and that brings us back to the cost point, not to be always the accountant in the room.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. In the examples that I gave when talking about community relations in my constituency, what happened went unsaid, and it all passed off peacefully. By having the portal, would we be recreating the system that the Parades Commission uses, whereby it writes to individuals? Would we be — pardon the pun — flagging the fact that flags are going up in an area, which would then prompt people to use the portal to object to those flags being flown?

Ms Forsythe: Absolutely. I thank the Member for her intervention. It comes back to her earlier point that, when rival flags go up, what would happen if one were deemed to be offensive under the code and the other were not? What would the fallout be from that?

I have talked about the procedures, which would be underpinned by the code of practice. In clause 4, we have another exercise in incoherence. Clause 4(2), as a mandatory obligation, requires the code of practice to be "issued within 12 months". Sequentially, clause 4(4) requires there to be consideration of FICT report before the code is issued. That report has not been approved for publication. If it is not so approved in the next 12 months, the duties in clause 4(2) and clause 4(4) will run into each other.

I go back to my previous point. When I read the list of consultees in clause 4(3), I have to query it, because a lot of them feed into existing procedures. Where on the list is community engagement? Perhaps I am missing it, but I feel that it is a list of organisations that will get together and say, "Here are the reasons why you can't fly your flag here". As I said, with the proposed code underpinning the new portal, the provisions read as though they would establish a mini Parades Commission.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for giving way. Do you not think that there is a missed opportunity, given the bodies that are listed? At no time is there to be consultation with the Orange Order or any of the other unionist cultural organisations that will fly the national flag for a number of years. What that says to me is that the Alliance Party — I was going to call it the "Nationalist Party" — is not interested in what unionists have to say on the issue. Its track record has been exposed today, and the mask has slipped. It does not want any flags. The Bill sponsor has said that today. Going by the list of bodies that must be consulted, at no time will any unionist cultural organisation be talked to or consulted. That is a missed opportunity, and it shows once again the Bill sponsor's anti-unionist intention.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: I agree with him. That is exactly the point that I was making. You have listed all the bodies, but there is no mention not just of the Orange Order but of community groups, sporting organisations or anything else from any part of the community. There is no provision for community consultation to play an active part, depending on what the celebration or commemoration is.

I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. This is about the code of practice and those who have statutory responsibilities. I had thought about adding — you will see this written in pen — the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British Tradition and the Irish Language Commissioner to the list.

On the point about the Orange Order and other such bodies, clause 4(3)(i) states:

The list can be added to by a committee, but where does it stop? You mentioned community groups and sporting groups. The list could be as long as your arm. However, if you feel that you need to add specific additional bodies, that is what the Committee and Consideration Stages are for: scrutiny.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for that, but again —.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for giving way. The Bill sponsor's previous intervention proves that the Orange Order, the largest institution involved with the orders, has been left out. Why should it be down to a Committee? If the sponsor's intention was to tackle the issue, you would have thought that she would have gone to the largest cultural organisation in unionism, but it has been omitted. We would therefore have to rely on a Committee at some point in the future to include it. It shows you that, the whole way through this, the intention has been just to get rid of flags.

Ms Brownlee: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Ms Brownlee: I thank the Member again for being so generous in giving way. The Bill states that DFI may consult such other person as it considers appropriate: therein lies the problem. That leaves those in communities depending on departmental discretion.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Members for their interventions. It states, "as appear to the Department". I come back to my previous point: who is "the Department"? Is it a front-line member of staff, a senior civil servant or the Minister who is sitting in the role at that point? Why is it up to the Department for Infrastructure to define who should be consulted on whether flags should be flying in our communities? Once again, there is a lack of definition in the Bill. The code of practice that underpins the portal is questionable.

Clause 5 sets out the offence of obstructing. On that point, I refer to my points on clause 3 and reference the European Convention on Human Rights. To be honest, on the back of that, it is clear that the Bill is a dog's dinner.

I return to where I started. In order to have legislative competence, under section 6 of the Northern Ireland Act, a Bill must be convention-compliant, and that includes a quality of law test. The law must be foreseeable as to its consequences. Someone must be able to foresee the consequences through what they see in the law. The effect of the Bill is not even foreseeable from one clause to the next, many of which contradict one another, as has been set out.

I have not repeated many of the political arguments that have been made throughout the debate, but I agree with and adopt my colleagues' arguments. Through the contributions, the interventions and the underlying tone and intention of the Bill, the Alliance Party is virtue signalling and trying to impose itself on our communities and cleanse any form of identity. It wants a bland society devoid of cultural colours, unless, of course, it is the colours of the rainbow, in which case it will want as many flags as possible. No serious legislator would table the Bill, and no serious legislature would pass it.

Mr Bradley: I will try to address the Bill in a common-sense way. The intention may be worthwhile. Nobody should have to live under the shadow of a terrorist organisation. I certainly do not defend the display of flags or emblems belonging to proscribed organisations where they are being used to threaten or intimidate. However, good intentions do not automatically make good legislation. The question before us is whether the Bill is clear, fair and workable, and I do not think that it is. When I go through the Bill clause by clause, I have serious concerns.

Clause 1 — this is the heart of the Bill — provides for the removal of flags and emblems in the public interest. It uses descriptions such as "intimidatory", "threatening", "offensive", "abusive", "insulting" and "antagonistic". The Bill also refers to something being:

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

Mr Bradley: I will.

Mr Clarke: Surely the Member can agree with the rest of us about what constitutes good community conduct or opinions? It is clear from the Bill that most if not all of those in the Alliance Party are offended by the Union flag. There is no exception for the Union flag in the Bill.

As you said in your introduction, we all have the same view about proscribed organisations. However, there is no protection for the Union flag, and the intention at the heart of the Alliance Party's proposal is clear from the Bill. Of course, as, I am sure, they have been reminded, they have form: they were involved in the removal of the Union flag from City Hall, and look at the disorder that that caused at the time. Clearly, the Alliance Party is intent on doing the same, albeit across the Province.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Clarke: I can hear someone chuntering from a sedentary position, and I am not sure what they are saying. Of course, if they ask for an intervention, the Member may give way; I cannot. It is the Member who has described herself as a "geek" when it comes to legislation. She may also understand that, when a Member has intervened, they cannot give way because it is up to the person who is actually speaking. The Member may give way to her.

Mr Bradley: Thank you for the intervention, Mr Clarke. Did I hear anything from over there before I continue? No.

Ms K Armstrong: Yes. Will the Member give way?

Mr Bradley: The Member has highlighted a point about the Bill. The Bill is ambiguous and open to interpretation, and there is nothing definitive about it.

What is "offensive"? Can someone define "offensive" for me?

Mr Tennyson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are now on day 3 of the debate, and every party has had more than ample opportunity to express their views on the legislation. In line with Standing Order 25, I move that the Question now be put [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. First, one party has Members who still have to speak. That party has had a reasonable number of speakers, and, in that respect, your proposal is fair enough. However, if I exercise the Standing Order now, the sponsor of the legislation will not have an adequate opportunity to address the issues that have been raised, nor will the Minister. Therefore, I ask the party to reflect.

The view is that we will get through the Bill this evening, and we will move to the next piece of legislation, which is yours, Mr Tennyson. I am sure that we will spend a significant amount of time dealing with it as well. However, we will get through it this evening. I can make a call on it, but I ask you to reflect on the request. Mr Bradley may want to continue. If you want to continue down that route, you could come back when Mr Bradley has finished.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that, and I have an extensive summation. However, if the Bill passes the Second Stage, I am happy to engage with the Infrastructure Committee on the points that have been raised. I am content for the Question to be put.

The Deputy Speakers who have sat in the Chair over the last number of hours and days have indicated that the debate is on the principles of the Bill and is not a clause-by-clause examination, but we have found that happening over and over again. Members are right to express their positions, and Members who have not spoken have made interventions. I am content that we move to the vote.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Bill sponsor said that she is willing to come back on all the points that have been made. I find that hard to believe, because the Bill sponsor has sat there for two days and has not taken any notes. I do not know how the Bill sponsor plans to come back to all the individual questions that have been raised. I have no faith in the commitment given by the Bill sponsor because she has sat on her phone and paid little to no attention to what Members have said in the Chamber.

Mr Speaker: Order. There are six Members left to speak. It is a matter for the House. This is not a debate, but I will take points of order.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want clarity. Obviously, there has been an attempt from the Alliance Party to close down a legitimate debate on a private Member's Bill. Can I seek guidance from the Speaker? It is important that the House hears from the Minister responsible, as the Bill mandates her Department to take on significant responsibilities, which Members have highlighted considerable concerns about. Can the Speaker please advise how Members can be assured that the Minister has an opportunity to brief the House in clear terms about the Bill?

Mr Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Following on from my colleague from Upper Bann, the sponsor said that she would address all the issues in the Committee. However, this party and this side of the House have limited numbers on that Committee to hear those responses, so it is clear that Alliance does not want to hear what we have to say and does not even want our Members to hear what she has to say.

Mr Speaker: Order. I will deal with a couple of those points of order. We are getting into a debate, which is not what we are supposed to do.

I will read out Standing Order 25(1) to let the whole House know the position:

— Mr Tennyson, in this instance —

The Standing Order is fairly clear. I put it to the Alliance Party that it may wish to have an opportunity for the proposer to speak, given that there are only six Members left to speak, and that we hear from the Minister, which is important. If we go to the guillotine now — it is within the gift of the House to do that — we will not hear from the proposer or the Minister. That is a decision that the House has to make, not me. I get the impression that Mr Tennyson wishes to press ahead —

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: — I will take the point of order in a minute — and I will have to put it to the House.

Mr O'Toole: Further to previous points of order, Mr Speaker, under Standing Order 25, can you offer any guidance on brevity, which is no sin, to the remaining six Members? Sometimes it is something that I am accused of not abiding by, but Members across the Chamber are acting in shock and horror that people want to bring the debate to some kind of close. We have been debating this for days now. Everything has been said, but not everyone has said it. We may want to hear from the Bill sponsor and the Minister: that is logical to me. I am unaware of any point that could possibly be made by the Members opposite that has not been made. If they want to speak, is it in order that they should speak for hours upon hours upon hours? Perhaps the Chair could give some guidance on that.

Mr Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that, this week — of course, you will not know about last week — efforts were made in the Business Committee to curtail Members in the House from speaking. We made a commitment today that we would give an assurance to the House that this would be finished tonight. There are six Members left who want to be heard in relation to what has to be said from these Benches. However, the proposer of the Bill has tried for the past two weeks to curtail our contributions. Each of us is elected here in our own right, and our constituents deserve to hear our views on the matter.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You know well that I suggested at the Business Committee today that we come back tomorrow and, if we do not complete, we come back on Thursday. As far as I am concerned, that would have been two full plenary days that I was up for. I also said that I would be prepared to work through any evening.

On the point that Mr Frew or Mr Buckley made about shutting down Members who are not on the Committee, I have offered to meet. I emailed at the start of the summer, and I emailed when we came back after summer recess. I am happy to sit down and meet any MLA individually or by party. I am equally happy to meet the Minister and the Committee. I am not running away from this and have offered other solutions, but three or four days of going over the same ground is ludicrous.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I have lost track of whom I am responding to at this stage. I am also content for it to proceed to the vote. I am keen for the Bill to progress so that it can go to the Committee and the Committee can do its work. We have heard numerous iterations of the same thing and people's views on the same issues. It is important that we progress.

Mr Speaker: Mr O'Toole made a suggestion. I can ask people to be brief. I am afraid, however, that I am generally ignored. I do not have the superpower that people might think I have when it comes to encouraging people to speak less.

Mr Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Just a moment.

I am aware from the Business Committee that there will be a real effort to ensure that the debate is completed tonight. It appears that Members wish to complete it now as opposed to later tonight and that they are not prepared to give up their opportunity to respond to the issues that have been raised. That is both at the proposer's level and, indeed, at ministerial level.

You have a point of order, Mr Clarke.

Mr Clarke: Thank you for allowing me in again, Mr Speaker.

The Bill sponsor proposed that we have a sitting tomorrow. We had a long debate about that in the Business Committee, and we left in agreement and with the understanding that we would finish the business tonight. Members on these Benches are giving an assurance, for the third time in the debate, that we will conclude our remarks tonight to allow business to flow afterwards. That allows my party members an opportunity to speak. That is what was agreed at the Business Committee today. It is disappointing that we agreed something in the Business Committee and Members have ganged up afterwards to come up with another option.

Ms Ennis: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. My colleague across the Chamber referred to the Business Committee today: the House should know that the DUP threatened not only to frustrate the business of the Assembly in the Chamber but to thwart the work of Committees today. If we have five Members left to speak and they all speak for an hour, which, I am sure, they will, that will take us well past the allocated time for the debate this evening. We should move to the proposal and have the vote.

Some Members: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order, Members. We have had a lot of points of order.

I have read out to you the Standing Order that we are working from. It is clear to me that I need to put the Question to the House. That is what I intend to do at this stage. I sought to find some compromise and conclude the debate with both the proposer and, indeed, the Minister having an opportunity to respond: that is not happening, so there will not be a compromise. We therefore have to go to a vote and make a decision. I will immediately go to a vote on the proposal from Mr Tennyson.

Mr Tennyson: Given the filibustering that has happened in the Chamber, I propose that the Question be now put [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, Members. I want to hear Mr Tennyson. We do not need a preamble, just your proposal.

Mr Tennyson: My proposal is that the Question now be put in accordance with Standing Order 25.

I beg to move

Mr Speaker: Order. Members may take their ease for a moment while we get the documentation sorted out to enable that to happen.

Mr Lyons: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that you have received correspondence from the Economy Minister, who asserts that I placed inaccurate information on the Assembly record at my last Question Time by stating that I had not received a response from her regarding the draft Irish language strategy. The Minister advises that a response was provided by the end of June 2026 and has requested that I correct the record and issue an apology.

Mr Speaker, those were not my words. I was quoting directly from the judgement in the Conradh na Gaeilge judicial review. The facts are straightforward. My Department sought ministerial clearance on the draft Irish language and Ulster Scots strategies by 11 March 2026. The judicial review hearings concluded on 3 June 2026. The Department for the Economy did not respond until 26 June, over three months late. By then, the case had concluded.

The delay from the Department for the Economy, including its failure to signal its agreement or disagreement or to provide any alternative comments on the draft narratives and action plans, was a significant factor in hindering progress on those strategies. On that basis, I do not believe that the record needs to be corrected, and I do not accept that there is a basis for an apology. I will, however, place the relevant correspondence in the Assembly Library, so that Members can judge the timeline for themselves.

It is not my job to clean up Sinn Féin's mistakes, and I will not take the blame for its failures. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: The Minister has put that on the record.

I wish to provide some clarity, so everyone will want to listen. I am going to suspend the sitting because the canteen closes at 6.00 pm, and we will be here until 10.30 pm. On the resumption of the sitting, the first item will be a vote on the legislation proposed by Paula Bradshaw. We will then move on to the next item of business, which is Eóin Tennyson's Member's Bill on conversion practices.

Mr Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for that clarification, but the Business Committee met today and had an agreement on today's business, in that we were to conclude this item, which we have just finished. It was my understanding that the sitting was to end at that point and that the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill debate was to happen on Monday. I seek your clarification on what was agreed today by, of course, all members of the Business Committee who were there.

Mr Speaker: Although I was not in attendance, my understanding is that, at last week's meeting, the Business Committee decided that yesterday and today were to be about concluding the unfinished business from the previous week. If the debate on the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill is concluded, the natural thing for us to do will be to move to the other item of business, which is Mr Tennyson's Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill.

Mr Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I will give you one more go.

Mr Clarke: Your recollection of that meeting is right, but a different discussion took place today about a sitting on Wednesday. We gave an assurance to the SDLP that we would conclude the business on the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill today, with the understanding that we would not sit tomorrow and that the debate on the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill would take place on Monday. I appreciate what you said — [Interruption.]

I see and hear Members at the back of the Chamber, but, of course, they were not at the Business Committee. However, surely the fact that a change was suggested by members and agreed by the Business Committee supersedes anything that went before it.

Mr Speaker: The decision has been made. We will move to the vote immediately after the suspension. We will then move on to the next item of business, which is Mr Tennyson's Bill. The sitting is suspended. We will resume at 6.30 pm.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that concludes the Second Stage of the Display of Flags —. [Interruption.]

Members, order. That concludes the Second Stage of the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Infrastructure

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The debate on the Second Stage of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill was not concluded on Tuesday 15 September. I return to the speaking list. I call Emma Sheerin.

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

As party colleagues have done, I support the Bill. At the outset, I thank the Bill sponsor for the work that he has done to bring his Bill before the House. It is a careful, considered piece of legislation. It is well drafted and has obviously been well thought out. I listened with intent to the Bill sponsor's contributions last week, and it is very clear that the issue is personal for him. The testimony that he provided was powerful and touching, and it is only right that we pay tribute to him and to the work that he has done. With that in mind, I also pay tribute to my comrades to my left and behind me, who, in their respective roles as Ministers in the past did a lot of the legwork to ban the harmful practices of so-called conversion therapies. That cross-departmental effort has to be acknowledged, and I would like to see us continue in that vein. I would like to see the Bill receive cross-party support today in the Chamber, because it is important and has the potential to prevent further harm and hurt. Unfortunately, the damage that such practices have done to previous generations and to people in the past cannot be undone, but we can say, as a collective, that that stops now, that it goes no further and that nobody else should be subjected to those torture practices.

There are a couple of specific points that I want to —.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. She talks about torture practices, but does she deem counselling, any form of talking therapy, coaching and instruction to be torture therapies?

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for his intervention. I will address that in a fulsome way throughout my remarks. I ask him to consider the inference that can be drawn. The very idea that someone needs to be coaxed, coached or counselled out of being gay tells people that there is something wrong with being gay. The Member can shake his head. Can he tell me how that cannot be inferred?

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Yes.

Mr Frew: The Bill defines "conversion therapy" as, first:

It then defines it as including "coaching", which could be any form of coaching, or "instruction". That would be instruction from either a parent, a teacher, a pastor or a preacher on sexual orientation and transgender issues. What you are doing is depriving the Church of instruction, a pastor of instruction and a parent of instruction. There is nothing about torture therapies or torture practices.

Ms Sheerin: The Member misses the point. In the debate, there have been numerous references to "balancing of rights". I have a particular difficulty with that phrase, in and of itself. Where does one person's right to practise religion give them the right to suppress someone else's identity? Regardless of whether it is torture or how it manifests itself, the fact is that you are trying, by whatever means, to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity. The question that I am asking you is really straightforward: can you show me how, in trying to change someone's sexual orientation or identity, you are not directly telling them that there is something wrong with them as they are — as God made them, as you would say? Can you tell me that?

