Official Report: Monday 28 September 2026

Mr Speaker: Members, in line with normal Assembly convention, it is my duty to inform the House of the passing of Paul Butler. Mr Butler was a Member for Lagan Valley for one mandate between 2007 and 2011, serving as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment. As on all such occasions, I will call a representative from each of the parties to speak for up to three minutes to allow them to express their condolences.

Mr Sheehan: I pay tribute to an old friend and comrade Paul Butler — Pól de Buitléir — who died suddenly last week at the age of 70. I first met Paul many years ago — probably in the 1980s — in prison. In many ways, we followed a similar path: when released, we became involved in politics and in helping our communities.

Paul first became a councillor on Lisburn Borough Council in 1997. In fact, he became the leader of our group on Lisburn Borough Council, replacing Pádraig Ó Maolchraoibhe — many people will know him as Pat Rice — at a time when it was dangerous to attend the council. Sinn Féin representatives had to travel in armoured cars and wear body armour because of the threat against them. Paul was then elected as a Member of the Assembly in 2007 and served for one term until 2011.

For the past 15 years, he dedicated his time to working with victims through Relatives for Justice, and, over the past days, I have spoken to many people who have commended Paul for the support that he gave to them and the work that he has done for victims' families. Although small in stature, Paul was absolutely committed to everything in which he engaged. I have heard from people who worked with Relatives for Justice that he was totally committed and dedicated to helping families who suffered as a result of the conflict.

I pay tribute to Paul. He was a friend and comrade to many people and a popular representative. When he was a councillor and when he was a Member of the Assembly, the praise that he received from people in the community was absolutely amazing. I pass on my condolences to Paul's wife, Gladys, to other members of his family and to those of us in the republican community who knew him, counted him as a friend and loved him.

Miss McIlveen: On 26 January 1974, John Rodgers was on duty in Glengormley. He was 50 years old. A foreman mechanic, a husband and a father of four, he gave of his spare time to serve as a Reserve constable to keep his neighbours safe. He was walking past a bar with a colleague when a single shot was fired. It killed him. Paul Butler was convicted of that murder and spent almost 15 years in prison. Whatever came after that is what matters to the Rodgers family; for over 50 years, they have lived without him.

A man's death brings grief to those who loved him — I do not deny that — but John Rodgers' family were given no time to say goodbye. Today, our thoughts are very much with them.

Ms Nicholl: I did not know Paul Butler, but I know that he was a friend and colleague to people with whom we work in the Assembly and that he served as a councillor and an MLA. I am minded of when Anna Lo passed away and of how much it meant to me when people stood up and shared their sympathies. On behalf of the Alliance Party, therefore, I say that our thoughts are with Paul's family and his grieving colleagues.

Mr McGlone: Chuir mé aithne ar Phól anseo sa Thionól. Dar ndóigh, is iomaí comhrá a bhí againn tríd an Tionól. In amanna, níor aontaigh muid le chéile, ach sin an pholaitíocht agat. Gach aon chomhrá a bhí againn le chéile, bhí sé measúil, cairdiúil, caithfidh mé a rá. Ag an phointe seo, bás tobann a fuair sé, agus is dócha go ndeachaigh sé sin go mór i bhfeidhm ar chuid mhór daoine. Déanaim comhbhrón leis na daoine sin. Déanaim comhbhrón go háirithe lena bhean chéile, Gladys, agus lena theaghlach, lena chairde agus le gach duine a raibh aithne acu air.

Mr Gaston: If ever there was an item in an Order Paper that exposed the depravity of this system of government, it is condolences to Paul Butler — it sums this place up. I rise to remember not Butler but his innocent victim, John Rodgers. Mr Rodgers was a 50-year-old police reservist. That is the man whom Butler shot in Glengormley on 26 January 1974. Paul Butler cowered in the alleyway from which was fired the shot that ended John Rodgers' life — a shot that left a wife a widow, that left four children without their dear father and that robbed John Rodgers of his natural death, which was permitted to Paul Butler when he met his maker, last week.

Shamefully, that murderous action was no bar to Mr Butler's seeking and obtaining an MLA seat for Sinn Féin in the Assembly. After he left the House, he went on to work for Relatives for Justice, an organisation that, shamefully to this day, maintains the fiction that there is no difference between an innocent victim such as John Rodgers and one who is blown up by their own bomb. Every family grieves the loss of a loved one. No one would deny that pain and loss, but that grief should not prevent the Assembly from hearing the truth about the shameful legacy of Paul Butler: the widow-maker, the creator of a fatherless family, and a man who devoted his life to the twisted and evil republican cause. That man should not be remembered or eulogised in the House. It should be the name of John Rodgers that we think about today.

Mr Carroll: I extend my condolences to the family, friends and party colleagues of Paul Butler, a republican who was held in high regard not only by his colleagues but by other organisations and across the political spectrum of republicanism and more broadly. I knew of Paul when he was an MLA for Lagan Valley. I read a lot of his contributions and articles in newspapers and watched and listened to his media performances. I met him a few years after he stopped being an MLA. I came across him quite a few times, usually in Andytown leisure centre, of which he was a frequent user. He was a fit, athletic man, which makes his death all the sadder. I therefore express my condolences, and those of my party, on the passing of Mr Paul Butler.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion condolences to be expressed on the passing of Paul Butler.

Mr Speaker: Jonathan Buckley has been given leave to make a statement on the Parades Commission's Drumcree determination that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24.

Before we begin, I will make a few remarks. It was a pretty difficult weekend, and we all need to recognise that. Passions are running high. I have accepted items of business that will deal with the issue, because it is my view that it is much better that such matters be dealt with in this democratic institution than on the streets. The Assembly exists so that our differences can be expressed through democratic processes. It is therefore important that Members have the opportunity to do that.