Mr Frew: The Member is raising her voice. There is no need to raise your voice; this is a very good debate. It is not about "changing"; it is "changing or suppressing". When you look at the definition of "conversion therapy", you see that, if a 14-year-old girl goes to a parent and says, "I think I'm a boy", and that parent says, "I think you should think about that for a couple of years", that is suppression in the eyes of the Bill. That parent would be liable. You would be prosecuting parents.

Ms Sheerin: We have been round the houses on the risk of prosecuting parents or threatening parents with legal action, but you still have not addressed the core tenet of what we are talking about. I have noticed that the DUP is a lot more strategic and wise with its language than it has been previously. The DUP has a history of blatant homophobia. You have tried to move away from that — I acknowledge that — but your words are on the record. Unless anyone can correct me, I am not aware of any examples of current and former DUP representatives apologising for the hurtful and harmful comments that they have made about members of the LGBT community. The point that I am making is this: regardless of how you try to do it, once you establish that someone's sexuality has to be changed or suppressed, you are accepting, acknowledging, stating that there is something wrong with that person's sexuality as it is. That in itself tortures members of the LGBT community, because there is nothing wrong with being gay. That is a critical point of the entire discussion that I would like us to get to.

Mr Frew: Nobody said there was.

Mr Kingston: Nobody is saying that there is.

Ms Sheerin: What are you talking about? Do you hear yourselves? Honestly. You say that nobody is saying that: so, why does anybody need to have a change?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Through the Chair.

Mr Sheehan: I thank the Member for giving way. Rather than being more strategic, the DUP has become more refined in its arguments. Basically, it is the same as when I was a young lad and we had the campaign to "Save Ulster from Sodomy". It is basically the same thing, is it not?

Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a chara.

Yes, I do not see any change in perspective. As you said, the DUP is being more refined and attacking one element of the Bill and focusing on parents, but the intention remains the same. During last Tuesday's debate, a DUP MLA — he is not present today — attempted to patronise me and tell me that he was disappointed in me. I have news for Members of the DUP: I will be a long time dead before I care about what any of you think about me, but I will be a longer time dead before I sit and listen to someone suggest that a child's identity needs to be changed for their own good in the same way that a responsible parent withholds Lucozade from their child. To try to trivialise this in such a way is not only insulting but stupid. The damage that that does to a section of our community that already suffers higher rates of mental ill health, suicidal ideation and suicide as a result of the sustained discrimination that it has been subject to, and the abuse that it is subject to, is a disgrace.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. She has based this argument on a gay person going to a parent, but, in the Bill, we have a loose definition of "gender identity". If a child says to their mum or dad, "I am an animal", and that parent says, "You're going to have to think about this for a couple of years", that is suppression of an identity according to the Bill because of the wide definition of "gender identity".

Ms Sheerin: Just as, I am sure, many of you are now embarrassed by the comments of Iris Robinson, the Speaker of the House or various Members of your party — you all harrumphed when my comrade made reference to the "Save Ulster from Sodomy" campaign — in the fullness of time, you will be embarrassed that you ever said that, Mr Frew. To be brutally honest with you, my sympathy will be light if that is what you consider to be acceptable. Gender identity is not the same as a child presenting as an animal, and how dare you make such a suggestion.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way, and I regret the tone in which the debate has now kicked off. I want to make a sincere point: the Bill references "gender identity" — there is no getting away from that fact; it is in this blue Bill — and it is noted that this is the first time that Northern Ireland would legislate in such terms. Could I ask the Member, therefore, for the purposes of her interpretation of the Bill, how many gender identities does she believe apply to it?

Ms Sheerin: Gender —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Sorry, Ms Sheerin, I am just going to come in here, so could you resume your seat, please, just briefly.

Members, this day last week, I read a ruling from this Chair. I read it a number of times. It was challenged, but it remains the same. It still stands. [Interruption.]

Can we have some order over here on my left, please, Mr Clarke?

Mr Clarke: I do not have to look at you when you are speaking. I can look wherever I like.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You absolutely do not. Likewise, Mr Clarke, I ask in the interest of order that you stop speaking when I am speaking, which is an entirely different thing. If you could show me the courtesy of doing that, I would be massively grateful. I am sure that those who want to hear would also be grateful.

That ruling last week was clear: this is not a wider debate on gender identity. It was not this day last week, and it is not going to be tonight. To the people — [Interruption.]

To the people who are raising the same points as they did before, I am again asking them to stick to the clauses of the Bill and not have a wider debate around gender identity. Be careful around challenges to the Chair as well.

I call Ms Sheerin.

Mr Buckley: Further to that point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Point of order.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Chair. In a respectful way, I asked about a provision in the Bill, and it is clause 6. I referenced the fact that gender identity is referred to in the Bill. I believe fundamentally that there is an attempt to stop me talking about something in the Bill. The Speaker's Chair did not even give the Member the opportunity. I respect the Member's ability to speak for herself to answer the question. It was not asked in an aggressive manner. It is simply to get to the facts of what is in the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): First of all, Mr Buckley, there was not a point of order. I interrupted Ms Sheerin, and she courteously gave way as she was going to resume speaking after taking an intervention, so there was no initial point of order. Let us be clear about that. Secondly, let us be absolutely clear on this: you asking a Member, through an intervention, for something that could only be their opinion, asking a Member who is not the sponsor of the Bill what they think about numbers of genders is — I am ruling on this — a wider debate on gender identity. Resume your seat, please. You are not having that debate through intervention or by any other means.

Mr Buckley: Further to that point of order —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Resume your seat until I —

Mr Buckley: Further to that point of order —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): — sit down, and then I will decide whether I will call you.

Mr Buckley: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that you have just ruled that I am not allowed to ask another Member their opinion of a Bill.

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

Mr Buckley: Will you please clarify, because, otherwise, you are completely out of your depth, completely out of your depth.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Resume your seat, Mr Buckley. When I stand, you resume your seat.

Before I go further, let me remind Members of something else. For those who rushed last week — they know who they are — to release their videos of the Speaker's ruling from their own social media platforms or those of their parties, my understanding is that you will be receiving written correspondence.

That might be a source of amusement to you, Mr Gaston. This is directed straight at you. It is not amusing to those who are on the receiving end or to those who take the matter seriously. I am letting you know that the Speaker is dealing with the issue. As far as I am aware, you will be hearing from the Speaker's Office on that issue. I am letting you know that as a caution before it is repeated tonight in deliberately constructed interventions and points of order.

Finally, I am ruling, Mr Buckley, that your question was a debate on wider gender identity issues, and we are not having it.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You referred directly to me in your remarks. What you are referring to showed exactly what happened in the Chamber, so what is your issue with a true transcript of what happened? All you are trying to do is follow on from shutting down the original debate. You do not want to talk about gender identity. The Alliance Party is —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Resume your seat.

Mr Gaston: — an undemocratic party —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Resume your seat.

Mr Gaston: — that tries to shut down and stifle debate.

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

Mr Gaston: You do not like it when you are shown up.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Again, those points are nowhere near being relevant to this Bill. I call Ms Sheerin.

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

Mr Kingston: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that I heard the Speaker say yesterday that the matter of gender identity could be debated as part of this debate. That was his considered ruling on the matter.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As far as I am concerned, I have made the position clear.

Ms Sheerin: Once again, the DUP and other unionists' obsession with gender identity raises its head.

I sit on the Justice Committee. This morning, during a presentation from the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, we heard that transphobic hate crime is on rise in this jurisdiction. The Member for North Antrim chairs the Committee, and I am sure that he will recall the same information. On that basis, people would do well to consider their language and talk carefully about these issues.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way on that point? If you give me a —. Will the Member give way on that point?

Ms Sheerin: I really do not want to give way —

Mr Buckley: You do not.

Ms Sheerin: — because I am talking about a Bill that is intended to prevent harm to a minority in society, and you are obsessed with talking about gender identity and raising culture wars for your TikTok.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Mr Buckley, with the greatest respect, that does not do anything for the young people across the North who are struggling with their identity and, as a result, their mental health and are facing unnecessary hateful remarks and commentary and dehumanisation.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: If you are a Christian, you acknowledge that we all exist on this planet and that we are made in the image of God, so I do not understand why you are so obsessed with other people's gender identity, which has nothing to do with you.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: I am not giving way.

Mr Buckley: You are not giving way. You are not giving me a chance to respond.

Ms Sheerin: I have given way multiple times, and I am not going to do that any more, because I want to talk about the Bill.

Mr Buckley: So do I. I am being refused every time.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley. Order.

Mrs Cameron: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Through the Chair, I suggest that, if the Member wants to make a contribution on this piece of legislation, he will, I am sure, be afforded an opportunity to do so.

Mrs Cameron: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: As I understand it, the DUP has put names on the speaking lists for everything that we are discussing at a 100% rate.

Mrs Cameron: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: In my opinion, this is a well-thought-out Bill that gives us the opportunity to do less harm than we have been doing.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the interruption. I say this as an MLA, not as a Minister. When a Member is speaking and has indicated that they will not give way, is it in order for Members to continue to disrupt that Member's speech by continuing to ask them to give way?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you for the opportunity. I was going to wait until Ms Sheerin had proceeded further to say that is made clear in guidance to Members that, if a Member has indicated that they will not give way, the Member who requested to intervene should not persist. It is quite clear.

Mrs Cameron: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If Mrs Long is referring to my requesting several times that the Member give way, I say that I did not receive an indication from the Member that she did not want to give way. That is why I was trying to make my voice heard.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. We are straying away from points of order. If the Member has not given way, it is probably fair to assume that they do not wish to. That is the best guidance that I can give on that.

Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

I want to move on. I did not intend to speak for very long on the Bill this evening, to be honest. I have made it clear that I support the Bill. The opposition to it that we have heard thus far is as depressing as it is predictable. We should be working collectively to outlaw such practices, which, quite frankly, belong in the dark ages.

There is a real conversation to be had about the element of the Bill that has been focused on by political unionism: the ability or so-called right of people, in the guise of practising their religion, to outlaw somebody else on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. That is not a very Christian way for anybody to behave. There is something serious that we have to reckon with in this place. Ultimately, it comes down to the notion of supremacy, and the DUP is not unique in that regard. Across the world, there have been examples of communities that enjoyed a majority of rights in their countries seeing other people being brought onto a level playing field with them as a threat and a loss. Anybody who worked with me throughout the bill of rights process will know that I am resolute in my opinion that rights are not a pizza: more for someone else does not mean less for you. We all have the right to coexist in peace. It is really important that the message that we send from the House is that people, regardless of their cultural background, religious identity, sexual identity or sexual orientation, have the right to live free from harm, free from oppression and free from somebody else telling them that they do not have the right to exist.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call —.

Mr Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. On Monday morning, the Speaker gave guidance to the House following the ruling last week that you referenced. On the Second Stage debate, he said:

I therefore seek clarity from you tonight: was the Speaker wrong, or are you wrong?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): First of all, Mr Clarke, I am sure that you have noticed that those of us who occupy the Chair are not clones. There will be some interpretation from all of us at all stages. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable thing to say — at least, it would be for most people. Let me be clear: there was clear guidance issued from the Chair last week on the fact that references could be made to gender identity but that the debate was not a wider debate around gender identity. Nothing has changed: it is not a wider debate around gender identity. That is the answer.

Mr Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate that that was the ruling last week. However, Members sought clarity from the Speaker's Office. The Speaker's Office brought clarity to the House on Monday morning when the Speaker said clearly:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I am in the Chair now, and I have made my position clear. I am moving on, and I am calling Brian Kingston.
.

Mr Lyons: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am genuinely unsure what that ruling means. My issue with the Bill —.

Mr Sheehan: That is not a point of order.

Mr Lyons: That is for the Deputy Speaker to decide.

I have a number of queries for the Bill sponsor about definitions in the Bill. I want to know what he means by "coaching" and "instruction". There are a lot of definitions that I am unsure of. We have been told that we are not allowed to discuss wider gender identity, but a lot of those definitions fall into the same category. Are you saying that we cannot have a debate on the meaning of those definitions as well?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I am saying very clearly that the remarks of the proposer of the Bill are very different from asking another Member, through an intervention, their opinion on the issues that you have raised. That is a very different thing. Let me make it clear: I have referred to the ruling made previously that it is not a wider debate around gender identity. I have made that clear, and I will not keep repeating it. I am moving on, and I am calling Brian Kingston.

Mr Kingston: I am deeply concerned about the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill.

In fact, I consider it to be something of a Trojan horse, as I will explain. The sponsor, the Alliance MLA, Mr Tennyson, has accepted —.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: No. It is a wee bit early yet.

The sponsor has accepted that existing legislation already criminalises the objectionable activities that we are told have taken place in the past as conversion practices in relation to people's sexual orientation or gender identity, such as physical assault, imprisonment, forced heterosexual activity, electric shock treatment and so on. Those practices are already outlawed and illegal, and the Chamber is united in opposing them. However, the Bill focuses on placing severe restrictions on what people are allowed to say or to discuss, which equates to restrictive thought control, as I will explain.

The Bill proposes three new criminal offences: first, the offence of providing conversion therapy; secondly, the offence of engaging in coercive conversion behaviour; and, thirdly, the offence of removing a person from Northern Ireland for the purposes of conversion practices. I will look at those in turn.

Clause 1 defines the offence of providing conversion therapy. A person found guilty of that offence is liable to imprisonment for up to two years or a fine or both. The Bill states:

The other person is to be called "the victim". What constitutes conversion therapy according to the Bill? It is defined in clause 4, and you might think that it would be some of the outlawed activities that I mentioned earlier, but the Bill defines it as:

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will give way.

Mr Frew: One of the main cruxes of the Bill is the definition of conversion therapy, and that is one of the main problems with it. If the Bill sponsor had said that it was any type of coaching or instruction in a therapeutic setting or a clinical setting, it could be looked at in a different way. However, because the Bill states that it is counselling or any form of talking therapy, coaching or instruction, that means everything from parental instruction and pastoral instruction to coaching in a football team or at a sporting venue.

Mr Kingston: Indeed, clause 4 then states that the only permitted exception is therapy carried out by somebody who is registered with a professional medical body. Whereas, if you are a parent, other relative or a trusted adult, such as a youth worker, teacher, minister or pastor —.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Let me finish the sentence. Any other person who gets involved in such a conversation with someone who is expressing gender confusion or gender dysphoria or generally discussing the topic could easily find themselves accused of providing counselling, a form of talking therapy, coaching or instruction, which the Bill calls conversion therapy, and could be prosecuted under the new offence. I will give way to the Member.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. I suspect that I am going to make this point on a number of occasions over the coming hours, as I did last week. The use of the word "therapy" is deliberate, in that it frames what we are talking about when there is reference to talking therapy, coaching or instructing, or treatment or purported treatment. It would also have to be carried out with the intent to suppress or change sexual orientation or gender identity and to cause harm. The nebulous idea that something such as sports coaching could somehow fall within the auspices of the Bill is a straw man. During the debate, I have said repeatedly that, if Members want further clarity in the Bill, such as the kinds of scenario that we are testing against that offence versus the second offence, I am very open to doing that. The intent is that we capture therapeutic interventions. I believe that that is what we have captured. If Members want the additional clarity, I am open to a conversation with them. The violent examples that the Member mentioned earlier are not referenced in the Bill because there are existing criminal offences, but that does not allay the fact that talking therapies are harmful in this context when they are pseudoscientific and unregulated.

Forty-six studies reviewed by the UK Government have concluded that those practices contribute to suicidal ideation among their victims. If that is not harm that is worthy of protection and action from the Assembly, I do not know what is.

Mr Kingston: I will come on to the other two clauses that the Bill sponsor mentioned. My concern throughout has been that he has set an extremely low bar in the Bill, which would see all sorts of people potentially facing prosecution. People might have what they thought was a reasonable conversation with somebody, but, afterwards, that person might reflect on it and think, "They were trying to direct me in a certain way. They were trying to suppress my identity. They were challenging me", which is what people might do in the course of a normal conversation.

I go back to clause 1. Under clause 1(1)(a), the first criterion for an offence is if:

Under clause 1(a)(b), the second criterion for an offence is if:

How is intent proved? That is difficult to do. Intent will be up to the perception of the "victim" who is receiving the therapy.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Let me finish my point. If a young boy says, "I think I'm a girl", and someone says, "You're talking nonsense", which a parent or a friend might do, they would meet the criteria for that offence by being seen to be suppressing the boy's gender identity. I will now give way to the Member.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. He has hit on a very important point, which is that mens rea is really difficult to establish in court. There is therefore an incredibly high bar for prosecution, because it has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt what was in the person's mind when they conducted the act. It has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the person knew that the victim they were dealing with was transgender or gay and that they had acted with the express intent, through pseudoscientific therapy or coercive behaviour, of forcing the individual to change their identity or orientation. It is therefore a very high bar. That is why, in other jurisdictions that have passed conversion therapy bans, such as Malta, France, Germany and New Zealand, it has been a relatively low-volume offence, because it is a very difficult offence in practice to prove. In those jurisdictions, though, legislation has acted as an effective deterrent to stop organisations providing such services in the first place.

Mr Kingston: Clause 7 of the Member's Bill says more about how we define "intent", so I will jump ahead to that. Clause 7(1) states:

which one might do in normal conversation with a child —

Expressing beliefs might include saying what the Bible teaches. That will happen in a church, yet it would be seen as intent. The third one is particularly problematic:

In other words, people can only agree with what the person tells them. They cannot challenge the person. They cannot say, "Do you think that is right?". If people do not agree with the person, they are committing that offence.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. That is an important point. People have asked why I have continually asked the question about gender identity, which is mentioned in the Bill more than 11 times. The point that I will raise with the Member is a very important one. In his submission, Mr O'Neill KC talks about how the Bill goes further on gender self-identification than we have seen in Scotland. He talks about how, for the purposes of the Bill, the individual's gender identity, as defined in clause 6(1), which states, for accuracy:

would not have been referred to as such in the Scottish Parliament.

An individual could actually identify as whatever they wanted to be and fall within the scope of the Bill. Does the Member agree that that is why it is of paramount importance for the Bill sponsor, or any other Member who supports the Bill, to define clearly what they expressly mean by "gender identity" as per clause 6?

Mr Sheehan: On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Maybe I misheard you earlier: I thought that you said that the debate was not a wider debate about gender identity. Everything that the previous Member to speak said —.

Mr Frew: Clause 6. Read it.

Mr Sheehan: Sorry?