There are older heads on all sides of the Chamber who have learnt the lessons from and bear the scars of the past and do not want it to be repeated. I was four when the Troubles started. For all my childhood and formative years as a young adult, I was brought up in an atmosphere of people being killed daily or regularly. That is not something to which we want to return. It is therefore incumbent on Members to seek to arrive at a situation in which people can reconcile as opposed to ramping things up further. I have had the experience of the police coming to my door. I have also had the experience of coming home to find that there had been a murder attempt on my father. Many others, inside and outside the House, have had that experience and worse — considerably worse — so, when we are engaging in debate today and considering what we have to say, it is important for us to remember that. There is no issue with Members expressing opposing political views in the House, but we should be mindful of not seeking deliberately to inflame tensions, which are already high.

In order to recognise the importance of what has been set down before us and what Members have signed up to, I will refer to the ministerial code and the Pledge of Office.

The Pledge of Office is:

That is the expectation for Ministers and, similarly, for Members. We have an expectation. We have taken the Pledge of Office, and we should hold to it. There are, of course, matters for law-making institutions, but Members will know that I cannot enforce in respect of those. They are matters for others: the PSNI, the Commissioner for Standards and, indeed, the House, if it wants to bring a sanction upon an individual Member. What does sit with me is the conduct of the debate today. You know that I am a Speaker who pretty much lets things flow and allows Members to get it out. I will, however, expect a little more restraint today and seek to ensure that we do not engage in a way that inflames tensions further. We have a problem out there, and we need to get over that problem. We need to be about making a better health service, better education, better infrastructure — all the things that the public want and demand.

I give that background before we get into the debate. I know that feelings will be strong, but let us ensure that we do not inflame tensions further.

Mr Buckley: The Parades Commission made a lawful determination, permitting 35 members of Portadown District LOL No 1 to return peacefully and silently from their church parade, via the Garvaghy Road, after 28 years. That ruling was upheld by the courts, and it must be respected. For 28 years, Sinn Féin and others told Portadown Orangemen and the wider Northern Ireland public to abide by the Parades Commission's determination. This is the question today: what has changed?

The rule of law cannot mean that a determination is respected only when people agree with it. Peaceful protest is a legitimate part of any democratic society, but protest does not confer a right to unlawfully obstruct a lawful procession, nor does it confer the right for mob rule. If, as is clearly the case, there is evidence that any elected representative committed or encouraged an offence, they must be pursued and prosecuted in line with the law. Michelle O'Neill, a self-proclaimed First Minister for all, conducting the orchestra on the Garvaghy Road and taking part in and encouraging participation in what was an unlawful protest, represents a flagrant breach of the law and her obligations under the Pledge of Office.

When we see a First Minister, Members of Parliament and a Principal Deputy Speaker of this House actively engaged in criminality, the public are right to be angry.

There must be consequences for lawmakers who become lawbreakers. Sinn Féin and SDLP representatives linked arms illegally across the road with known violent dissident republican terrorists, and that must have consequences, something in which the Alliance Party and the Justice Minister used to believe. It seems that there is one standard for unionists and another for republicans.

We see the hypocrisy, but let us be clear: it simply cannot be business as usual in this place. In any democracy, unequivocal support for the rule of law and policing is foundational. That is where we stand. The question now is what the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Chief Constable will do to ensure that the law is upheld.

Mr Gaston: This is a defining moment for the future of the Stormont institutions. The Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister have one simple question to answer: is it the rule of law or mob rule that prevails in Northern Ireland?

I commend the Portadown district on how it has conducted itself at every stage of its application to lawfully return 35 Orangemen home after 28 long years. The simple fact of the matter is that the district has done everything right. It modified its application. It was willing to engage in mediation. It forced the biased Parades Commission to fulfil its obligation under domestic and, somewhat ironically, European law. It exhausted all the legal processes, and, when challenged in court, it won not once but twice.

While I commend the Orange Order, I record my disgust at the Members, including the First Minister, the Finance Minister and the Principal Deputy Speaker, who openly broke the law by participating in an illegal protest that stopped the lawful parade of the Orangemen returning home. I also register my disgust at SDLP Members, the so-called advocates of a new Ireland, who tell us time and again that everyone will be respected. Mr McNulty grinned as he posed beside Breandán Mac Cionnaith, the man who bombed the heart out of Portadown. In the eyes of Mr McNulty, that man, who shook the very fabric of Portadown, was a steadying force in his community.

The weekend also once again exposed the double standards of the Alliance Party. Let me quote the Justice Minister, speaking in 2021:

Yet there has not been one word of condemnation from the Justice Minister of the Sinn Féin MLAs who locked arms to stop a lawful parade returning home.

That brings me to the core of the issue. If we are to have any confidence in the courts and the rule of law, the parade must go ahead. "No parade, no Stormont" should be the message from unionism today.

Mr O'Dowd: This debate reflects the tribute that my colleague Pat Sheehan paid to Pól de Buitléir. Pól was born into a state that treated him and his family as second-class citizens. It violently beat those who demanded civil rights off the streets, and its armed forces attacked and killed people — all in pursuit of maintaining the status quo and ensuring that there were second-class citizens in this society. I and other Sinn Féin Members stood on the Garvaghy Road over the weekend to ensure that there will never, ever be a return to second-class citizenship in this society and that no one, on behalf of anyone, will beat people off the streets ever again.

What is this all about? The people of the Garvaghy Road and the people of Portadown, whether they live in Redmanville, Killycomaine or Corcrain, are being used by those who want to draw this society backwards. They are being used by elements who are not acting in their interest. For 28 years, we have had relative peace on the streets of Portadown because a solution was found, but some people cannot continue to observe it. Members of the Orange Order march to their religious service on the first Sunday in July unhindered and unstopped. They go and have their service. They could return by the same route; they choose not to. It works, because the community can get on with its life.

The parade is steeped in a history of murder, violence, intimidation and supremacy. The first parade ever to take place there resulted in the murder of two Catholic farmhands not far from the church. How can a parade that started with such a beginning be seen as anything other than an act of intimidation and supremacy against the community that is being forced to host it?

I and other Sinn Féin Members will continue to stand with the people of the Garvaghy Road. If somebody from my community said, "John, I think we should march through the Shankill Road", "I think we should march through Markethill", or "I think we should march through Redmanville", do you know where I would stand? I would stand with the people of those communities in facing those people down. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, Members.

Mr Tennyson: People outside this Building are in utter despair that this is where we are as a society this afternoon. People who are old enough to remember the Drumcree dispute are traumatised because they are reliving the hurt and pain of that period and having to sit down with their children — children who should never have known that level of tribalism and sectarianism — and explain the history of that dispute.

There are no winners in this. This is a deliberate strategy of division. It is a zero-sum game. The residents, who are traumatised after the weekend, certainly do not win. The Orange Order does not win, as local accommodations will now be picked apart and more marches will be contested. The parties who win, however, are those who thrive on division and have nothing to offer this society but division, because they do not want to talk about their failure to deliver anything for the working-class communities that they purport to represent and have no vision for the future.

We need to get this off the streets and into mediation, because our history tells us that mediation, dialogue, respect and tolerance are the only way forward for this society. The residents in that area and people across Northern Ireland deserve that leadership now, because it has, sadly, been missing over the past weeks and months. We need to ask ourselves this: where do we want to go as a society? Do we want to relive the past for the hell of it and learn nothing from it, or do we want to move forward towards a genuinely shared future? That is the question before the Assembly today. I know what my answer is to that question. To be clear, it means knowing what, the law says, you can do but also knowing what is right for community relations. That is what we all need to reflect on.

We need to remain committed to these institutions. There needs to be cooperation with the investigations that will no doubt flow, unfortunately, from the weekend. All parties need to be committed to respecting the PSNI's role and upholding the rule of law.

Equally, we need to work through it in these institutions. This is when the institutions really matter, because, if power-sharing falls, others will seek to fill that void and drag this society backwards.

Mr Burrows: We all have a duty to work for a better future for young people — I see pupils from my old school in the Public Gallery — and find a way through this issue, and that should weigh heavily on all of us today. However, it has to be founded on the rule of law, and two things can be true at once: we must respect the rule of law, and we can find a resolution that is peaceful and permanent.

I need to address the rule of law issue with Sinn Féin. It has never committed entirely to signing up to the rule of law. We saw it with policing, and now we see it with parades. We saw it during COVID with Bobby Storey's funeral, and we saw it on the Ormeau Road when Sinn Féin unlawfully petitioned the Chief Constable to get a man released and threatened to bring this place down unless an innocent officer was suspended. In a premeditated way, it went on to the streets and linked arms, and the First Minister was involved in encouraging people to engage in protest. The Finance Minister was present at an un-notified protest. The Economy Minister was present at an un-notified protest. Members of the Policing Board, who are supposed to hold the police to account in upholding the law, were breaking the law by not only having an un-notified protest but blocking the road.

Sinn Féin can take its view on the determination, but it could have said, "We are going to have a lawful protest. We are going to submit the form". The Orange Order and every other organisation, even the Boys’ Brigade, is asked to submit the form. We ask every organisation in the country to submit the form if they want to walk down our streets, but Sinn Féin could not submit that application. Sinn Féin could have asked people to stand on either side of the road and not block it, but it chose to block the road. The same people criticised people from a different community when they blocked the roads in 2013. They called for the police to take tough action and criticised them for not taking action initially. It is hypocrisy, and it is lawbreaking. You are eating through the legitimacy of this place like acid because of your conduct.

You sit and smirk. If one of my MLAs had been involved in an un-notified protest, I would have taken the whip off them this morning, because we have to obey the law of the country [Interruption.]

You can mock and deflect all you want, but here is the reality: we need to find a resolution. I am glad that the Secretary of State is meeting the Orange Order. It has obeyed the law, and I congratulate it for that. We need to find a way to move on and find an off-ramp so that we can look after the people of this country. That is what we are sent in here to do, and they need and rely on us.

I also give the police my support. It is a tough job that they have to do, and it is sometimes made worse by people in this place. I support the PSNI, and I condemn Sinn Féin's lawlessness unconditionally.

Mr O'Toole: It has been a difficult few days, particularly for the people of the Garvaghy Road. My party and my colleagues have engaged with and supported them over the past few days, and we did so without any apology, because those people have been through trauma. Anybody who knows the modern history of this place knows that, in what happened, particularly in the 1990s — as a previous Member said, it also happened long before then — that community has suffered an enormous amount and that that march is redolent of violence and deeply traumatic memories for that community.

Thirty years on, this question has to be and is being asked: in whose interests was it to open up that dispute, which was settled in the minds of all but a very small number of people? Who benefits from it? I will tell you who benefits: the people who want to divide this society and bring down devolved politics; people who do not believe in progress; and people who do not believe in the kind of Northern Ireland — the kind of island of Ireland — that we should all want to see, which is the kind of society that some of us experienced and got a glimpse of at the fleadh just over a month ago, that extraordinary moment of sharing something and celebrating one another in this city and this place. The people who dragged us back to the Drumcree dispute are the people who hate that and do not want it.

Let me be clear: the initial ruling from the Parades Commission was genuinely inexplicable. I have read it, and I do not understand it. I do not understand how it arrived at that conclusion. The frenetic 24 to 36 hours of legal proceedings that followed shocked and disoriented many people.

In relation to some of the points that have been made about the lawfulness of the peaceful protests made by residents and those who supported them, I say that it would have been virtually impossible, given that the final court ruling happened at 2.00 am, for a notification to have been alerted and processed. Therefore, I encourage Members who are swinging around digs and accusations to bear that in mind. [Interruption.]