Mr Lyons: It would require him to read.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Let me clarify. I will start by thanking Mr Buckley for giving such a clear demonstration of the difference between cross-referencing those matters around gender identity with the Bill and asking a Member across the Chamber — often, not through the Chair — what they think about the number of genders there are. Those are two very different things. Thank you for making that clear and giving me the chance to show you that example, as well as to remind Members — I will do so at this point — what the Speaker said yesterday:

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I will go back to clause 1.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: OK.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. We have had another lengthy ruling from the Deputy Speaker. Each time that I raise that topic, however, I am diverted from getting an answer from somebody. Can I therefore ask the Member again whether, given that clause 6 talks specifically about "gender identity", including:

it is of paramount importance for the Bill sponsor, or any other Member who supports the draft legislation, to clearly define what they mean by that?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before you resume, I want to point out that, in this Chair, accuracy is more important than brevity.

Mr Kingston: I hope that the Bill sponsor will address that point when he makes his winding-up speech. This evening, I looked up the number of gender types that have been claimed. There is a list of 72. I do not know whether there are more than that. Quite frankly, when you look down the list, you can only describe it as nonsense. I do not mean offence to anyone. I could read some of them. One is:

I will not try to pronounce what they are called, because I will only do so incorrectly. One is described as being when:

Another gender is described as being when:

Another one is described as:

Another is:

Those are more like personality types, not genders. They are characteristics; they are not genders.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Yes.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for making that poignant point. Whilst he is right that it sounds like nonsense, it is important for the Member to read that, because there is a certain gender ideology that is being pushed by the Bill. That is why it is so important to define the term "gender identity". The Member is absolutely right: we know that there is a school of thought that wants to advance some of the terms that he mentioned, and they could be much more extensive. Xenogender means gender identities described through concepts outside conventional masculinity and femininity, such as animals, stars, colours, textures, shapes or sounds. How far do we go when we cannot even get an accurate description from the Bill sponsor?

Mr Kingston: As I say, if anyone wants to have a look at that list, they are welcome to do so.

I will go back to the definition of the offence of providing conversion therapy. To be guilty of that offence, there are three criteria. The first is that you carry out conversion therapy. The second is that you have:

The third is:

Clause 8 defines "psychological harm" and states:

Again, that is a very low bar. For example, there could be child in a school — say, a biological male — who wants to self-identify as female and wants to use the female toilets. If they are instructed, "No, you are a biological male, so you cannot use the girls' toilets", that is giving them instruction. It is also suppressing their identity, as they see it, and causing them distress. That meets the three criteria for that offence.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will give way to the Member.

Mr Tennyson: Again, the Member is wrong because, in that circumstance, the behaviour would not amount to therapy. Setting that aside, the staff member in question would be making a determination about implementing policy and accessing single-sex spaces on the basis of the person's sex and not their gender. That is not conversion therapy on the grounds of that individual's gender identity. The rights and wrongs of that are a matter for debate, but it would not be under the auspices of this Bill. We have taken advice that this does not intersect with the Supreme Court judgement on the definition of "sex" as per the Equality Act, which is why we have not used "sex" in the Bill. We do not want to interfere with those judgements.

Mr Kingston: I stand over the view that it meets the three criteria in the Bill, as I read them, for that offence. I will move on.

Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Lyons: Sorry, I know that the Member is trying to move on, but this, for me, is the key point in the Bill. I do not agree with what Mr Tennyson said about the definition of "conversion therapy". It does not need to be in a clinical or therapeutic setting. How do we know that? We know it because clause 4 defines "conversion therapy" as:

It does not say "and" all of those things. It is not a package. It does not say that it needs to be in a clinical or therapeutic setting of any sort. That is the fundamental problem with what we have been talking about this evening.

At the start, I gave Mr Tennyson the benefit of the doubt because I thought that he maybe did not intend for that to be the case, but, on a number of occasions, we have put it to him that it is in black and white, yet he does not have an answer for it, which makes me think that it was his intent. Is he trying to gaslight everybody? I do not understand how a person can read clause 4 and not understand what is on the page.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will, yes.

Mr Tennyson: I genuinely wonder whether the Minister has listened at all in the debate or in the engagements that we have had over the media, because, time and time again, I have explained the drafting structure of the Bill. I understand that the Minister cannot wrap his head around that based on an ordinary meaning of the Bill. I have also extended an offer multiple times, which the Minister pretends he cannot hear, to engage with him to provide the additional clarity that he says he wants.

The truth is that, for the DUP, this is not about the words on the page in front of us. The truth is that the DUP is institutionally opposed to progress on rights and equality. The evidence for that is that the DUP says that it supports, in principle, action to protect LGBT people from abuse and coercion, but, when two notices of motion came to the House calling for a ban in principle, proposed by the Ulster Unionist Party in 2021 and the SDLP in 2024, the DUP could not even vote for the principle. Let us drop the pretence and at least admit that this is an ideological opposition to the progress and protection that some of us want to deliver for our LGBT community. I have been more than patient and more than generous in listening to and engaging on the points that Members have raised.

Mr Kingston: I assure the Member that we are very focused on the wording in his Bill, and that is what we find problems with. He has set a very low threshold for those three new offences, which could mean that someone could reflect on what parents, teachers, youth workers, ministers, pastors — people who are trying to provide genuine support — have said and conclude, "Actually, they were trying to give me instruction or to suppress what I said. They were not agreeing with me; they were not just nodding and saying, 'Yes, you are right'". That is because of the wording in the Bill. That is the problem that we have.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Is it not fascinating that, in his response, Mr Tennyson said that he is happy to provide clarity but did not say that he is happy to change that. He is not happy to amend it so that we can make it crystal clear. Providing clarity? He has been trying to do that for all of the time that we have been debating. We are not accepting that, because it does not change a word of what is on there. There is a fundamental misunderstanding between this side of the House and the other about what these words mean. Clarity is not what we need; we need a fundamental rewrite.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Yes, go on ahead.

Mr Frew: To prove the point that the Minister has just made, if, as the Bill sponsor says, he maintains that conversion therapy, as it is defined, takes place in a treatment setting, why has he included in clause 4(1)(c) "a treatment, or purported treatment"? He is catching it all. In clause 4:

of any type, and then

What he says is the setting of treatment is also in clause 4(1)(c), and it does not include the "coaching or instruction" bit. That is stand-alone and universal, and it will mean any coaching or any instruction.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: This is the last time for now, because I want to make some progress.

Mr Tennyson: I appreciate that the Member is being generous. For the avoidance of doubt and to give the Minister absolute clarity, that may mean discussing an amendment at Consideration Stage, but this is not Consideration Stage. This is the Second Stage, and we are considering the principles of the Bill. I have said that the intent here is that the court will conduct a fact-specific assessment and will have regard for whether the individual in question claims a level of knowledge, ability or skill and whether therapy is provided in a structured or formalised way. That is the outworking of what we have drafted. However, if Members want to see more of that in the Bill, I am open to that negotiation. I hope that that gives the Minister some comfort, because I have said that from this position dozens of times now at this stage, and the Minister does not seem to want to hear it.

Why is "purported treatment" listed? One of the forms of conversion therapy that can occur is where an individual administers a drug that has a side effect of suppressing sex drive and libido as a means of conversion therapy. I think we would all agree that that should be captured.

Mr Kingston: OK. I will move on.

In the modern era, there is less gender stereotyping in society. Boys and girls and men and women can choose from a much wider range of interests, professions and lifestyles than would have been the case in the past. They should not be stereotyped. Society has become more accommodating and varied. Let me also clarify that I recognise that there are people who are homosexual — that that is their sexual orientation. I recognise also that there are people who experience gender dysphoria. However, if children experience that when growing up, the appropriate response should be talking therapy and counselling, not beta blockers.

Talking therapy and counselling are, ironically, denigrated in the Bill, but they are the right treatments. I will give way briefly.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member sat in the same presentation as I did this morning, so he is aware of the detail that I reflected on with regard to the rise in transphobic hate crime in this part of the world. Does the Member acknowledge that the language that we use here can have an impact there? That was explicitly said to us at the Justice Committee by representatives from the Rainbow Project last week: language normalises those discriminatory mindsets in the community, and that, in turn, leads to those people receiving abuse.

Does the Member also acknowledge that, for a long time in this part of the world, talking and counselling therapies that were carried out by religious practitioners who did not have qualifications in that field compounded the abuse and harm caused to the victims of abuse, because everything that happened to them was pushed under the carpet? In the same way, there are people receiving so-called therapy to change them. You say that you recognise that some people are homosexual: if you accept that and accept that those people have the right to live as such, why do they need talking therapy? Why do they need to change? Why would anybody be motivated to change them? What is wrong with being homosexual if you accept that that is a totally fine, normal way to live?

Mr Kingston: Presumably, that is in a situation where they have asked for support. I mean, how could you subject somebody to talking therapy or counselling against their will? They just would not participate [Interruption.]

I will move on. [Interruption.]

Let me say what I also said last week: no one should be subjected to attack, violence, harassment or intimidation because of their identity or how they choose to live their life. [Interruption.]

We, however, are talking about the rights of other people — I will come on to that — and public policy. Rightly — [Interruption.]

No, let me develop my speech on those matters. Nobody — that includes trans people — should be subjected to attack, violence, harassment or intimidation. I said that to the one who attended our Committee last week. I said that to him to his face. I stand against violence, and I wish that you and your party also stood against violence. [Interruption.]

Ms Sheerin: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for someone to misgender a presenter at our Committee in the Chamber and follow that up by saying that they accept that trans people should not be abused?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. Mr Kingston, on that point of order, I am not aware of the specific circumstances, but I will say this: I believe that — [Interruption.]

Mr Frew, do you mind if I speak now? I am aware that the Speaker has reminded a number of Members in recent days and may be about to remind others that our standards of debate are such that it is expected that good temper, courtesy, moderation and respect will be used at all times. I am sure that the point of order specifics raised by Ms Sheerin can be looked at by the Speaker's Office.

Ms Forsythe: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify your ruling on that point of order? From what you are saying, it sounds as though it was the tone that Ms Sheerin was launching across the Chamber that will be looked at.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I am not sure that that was a point of order, but I am happy to clarify for you: it was in response to the point of order raised by Ms Sheerin.

Mrs Cameron: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will give way to my party colleague and then to Timothy.

Mrs Cameron: Thank you for taking an intervention. Does the Member recognise the following? I have not yet had the chance to speak, so he may not, but I inform the Chamber that I have been contacted by a member of the trans community, a trans woman — a man who transitioned into a woman many years ago. That trans woman is very supportive of the DUP position on the legislation and said to me that she wants parents and children to be protected.

It is wrong to mischaracterise this party as homophobic and transphobic when it is not.

I have very dear and close gay friends. I went to their wedding. I love them as they are. There is nothing wrong with them, and I have never tried to change them or had a conversation about changing them. I resent the implication that we are all homophobes because of something that someone said many moons ago, which is not in any way relevant to today. My point is that there are people out there who are not socially conservative but do not agree with the Bill.

Mr Kingston: OK.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Boggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will give way to Timothy, first.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for giving way. We have heard quite a bit tonight about rights. I sense that, from that side of the Chamber, there is a supremacy of rights, meaning that those who are LGBTQ+ — whatever — have more rights than those who sit elsewhere and share my Christian, conservative rights. At what point does a Christian parent have any rights in this world? According to you, your rights trump all. My concern about the debate is that one side believes that they have a higher right, which has supremacy over my rights as a Christian parent. We need to go back to this question: why should they be able to dictate how I bring up my children in my house? It is up to me as a Christian parent to bring up my children in the way I see fit without any meddling from Sinn Féin or the Alliance Party. [Inaudible.]

Mr Kingston: OK.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Can we return to the principles of the Bill?

Mr Kingston: Yes.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kellie is just after saying that I am happy to abuse a child.

Mr Buckley: Disgraceful.

Ms Forsythe: Disgraceful.

Mr Gaston: What sort of comment is that?

Mrs Erskine: That is disgraceful.

Mr Gaston: I have a right to bring up my child in the way that I believe that my child should be brought up —

Mr Buckley: Hear, hear.

Mr Gaston: — based on biblical principles. I will not be dictated to by the Alliance Party, which thinks that bringing up a child in the right way is abuse.

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

Mr Gaston: That is shocking.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, if you are —.

Mr Gaston: I ask you to withdraw that comment —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, resume your seat. I can ask whether any comments were heard by Hansard. If the comments could not be heard, there is probably not a lot that can be done from the Chair, as I am sure that you understand. [Inaudible.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, are you —? Mr Gaston, you raised a point of order. It is fair to assume that, when you are engaging with another Member, you are not listening to my response. Let me try to clarify: the point of order that you raised will be looked at by the Speaker's Office, along with the recordings and transcripts of the sitting. If the comment was not heard, there is probably not much that can be done, but the matter will be taken on board and passed on to the Speaker's Office.

Mr Kingston, I know that you are keen to return to the principles of the Bill.

Mr Kingston: Yes, I will try to move on, because I appreciate that others may wish to speak this evening. [Interruption.]

Mr Boggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Let me move on a bit, please. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order at the back, please.

Mr Gaston: Have the guts to at least say it through the Chair —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — so that it is recorded in Hansard.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Sorry, Mr Kingston. OK. This really is becoming frustrating now. I am asking those who are continuing to speak when I call for order not to do so. Mr Kingston has the Floor, and he will be heard.

Mr Kingston: I want to make a general point. For young people, adolescents and teenagers, growing up is a time of confusion and change. Many of those who experience gender confusion or dysphoria find that their distress decreases over time, as they grow older and accept their natural bodies. Some people realise that their distress comes from trauma, depression, anxiety or body image issues rather than gender dysphoria. Others discover that their feelings relate to being gay or lesbian rather than transgender. For those who talk about the LGBT community, quite often, those in the "LGB" part do not agree with the "T" part or transgender ideology, as Members will be aware. That is why we in the DUP will never support the prescription of puberty blockers to children in Northern Ireland, as they make irreversible changes to the development of their bodies.

Mr Boggs: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member talks about making a general point, and I understand Mrs Cameron's point. She may have gay friends and people whom she loves who are gay, trans or whatever else. We are here to discuss the general principles of the Bill.

If the Member's general point is on what I spoke about last week, which was that people do not need to be changed, and if he believes that people do not need to be changed, because they are loved for whom they are, why does he feel that they need to be spoken to or coached through a Christian ideology and whatever else he may agree with?

One trans person or one gay person texting to say that they agree with the DUP position is not them speaking for everybody out there. [Interruption.]

Sorry, but I am still on my feet, Mr Kingston. [Interruption.]

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle —. [Interruption.]

On a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle

. [Interruption.]

Mr Frew: It was an intervention.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Both Members, sit down. Mr Boggs will continue. Mr Kingston —. [Interruption.]

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members. Order. When a Member gives way for an intervention, that Member must wait until the intervention is complete.

Mr Kingston: I think that it is up to the Member who gives way. The Member can stand up. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Kingston, now you are challenging the Chair. There is no time limit on an intervention.

Mr Kingston: OK.

Mr Givan: It is his speech that he is making.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. Mr Givan and Mr Kingston, your challenges are not as subtle as you may think that they are. They most clearly are challenges. I do not make the rules up as we go along. It is quite simple. It is written down. Check the information that was handed to you when you came to this place. If you give way for an intervention, you wait until that intervention is complete. I did not write that. You must accept it in the same way that I did when I came here. Mr Boggs, have you finished?

Mr Boggs: No, I have not.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. Go on.

Mr Boggs: I am glad that you called me again, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I was going to ask for a ruling on whether, when a Member is interrupted by the Chair, that concludes their time on their feet.

As it is an intervention, I want to ask this: if the Member agrees with the general principle that he keeps talking about, which is that somebody should not be changed, because there is nothing wrong with being gay or transgender, why can he not support the Bill at this stage and then debate it further at Committee Stage?

Mr Kingston: It is because I do not want people to be prosecuted for believing that there are only males and females, as the majority of people believe. [Interruption.]

That is what the consequence of the Bill would be, and I will come on to that. I will have to be more cautious about giving way. Let me move on.

Clause 2 —.

Mr Boggs: You cannot answer it.

Mr Kingston: I will come on to your point.

Clause 2 is titled "Offence of engaging in coercive conversion behaviour". What is coercive conversion behaviour? We are told, at clause 5, that that means "behaviour ... that is violent". No one will support violent behaviour. It is "behaviour ... that is threatening". It is:

Is it any wonder that people are concerned about the impact of the legislation on parents, whose daily activity involves regulating and monitoring their children's activities? We expect them to have parental control over their children. Clause 5 goes on to state that "coercive behaviour" also means:

If a parent grounds a child to their room or to the thinking step, or whatever people are allowed to call it nowadays, is that restricting their freedom of action? The clause carries on, and the bar gets lower and lower. "Coercive behaviour" also means:

That is a very low bar. We are concerned that the Bill would criminalise parents. It is hugely subjective and comes down to the victim's perception.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. At the moment, if a parent has a child who is 16 years old, and that parent grounds, disciplines or engages in normal and ordinary parental control of that child, that behaviour could, in theory, be tested against existing domestic abuse legislation. Can the Member point to one example of where ordinary parental control behaviour has landed a parent in court on a charge of domestic abuse? It has never happened. I am glad that the Education Minister is here, because he called that definition of coercive behaviour "the gold standard" in debates on domestic abuse legislation in the Chamber in 2021. The only thing that has changed is the cohort of people whom we are protecting, which is the LGBT community.

Mr Kingston: I am sure that the Member will comment on that. Does he want to do so now?

Mr Givan: Yes, please. I appreciate the Member's giving way. I hope to make a contribution to the debate, so I would certainly welcome a commitment from the Alliance Party that it will not seek to guillotine the debate, as it did the previous debate on another Member's Bill.

To be fair to Mr Tennyson, he can be very combative when he wishes to be, but he is engaging on the Bill in a very serious manner. I welcome the way in which he is conducting himself, and he is well able to engage in that manner. I would certainly like a commitment that there will be no attempt to guillotine the debate, so that Members with sincere issues to raise will be able to do so.

Mr Kingston has spoken really well about the Bill in a very respectful manner. He has not been treated with the same courtesy by some of the Members to whom he has generously given way. I think that the public will reflect on those Members' contributions to the debate.