What I want to say more than anything else — Members across are sneering — is that they should reflect on the kind of society that they want to live in. They should reflect on what is good for all of us in Northern Ireland and what is good for the people who want to have PUL culture not just accommodated but celebrated, because what we have seen over the past few days is no advertisement for that. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Time is up.

Mr O'Toole: We stand with the people of the Garvaghy Road who want peace.

Mr Speaker: I call Gerry Carroll.

Mr O'Toole: The SDLP stands with them.

Mr Carroll: I stood on the Garvaghy Road on Saturday night, and I was back again for most of Sunday, standing shoulder to shoulder with residents. I commend other parties and MLAs who did so, including the First Minister. I will tell the House what I saw. I saw elderly men and women who lived through 1997 refuse to be moved off their own streets. I saw a community that had been abandoned by every institution that was supposed to protect it.

Let us be honest about what happened over the weekend. The Parades Commission folded the moment that the DUP and TUV turned up the heat. What stopped the march at the weekend was not a determination or a judge; it was thousands of ordinary people linking arms in the rain for hours on end. There is an important lesson there that some would do well to learn.

For decades, people have been told to put their faith in the Parades Commission instead of their own organised strength. This weekend showed exactly what that faith is worth: not a jot. Now we are told that power-sharing could collapse. Let us be honest: if it does collapse, what will we lose? We will lose institutions in which the DUP weaponises the petition of concern to block equal marriage and reform of the minimum age of criminal responsibility and which it now lines up to use against the conversion therapy Bill. It is a party that is up to its eyeballs in scandals and that reaches for sectarianism every time to distract and divide people and get them to look the other way. Now it is calling for elected representatives' heads for their having the audacity — the absolute gall to do what? — to show solidarity with residents under siege from toxic Orange triumphalism.

For those not paying attention, I will give them a little reminder. Carla Lockhart MP stood alongside masked men hurling abuse at a peaceful march for Gaza in Scarva. Those men threw rocks and insults at journalists. Education Minister Paul Givan attended an anti-immigration protest in Lisburn, the day after a brutal stabbing, pouring petrol on the flames of racist hate. Was there a determination for that march? I suspect not. Was Carla Lockhart's presence at Drumcree church at the weekend lawful? I suspect not. It cannot be one rule for unionist MPs and Ministers and one for everybody else. We then have Members lecturing in the House about the rule of law. The hypocrisy is astounding. This institution is failing.

Members talked about the "mob" on the Garvaghy Road in a very insulting way. I have given Members a brief history of it. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Beattie: There will be many varied views on Drumcree. They all have some merit, but there is simply no consensus on it. That is why the courts had to look at it following the Parades Commission's determination. However, it goes far wider than Drumcree. Far more other issues need to be dealt with.

First, we have to look at the Parades Commission. Having listened to what Members on all sides of the House have said, I say that it is clear that the Parades Commission no longer has the confidence of the House.

It is no longer fit for purpose and cannot continue. The Secretary of State needs to do something to rectify the situation, because it cannot go on that one side applauds the Parades Commission when it makes a decision that suits it, while the other side disses it, and vice versa. The Parades Commission is therefore a real issue.

One of the other main issues is adherence to the rule of law. We must have the rule of law in Northern Ireland, but Sinn Féin seems to be putting itself well above it. It is not just about standing in the middle of the Garvaghy Road with arms linked or standing there to protest. Cars were brought in to block the road. Lawful citizens from throughout the town and surrounding areas were unable to transit the Garvaghy Road because cars were blocking their way. That was unlawful. Lawfulness is a cornerstone of any society. We must think about that. I am incredibly disappointed in those elected MLAs who did not abide by the rule of law. I will be clear: I did not want the march that went past Scarva to happen and made representations to that effect, but do you know what? It did, because it was allowed to go past. I adhered to the rule of law and did not block it, and that is what I expect to happen right across Northern Ireland. It is what I expect from the Assembly. It is what I expect from us. We hold people to account but cannot even hold ourselves to account. Our Executive are now led by somebody who openly and flagrantly breaks the law, and we allow that.

My final point is about the police. The police are in an impossible position. We should not turn our fire on them. They have an important job to do, which is to safeguard the public, promote law and order and detect crime. It is not their issue that other people decided to break the law, so, please, let us not turn our fire on the police. Let us make sure that we direct it at where it needs to be directed: at a failing Parades Commission and at the lawbreakers who stood on the Garvaghy Road.

Ms Sheerin: What we saw in recent days goes beyond my comprehension, but what I understand very clearly, and what the nationalist people of the North understand very clearly, is that the Orange Order thinks that nothing has changed in the past 30 years. That is where it is wrong. It thinks that it can still do whatever it wants. It thinks that its want to walk down a road where it is not welcome is more important than the rights of the residents of that road to live free from sectarian intimidation. It is wrong in thinking that. If the Orange Order were to walk down the Garvaghy Road, it would be to trample over the graves of the 21 people who lost their life as a result of the Drumcree dispute. The nationalist people of the North got off their knees in the nineties, and we are not getting back down on them. They solved the Drumcree dispute. They won a peace for us all that we must now protect.

What I say to the person who tabled the Matter of the Day — to you, and to you, to you and to each and every single one of you — is this: you are an absolute disgrace. You are an embarrassment. [Interruption.]

You have spent the past few weeks working away behind the scenes to try to drag us back to the past by trying to impose on us what is nothing more and nothing less than a supremacist, bigoted, sectarian hate-fest. I can tell you very clearly —. [Interruption.]

I say it very clearly —

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Sheerin: — that you will not —

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Sheerin: — impose —.

Mr Poots: Order. Speak through the Chair, please.

Ms Sheerin: I will direct my remarks through the Chair. Nobody in the Chamber, or outside of it, will impose that parade on the residents of the Garvaghy Road. We are not going back. Sin é.

Mrs Dodds: Before I address the remarks of the Members opposite, I will bring the House back to the point of remembering that the determination was lawful. It is a determination that was tested in the courts.

It is a determination that has the backing of the law in Northern Ireland: that 35 men can walk, with their collarettes, home from church and complete that parade. Let us remember that.

Let us address the protest notification. A protest notification for 5,000 people was put in by the residents' group. How proportionate is that to 35 Orangemen? Do you know what? It was withdrawn when they thought that they had won the first case. However, they lost in the Court of Appeal and in the High Court. Remember those things.

Can we talk about community relations? The Orange Order has said clearly that this is peaceful and that it wants no violence and no disruption to ordinary people's lives. It has said that over and over again, but what do we have? We have the First Minister of Northern Ireland, the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland and other Ministers of Northern Ireland calling people out to block roads somewhere else. What are some Assembly Members and the Principal Deputy Speaker of the House doing? They are illegally blocking roads at the absolute direction of senior members of the IRA who were on the Garvaghy Road yesterday. Shame. It is nothing but a sectarian hate fest from you.

Mr Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

Mrs Dodds: May I say this, Mr Speaker? [Interruption.]

I will be heard on this point. Nothing is more important than the preservation of the rule of law, and it is absolutely fundamental to the way democracy operates. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, please. The Member will be heard.

Mrs Dodds: It is fundamental to the way democracy operates.

I also say this to the Justice Minister, who does not know whether Michelle O'Neill broke the law: that is a shameful position for the Justice Minister to be in. She spent much more time at the weekend attacking Gavin Robinson than she did —

Mr Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Mrs Dodds: — understanding what was happening on the Garvaghy Road.

Mrs Long: Mr Speaker, I do not intend to rise to the bait that is being laid by others in the House. You appealed to us to be responsible and to be aware of the moment that we are in.

I know exactly where I was on 27 September 1995: I was getting married. My husband was working in Lurgan, and I recall with clarity and profound sadness the years of the Drumcree dispute. Like many others who lived through that period, I have found it depressing, disturbing and almost unbelievable as I have watched the latest saga unfold. I sympathise with those on the Garvaghy Road, those in Portadown and those across Northern Ireland who share that bemusement. Young people who have no recollection of the dispute have had to be told what it is about. Young police officers who were not even born when the PSNI was formed were having "SS RUC" taunts and other sectarian nonsense shouted in their faces when they are there to protect the public on both sides of the dispute. That is not acceptable.

The year 1998 marked the Good Friday Agreement, as well as the ending of the Drumcree dispute. That was supposed to be a new start for this community and an opportunity to build a better future for all of us and ensure that the next generation would not have to relive those traumas. That expectation was based on a shared understanding of the rule of law and that it applied equally to everyone. There is no other foundation on which a society can exist. It was based on a commitment to build peace and find reconciliation. From the moment that this issue re-emerged, it has felt like Pandora's box has been opened, unleashing an entirely predictable, destructive and wholly avoidable sequence of events in which there will be no winners, only losers.

In a conversation with the Secretary of State last night, however, I was reminded that, when Pandora's box was finally closed, all that remained was hope. That is the challenge for the Chamber today: how do we offer hope for those who feel utter despair? Where is the leadership to collectively navigate through this? Are we willing to do the hard yards of reconciliation? If we are not, we are condemning future generations to relive the worst parts of our past, and we offer them nothing.

I make a direct appeal to the Orange Order, as fellow Christians, to put reconciliation first. You have established your rights, but, for the greater good of society, you do not need to exercise them. Take the moral high ground, like the Christian men you are —

Mr Speaker: Time is up.

Mrs Long: — and allow this to come to a conclusion.

Dr Archibald: First, let me say that I am really proud to support the determined and resilient people of the Garvaghy Road, who have conducted themselves with absolute dignity over recent days and weeks. Over the past couple of days, I talked to many people in that community who are utterly dismayed by what has happened and by how some seem so determined to drag us back. They do not understand why the issue, which, they thought, was settled, is being picked at or why their community, which has lived in relative peace for 28 years, is being thrown into turmoil.

It is bad enough that you do not care about the fear, the trauma and the re-traumatisation of the Garvaghy Road community, which has been hugely difficult for them. However, what I find galling is that those who regularly and readily pontificate at us about speaking up for this place or not allowing anyone to talk it down seem not to give a thought to how the North is perceived across the world as such events play out. There are people who have been putting in work collectively across our communities over the past three decades building peace, strengthening and regenerating our communities, building our economy to a point where we are world-leading in some sectors and creating a hugely successful tourism offering, but all of that is being undermined by attempts to force an unwanted, triumphalist and sectarian march down the road of a community that does not want it.

In the aftermath of the disgraceful race riots a couple of months ago, which, of course, were not helped by the dog-whistling commentary of some Members across the Chamber, I heard concerns from many in our tourism and business sectors that the imagery seen on TV and social media was reminiscent of and reinforcing negative perceptions of this place. The positivity of the fleadh was widely seen as undoing all of that negativity and promoting this place as what it can be and actually is. It seems, though, that some in unionism and loyalism are determined to drag us back. The negative tactics have failed this weekend, and they will continue to fail. Our communities have moved on, and our society has moved on. We have had 28 years of peace and progress to build on. Our people deserve that to be protected, and we will make sure that it is. There is no going back, only forward. We are absolutely determined about that.

Mr Givan: Thirty-five Orangemen, silently parading at 8.00 am on a Sunday on their way home from church: that is what we are talking about in the face of the intolerance, abuse and vilification that has been directed at them. What is their crime? It is purely for being Protestant. That is the sectarian motivation of those who are in opposition to them. I say this to the unionist and loyalist community: do not be goaded by Sinn Féin and republicans. They are engaged in a direct attempt to incite violence and instil hatred. My appeal to those in our communities is this: do not respond to their dog-whistle tactics.