Does Mr Kingston agree that Mr Boggs and Emma Sheerin's interpretation of the Bill is very different from the interpretation that Mr Tennyson has repeatedly articulated? That speaks to our problem with the Bill's being interpreted in a manner that suits a particular agenda. We want very specific commitments and very tight legislation so that what Mr Tennyson wants to see — I do not agree with him on some of it — could not then be used in an expansive manner by activists who agitate and take a very different view, such as that of Mr Boggs and Ms Sheerin. I fear that a parent who wishes to coach, counsel or instruct their child would be caught in the Bill. The exemption in clause 7, which refers to the "intent to change or suppress", would provide an opt-out. Clause 7(1) states:

as clause 7(1)(b) continues —

That goes to the very heart of parenting. I will confine my remarks to the example of a parent, but it would also apply in other settings. The very reason that the parent would be engaging with their child would be to say, "I believe you are wrong, and I say that out of love and my view as to what I believe is best for you as a child. I do not believe you should be transgender and wanting to transition to a different sexuality". That is a sincerely held belief. Any parent would do that for the very purpose of trying to change the feelings or desire — whatever way that you want to frame it — of that child. The Bill is so vague. Parents would get caught in the "counselling" or "coaching or instruction" aspects, and, when it comes to the opt-out, it is very clear that parents who seek to direct — to change one's direction of travel, if that is how you want to describe it — would not be exempt. I think that, fundamentally, many parents, whether Christian or of another religion or of none at all, would be fearful of the legislation.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Member for his intervention. I was just coming on to the points that he has made very well. I am going to take fewer interventions, because time is moving on and I am aware that others wish to speak.

Obviously, someone's gender and sexuality are very significant matters in their life. If someone close to you, such as a very close relative or a close friend, says that they are questioning their gender or sexual orientation, that will cause a lot of thought and close conversation and will involve challenging questions. Passing the Bill could mean that those honest conversations are considered criminal if the person then reflects on things and feels that they were being challenged too much, or that their parent did not accept what they said. Equally, they might be grateful that they were challenged because it was a phase, a passing thought or part of ordinary growing-up rebellion.

I have pointed out my deep concern about clause 7 and how you would have to affirm what the person says to you about what they think that their gender might be. As I said, that is getting into the realms of thought control, and what it is acceptable to say and think.

Let me be clear: no one, including trans people, should be subject, as I have said, to harassment, intimidation, violence or abuse. Many people believe, however, that a person's gender will always be their biological sex at birth. Indeed, that is the long-standing majority view. People should not be criminalised for having a view that is based on biological fact. People are entitled to hold views that they consider to be common sense and mainstream and that do not impact on the rights of others.

Many aspects of society are organised around the two genders of the human race: male and female. [Interruption.]

No, I will keep going. I have no doubt that a consequence of the Bill — possibly part of its intent — will be to undermine any common-sense division on a male/female basis and potentially to make such division illegal. The Bill would make it an offence to suppress a person's gender identity, as they consider it to be. I again note that the sponsor could not name how many genders he thinks there are.

Humans being male and female is not some sort of right-wing conspiracy; it is a fact of nature. I will state the biological reality: as a species, we are designed for sexual reproduction, like all mammals. There are genetic advantages to that. We are born as male and female, as we are intended to be. We have different chromosomes, XX and XY; different genitalia, male and female; and we develop different levels of hormones. However, the Bill is written to introduce diverse gender identity into Northern Ireland law and to promote gender diversity with no definition of what that means — gender confusion and gender fluidity. That is why I call it a Trojan horse.

What people do in their private life and what happens between consenting adults is not our concern as legislators, so long as no one is being abused or harmed. However, when their choices or desires will impact on other people's rights or on the provision of public services, it is our concern. In any debate on transgenderism, we in the DUP will stand strongly on the principle that female-only spaces — accommodation, toilets, changing rooms and sports categories — must be exclusively for biological females. The Bill provides the means to undermine that common-sense provision of services in male and female categories in various circumstances such as toilets, changing rooms, hostels, prison accommodation, sports categories, some youth activities, some schools and so on.

The Bill could have very serious consequences. The vast majority of so-called conversion therapy is already outlawed, but the Bill aims to make it unacceptable even to express certain views that the sponsor finds to be unacceptable.

Ms Mulholland: I support the Bill because it seeks to address practices that are discredited, damaging and fundamentally incompatible with the values of an equal, shared and inclusive society. As has been mentioned, conversion practices are based on the fundamental faults and wholly unscientific belief that LGBT people are defective, disordered or in need of a cure. That is the crux of the psychological damage. Such practices deny the dignity and worth of individuals, perpetuate stigma and discrimination and can cause long-lasting psychological and emotional scarring to those who are subjected to them. It is my belief that at the heart of the Bill is a safeguarding measure. It creates offences of people intentionally seeking to change or suppress another person's sexual orientation or gender identity, where such conduct causes psychological or physical harm.

Much has been said in the debate about the impact of the Bill on parents, teachers, pastors and faith communities, but it is important that discussion of the Bill reflects what the legislation actually proposes and the purposes of the Bill. It does not discriminate against religious belief, attack the premise of faith, prevent people from expressing, holding or preaching their faith or criminalise ordinary parenting, teaching, support, questioning or advice. Specifically, at clause 7, it discusses intent. It states that if:

there is no intent to commit the offences.

The accused must act with the intention of changing or suppressing a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. The conduct must be directed at an identified individual, not at a group of people such as an assembly, youth group or congregation. Physical or psychological harm must be caused, and the Bill provides a defence where conduct is reasonable in certain circumstances.

Mrs Erskine: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Let me try to continue. I want to keep going for a little while, and then I will come back.

A parent seeking to protect a child's welfare, a teacher carrying out their duties or a pastor providing ordinary pastoral support or giving a sermon is not acting with the intention required by the legislation, nor would such conduct ordinarily meet the thresholds of coercive behaviour or harm set out in this Bill and in others, as has been set out by the Bill sponsor. The question before us is not whether people are entitled to their beliefs: they are. The question is whether anyone should be subjected to coercive practices intended to change who they are in a way that causes demonstrable harm. The answer to that question in the Bill is no.

I am relieved to have heard Members from across the Chamber acknowledge that conversion practices are wrong and cannot be justified. That is welcome, but it brings us to the purpose of Second Stage. I know that I have not been an MLA for more than a full mandate, but it is my belief that Second Stage is not where we decide every detail of a Bill. It is where we decide whether its core principle is worthy of further consideration. It is where we determine whether a proposal should proceed to detailed scrutiny, evidence gathering and amendment at Committee Stage. If there is such broad agreement across the House that harmful conversion practices should be prohibited, the questions are obvious: if not now, when? If not this Bill, how?

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member's giving way. First, will she agree that "general principles" does not mean that we have to speak in generalities about this? Secondly, it is not just about what the Member says the Bill does; we have to look at what it actually does by interrogating the text. That why the Deputy Speaker, who could well pull us up on any of these things, has allowed us to have this debate today in large part. It is important to make sure that we can tease these things out. What does "intent" look like? What does "suppress" mean? What do "counselling" and "talking therapy" mean? To understand what the Bill will do, you have to look at the definitions, and that is why it is our right to ensure that we can talk about it. It is not simply a case of asking whether we agree with what is on the front page.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you. With all due respect, Minister, you are highlighting exactly and precisely what the Committee Stage is for. Surely, a House that agrees on the problem should be prepared to examine the solution at Committee Stage.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: No, just a wee second, please, Mr Frew.

On 1 June this year, the Education Minister stood in the Chamber and urged Members of my party to support the Education Inspections Bill at Second Stage. His argument was very simple: send it to Committee, allow scrutiny, allow engagement, allow amendments and allow compromises to be explored. Indeed, he criticised those who sat on those Benches for opposing that approach, noting that they had made the very same argument for other legislation that my colleague who is now in the Speaker's Chair had made. He concluded:

I put it back to the Members on those Benches: the same argument does not suit now. It is fine for us to be implored to support a Bill that we do not wholeheartedly support, that we have problems with and that, we think, is dangerous to members of our community in certain ways, but we are told, "Support it to Committee Stage. Just support the principle", and then they lambast others for doing the same. I say respectfully to the Minister that the same principle applies today. If Members genuinely believe that conversion practices are wrong, harmful and have no place in our society, the logical course is not to vote down the Bill before scrutiny even begins. The logical course is to send it to the Committee, test it and improve it. Let us work together. Voting against the Second Stage is not voting for a better Bill; it is a vote against having a Bill at all.

I move on to some of the parenting conversations that have been going on. As a mother, I know that parenting involves boundaries — not about Lucozade, and I will point that out. It involves boundaries, and sometimes they are hard and involve difficult conversations.

There are also worries — things that go to the heart of who you are as a person and who you were even before you became a parent. However, there is one certainty above all else, which is that our children must know that they are loved. That is at the core of parenting. If one of my children were to tell me something important about who they were, my greatest fear would not be who they had decided to be but that they would believe that my love had become conditional. No child should feel that the price of keeping their family, home or faith is denying part of themselves, but that is at the heart of what conversion therapy is about.

During the debate, concerns have been raised about whether parents would fall foul of the legislation simply by expressing disapproval or disagreement. Let me be absolutely clear: that is not what the Bill does. A parent can tell their child that they disagree; they can tell their child that they do not approve; they may hold beliefs that differ from their child's understanding of themselves. None of that in and of itself is coercion. None of that amounts to the deliberate and intentional act of changing, suppressing or erasing a person's sexual orientation or gender identity to cause harm. However, if a parent or anyone else engages in conduct that humiliates, degrades, punishes, threatens or intimidates a person because of who they are and does so with the aim of making them deny or suppress a part of themselves, that is entirely different. That should be challenged. People should be protected from that. As a parent, I believe that there is a profound difference between saying, "I disagree with you", and making a child feel that they will be loved, accepted or belong only if they become someone else — if they change an inherent part of who they are. That is the essence of what conversion therapy is.

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member's giving way. A parent may do something out of love, but this is where we may disagree on what loving your child means and whether it is to be affirming, not disapproving or, for some parents, disapproving. Will the Member confirm whether, if a child comes forward and has something to say, in the context of the Bill, about gender identity, for example, and the parent wants to have a conversation with the intention of changing what their child wants to be, the Bill is designed to capture that parent, given that that will cause distress? As the Member knows, when you parent children, there are times when the child gets distressed. If that parent seeks to change the gender identity that their child has presented to them and their doing so causes distress, that is caught within clause 8, "Psychological harm", and could lead to a two-year imprisonment. Can she confirm that that is what the Bill is designed to capture?

Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister. I believe that we should have respectful conversation around this; that is important. You cannot cherry-pick parts of the Bill. It is a package. You can lift things out of context and say, "This is what is covered".

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. How you distinguish between coercive behaviour and difficult and challenging conversations is an important issue. That is a legitimate point of debate at all stages of the Bill. From my perspective, given the definition that we have employed, the individual in question would have to engage in a coercive course of behaviour — threatening the individual, intimidating the individual, humiliating the individual and making the individual fearful that, if they do not change their identity, they will come to harm, thereby forcing the individual to suppress who they are. We already disaggregate difficult conversation and coercion when it comes to domestic abuse law. The police, the PPS and the courts have shown that they are able, with the very same definitions, to distinguish between what is difficult but acceptable behaviour and what is coercive behaviour.

The other important thing to look at in this context is the fact that additional tests are applied. For example, in a cruelty to a child offence or a domestic abuse offence, it need only be likely to a reasonable person that the behaviour could have caused harm. In this Bill, the test is that harm — actual harm — has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. There is also an intent test. Therefore, the number of hurdles that need to be gone through to make an offence under this legislation is greater.

In effect, a parent in that scenario would in all likelihood have to be guilty of a cruelty to a child offence before they could ever be convicted of a conversion practices offence in practice. Members need to keep that in mind. As to whether we need to have a debate again about harm testing, I have said to Members that I am happy to have that debate to ensure that we get the right balance.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Mr Tennyson.

Some of the conversation has been about counselling, and one of the most powerful observations that I made when preparing for the Bill was with an accredited and regulated counsellor in my constituency who works with people affected by conversion practices. She deals with the therapeutic fallout from those practices. Some of the explanation for psychological harm and the test for harm was the tension between attachment and authenticity. The explanation that came to me for that psychological harm is that everyone needs attachment. We need acceptance from our friends and communities. For many of us, it will come from our churches as well. We also need the authenticity. We need to be able to live honestly as ourselves. The harm arises when someone is forced or made to believe that they cannot have both. When someone comes to believe that belonging depends on suppressing, denying or being someone else, that is where the real psychological damage begins. I do not believe that anyone should ever be made to choose between belonging or being themselves. That is the harm that the Bill seeks to address, and we have broad agreement on that.

Turning to the concept of faith, some Members spoke about Christianity and faith being under attack. Some comments got to the heart of what they believe Christianity to be. I stand here as someone with a strong faith, as a Christian, and I believe that my Christianity reinforces the things that I have said. I believe that every person, as Ms Sheerin said, is made in the image of God and possesses an inherent dignity. When I look at my own faith, however, and at who I look up to, I believe that the God whom I follow is someone who went towards those who were rejected and pushed to the margins, so I do not recognise my Christianity in any treatment that leaves another person feeling broken, defective, ashamed or in need of being changed. That is the crux of conversion practice: it is an interpretation of the Bible that equates homosexuality with being wrong and broken.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Just give me a second until I finish this bit, Brian, and I will then come back to you.

People of faith have interpreted scripture differently through the ages on issues from slavery to women's leadership and civil rights. However, there are many like me — many of them have been in contact with me — who have a faith grounded in social justice; a faith that leads them to ask whether people are being harmed and whether we are protecting the vulnerable. I am concerned that some of what we have heard does Christian faith a disservice. I do not believe that all the comments in the Chamber on faith speak for every Christian in Northern Ireland, and I do not believe that their position should be presented as the only possible Christian concerned response.

I will allow you in, Mr Kingston.

Mr Kingston: Thank you. The point about faith is that not all Christians take the same position, so there needs to be tolerance of the fact that there will be difference. There are Churches and ministers and pastors who will preach that homosexuality is wrong, that it is wrong in the Bible, that there is only male and female and that your biological sex — your gender — cannot be changed. That will be preached from pulpits.

The Bill states at clause 7(1) that:

If a preacher preaches that homosexuality is wrong and sinful and someone in a congregation feels that that is being directed at them, according to the wording in the Bill, they could take a case against the preacher. However, the preacher is standing in good faith for what they see as biblical principle. It is not against that individual but is standing for biblical principle as they see it.

Ms Mulholland: It is clear in the Bill that there has to be a directed victim.

It is not about a congregation. To commit any crime that is outlined in the legislation, the perpetrator has to have intent, knowing the gender identity or the sexual orientation of the person at whom they are directing their behaviour, and has to believe that they are changing that person's belief. There has to be a singular victim. That is very clear in the —.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way briefly?

Ms Mulholland: No. I really want —.

Mr Kingston: Just briefly.

Ms Mulholland: OK.

Mr Kingston: If someone says, "Pastor, I want to meet you one-to-one for you to explain the biblical position to me. I'm a member of your congregation. I want to understand your thinking — your direction — on this", and the pastor says, "This is what the Bible teaches. This is what I believe" and sets that out, the individual could say that that met the criteria in the Bill. We are talking about the wording in the Bill, not what Eóin Tennyson said on 'Talkback' or in the Chamber. When it comes to a legal case, the judge will interpret what is in the legislation.

Ms Mulholland: Having a therapeutic conversation that is about exploration — not telling, threatening or degrading someone — does not meet the definition of "coercive behaviour". Again, that is in the Bill. I fundamentally disagree with the assertions that you are making.

I will move on. It is 8.15 pm, and I would like to hear from other Members. I want us to get to hear from both the Minister and the Bill sponsor and hopefully tonight.

There are Christians in Churches across Northern Ireland who do not believe that protecting people from coercion and harm somehow threatens their faith — we have established that — but we should not overlook LGBTQIA+ people of faith. They belong to our Churches and our communities too, and their right to worship, belong and seek spiritual support without coercion or abuse matters every bit as much.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Parents, people of faith and young people deserve an honest account of what the Bill does. That means reading it as a whole. The Bill is a package. Its provisions on intention, harm, coercive behaviour, therapy, religious expression, professional practice and available defences have to be read together. It is not serious legislative scrutiny to lift one phrase or one clause, removing all the tests and safeguards around it, and present it as the most alarming hypothetical imaginable, as though that is what the Bill states. We should not cherry-pick legislation to manufacture faux outrage, and some of it has been manufactured.

Prayer does not suddenly become a criminal offence because sexuality is discussed. Parenting does not suddenly become a criminal offence because a parent has asked difficult questions or set boundaries. Ordinary religious belief is not being criminalised. The Bill is aimed at harmful practices that are intended to change or suppress another person's identity. Of course the details should be scrutinised; that is exactly what Committee Stage is for. If there are genuine concerns about drafting, conversation and compromise are required. As the Bill sponsor has said, we can test those concerns. If wording can be improved, we can improve it. If protections need to be clearer, we can make them clearer.

There is a fundamental difference between improving legislation and frightening people about legislation. We fall short of our responsibilities as legislators if we immediately reach for scaremongering, and that is exactly what has happened in some instances, be that on social media or radio shows, instead —

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: — of engaging seriously with the purpose and substance of the Bill. If Members identify a problem, they should tell us what it is and propose a solution. Do not frighten parents into believing that they need a KC at the kitchen table. Do not frighten Christians into believing that their faith is under attack. Above all else, do not make LGBTQIA+ people who are listening to the debate believe that their protection and their family's faith must somehow be in conflict.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: I am just finishing up.

Throughout our scrutiny of the Bill, those impacted on by such practices must remain at the heart of our thinking. I go back to what my colleague said at the very beginning and to the reason that we introduced the legislation. When someone has found the courage to tell people that they have been harmed, our response should demonstrate that we have listened. The careful legislative work comes next. This is a debate on the principles of the Bill, not clause-by-clause scrutiny, which is a further legislative step.

As I said, I am proud to support the principle that people should be protected from harmful attempts to change or suppress who they are: I am, and I do.

The Bill gives us an opportunity to build a Northern Ireland in which people feel free to practise their faith but also seek genuine support and live free from coercion and harm. It tells every LGBT person, particularly every young person, that their dignity matters, that their well-being matters and that their life has value. I am clear about what side I want to be on, and I am clear about what side my Jesus calls me to be on: that is the side of people who have been harmed and pushed to the margins, and that is the side that I put forward today. I am very proud and pleased to support the Bill.

Mrs Cameron: At the outset, I say that abuse is abhorrent, whether it be coercion, cruelty, humiliation, violence or abuse that is directed against any person because of their sexual orientation or how they understand their gender. However, opposing abuse does not require us to support a badly drafted Bill, nor should legitimate concern for vulnerable people be used to silence proper scrutiny of a Bill that creates criminal offences that carry sentences of up to two years' imprisonment.

The central question is not whether coercive and abusive behaviour is wrong — we can all agree that such behaviour is wrong; the question is whether the Bill is necessary, clearly defined and compatible with the fundamental freedoms that the Assembly is legally obliged to protect. On each of those tests, the Bill fails. Northern Ireland already has laws dealing with assault, threats, harassment, domestic abuse, child cruelty, sexual offences and controlling or coercive conduct within family and intimate relationships. I supported strong action against domestic abuse, and nothing that I will say today diminishes that position.

If gaps remain in our existing law, the Bill sponsor should identify those gaps, provide evidence of the cases and legislate narrowly to close any such gaps that are identifiable.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way and for her engagement in a pre-legislative scrutiny session with all members of the Communities Committee, which was really constructive.

She talks about gaps. There are two gaps, which have already been identified and stood up by the case studies and evidence that have been referenced in the debate. The first major gap is that unregulated talking therapy is not likely to be prosecutable under existing law, because it is not a criminal offence for someone to call themselves a therapist and set up a service. That is the most common form of conversion practice, as we understand it, in Northern Ireland, and survivor testimony suggests that it is very prevalent.

The other gap is where there is coercive and controlling behaviour between individuals who are not personally connected. The Member is absolutely right: if individuals who are personally connected engage in conversion therapy, the person may well be prosecutable under domestic abuse legislation at present. However, if a youth leader, a pastor or a minister engages in the same behaviour, they may not be prosecutable under existing law. Those are the two gaps that we are seeking to address. It is open to debate whether we have done so adequately.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Bill sponsor for his intervention. I will continue my remarks.

Instead, the Bill takes concepts that are already addressed in law and lowers important thresholds and surrounds them with vague, subjective and undefined terminology — and we have heard so much undefined terminology this evening. I know that, for many Members who support the Bill, abuse of such a nature is the driving force behind their position, and that is understandable. However, it is wrong to frame it as a debate between those who oppose harmful practices and those who want them to continue unabated.

To any gay or trans person out there who has been abused, I say this: the law is already on your side. I encourage any person who has faced that type of abuse to reach out to the police. You will get support to end the abuse and to seek justice. Abuse and coercion are already tackled under our current laws. We have heard much reference to the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act, which covers the relationship between parents and children. We have the Children and Young Persons Act, which requires intervention where a child may come to harm. There are laws against threatening or abusive words or behaviour, and there will be more laws, too. For anyone to give the impression that gay and trans people are not already protected by our current laws — the same laws that protect every citizen — and that nothing can be done about vile abuse that is directed towards individuals, is inaccurate and irresponsible.

I have no doubt that more work can be done on victim support. I also have no doubt that too many individuals face varying degrees of unacceptable abuse every day, but there are laws in place, and they are used. I have yet to be shown evidence of a genuine gap in the law that needs to be plugged. We hear stories that appeal to our compassion, and they absolutely do appeal to our compassion, but we have not heard a clear, worked-through case study of some appalling abuse that somehow falls outside our existing law.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Cameron: I will.

Mr Tennyson: With respect to the Member, she has not altered her remarks on the back of what I have said. I have given the Member two examples. Indeed, in my opening remarks, I gave an example that involved a therapist sitting down and engaging in pseudoscientific therapy, linking an individual's sexual orientation to the suggestion that their father was absent and did not love them enough in childhood. That is not currently prosecutable under existing law, so, with the greatest respect to the Member, that example has been provided in the debate and demonstrates a gap in the law.

Whether the Member views the legislation as proportionate in addressing that gap is absolutely a matter for her, but it is counterfactual to suggest that an example has not been given, as multiple others have been given.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the sponsor for his intervention. The proposed legislation goes much further than the examples that he has given. In fact, I will quote again my trans woman friend who has been in contact with me over recent days. She said:

her words, not mine —

That is a trans woman who is asking that question.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. I have not managed to get many interventions in here this evening, despite giving a few to the other side when I was speaking, but that is up to them. I will read the Member a quote from the Women's Rights Network. To be clear to some Members in the House, it is not a Christian group, which we have talked a lot about this evening:

As my colleague has said:

Of course it should, and every Member on this Bench agrees with that —

That is not from a Christian lobby organisation. It is not what the Member for North Antrim, who has just re-entered the Chamber, was talking about earlier: it is the Women's Rights Network. That is its assessment of what is going on. Its concern is not about what I have just read out about the nature of what we are talking about, and we have already condemned all those things. However, will the Member agree with me that there are many people of faith and no faith in Northern Ireland, who she described this evening and I have described previously, who are very concerned about whether a conversion headline is being used to write an undefined, self-declared concept of gender identity into Northern Ireland criminal law?

Mrs Cameron: I thank my colleague for that intervention. I agree wholeheartedly with him. It is clear that there are very real fears around the reach of the legislation. That is not just from straight, socially conservative politicians. Many people are rightly alarmed by the impact that the legislation could have. That absolutely includes the impact on free speech and parenting.

I will come back to my notes. We hear some stories and wonder why no one has taken the matter to the police, quite frankly, because they sound ripe for prosecution, but we have not heard of any cases where the police have refused to prosecute or cases where the courts have refused to convict.

If I had been presented today with a law that would tackle real abuse and genuinely do something new to end it, I would vote in favour of it.

However, I have yet to be shown evidence of a genuine gap in the law that needs to be fixed or a single case study that shows that someone could benefit from the Bill.

The Bill sponsor seems to think that the Bill is well targeted and carefully worded and that it has protections for free speech and medical practice. Many of us have seen the legal advice from one of the UK's top lawyers, Aidan O'Neill KC. He is clear that the Bill does not work like that. Mr Tennyson says that there are holes in the law, but I am afraid that it is his Bill that is filled with holes. The wording is impossible to understand, incredibly vague and replete with unintended consequences. Let me quote Dennis Kavanagh of the Gay Men's Network, a criminal lawyer, who has said that:

Mr Martin: Will the Member take an intervention on that point?

Mrs Cameron: I will.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving me a second intervention. I am on a run here. I am thankful to the Member.

There has been a lot of framing from the other side of the Chamber — particularly, I have to say, from Sinn Féin — that, somehow, it represents all the LGBTQI+X community in Northern Ireland and that, somehow, that amorphous body is all tremendously supportive of the Bill. You have just quoted Dennis Noel Kavanagh from the Gay Men's Network. Are you aware that the Gay Men's Network is opposing the conversion practices Bill in the UK if it proceeds? Are you aware of that?

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way briefly?

Mrs Cameron: No, thank you.

I appreciate the intervention from my colleague. It is good to have those facts put in front of the Chamber. They need to be heard.

I even wonder whether the Bill is so broad that it might criminalise trans activists. Could those who encourage a young person to identify as trans be at risk of prosecution if that young person later says, "You encouraged me in the wrong identity. You pushed me. You manipulated me. You coerced me. You have harmed me"? We know of an increasing number of people who have detransitioned or wish to do so and, undoubtedly, have been harmed by transgender ideology and those who push it. How certain is Mr Tennyson that the breadth of his Bill will not also result in problems for those whom he deems to be on his side of the debate? We may not yet have reliable figures that show the full scale of detransitioning, but those individuals exist, and their experiences cannot simply be ignored because they complicate the narrative surrounding the Bill.

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

Mrs Cameron: Not at this time.

Indeed, NHS England has acknowledged that an increasing number of people are seeking to detransition, with no clear route through which they can access appropriate care. Some have undergone significant medical treatment and are now living with physical and psychological consequences. They deserve compassion, proper clinical support and freedom to discuss their experiences honestly. What reassurance can the Bill sponsor give that a counsellor or therapist who helps such a person to explore regret, uncertainty or a wish to return to living as their biological sex would not risk being accused of attempting to "change or suppress" a gender identity? Even if a prosecution were ultimately unsuccessful, the prospect of investigation might be enough to make professionals afraid to engage with those difficult cases. That is not a theoretical concern; it is precisely why vague criminal legislation in such a complex area is dangerous. I say "dangerous". The law must protect people from abuse. It must not silence detransitioners or make professionals frightened to provide them with open-minded, non-judgemental support.

Those concerns are not confined to people who reject transgender identities. As I mentioned, following last week's debate I was contacted by a trans woman who supports my party's opposition to the Bill. She gave me permission to share her views. She told me that the Bill is wide open to interpretation and could be manipulated to push this blocker and hormone agenda for minors — something she has been against. Those are her words, not mine. Members may agree or disagree with her conclusions, but her contribution demonstrates that concerns about the breadth of the legislation cannot honestly be dismissed as hostility towards transgender people.

There are people with direct personal experience of such issues who are also worried about the consequences for children, parents and professionals.

Of course, on the whole, the main concern about the Bill will come from others. Consider this scenario. Perhaps a man asks for support from his minister to remain true to his religion's sexual ethics. Some time later, however, he changes his mind and wishes that he had never embraced Christian sexual ethics. He hates them, in fact, and wishes that he had never asked for prayer. He now claims that the lifestyle that he was encouraged to live suppressed him and caused him distress. Under the Bill, will his church minister not be liable for prosecution, resulting in a conviction, a fine or even imprisonment? What about a child who asks to be affirmed as transgender against their parents' advice and against the safeguarding policies of their school? It seems that they will be able to call the police on their family or on their school for suppressing their identity.

Most of us understand that living and growing up in 2026 is not easy. I often think about what I did not have growing up, and I am eternally thankful for that lack of information, lack of technology and lack of imagery, which can be so damaging to a young mind.

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

Mrs Cameron: Not this time.

I believe that parenting today is more challenging than ever before, and I am very proud and delighted to be a new grandmother —

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Cameron: — and not a new mother in the day and age that we are living in, such is the challenge of protecting young minds from the often harmful and damaging world around them. Parents trying to help their children feel comfortable in their own skin or teachers urging them to wait until they have thought it all through should not be in the cross hairs of the criminal law.

I do not want to get into all the technicalities of the Bill at this point, but what I have seen tells me that the Bill has been drafted in a hurry without sufficient consideration of the risk involved. However, to be fair to the Bill sponsor, even with more time and consideration, problems would remain. Westminster has been trying to do this for many years, and it is now taking months to consider a draft before even tabling a Bill, yet, after all this time, it has found no way of resolving the unintended consequences. The Westminster Bill is also being attacked from all sides.

I want to talk about what the Assembly Bill would mean for my constituents, because the reality is that bringing a child up is difficult. There are so many pressures, from the influence of social media to mental health issues and more. The Bill would place yet another pressure on parents, particularly those who may already feel like they are walking on eggshells if their children are experimenting with their identity or are struggling with adolescence in this complicated world that they inhabit. Parents need to be able to guide and direct their children — "direct" is in the wording of the Bill — without fear of facing accusations and investigation and involvement from social services. Yes, they should provide loving support in a way that respects their child's perspective, but they need to feel free to give honest answers, to give a steer and to encourage their child to do what they think is in their best interests.

I want to take the opportunity to speak about the opinion of Stella O'Malley, who is a psychotherapist and the founder of Genspect, which is an international organisation that advocates for a psychological approach to gender distress. She is concerned that the Bill will have a chilling effect on conventional therapy. Stella O'Malley talks about not supporting conversion therapy and of having no interest in trying to turn gay people straight. She refers to the history of gay conversion therapy, including the appalling practices involved in conversion therapy attempts. She points to significant problems with the Bill and states that it:

Those are not my words. Stella continues her explanation by stating:

She continues:

She goes on to say:

Then we come to freedom of religion. Stella O'Malley says:

There are so many negative views of the Bill. It is not just poorly drafted; it is incredibly dangerous and wholly unacceptable.

To conclude, I oppose abuse in any form against any person, and I will support any LGBT person who is facing abuse. We should not be telling sections of our community that they are not protected under current law as things stand. I cannot support a Bill that could do far more harm than good.

Mr Martin: Hear, hear.

Mrs Cameron: I do not support the Bill.

Mrs Erskine: helpful contributions that she made to the debate.

At the outset, I feel that I should, regrettably, declare an interest. I could be unwittingly criminalised as a parent as a result of this legislation, if it goes further, and as a woman. Indeed, my father, who is a minister, could be criminalised as a result of the legislation, all because of simply having a conversation — a pastoral conversation — that will be wide open to interpretation through this ill-defined Bill.

Like the rest of my colleagues, I have no hesitation in saying that many of the practices that have previously been promoted under the umbrella of conversion therapy were and remain appalling. Those obviously include the likes of electroconvulsive therapy, forced isolation, food deprivation and hormone therapy. We have all been very clear on these Benches that we disagree with those practices. Such practices, however, are already largely illegal. Indeed, our existing law already criminalises physical and verbal abuse and provides protection for victims of such abuse.

When we look at the Bill, we see that it is misleading. In his contributions throughout the entire debate last week, the Bill sponsor asked what a lay person would see when they read the Bill. It is very hard to see or understand some of the elements of the Bill because it is so subjective and its definitions are not outlined. There are Members in the Chamber today who still believe that the Bill is about banning outright conversion therapy practices, but that is not what the legislation is solely about. It is not just about banning quack therapies. We already have legislative instruments that can be employed to deal with some of what the Bill seeks to legislate on. Instead, the Bill will criminalise freedom of speech. It will create a fear factor in many different areas of life, particularly in the home, in church and in business.

I touched on my lifestyle last week. The Bill talks about talking therapy. I like to go to my hairdresser and to sit and talk in the confines of that salon. I consider it a haven for me, because I can talk to my hairdresser about many different things. If, however, I were to decide to start talking about my gender identity, what if my hairdresser were to offer me advice? We had consented to having the conversation, but what if I went home and then felt distressed and fearful about it? I could then take my hairdresser to court.

There are real-life consequences from the legislation. It could criminalise people in their business. It could criminalise a minister, a teacher, a parent — the list goes on — simply for having a conversation on what an individual believes is gender ideology, albeit self-determined gender ideology. Far from providing individuals with greater protection, the Bill therefore risks encroaching directly on fundamental freedoms and, in turn, breaching human rights. Furthermore, the proposed definition of "coercive behaviour" risks criminalising parents who are legitimately seeking to exercise parental authority or to provide guidance to their children on issues relating to sexuality and gender. For example, could a parent who refused a child's request for puberty blockers find themselves caught up in the legislation? The DUP does not believe that the legislation would be the mark of a tolerant or a liberal society, as people's human rights would be caught up in it.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. She has referred to the example of a young person wanting to access puberty blockers. Take a parent with a teenager who is 16 at the moment. They want to access puberty blockers, but the parent says no. The definition of "coercive and controlling behaviour" is already in domestic abuse legislation, so if a domestic abuse offence is not being committed at the moment, can the Member explain how one would be committed under the Bill, which contains more legislative requirements that have to be met? There is an intent requirement. There is a requirement that the behaviour had actually caused harm and was not simply likely to cause harm, which is the lower test in domestic abuse law.

Moreover, the Member will know that the Bill states clearly that "failure to do a thing" is not a conversion practice, so failure to act in a particular way would not meet the definition of "coercive behaviour" under the Bill. For the absolute avoidance of doubt and for clarity, the example that the Member gives would not be prosecutable under the Bill. That is crystal clear.

Mrs Erskine: I am unclear about some of that. [Interruption.]

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: The problem is that the language in your Bill is so subjective. Look at the different paragraphs in clause 5(1). Paragraph (e) states that "coercive behaviour" means:

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: The issue here is that all of us can feel differently about the scale of that.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Perhaps the Bill sponsor does this deliberately, but, every time that we give him a scenario, he reverts to clause 2, which is the offence of engaging in coercive conversion behaviour, and not clause 1, which is the offence of providing conversion therapy. That is what parents, teachers, preachers and pastors will get caught up in, more than any other clause. Interestingly, of those two clauses, although clause 2 sounds as though it is more severe, it comes with the same penalty.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

A Member: Will the Member give way briefly?

Mrs Erskine: I will give way to Mr Gaston first. No one gives way to me.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for giving way. The Bill sponsor's noble defence that he makes of his subjective whataboutery is all well and good, but he cannot hide from the situation that would present itself as a result of clause 1(3), clause 2(3), and clause 3(3). Clause 1(3) states:

With the passage of time, all the historical events would start to come out. Whatever the Bill sponsor intends it to mean, once a person had been captured further by an ideology, with someone in their ear saying how badly they were treated when they were younger, they would come forward, and that is where the big danger lies. They may have consented at the time, but that consent will hold no weight after five or 10 years pass, because that is what the Bill sponsor put in the Bill.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for that important point and for his intervention. The Bill does not define the passage of time. There is no cut-off point. It could be anything for anybody, which is deeply concerning. Clause 1(3) is very worrying, and I will come on to that later.

People of faith must not be criminalised for practising their religion or expressing their sincerely held beliefs, and parents must be free to raise their children in accordance with their religious or philosophical convictions. My remarks will focus on clauses 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, because, whilst we have heard quite a lot today about not looking at clauses, given that it is the Second Stage of the Bill, I have heard complaints for a long time that we have not been debating draft legislation in the Chamber. Here we are, scrutinising draft legislation. It is important that we look at and understand it, because, perhaps, if we understand it, we could vote for it to move forward. We have, however, asked for definitions and clarity, and we have not got them. That is why we cannot support the Bill.

From the very beginning, clause 1 highlights what I am most concerned about in the Bill. The Bill is littered with subjective language and things that are hard to prove, and, worryingly, there are low thresholds for bringing someone before a court. Clause 1(2) states:

I know that the Bill sponsor will come back and mention the test of reasonableness, but what is "reasonable" can be subjective, should someone want to launch a court action. What is reasonable to me when talking to somebody who may be questioning their identity may not be reasonable to somebody else. I am worried about the changing thresholds of reasonableness. Furthermore, what "particular circumstances" does the Bill sponsor believe are "reasonable"? Is it just those circumstances that fall within the confines of the bodies that are exempted in clause 4?

For me, however, the most dangerous line in the Bill is in clause 1(3). Someone can consent to conversion therapy, which the Bill describes as counselling, talking therapy, coaching, instruction, treatment or purported treatment. They can choose to do that with a person on one day, and, on the next day, they can decide to take that same person to court. That is ludicrous for the very reasons that Mr Gaston outlined in his intervention in relation to time and that threshold.

Take a faith-based organisation or a church, for that matter. On any given Sunday, a person who is a member of a church can sit and listen to a minister, who may have decided to preach from the Bible or deliver a series on gender identity. Again, "gender identity" is mentioned in clause 6, but it is not defined in the Bill. Because what the minister says could make someone feel a certain way, it could be deemed a conversion practice, and that minister could be criminalised as a result.