Let us contrast the dignity of the Orange Order with the behaviour that was witnessed on the Garvaghy Road, with Sinn Féin Members and Breandán Mac Cionnaith demanding of the people, "Do not let the f-ers down the road". He is an angry man. Do not take my word for it; read what Tony Blair said about him. He has the gold medal for being the most unreasonable of the unreasonable.

That is who is leading Sinn Féin by the nose. No shared society. No equality. No accommodation of 35 silent Orangemen. Not acceptable to Sinn Féin.

Sinn Féin is checking out of devolution. Devolution will no longer operate, according to Sinn Féin, on the basis of shared accommodation and equality. It is supremacy. It is majority rule. Sinn Féin will learn the lesson: we will not tolerate that. We will continue to uphold the rights of our people and our rights to have a proper, shared society, not one that is built on how Sinn Féin views it. We will not be led by or intimidated by Colin Duffy standing on the Garvaghy Road. Whenever there is no resolution, the "off-ramp", to quote Mr Burrows, is the law. It is the rule of law when there cannot be an accommodation. This has been lawfully determined and adjudicated by the courts. That is the off-ramp when there is no further mediation that can be followed.

On the rulings of the court, Sir Declan Morgan said:

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Speaker: Justin McNulty.

Mr Givan: It is the rule of law that must prevail.

Mr Speaker: Justin McNulty.

Mr Givan: Not mob rule.

Mr Speaker: Justin McNulty.

Mr McNulty: I was humbled and proud to stand with the residents of the Garvaghy Road from Saturday through Sunday. When I arrived on the road after midnight on Saturday, I experienced the foreboding atmosphere and was struck by the sense of determined defiance in everyone's eyes. I spoke to countless residents, who stressed that they were not there for themselves but that they were there for their children. They do not want their children and their grandchildren to experience the same horrors that were part of their lives relating to the Drumcree march when they were growing up. I spoke to the Tír na nÓg ladies Gaelic football players, who came out in the middle of the night to support their parents, their aunties, their uncles and their neighbours after their gut-wrenching injury-time defeat in the county final. I applaud them. I applaud each and every person who came out on to the Garvaghy Road in such a dignified and determined manner. When a community comes together, united by a just and shared cause, it is deeply powerful. You should all stand tall; you should all stand proud.

The residents and the people of the North, including large swathes of unionism, want Stormont to see sense. They want political leadership that does not allow tensions to boil over. They want their peace protected and to get on with their lives, to raise their families and to go to work and school without worrying about the divisions of the past. For the residents of the Garvaghy Road, Drumcree is not a distant memory. The people of the Garvaghy Road should not be forced to relive the fear, the trauma and the violence of the past. This is not about just 35 men walking down the street. It is a demonstration of dominance: a reminder of the past when 21 people —

— 21 people, including children, were killed. As Bríd Rodgers has stated regarding Drumcree, "Let sleeping dogs lie".

Hundreds of parades occur each year without an issue, but this one should not have been permitted because of a technical blunder by the Parades Commission. It is an irresponsible choice by the Parades Commission, the Secretary of State and others who allowed that parade to go on. It can only be described as fanning the flames of division. Nobody — I say again, nobody — should be using this situation to inflame sectarian tensions. We need now only to hear messages of calm. The Secretary of State, the UK Prime Minister and the Taoiseach need to do all in their power to de-escalate the situation and protect our peace and to move all our communities, together, forward positively. Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine.

We rely on one other for shelter from the storm.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: This was a time for leadership. Holding the post of First Minister or any ministerial position brings with it clear responsibilities and obligations, not just to lead but, of course, to urge calm heads and call people off the streets, to uphold the law and to be responsible. That is not optional; it is baked into the roles that we hold. It is what we are legally obliged to do.

At the weekend, we witnessed the total abdication of leadership by Michelle O'Neill. When the situation called for calm heads, Michelle O'Neill called people on to the streets, joined them and called for them to stay there. When her obligation was to uphold the law, Michelle O'Neill not only broke the law but encouraged others to do so. When the people of Northern Ireland needed responsible leadership, Michelle O'Neill decided to make populist, political stump speeches, to break the law, to defy a lawful decision of the courts and to encourage others to do so. Michelle O'Neill decided to follow the law of the mob, not the law of the land, and that matters. It matters. Michelle O'Neill decided, along with so many others on the Benches across from me, to stand shoulder to shoulder with IRA members and dissidents — shoulder to shoulder.

John O'Dowd talked about the history in which things are steeped. Sinn Féin is steeped in the history of murder.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Sinn Féin is steeped in the history of sectarianism.

A Member: Have you looked at your own history?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Sinn Féin is steeped in the history of blood. [Interruption.]

That is what people are so angry about out there. They are sick of hypocrisy. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Sinn Féin talks about respect, civil rights and human rights. The courts upheld the basic civil rights and human rights of the Portadown Orangemen. That is what the courts did. The decision was scrutinised, and the courts upheld it. That was denied by Michelle O'Neill, those in Sinn Féin and other people who decided to defy the law. You can protest. You could have protested lawfully. Instead, you decided to stand against the civil rights and human rights of others. Showing a modicum of respect for those with a cultural tradition that differs from yours does not make anybody a second-class citizen. That does not threaten anybody, but, importantly, everyone must be equal under the law. There is not one rule for Michelle O'Neill and another rule for everybody else. That rule must apply equally. We should all uphold that law.

Ms Sugden: The Parades Commission exists because the issues involved are incredibly difficult. They are emotional, and they carry history, identity, hurt and loss. Almost 30 years ago, we recognised that such decisions could not simply be left to whoever shouted the loudest or threatened violence. Therefore, we created an independent body that was empowered by law to make those decisions. Over the years, the Parades Commission has made determinations with which people have agreed and profoundly disagreed. If the commission follows the law, its procedures and the evidence that is before it, we do not have to agree with its decisions, but we can challenge them and protest peacefully against them. Ultimately, however, we have to respect the lawful process.