Take a parent at home, speaking to their child who is questioning things. That child may want to sit down and speak to their parent because they are struggling to deal with their mental health and some aspects of their gender identity.

Clause 1(3) specifically sets out:

If someone willingly engages in a conversation, they can be unwittingly subject to a court case. We will begin to lose trust in our community when it comes to being allowed to have conversations. Trust will be eroded. A parent may want to help their struggling teenage child. A minister who has a pastoral responsibility to support his congregation may be subject to legal action as a result of the legislation.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. The Bill sponsor has always defended his Bill by saying that there is a reasonableness test. He has also said that we should not be alarmed by the settings and scenarios that we describe, because the definition of "coercive behaviour" is steeped in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act and that, as nobody has been convicted under that legislation, we should not worry about this legislation. That is wrongheaded, however, because the Act states:

The reasonableness test is flipped on its head and is not included in the coercive behaviour clause in the Bill sponsor's Bill. He puts it in clause 1 and clause 2, which gives the reasonableness test a different effect. How can anyone say that a reasonable person test will apply when a child goes to a parent and says, "Mum, I want to be a colour", or, "Mum, I want to be an object"? That is the difference in the reasonableness test. The Bill sponsor has used that as a defence when there is no defence whatsoever in the reasonableness test.

Mrs Erskine: Yes. It is about the burden of proof element. It is the subjective nature of the Bill that concerns me. I thank the Member for his intervention on that point.

The Bill sponsor will also say that the Bill's intent, as set out in the explanatory and financial memorandum and clause 7, provides safeguards for expressions of belief, but I do not see that properly enshrined in the Bill. No clause specifically includes that safeguard for places of worship or the home.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: No, I will move on, because I did not receive the same courtesy when the Member's colleagues spoke. I asked for interventions a number of times. I may come to the Member later.

I move on to clause 2. I want to know what the threshold is for a victim's suffering "physical or psychological harm". How is "harm" defined? How is it proven? In clause 8, the door is wide open on that. Clause 2(1)(b) refers to:

What is the definition of "suppression"? We talked about that last week in the Chamber. Again, it is hard to get the definition. Subjectivity is littered throughout the Bill. Last week, as I said, the Minister clearly outlined that we should revert to the dictionary definition of suppression, which is "a holding back". A worried parent may see that their child is questioning their gender identity, and they may try to have a conversation with their child, but a teenager may construe that as their parent trying to hold them back and stop them. That can be construed as a conversion practice. A parent's love will be misconstrued.

I move on to clause 4 and the definition of "conversion therapy". The explanatory and financial memorandum states that the exemption for qualified medical professionals would:

However, the Bill does not specify when that would be. I can only guess that the sponsor, given the title of the Bill, wishes to ban conversion therapy outright, but, again, that is not the case. The sponsor is not setting out what he intends to put on his election literature. He has not banned conversion therapy; it is still out there. Last week, my colleague Diane Dodds outlined concerns that would exist for the Department of Health as a result of the legislation.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree that it is an insult to many practising adults, including parents, pastors and others involved in the day-to-day lives of young people, that the specific exemption that Mr Tennyson has included in the Bill applies only to those in the medical profession? The definition of "conversion therapy" is saying to parents, preachers and youth pastors that they do not have the ability to engage in counselling or any talking therapy, the ability to coach or give instruction, or the ability to do anything that is intrinsic to what they do each day as loving parents or professionals in a church setting.

Mrs Erskine: Absolutely; the Member makes an important point. The Member for North Antrim talked earlier — correct me if I am wrong — about a psychologist whom she knows. Is that psychologist definitely going to fall under the exemption? There are some concerns about some of the qualifications, how those would change and, indeed, how the Department would move on some elements of this later on. Is the sponsor aware of when any review of the list mentioned in clause 4(4) would take place? Is he seeking that? Does he know that? Will they be exempt at any later stage? Does he know whether that will come?

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for that question. That clause would give delegated powers to the Department of Health to update the list at any time, should the Minister and the Department see fit. We have not restricted it or made it time-bound. We want to give the Department the flexibility to amend the list and bring in other professionals, should it feel that that is necessary. That is intentional, in order to give the Department that flexibility.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for that. Does he know whether that would come before the House or the Committee for scrutiny in relation to anything that the Department may choose to review?

Mr Tennyson: It would have to be by resolution of the Assembly. The Minister would have to lay secondary legislation for the Committee and the Assembly to approve.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for that.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Yes.

Mr Givan: I am trying to understand what Mr Tennyson has just said. It says that the exemption for the Department of Health would not apply in respect of any:

Maybe I have picked up the inference incorrectly, but the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone spoke about parents and others. Can this list be added to? Are we suggesting that the Department of Health could at the stroke of a pen say, "Parents, ministers of religion" and list all the different various denominations? Where are the constraints of the application of clause 4(3)(a) in the individuals who could be listed by the Department of Health? I do not believe that it is as wide as Mr Tennyson has just inferred.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for that intervention. He is following a train of thought that is similar to what I am looking at. It is concerning that it is wide open or open to interpretation, meaning that a Minister who may have different views could come along and add to it.

I am happy to give way to the Bill sponsor.

Mr Tennyson: I am sorry; I misconstrued the Member's question. The Education Minister — Paul Givan; he is speaking as a private Member — is correct in that there is a constraint. It has to be a regulatory body under section 25 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002. The exclusion is specifically for healthcare professionals. I apologise if that was not the thrust of your question, Deborah.

There is no blanket exclusion for other settings, because we know that abuse can happen in religious settings — we are all too well aware of that from some recent scandals — and in the home, so it would not be appropriate to have that. Such bodies are regulated, and their code of ethics would prevent them from engaging in conversion therapy anyway, so it removes a chill factor while providing reassurance for professionals that they will not be prosecuted for engaging in legitimate healthcare provision.

There are other safeguards that we have debated at length: the reasonableness defence, the harm test and the definition of coercion. Mr Frew mentioned the difference between clause 1 and the second offence. I have said that it is not my intention that ministers, pastors or parents be tested against the first offence; my intention is that they be tested against the second offence. I have explained why, given the structure of the Bill, my view is that that is the outworking. I have also clearly said to the Minister today that, if people want that additional clarity, I am happy to look at an amendment to the Bill to bring the comfort that, Members say, they want.

Mrs Erskine: For clarity — sorry, it is late, and we have been in the Chamber for some time — a Health Minister could come along and decide to include another organisation such as a church. No? I ask for the sake of clarity.

Mr Tennyson: It has to be a regulatory body as per the definition in the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002. A church could not just be added to the list, because a church is not a regulatory body. They are not professionals and are not subject to a code of ethics in the same way. For example, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) is not on the list, but it would be eligible to be added to the list, if the Minister deemed that it was appropriate to do so. There is a constraint in that it is supposed to be a healthcare exemption, not a broader exemption for other organisations. That would create a loophole in the legislation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mrs Erskine.

Mrs Erskine: I think that the Member wants me to give way.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member has explained, in some depth, why he has made the exemption for medical practitioners. Does that Member agree that, if we are to believe what he has been stating throughout his contribution about the Bill not being intended to create a chilling effect in the family home or in a church setting, he would have defined conversion therapy as what is stated at paragraph (c) of clause 4(1) — "a treatment, or purported treatment" — and would have left out:

By the inclusion of those practices, a chill factor will, in a sense, be created, whether that is in the home, in everyday conversation or on the sporting field. I know that that point was dismissed earlier, but it is a conversation that should rightly be had when we think about how gender identity has impacted on women-only sports and men-only sports — the list is endless. The inclusion of those practices in the definition means that we will inevitably get into that space.

Mrs Erskine: Yes, and that is the exact fear that results from the legislation. I go back to the point that how somebody feels is included in the legislation, as is how someone will self-determine their gender identity as a result of the legislation. That is subjective and will allow organisations such as churches, parents and the businesses that I outlined to be subject to it. They will not be exempt from any list. There will be a chill factor, and a situation will exist in which how somebody feels will mean that somebody else will come before the courts for having a pastoral conversation.

The damaging and worrying part of the Bill that is central to my concern is in clause 6. We have talked about it quite a bit in the Chamber. It states:

The gate is wide open in relation to that. It is literally "Anything goes". It is how anybody decides on any given day to wake up and feel, and that is concerning. Again, it is based on feeling and subjectiveness. The Bill sponsor stated at the very beginning of the debate that that relates to gay and transgender sexual orientation, but we all know that there are subsections of those that list a number of gender identities. In the Chamber, I have done a quick search — I know that some colleagues have also done this — asking our friend Google how many gender identities there are. The result was:

How can a court rule on gender identity when it is not defined in the Bill? How can somebody have a conversation when that is fluid and changes? There is a concerning nature to that for a parent, for a minister and for anybody trying to keep up with any form of gender list that is fluid.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Yes.

Mr Frew: The Member poses a good question about how a court will define it. The court will be left with no choice but to define it as it is written in the legislation. It is written in the Bill that the victim considers it to be what they consider it to be. That is the danger here. The Bill sponsor knows rightly — it is why he has put it in — that that will catch all. That will make victims — innocent victims — out of people who discuss with, talk to, instruct and coach people who deem their gender identity whatever the victim considers it to be. That could include animals, nature in itself, colours, objects, fictional or abstract concepts or particular sensations and emotions. That is what the Bill sponsor is trying to legislate for, and that is why most people could fall foul of it. That is what he has defined. Gender identity is what the victim considers it to be, so the victim can consider it to be anything that they wish.

Mrs Erskine: That is the exact and inherent problem with this. We have asked many times for clarity around gender ideology.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I note that the Bill sponsor shakes his head in disgust when this is mentioned, yet, time and time again, he is unable to define the term that he wants to put in legislation. Clause 6 talks specifically about gender identity. The point that Mr Frew raises about children who may self-identify as an animal or an object can be dismissed and scorned, but the reason why it should not be dismissed outright, when the Bill sponsor cannot define it, is found when we look at the legal advice provided to the Christian Institute by Aidan O'Neill KC. He talks about the Bill operating on the basis of self-ID:

Mr O'Neill KC argues that that is a much more expansive version of what was previously designed under gender self-ID.
Mr Frew gave the example of the victim deciding what their gender identity is. That is what is in the Bill. It is therefore not unreasonable for my colleagues to ask how expansive that list is. If the Bill sponsor is not prepared to define it, how can anybody else? We are just going by the Bill. It has been left wide open to interpretation, because of its use of subjective terms that, ultimately, will lead to the criminalisation of parents.

Mrs Erskine: Absolutely. Clause 6 is at the heart of our concerns about the Bill.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for giving way. That brings me back to a point that I made in the House last week: the judiciary would be interpreting the legislation. In the House, we have been prevented from getting the definition of "gender identity" from the Bill sponsor. We look at clause 6, but we are still unclear. If the judiciary, as it has done in the past, were to refer to Hansard to get a flavour of the debate in the Chamber, how could it define something that the Bill sponsor will not define? It makes the entire process a folly. It is ludicrous that we are here on day 2 of the debate and the Bill sponsor has been protected time and time again from clarifying what he means. How would the judiciary have a hope of making a judgement when Members are still unclear about what the Bill sponsor intends "gender identity" to mean?

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Yes.

Mr Frew: I ask Members not to fall into a trap. The Bill does define "gender identity". It defines it by stating that it is:

That is a most dangerous definition. It therefore has been defined by the Bill sponsor. The Bill sponsor has done that purposely, and that is what the court would have to use. The definition of "gender identity" would be:

That is why the Bill is highly dangerous.

Ms Forsythe: I thank Mrs Erskine for giving way. To build on Mr Frew's point, the danger is not limited to what he says. Clause 6(1) states that it "includes" the terminology that Mr Frew quoted, so it goes beyond that. It could go further. Does the Member agree that, when we have "gender identity" referred to 10 times in the Bill — 12 if we include the titles and contents — it is dangerous not to have a definitive definition of it, and that will be prescribed by the courts?

Mrs Erskine: I again say that that is central to the Bill's premise. It is what the courts would be deciding on, particularly when somebody is self-determining their gender identity and their orientation.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: I take Members back to the example of the child who is questioning their identity. It could be a challenging time. I will give way to the Bill sponsor if he allows me to make this point. For any child questioning their identity, it is a challenging time. We have talked about it in the Chamber. They need someone to speak to and talk things through with. The Bill does not allow for that. There is confusion about having a conversation, which could be construed as coercion. That is concerning.

I give way to the Bill sponsor.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. Mr Gaston talked about this being "ludicrous" and "folly": some of the contributions have been ludicrous and folly. For Members to talk in such dismissive and trivialising terms about people identifying as inanimate objects and as cats and dogs is ridiculous and deeply offensive. I consulted all the Departments that will be affected by the Bill. The Department of Agriculture was not one of them. Animals are not involved in the legislation. It is deeply offensive for Members to trivialise people's identities in that way.

Mr Frew: Would —?

Mr Tennyson: I have not finished. As I have said, the test before us is not whether a term is contested; it is whether the courts could interpret it and apply it proportionately.

I am glad that most of our judiciary have a bit more wit than Members when it comes to interpreting those terms and do not come up with such ludicrous assertions as have been made in the Chamber.

First of all, this is not the first time that "gender identity" has been written into Northern Ireland law. There is legislation on the census that includes reference to gender identity, so the repeated claims that this would be the first time that that has been written into law are false, inaccurate and not true. Secondly, I have pointed Members to a statutory definition provided in the equivalent UK legislation that refers to trans men, trans women and people who are non-binary or questioning their identity. I have told Members that, if they want that legislative clarity and want to replicate that definition, that is a conversation to which I am open.

The truth is that those Members are not interested in the statutory definition. If we took those Members at their word, there would be a statutory definition for every word in the Bill, which is not how legislation works. The Bill would be 400 pages long if that is how we wrote it. That argument is not being made in good faith. It is being made to make light of people whose gender identity does not align with their sex.

I have been open about the fact that I respect the rights and dignity of transgender people in our community, and Members will not bait me in the Chamber into diminishing those people. I will not do it.

Mrs Erskine: I have not made light of anybody's sexual identity [Interruption.]

No. We have not. We absolutely have not [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Please, take your seat.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is getting on. There is a degree of robustness in the debate, which is to be expected. We should all follow the good decorum that we normally expect in the Chamber. That might include robust debate, but there must also be respect for Members and what they say and do. I accept that all MLAs speak in good faith, because we are all elected representatives and we work for our people. If we say something, we say it in good faith. That is to be expected. I expect all Members to understand that, when points of order are made or issues are raised from the Floor, we must listen to them respectfully, whether we like them or not.

Can we continue? Thank you.

Mrs Erskine: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I have not made light of any situation. What we are trying to get to is the core of clause 6, which is the fact — it is a fact because you have put it in your Bill — that "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" include what the victim considers that to be and what the person considers it to be. As we heard earlier from Members, that can be anything that anybody feels on any given day.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. We do not make light of the circumstances that anybody finds themselves in. However, it would be remiss — in fact, it would be negligent — if Members did not highlight some of the issues that are part of real, live debate. The interesting part is that we are clear on gender, male and female; it is the Bill's sponsor and those who are advocates of his Bill who, perhaps, stretch the boundaries of reality. The Bill's sponsor, I believe, made light of those suffering from certain circumstances when he said that he did not consult DAERA. By his own standards, that is highly derogatory.

The Member is right — Mr Frew hit on it — that, where we see it defined that it is what the victim considers their gender identity to be, it is right that we look to what, certain gender ideologies and those who pursue them say, constitutes "gender identity". The list is endless. There can be dozens, as Mr Kingston said, or, as I have seen, it can be up to 136. It is said, for example, that "xenogender" means gender identities that are described through concepts outside conventional masculinity and femininity such as animals, stars, colours, textures, shapes or sounds. The Member is trying to identify and establish what protections there would be for parents who find themselves in a position where their child identifies as an animal, a star, a colour, a texture or a shape. I wish that I did not have to say that in the debate, but it is incumbent on me to do so in order to define the remit of the Bill, and we are not clear on that concept.

Mrs Erskine: Absolutely. Members may shake their heads at that, but this is what we are trying to drill down into; it is scrutiny of the legislation. The legislation will have to fly when it goes outside these doors, as I continually say, and the courts will have to look at and make a judgement call on this.

In an intervention last week, Miss McAllister said that children should be aware of services outside the home to help them in certain situations in which they may question or want to talk about their gender identity. Although the Minister of Education is in the Chamber in his capacity as an MLA for Lagan Valley, I am sure that he will share my concern about that. There is no exemption for teachers. There is no exemption for charitable organisations that may go into schools to provide pastoral support, sitting down with children and talking through their concerns. It is not a worry just for parents; it could be particularly worrying for our pastoral teachers, our youth workers and many bodies that work in the education sector.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: Yes, I am happy to give way.

Mr Frew: The reason why it and clause 6 especially are so dangerous is not only in what we have just talked about regarding gender identity but that the Bill sponsor pushes the definition of "sexual orientation" further than it goes in any other setting in law. Clause 6(2) states:

"sexual orientation" meaning, basically, that you are attracted to a sex —

That goes further than the Equality Act 2010 and the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003, which set the definition of "sexual orientation" as being:

The Bill sponsor is going further in defining sexual orientation than any other legislation in this place.

Mrs Erskine: I agree. The Bill goes beyond even the Gender Recognition Act 2004. I know that the Women's Rights Network has been mentioned, but I mention it again and will read into the record what it said. The Women's Rights Network is correct in saying:

The Bill is not precise in relation to gender identity. As outlined, it is a gate wide open to what the victim considers it to be and what the person considers it to be. It is not proportionate, and it gives a free pass to those with a self-declared idea of identity. In fact, the Bill has opened the door to the criminalisation of things that come nowhere near the bar of quack therapies. It will be used against ordinary people in everyday settings.

Therapy exists to question and understand discomfort and to explore what is happening. A criminal ban that treats non-affirmation as suppression will drive responsible clinicians out of that work. Vulnerable children and young adults, many of whom present with autism, same-sex attraction, trauma or other mental health conditions, will lose the conversations that, the Cass review and subsequent UK clinical caution have said, they need.

Stormont has already taken a restrictive approach to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for children.

Moving on, it was interesting to hear the Equality Commission's response during last week's debate.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: It said:

Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: I share the concerns of the Equality Commission about the likes of "faith-based and domestic settings" and the fact that people should be allowed to have —

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: — appropriate support in those faith-based and domestic settings. It is worrying, because this Bill is going to have a chilling effect —

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Erskine: — in the home, in the church and in the places that I have outlined in my concerns about the Bill. I believe that it impinges on the right to freedom of speech, the right to a private life and the right to family life. It is interesting that no other jurisdiction has yet passed legislation to this effect. That is an interesting point. Why, therefore, has Mr Tennyson moved so quickly and rushed to the door to implement this legislation, which is a wrecking ball in terms of the daily conversations that people can and do have in all walks of life? Pastoral care should be something that all of us care about, yet I could be a criminal for speaking to my child. My father could be sent to jail for simply pastoring his congregation.

I encourage everyone to read the Bill and think through the consequences. The Bill is far too dangerous for me to support it. In fact, I do not even know where you would begin to start amending it. Any amendments that I would attempt could and probably would be ruled out of scope. For those very fundamental reasons, I cannot support the Bill's moving forward.

Miss McAllister: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I tried to intervene, as did my colleagues, when the last Member was speaking. I do not think that she meant this, but it is really important to put on the record that autism is not a mental health issue. That is what she said. I do not think that she meant it, but she perhaps inadvertently did. She raised it in the context of mental health issues, and it is really important that that be corrected for the record. I do not think that she meant it, but it is out there.

Mrs Erskine: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was listing people who may need support in working through gender identity.

Miss McAllister: And you said [Inaudible.]

Mrs Erskine: Sorry, I am speaking.

I was listing people who may need support in relation to talking about their gender identity. I listed them very clearly one by one. I did not mean that anybody who has autism has a mental health illness. I was listing them separately. The Member can go back and look at Hansard, and I am sure that Hansard will reflect that — I hope that it does — because I was outlining the groups one by one.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. Your point of order has been duly noted and is on the record.

Ms Forsythe: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You are about to speak.

Ms Forsythe: Can I make a point of order?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You can make a point of order first.

Ms Forsythe: Given the point that was just raised by Miss McAllister as a point of order and the comments that were made by Ms Bradshaw in the previous debate, I just think that some of the contributions from the Alliance MLAs, digging at us, calling me "devious" and trying to make inferences and misrepresent my colleague, are really out of order. If that had been done by a male to a female in this Chamber, they would have been crying misogyny. I just want to put it on the record that I think that they are completely out of order.

Mr Donnelly: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Donnelly. Yes, please. Off you go.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am stretching my back, by the way. It is not indicating anything. [Laughter.]

Mr Donnelly: No problem. If I heard her correctly, Mrs Erskine listed same-sex attraction and, as has just been mentioned, autism with mental health conditions. I want to clarify that she did not mean to list same-sex attraction with mental health conditions.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am now standing. Your points have been duly noted. They were probably not points of order, but Members have had the opportunity to put their views on record in Hansard. I have noted the point about the use of language and how Members are talking to each other. Everybody in the Chamber is grown-up enough to be able to treat each other with appropriate respect.

Diane Forsythe, you are next. I am still standing because I am trying to stretch my back. Please continue.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I am disappointed by the tone that has been set by the world according to Alliance. The Bill causes me great concern as an MLA, a private individual, a mother of teenagers and, quite frankly, in every capacity of my existence. I have received large volumes of correspondence on the matter from different lobby groups and people from across my constituency. I am as concerned as they are. The tone that we use is important, and I want to make it very clear at the outset that I would never condone abusive behaviour, mental or physical, against anyone. I put that on the record from the very start. Existing law deals with that and should be used in such instances.

I will not re-rehearse a lot of what has been said in the last number of contributions, but the very clear theme that comes through is that there is a the lack of definitions. The Bill is too vague and too dangerous. In an intervention in Deborah Erskine's speech, I made the point that the term "gender identity" is cited 10 times in the Bill — 12 if you include the title — with no clear and finite definition. The point that was drawn out by other Members is that putting forward unclear legislation to be tested in the courts is very dangerous. We should prescribe such things up front and clearly. On the general principles of the Bill, I am not clear on what the Bill sponsor’s intention is with that definition — he has not made it any clearer in the hours of the debate so far.

The Evangelical Alliance states:

That quote is very powerful, honest and clear, and it underpins my thinking around the issue. As I listened to many of the contributions, I heard a real misunderstanding of the position on the DUP Benches. We are simply highlighting poor and undefined law and its intended or unintended — I am not sure which — consequences. Some of the points are very similar to those that were made in the debate on the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. The debate has evolved: at the beginning, we said that there were unintended consequences, but those are starting to feel very much like they are intended. I cannot get away from that fact, because I have not received any clarity on the loose, subjective language that the Member has used, only that he wants to capture a greater number of people, which can include parents, preachers or anyone in between.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for his intervention. I agree. At this stage of the debate, as we talk about the general principles, the Bill sponsor has not provided further clarity on that point. It has been highlighted, ruled on — I am not trying to challenge any ruling made by the Speaker — and numbers and examples have been cited to illustrate what all of this means. The definition, however, is not clear, and it is a fundamental part of the legislation. I do not understand the Bill sponsor's intention behind using such terminology. He has said that it will be tested in court. Why is it not prescribed more clearly in the legislation at the outset?

Mr Martin: I thank my colleague for giving way. She has made an excellent point about the drafting. Does she agree with a quote from Baroness Noakes, who is much more learned than I am?

In the House of Lords, in 2024, she said that, for new law:

Does my colleague agree that the Bill does not meet the test that was set out there?

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for that. I completely agree with him. He set that out extremely well. I look forward to hearing the Minister's contribution at the conclusion of the debate on the detailed legal advice.

I refer to Aidan O'Neill KC's opinions, as others have. I cannot get past his description that characterises some of the proposals as "jellyfish legislation", saying that its concepts are "impossible to grasp", the drafting is vague and the offences carry a "sting in the tail" in the form of severe criminal penalties of up to two years in prison. To have that analogy from a professional, highly respected legal representative is really concerning. It is some 20 years since I graduated with a law degree from Queen's University, and some of the most basic concepts that I learned back then were about definitions and how to trace them through the law. I cannot see that when I pick up the Bill. I will take legal advice from senior professionals very seriously.

Mr O'Neill further said that the law would establish landmark gender self-identification into law here in Northern Ireland and that self-declared identity would then become the landmark for criminal law, and anyone attempting to change or suppress that identity could face prosecution.

Mr Bradley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes, of course.

Mr Bradley: Article 7 of the ECHR requires:

That particular law falls into disrepute in clause 6, as well as in clauses 7, 8 and 9. I wonder whether the Bill sponsor has looked at that.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for his intervention. If the Bill sponsor wants to contribute on that, I will be happy to give way.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. We have considered the convention rights in developing the Bill. We have received correspondence from the Equality Commission, and we have engaged with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. We have looked at the equality assessments undertaken at pre-consultation stage by the Scottish Government and post publication of draft legislation in the UK Bill at Westminster. Therefore, we have fully considered the issues of convention rights.

On the drafting, as we have rehearsed on many occasions now, many of the legal concepts in the Bill are based on concepts in other jurisdictions or in respect of coercive behaviour and harm. Those concepts already apply successfully in Northern Ireland law. Therefore, the question is not whether Members, with respect, can get their heads around them in the Chamber. The question is whether the courts can interpret them and apply them consistently. Given that I have had regard to other legislation in drafting the legislation, I am confident that the courts could do so.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Bill sponsor for his contribution. There are a number of points on the back of that. I was also involved in proposals and the process around a Member's Bill, and I know that the correspondence and liaison with the Equality Commission and Human Rights Commission through that process is a tick-box exercise. It is not really a firm analogy with testing it to a higher level through the courts. Again, the Bill sponsor makes the point that it will be tested in the courts. I cannot understand why the legislation cannot be clearer so that it does not leave that grey area where we have to develop the principles and test them out in the courts.

Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for giving way. One of the core issues that we are dealing with in some of the defence that Mr Tennyson gives is that he says, "A court would not do that", or, "It would never be the case that this would be allowed through", or, "The courts would throw this out", or, "It would never get as far as the PPS". However, for a parent, pastor or preacher who finds themselves in that situation, the process is the punishment. Having to go through all those stages, having the police come to their door about a conversation that they have had with their child could be an exceptionally distressing experience, as well as getting information and updates from solicitors and PPS decisions. It is not good enough to say, "Don't be ridiculous. The courts would throw that out". The police and the PPS have to go by what is in the law.

I think of how, in the Ashers case, people were determined to persecute that business and take it through the courts. It worked out all right in the end, but the case had to go the whole way to the Supreme Court for that to happen.

This not just about which stage any investigation might get to, traumatic as that might be for some people, but about the chilling impact that some of it would have. Let us not be dismissive and say, "That would never lead to a prosecution"; let us look at what it might mean for people in practice. The PPS and police would have decisions to make.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before you resume, Ms Forsythe, I remind Members to be careful. When Members step forward or turn around, the microphones cannot pick them up particularly well. I know that your voice carries, Minister, but it does not necessarily carry that far.

Back to you, Ms Forsythe.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. The Minister makes a very interesting point, because it would be not the law according to Eóin Tennyson's contribution at Second Stage but the law according to the Bill. The Member set out some of the loosely defined terms in a logical way. There is legitimate concern that a court's interpretation might well differ from what has been suggested in the Bill or by individual Members.

It is about criminal sanction. The Bill includes criminal sanction, which is not something that we should take lightly. I think of the rule-of-law test, which is a fundamental principle of the criminal justice system. In the case of R v Rimmington, the House of Lords stated the principle in clear terms:

The court recognised that absolute certainty is impossible but sufficient certainty is indispensable. The ruling in the case of R v Rimmington is relevant when we discuss the Bill, because there is no way that any court could be categorically clear about the intention of certain subjective language in the Bill when it comes to be tested in a court of law.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Members for their interventions.

Mr Tennyson: I appreciate the Member's being generous and giving way.

I can answer that point: it is conduct that amounts to therapy or coercive behaviour carried out with the intent to suppress or change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity in a way that results in physical or psychological harm. That is the behaviour that we seek to remedy. That is the clear intent of the Bill, even from an ordinary reading of it and its explanatory and financial memorandum. It would not be beyond our judiciary, our courts, the PPS and the police to navigate the legislation.

On the concern about causing distress, I will say first that there has been an attempt to create a chill factor by misrepresenting what the legislation would do. I have said that on a number of occasions. For offences of cruelty to the child, in which someone treats a child in a way that is likely to cause psychological harm and therefore may be guilty of a criminal offence, or in cases of domestic abuse where somebody engages in coercive and controlling behaviour that is likely to cause harm — our test is that it must cause actual harm — are we seriously saying that we should not legislate in those areas? Are we seriously saying that those should not be criminal offences because we are fearful that the perpetrator might be a bit distressed if the police knock on their door? That is the logical outworking of the argument that the Minister is making, which is that laws can never encroach on what happens behind closed doors. If that is the approach that the Assembly is going to take, that sends a concerning message to people about our ability to tackle abuse, which, as we know, often happens behind closed doors.

Ms Forsythe: That comment is completely out of order. The Minister, my party and I have been firm on tackling domestic abuse. Paul Frew had amendments made to legislation. The Minister for Communities has taken significant steps to address issues that relate to victims of domestic abuse.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Mr Givan: The problem with Mr Tennyson's framing his argument in the way in which he does is that, on the face of it, someone may think that that would be entirely reasonable. When you look, however, at the definition of "harm" in his Bill, you see that clause 8 states:

It includes "distress".

I am sure that the Member will agree with this. I am a parent, and there have been many occasions when I have witnessed my children attempt to emotionally avoid going to school. They have been very distressed about going to school, as happens, but, as a parent, I have, as tears flowed down their cheeks, repeatedly said, "You will be at school" — not once or twice but on repeated occasions. One might say that that was "coercive" because it happened on more than two occasions. Distress is real and occurs for many different reasons. That is why, when we drill into the definitions in the Bill, we should all be alarmed about the word "distress".

If the Alliance Party Members and the Bill sponsor —. I believe that the Bill is superbly drafted to cast the net deep and wide and have a chilling effect on multiple fronts. People should be disabused of the idea that, "The Member may not have intended that", or, "The Member may not want to capture this". The Member is far from stupid. Indeed, I think that he is one of the most capable Members of this House, and, when I interpret the Bill, it reflects that. I am sure that the Member will agree with me. Other Alliance Members very cleverly quoted "coercive behaviour". When you talk to the public and to Members and say that behaviour is "violent", "threatening", "controlling", "regulating" and "depriving ... the victim's freedom" and talk about people being "frightened", "humiliated", "degraded" or "intimidated", everyone will say, "That is wrong". Indeed, we supported including coercive behaviour in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021.

The problem is that the Bill has two stand-alone offences: one on coercive behaviour and one on providing conversion therapy. If the Bill sponsor were serious about tying in the coercive behaviour element, it would only have been an offence to have provided conversion therapy through coercive behaviour, but it is not connected by way of those two offences; they are stand-alone. That is primarily why the offence of providing conversion therapy is vaguely defined but includes suppression and other aspects. When you look at the definition in the Bill, you realise that the bar is being set incredibly low to capture as many people as possible.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for that. I agree with him: yes, the bar is being set low.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I assure her and the House that what Mr Tennyson insinuated about me is not correct at all. Crimes are crimes, and, whether they happen in public view, behind closed doors or in a domestic setting, they should be dealt with appropriately and fully. I am not giving any excuse for those sorts of behaviours simply because they take place in the home. My point is very clear: I do not believe that some of the things that would be captured by the Bill should be criminal. I do not think that parents should have to worry about that, but I believe that that is what the Bill would do. I suspect that Mr Tennyson knew what I meant. I think that he is deliberately misrepresenting my position and throwing mud in the hope that some of it will stick. If anyone believed what he said, I hope that my comments have cleared that up.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Minister, for that.

I will go back to the point that we were addressing on what should be in the Bill so that it is not left to the court to interpret grey areas and to lawyers to battle it out in the courtroom. I said that I have been through the private Member's Bill consultation process and that I understand the level of engagement with the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission. They highlight and emphasise stuff, but they do not give a critique on how a Bill would stand up in law. As Mr Bradley said, the Bill is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It is not enough just to say that you have consulted those commissions or for Mr Tennyson to give the assurance and therefore claim that it is within section 6 of the Northern Ireland Act and the legislative competence of the Assembly. This draft legislation steps into private and family life, and I am really interested to know the Attorney General's view on its compatibility with articles 7, 8 and 10 of the ECHR and all that Mr Bradley outlined. I strongly believe that the Bill would not stand that test were it to go any further.

The Bill sponsor spoke about things being tested in the courts. He tried to justify it as if it were the right thing and that the courts always do the right thing, but they do not. We have all seen injustices happening. You cannot just enact legislation in the belief that it will be defined in the courts, because things can go either way, which is a further injustice. As the Minister said, this is not just about the alleged perpetrators but the potential victims and people who are talking about this. I do a lot of work in this space with victims who are going through the court process and, especially, assisting advocacy organisations that support victims of sexual abuse. I am fully aware of how traumatic it is to go through that process and through the court system, no matter what the situation is.

The Bill sponsor should not underestimate the fact that there will be malicious complaints. The Minister talked about the Ashers case, and, while it is not the same thing, when you have loosely defined law, there are litigious people and social media influencers who encourage people to be litigious. I have teenage daughters, and I see the stuff that they are seeing. They are coming to me and saying, "Oh, look, this organisation says this, that or the other". Children are being asked, "Do you know your rights? Do you know you can go to court? We will help you". There is an attempt to create sensationalism. I am really concerned that that leaves a loophole for malicious complaints to be made.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. She has talked about the chilling effect that could, ultimately, lead to the impact of an ongoing PPS-type intrusive investigation to establish whether a crime has been committed under this legislation. In addition, and this is a point that has not been laboured, clause 9 is entitled, "No right to claim trial by jury". Given some of the concepts that we are debating, it is hugely worrying that somebody who is being tried for offences created by the Bill cannot even be afforded a trial by a jury of their peers.

Ms Forsythe: Absolutely. I thank the Member for that. Again, where the legislation is not definitive or prescriptive, the Bill sponsor has mentioned it being tested in the courts. If you do not even have a jury, you are handing the first few cases straight to the judicial system to set case law.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. The "No right to claim trial by jury" clause has been raised a couple of times. I have already set out that I did not initiate that proposal: it came about as a result of engagement with the offences and penalties team in the Department of Justice, who advised that it would be proportionate to exclude cases in the Magistrate's Court from the right to claim trial by jury.

That does not mean that offences that are tested in the Crown Court would not have a jury trial; the most serious offences always will. In this instance, we are talking about lower-level offending being tested in the Magistrate's Court. That is consistent with the approach to things such as domestic abuse and stalking, and so it is seen as proportionate in order to support the victim. The victim will still have a fair trial, in accordance with their Convention rights, as absolutely has to be the case with any criminal Bill that is passed in this Assembly.

There is a risk when we pass any law in this Assembly of vexatious or unsubstantiated complaints. That is why there is a process to go through. The police will open an inquiry and then determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Then, they will decide whether there is sufficient evidence to go to the PPS. The PPS has an evidential test and a public interest test as to whether prosecution is necessary. Then you go to the court, where guilt has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. That is the criminal justice process. In respect of interpretation, it is not just my view that the courts interpret legislation. That is the judiciary's job. It is our job to write the legislation, and it is the judiciary's job to interpret it. It will have to have regard to things such as convention rights and the facts of individual cases. That is the job that the judiciary does every single day.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Bill sponsor for that.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. That is a very interesting and telling point. Mr Tennyson is absolutely right that any law that is passed by this House could lead to vexatious complaints. However, when Members introduce private Member's Bills or Ministers introduce Executive legislation, it is incumbent on us to acutely identify areas in which they are vague so that any potential funnel of vexatious complaints can be narrowed as far as possible and the general public, in line with the R v Rimmington case in the House of Lords that I talked about, understand what is expected of them.