That principle has to work both ways. I have been very critical of the Parades Commission in recent weeks for its failure in dealing with Drumcree, particularly given how sensitive the issue is. I still believe that those failures warrant resignations, because, ultimately, they led to this situation. Law and process, however, matter. If the commission expects communities to live by its determination, it absolutely has a responsibility to follow its own procedures, but we cannot simply disregard a lawful determination that is made because we do not like the outcome.

We need to acknowledge something else. For most of Northern Ireland, Drumcree disappeared from view, but it did not disappear for all the people who were involved. Applications, determinations and protest continued. The absence of violence and headlines did not mean that reconciliation had happened. It meant that the issue had been contained. That is, perhaps, the saddest part of all. Almost 30 years on, we are still talking about unionist areas and nationalist areas. We are still marking territory and talking about shared public space as though it belongs to one tradition over another. It belongs to all of us.

I understand that people carry memories and trauma from what happened at Drumcree, whether directly, for those involved, or indirectly, for those across Northern Ireland. We are a post-conflict society, yet we have never dealt with the trauma of being in conflict. Those experiences matter. Equally, others have spent almost three decades believing that something that is important to them was left unresolved. I encourage everyone, including those in the House, to scratch beneath the surface before deciding what motivates the person who stands opposite them.

I say this: try to understand why it matters to them, not because you have to agree and not because every action should be executed but because assuming immediately that another person is motivated by hatred, provocation and intolerance leaves us with nowhere to go. Reconciliation surely asks more of each one of us. It asks us to recognise that people can hold values and experiences different from ours and still find a way of sharing the same space.

There is a responsibility on the House too. When I was driving to Belfast this morning, I saw people going to work and kids going to school, simply getting on with their day-to-day lives. That puts all of this into perspective. Whatever happens politically over the remaining months of the mandate, the job goes on, and we need to ensure that it does.

Mr Kingston: It is utterly disgraceful that the small and legal parade by 35 Orangemen leaving from Drumcree church with no accompanying band was prevented yesterday by an illegal roadblock on the Garvaghy Road. The Members of the Assembly who took part in that illegal roadblock conducted a gross breach of their Pledge of Office. Respect for the rule of law is a fundamental requirement for everyone in society, particularly those elected as legislators. Those who make the law should follow the law, not mob rule.

Nationalist representatives from Sinn Féin, the SDLP and People Before Profit have behaved disgracefully in the matter. They have broken the law and encouraged others to break the law. They have not supported tolerance of our different cultures in Northern Ireland. They have harked back to the distant past in an attempt to justify their intolerance. Nationalist representatives want to support Parades Commission determinations when they suit them but break the law when determinations do not suit them. That is not the action of a party of government. It is not a positive vision of any sort of future that they want to sell us. It is a nightmare that we will never buy.

Breandán Mac Cionnaith has blatantly stated that he refuses to enter into any negotiations. His intolerance cannot be rewarded with a veto. The Parades Commission determination for the Drumcree parade that should have happened yesterday is in keeping with the model in north Belfast. For years, republicans attacked the Twelfth of July return parade for the Ligoniel lodges. I took part in that return parade many times over the years, returning to my home in Ballysillan. I remember having to protect my children as they walked beside me and we were pelted with golf balls and stones thrown from the front of the Ardoyne shops and from the Ardoyne Road. Since 2013, that return evening parade has been prevented by the Parades Commission. However, since 2024, the Parades Commission has permitted a return parade in the early morning for the Ligoniel lodges. That small parade has passed off without incident and, indeed, without opposition. That is what should have happened yesterday in Portadown. Instead of hyping up the situation, nationalist representatives should have encouraged tolerance of their unionist neighbours on their traditional parade.

We in the DUP will stand by the Portadown district lodge. We stand by its disciplined and determined stand and by its legal right to complete its notified parade —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Kingston: — back to its Orange hall.

Mr Brett: Let me respond directly to the Benches opposite. The only party in the Chamber that is steeped in a history of murder, intimidation and sectarianism is Sinn Féin. For all its lauded words to distract from where we are and not content on Saturday with its republican mob intimidating elected unionist representatives — Sinn Féin Members talk about being the defender of females but were happy to stand idly by as Mrs Diane Dodds and Carla Lockhart were chased, spat at and threatened — there was not a word from the so-called defenders of women's rights.

At the heart of all this is law and order. Members on the Benches opposite speak eloquently about second-class citizens, but the only people whom Sinn Féin and the SDLP want to be second-class citizens are members of the Orange institution. The law has clearly stated that they have the right —. [Inaudible.]

Mr Brett: I will be heard, Ms Sheerin. You can scream like a banshee all you want, but you will not stop me speaking.

Ms Sheerin: Wise up. Settle down.

Mr Brett: You will not stop me speaking.

Mr Speaker, Sinn Féin does not like the law. It has moved on from the days of murdering members of the judiciary to openly trying to defy its rulings. The only people who brought disruption to the Garvaghy Road were those in the republican mob that stood on it at the weekend. The children of the Garvaghy Road were unable to go to school today because the so-called First Minister for all stood side by side with convicted terrorists, calling people on to the streets. The First Minister used to speak of "unionist brothers and sisters", but that language has been replaced by that of Breandán Mac Cionnaith's "Orange bastards". We in the Chamber will stand by the rule of law. Sinn Féin may not like it, but it does not get to dictate who sets the law in this country.

I say this directly to the SDLP: I know that you are in electoral decline, but, by tying yourself to Sinn Féin, you will be eaten up by it. [Interruption.]

Mr McNulty, standing side by side with Breandán Mac Cionnaith —

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Brett: — is not going to win you your selection battle. You are still going to be deselected by your party. You stood beside Colin Duffy, a man charged with the killing of two members of the army. That is the man beside whom you claim to be proud to stand.