My view is that it is not good enough that we take the attitude that, just because there can be vexatious complaints, we should therefore legislate in subjective terms and therefore flood our courts with potential abuse when it comes to the number of vexatious complaints. Our priority duty should be to define the law in such a way that it is tight in scope, that individuals understand exactly what it means and that it cannot be abused.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for that. To get back to what the Bill sponsor said, I understand that that is the job of the courts: to decide those things based on the law. However, I also understand that, where the law is clear, fewer things are defined by the courts and by case law. My colleague Mr Buckley is quoting cases; if the law in those areas was clear, he would not need to quote the cases; he would be quoting the law. If we have the opportunity here to see legislation coming through, I always believe that the legislation should be so clear that it is only the completely out-of-left-field circumstances that the judge has to make a discretionary decision on. It should not just be for every case to shape and define where that is going. As we look at the general principles here — again, as Mr Givan also said — I have the utmost respect for the Bill sponsor. I know that he has thought this through, he is very capable and he understands what is happening here. I hope that he understands what I am trying to say about this. I just feel really, really strongly that it needs to be defined, because I can see where those things go, and it goes way beyond it once it starts getting defined in the courts.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way. You have talked about the issue of vexatious claims and the law being vague and not precise enough. However, there is also the issue of this law striking fear into people who are practising in a conventional therapist's way. I have quoted this interesting point a number of times —I still think that it is a really important quote — that a therapist must have the ability to question. A therapist must have the ability to ask hard questions. In fact, Stella O'Malley, in her contribution to and commentary on the Bill, says that not being able to do that will lead to really bad outcomes for some of those young people. She goes on to say that it will have a "chilling effect" on conventional therapy, with a fear that this "badly drafted legislation" will stop therapists taking on clients who are in gender distress. Similarly:

By that, she is saying that, when we talk about faith, faith is not just about how you feel. Faith is directive. It instructs you to live in a particular way.

There are a range of people who will be caught under clause 4 of the Bill. I note — it is worth the sponsor of the Bill clarifying — that he has said that this clause on counselling, forms of talking therapy or coaching would only be in a formal setting, but that is not what the Bill says. The Bill only talks about:

It does not talk about a formal setting.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Member for giving way on that. We have heard the phrase "chilling effect" time and time again. It is, frankly, ridiculous, because the chilling effect that has been had on the LGBTQIA+ community by political unionism here for 100 years is the real "chilling effect". The fact that people in the LGBTQIA+ community are struggling more than anyone else with poor mental health, poor health outcomes, higher rates of suicide and higher rates of suicide ideation is the key issue here.

Mr Buckley talked about "the law according to Mr Tennyson", but, for everyone else who lives in the North, it has been the law according to the DUP. That position is ridiculous. You have talked about faith, the church and pastors. I grew up with a background of strong faith, as many Members of the Assembly did. Our faith taught us to show love, tolerance and inclusion all the time, and your faith teaches that, too, regardless of whether you choose to ignore that. Standing up and using faith as a reason to block the Bill misrepresents the reality of many churches and church leaders in the North. That is really disingenuous, because so many church leaders here include the LGBTQIA+ community in so much of what they do. Of course, there are spaces and avenues that still need to be explored. That conversation has begun and is evolving, but such comments are really disingenuous, and they misrepresent their position.

Ms Forsythe: The Member has just joined us in the Chamber for, I think, the first time today, and he has obviously got his social media clip. I do not know whether he is trying to make an appeal so that he keeps his seat in Foyle or whose benefit that was for. I will not, however, be lectured on my faith by him.

Mr Delargy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, because the DUP want to use technicalities —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): What is your point of order?

Mr Delargy: — it has ensured that —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): What is your point of order?

Mr Delargy: I am trying to make my point of order. [Inaudible.]

A Member: It is not a point of order.

Mr Delargy: No, I am trying to make my point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Tell me which point of order you are making.

Mr Delargy: I am trying to make my point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Which point of order?

Mr Delargy: I am trying to make my point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Which Standing Order are you referring to?

Mr Delargy: Can I make my point of order?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am asking which Standing Order you are referring to.

Mr Delargy: Can I make my point of order?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have asked you to make a point of order in accordance with Standing Orders and —.

Mr Delargy: My point of order is about the fact that I have come to the Chamber. I have been in the Chamber and the Assembly for the duration of the debate. We are all able to take part in the debate.

Mr Buckley: I have not seen him.

Mr Delargy: Whether or not I have been in, I think that making a personal attack on other Members in the Chamber is really disingenuous. [Interruption.]

Ms Forsythe: What have you just done?

Mr Buckley: You have attacked me.

Mr Delargy: I did not personally attack anyone. I have made a point of order. It is very disingenuous.

Mrs Erskine: It is not a point of order.

Mr Givan: It is not a point of order.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You are —.

Mr Delargy: I am as entitled as any Member in the Assembly —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Sorry —.

Mr Delargy: — to come here and make a point.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Take your seat.

Mr Delargy: I am as entitled as any Member —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Take your seat.

Mr Delargy: — in the Chamber —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am asking you to take your seat. OK. Your point is on the record. That was very clear. However, had you been in the Chamber earlier, you would have realised that the debate had been conducted with a degree of decorum and without everybody having a go at one another. Your point has been recorded by Hansard.

Diane, you may continue.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not sit here quietly and listen to a Member while he lashes into me and my party.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. That was a tad embarrassing for the Member for Foyle.

Mr Delargy: It is a tad embarrassing that you [Inaudible.]

Mr Buckley: I certainly had not seen him being included in the debate today. It is somewhat immature for him to suggest that he has sat in to listen to it

and it reflects badly on him as an individual. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Buckley, take your seat. We do not barrack from a sedentary position.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We do not. [Inaudible.]

A Member: Chuck him out. [Inaudible.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Are you challenging me?

Ms Forsythe: Yes, he is.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): No more. Mr Buckley, continue.

Mr Buckley: I do not want to repeat what I just said, but I do not know where to go with that from the Member for Foyle. It certainly is not a good day for him when it comes to Assembly behaviour and conduct. He tried to misrepresent and lash out at me, but I was referring to a specific test in case law under R v Rimmington, in which the House of Lords stated the principle in clear terms. [Interruption.] [Inaudible.]

Mr Buckley: Oh, sorry.

Well, sorry, Deputy Speaker, I think that that is absolutely ridiculous: a Member of the House, who sometimes occupies the position of Principal Deputy Speaker, has approached the Deputy Speaker who is currently in the Chair, to make an ideological point. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Order, Mr Buckley. Order, everybody.

A Member: Decorum?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Indeed. Thank you very much for using the word that I was going to use. Decorum, indeed. I made a decision, and it is not right for anybody, no matter who they are, to come up to the Table to try to challenge it. That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable for any Member, no matter who they are, to do that. However —.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Stop. I am speaking. Ladies and gentlemen, we have another 20 minutes to go. I wish the debate to continue. I wish to hear the various points as we go through.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Wait one moment, Mr Buckley. It is appropriate, at this stage, for every Member to remind themselves clearly of the direction that the Speaker has given over the past couple of days on decorum in debate. Let us continue along the lines that we have been given. Mr Buckley, along those lines, and given that consideration, let me hear your point of order.

Mr Buckley: I would like clarity from the Chair that, when the Principal Deputy Speaker is occupying a Back-Bench seat —

Mr Sheehan: It is not a point of order.

Mr Buckley: — on the Sinn Féin Benches —

Mr Sheehan: It is not a point of order.

Mr Buckley: — she is not occupying the Chair.

Mr Sheehan: It is not a point of order.

Mr Buckley: I request that her comments to the top Table tonight are reviewed by the Speaker's Office. It was highly inappropriate for her to approach the Table during the debate to make her personal political view known, given that we know that she is an activist on the matter.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Buckley, I am well able to control and deal with any issues from the Table. The Principal Deputy Speaker knows very well that that is the case.

I would like the debate to continue.

Mr Givan: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Standing Orders expressly state that the Speaker's decisions are final; that a Deputy Speaker, when occupying the Chair, is equivalent to the Speaker; and that no Member of the Assembly can challenge the authority of whoever occupies that seat. For the purposes of the debate, you are Mr Speaker. It is unprecedented that the Principal Deputy Speaker would challenge the Speaker's ruling in an Assembly debate. Will you refer the Principal Deputy Speaker in particular to the Speaker to decide whether her conduct has violated the relevant Standing Order on how Members ought never to challenge whoever is in the Chair?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Your point of order has been noted. I will ask the Speaker to review what has happened this evening and to make sure that he looks fully at all the issues.

Now, as I said, can we get back to the debate? Over to you, Diane.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for handling that with so much professionalism. It gets challenging in here at times, but I have the utmost respect for you in all aspects of your role.

I was talking about the clear definition of language in the courts. The Bill sponsor mentioned the role of the courts and the police, which bounced me forward a bit to the Bill's financial effects. As the Bill sponsor knows, because it has come up a few times in the Finance Committee, Members' Bills are not required to be underpinned by a detailed costing that is challenged by an auditor. The Bill sponsor's colleague mentioned some numbers earlier, but the Bill is very vague. The explanatory and financial memorandum states:

It goes on to state:

There are no numbers. It even states:

Going back to Mr Tennyson's comments just now, it sounds as if there will be a significant additional burden on the police. Given all the things that the police will have to do — all the types of investigation, all the talking to victims and vulnerable people, and all the processes that will have to be gone through in the courts — the cost will be significant. We are talking about vulnerable victims, so there will be a significant cost to the advocacy and help required to get them through the process. I wonder whether significant efforts were made to cost that or compare it with any similar types of policing or types of offences, because I genuinely feel that the costs will be significant.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. There is a contradiction, because, in his contribution last week, Peter Martin suggested, in effect, that the prevalence was so low and the size of the LGBT community so small that we should not worry about it.

I am not quoting Peter Martin directly, but that was the thrust of his argument. Now, however, we are being told that the issue is so grave and common that it would have huge resource implications for the PSNI. Neither of those positions is accurate.

We have engaged with the PSNI. There is a Research and Information Service paper that the Member will be aware of that looks at the Bill's financial implications. Most of those implications would concern things such as training in respect of the new offences, which is common for any new criminal offence that the Assembly passes into law. We can also look at international examples of similar legislation, where, because the intent test is hard to meet, the incidence of such cases being prosecuted is very low. It will be a low-volume and high-threshold offence in terms of prosecutions, so, if it provides any assurance to the Member, I do not think, on the basis of my understanding of similar legislation internationally, that we will see huge numbers of cases coming to the courts.

Ms Forsythe: I am not contradicting my colleague Peter Martin; I agree with his position. It is the Bill sponsor who has outlined during the debate how much work there would be for the police in investigating and interpreting the potential offences. Would parents be investigated? Would counsellors? How many people would have to be investigated? How would the number of victims be addressed? How would "intent" be defined? As the debate has progressed and more questions have been asked by me and others, the Bill sponsor has kept referring to the PSNI doing this and that. He is the one who has prescribed all those extra activities for the PSNI. Even if the number of offences were low, the number of actions for the PSNI seems high, which is why I wonder whether an attempt has been made to cost the Bill against legislation anywhere else. If legislation elsewhere demonstrates a low cost, I wonder whether that legislation is more definitive, meaning that the police are clear about what the offences are and do not have all that extra work around the edges.

Mr Martin: I thank my colleague for giving way. She is putting the argument across extremely well.

The Bill sponsor has just implied that a number of European countries have adopted similar legislation, but I am sure that he will accept that all those laws — I have looked at them — are very different when it comes to the level of harm threshold that they impose and the way in which they are written. I am happy to accept his point that there are European countries with similar laws, but it would be difficult for him to argue that there is not significant diversity in that legislation, including diversity in the harm to which they refer.

I will continue, if the Member will give me a second. My colleagues on this side of the House, including the Member for Upper Bann, have raised a range of drafting issues, not least with the phrase "gender identity". I will not read all of them out, but it is worth putting on record at least one legal precedent. In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms, the House of Lords was crystal clear in 2000 that legislators should use words that are as clear as possible when drafting primary legislation so that the courts do not have to interpret them. I imagine that my colleague would agree with those comments.

Ms Forsythe: I absolutely agree, and I thank my colleague for his contribution.

I will address some of Mr Delargy's comments. Just before he came in, my colleague Diane Dodds referred to some comments from Stella O'Malley, a highly respected Dublin-based international psychotherapist, about the Bill's major chilling effect. Comments about that chilling effect come not just from these Benches but from professionals, the community, counsellors and parents. Perhaps the Bill sponsor does not get lobbied in the same way as I do, but I have been overwhelmed by the number of people coming to or ringing my office and by emails from people who have spent a lot of money to get legal opinions on the issue, such is the strength of their conviction and their concern and fear about the dangers in the Bill.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. That is exactly where we were going with this, before there was that bit of drama. We were getting to the question of what defines "chilling effect". What we mean by that is genuine concerns relating to normal, everyday activity in a family home. My colleague Deborah Erskine outlined that point extensively. The Bill includes such broad concepts as counselling, talking therapy, coaching and instruction, and then, under "Coercive behaviour", it refers to "monitoring the victim’s day-to-day activities": those are everyday activities. It is right, therefore, that we should take into account the chilling effect of legislation that has the potential to criminalise parents for carrying out, in a home setting, activities that are defined in the Bill as "conversion therapy" and "coercive behaviour".

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for his intervention. I agree with him about the chilling effect. Many people made light of my colleague Peter Martin's contribution to the debate last week, but it was totally fair and made completely with good intentions to show how much overreach there is. My colleague Mr Givan also talked about this: as a parent of teenage girls, I see the stress that is on display throughout so many activities in their lives. You try to guide and parent them through their lives to the best of your ability. To then read this loose legislation with its vague offences is really concerning, because nobody is perfect.

Mr Delargy told me about his faith and tried to tell me what my faith is. I know what my faith is: it is about love and compassion and giving the best parental guidance that I can to my children. For me, it is about doing that in my home, with a good heart, and trying to do the best that I can. If the Bill were enacted, I would have to pause before making decisions or would be stopped in my tracks and think, "Oh my goodness, will somebody think this or see this and try to criminalise me on the back of it?". That would be completely inappropriate, and, to go back to Mr Bradley's point, it would be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights by invading the family home. I do not know how anybody can read the Bill and not see how it applies to their life and circumstances. It is far too vague. That is what I see, and that is —.

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member's giving way. She made a really valid point about the representation that many of us have received from across the community, far beyond a DUP voter base. The question of why nationalist representation has moved so far beyond some of its voters that only the DUP can represent those voters is a valid one. That is a remarkable case. [Inaudible.]

Mr Givan: And others.

For a lot of those who regard themselves as nationalist voters, there is an issue when it comes to common-sense policies such as this, in that they do not have representation in the Assembly for the traditional nationalist voting base. That is a point for them to ponder.

This speaks to the issue of the vagueness of the Bill and the Bill sponsor's talk about interpretation by the courts. I find it really interesting that clause 7(1) refers to exemptions where:

It then lists two of those:

Someone could just say, "Not for me; I don't agree", so long as they do not go on to direct a victim to a different approach. Clause 7(1)(c), however, gives the exemption in cases where:

Is it not bizarre that, in the clause that includes the exemptions for someone who has no intention to change or suppress, the Bill sponsor has inserted that someone is exempt if they say, "It's OK to be what you just told me you are"? That confirms to me that, if a court were left with such vague legislation to interpret, it would be left in no doubt of the proposed agenda in the legislation. Affirmation is 100% acceptable; anything other than affirmation is not, and the way in which the Bill sponsor has defined "conversion therapy" will catch people.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for his —.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. It is not the case that anything other than affirmation is acceptable but that coercion, harm and pseudoscientific therapy is unacceptable. That is a principle that, I thought, everybody in the Chamber agreed on, but I am beginning to question that. The exclusions in clause 7 that Paul Givan has referenced are to provide reassurance.

We have had the debate around gender identity and why it is "gender identity" rather than "transgender identity". The purpose is so that it is universal. I cannot recall whether it was Deborah Erskine or Pam Cameron who gave the example of someone who wants to detransition. If a person freely decides that they wish to detransition and someone seeks to subject them to an unscientific therapy or a course of coercive behaviour to dissuade them from doing that, the legislation would apply in the same way as it would to somebody who wishes to transition or to somebody who is gay. We have employed universal definitions to ensure that people are protected in either direction, which, I had hoped, would bring some comfort to Members. It appears not to have done so.

Mr Givan: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Mr Givan: Again, I find it remarkable that the Bill sponsor has just said that, in clause 7, he is putting in an exclusion that says that you can positively affirm the identity. How can that be regarded as an exclusion? It cannot be. It does not make sense.

Ms Forsythe: I will give way if the Bill sponsor wants to come in.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Mr Buckley: I will add to the point that was mentioned about those who detransition. Clause 1(3) says clearly:

Therefore, if those who want to detransition were to employ some form of therapy, such as talking therapy, conversation or coaching, the fact that they have consented to it does not mean that, under the Bill, that is a defence.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for that. From having listened to the Bill sponsor's contributions, I think that he is clear on his definitions and on his intentions in his head, but that is not translated into the Bill. There is a lack of definitions. You have just said, regarding two or three things, that you have done this and done that because of what the definitions are, but we come back to the point that the definitions are not there. There are no clear and concise definitions.

I go back to the point that, when my colleague Brian Kingston made his contribution, light was made of some of the things that he gave as examples. We have to remember that a lot of people across Northern Ireland are not familiar with a lot of the terminology. If you do not have the definition, you could have a lot of people who do not really understand this and could fall into a trap. It is glaringly obvious that better definitions are needed. It is not prescribed anywhere in this legislation or any supplementary material, and there is no defined case law. It is not appropriate that we just push this out with no right to trial by jury. Judges, from whatever perspective they have, will set the definitions. It is really dangerous.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. She has been really generous in taking interventions, and I thank her for that.

On Mr Buckley's point about consent, we have made a deliberate choice not to make consent a defence for the purposes of the legislation. That is because, as Sian Mulholland referenced, people who come before a conversion therapy service are often people who are inherently vulnerable. The choice that they face is not whether to freely go to conversion therapy or not; it is between going to conversion therapy and losing their faith, their family, their loved ones and, in some cases, their home. If you add a defence of consent to the legislation, you create a loophole that forces people to be subjected to harm. Many people consent, but they do so under duress and due to the power imbalances that exist around them. That is why a defence of consent is not present for, for example, domestic abuse.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Mr Tennyson talks about creating a loophole. I argue that, no, you would be creating a protection by removing the following subsections. Clause 1(3) states:

Clause 2(3) states:

Clause 3(3) states:

If somebody has made a conscious decision at that time to consent to some sort of practice, whether talking therapy, counselling, coaching or instruction, at no time in the future should the parent, the pastor or the minister be held liable and pulled over the coals because of your Bill.

We have come full circle tonight.

It is clear from a number of interventions that some believe that a supremacy of rights exists within the LGBT community. The woke Members in the House have been so captured that they believe that those rights —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — and the rights of conservative Christians in —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — Northern Ireland —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Gaston, thank you very much indeed.

The Business Committee agreed that we should sit no later than 10.30 pm and that this item of business, if not concluded, would resume on Monday 28 September. As we have not concluded the item tonight, the debate will be suspended until then. When we resume, the next Member to speak will be Diane Forsythe to continue her remarks.