I agree with the First Minister that we are not going back to the days of the past. The days of republican threats dictating the law of this land are over. The days of Sinn Féin intimidating unionists are over. We will ensure that the rule of law is followed. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, Members. That concludes the Matter of the Day.

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

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Carroll: Yes.

Mr Speaker: It had better be.

Mr Carroll: Mr Speaker, it was said often that the Members who took part in Sunday's demonstration were part of a mob. Frankly, I do not care what people call me —.

Mr Gaston: Mob rule, Gerry.

Mr Carroll: I am making the point.

I do not care what people call me, but I question whether it is moderate or temperate language to refer to the people of the Garvaghy Road.

I remind Members that the great socialist James Connolly once said:

Mr Speaker: Let us move on.

Mr McGuigan: The people of the Garvaghy Road should have every right to expect to live peacefully and without fear in their homes and in their community. For the past 28 years, they have been able to move forward on that basis. Unfortunately, a reckless, disastrous and shocking decision by the Parades Commission, at the behest of rejectionist unionists, has forced that local community and its residents to relive a past that they had tried so hard to forget by forcing an unwanted parade through their community. The dispute about that triumphalist and sectarian parade cost 21 citizens of the North their life over a three-year period, including three innocent children — Richard, Mark and Jason Quinn — in my constituency, who were murdered in their home during the Drumcree dispute in 1998. Let their names remind us of the cost of that sectarian parade. The days of the Orange Order holding the people of the Garvaghy Road and the people of Ireland to ransom are over, and they are not coming back.

I was proud to stand with the residents on the Garvaghy Road over the weekend; indeed, people across Ireland, whether they were there in person or watching from their home, are rightly proud to stand with the people of the Garvaghy Road. It is an issue of equality, an issue of right and wrong.

As a resident of Dunloy, I know how communities fear such triumphal parades. No community — this includes the people who live on the Garvaghy Road — should have to live in fear in their own homes and have unwanted parades forced through their community. The people of the Garvaghy Road, and, indeed, people across the island of Ireland, deserve to be treated with equality and respect and to be permitted the simple request to live in peace.

Mr Frew: I lament what happened at the weekend. There are two aspects to it. The first is about the fulfilment of rights. We should all be concerned about that. Even if we do not belong to a particular community or people, we should make sure that that community or those people enjoy the same rights as every other citizen in the country. That has not always been the case in this place. Look back at how people were treated and discriminated against during the COVID years. We should adhere to the principle that everyone deserves to live in peace and freedom. The people of the Garvaghy Road deserve to live in peace and freedom, and that was denied to them yesterday by Sinn Féin-oriented protests. Mr McGuigan, who is a constituency colleague of mine, knows full well that he and I, along with others, work tirelessly in our communities to ensure that Parades Commission determinations go off peacefully. There are some of those decisions that I will not agree with, and there are some that he will not agree with, yet we get by. What happened this weekend represented intolerance of the highest order. It denied people their rights — that is the bottom line. If you cannot afford 35 men two minutes to walk down a road at 8.00 am, you have major issue with fundamental rights. When a protest is orchestrated that blocks people in their homes for 24 or 48 hours, the orchestrators of that protest have a fundamental problem with rights.

The second aspect to what happened at the weekend is a major issue that will face the country, its people, this establishment and the Executive. That is the fact that people here who are in positions of power and responsibility, including the First Minister, a Deputy Speaker, Ministers, MLAs, councillors and members of the Policing Board, took part — my colleague from North Antrim, Sinn Féin MLA Philip McGuigan, just admitted that he took part — in an illegal protest. I expect the police to be knocking on Philip's door — I really do — and I would hope that they will practise the rule of law. I also expect people to complain to the standards commissioner, because of the rules by which we abide: the ministerial code. That should be taken seriously. It states that Ministers will pledge:

You have failed. You have failed Northern Ireland. You have failed your own people and all the people of Northern Ireland.

Ms K Armstrong: I will call it as it is. Last week, I waited with bated breath to see what the Parades Commission would come up with. As I was sitting in my home, what shocked me about the whole thing was when my daughter, who is in her early 20s, said that she was afraid. She did not live through the Troubles and does not know what it was like, but she was afraid because of what was happening. The majority of people in Northern Ireland who have not been involved in that process and are outside the Drumcree bubble that has been created are asking, "Why are we going back to something like this? Why are we doing this to ourselves? Why are we allowing this to happen?". Young people were not born when the Good Friday Agreement came along and have no idea what my childhood was like. My words at the weekend were, "At least nobody has been killed — yet". Ordinary people are asking, "Why are we doing this?". That really calls attention to the requirement for reconciliation. Maybe if the Orange Order had sat down with the residents of Garvaghy Road in advance, —

Mr Gaston: It asked.

Ms K Armstrong: — and said, "We're looking to talk together and have a discussion", —

Mr Gaston: Mediation was offered.

Ms K Armstrong: — without the politicians who like to be loud, and said, "Let's do this", — [Inaudible.]

Ms K Armstrong: — and the residents said, "Yes, we're up for negotiation", that would have been one thing.

Mr Gaston: They refused.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston, order.

Ms K Armstrong: Why is this happening now? We have no Budget, but the two larger parties are tied up with a conflict and a disgraceful situation that goes back years. The House must remember

that, come February and March, teachers, civil servants and hospital workers will not be paid because there will be no Budget in place. We will run out of money. Let us get back to what we are supposed to be doing in the House — running the country, not running it into the ground.

Mr McCrossan: The weekend was what can only be described as absolutely and utterly depressing. It was depressing for everybody. A fundamental question has to be asked of politicians across the House who are bound to show leadership in their elected office: what did the actions of the weekend achieve? What does marching down the Garvaghy Road achieve? What purpose does it serve? It serves only to inflame and flare up tensions and remind people of our darkest and most difficult, challenging days. Twenty-one people died during those days. Twenty-one families suffered and were destroyed. That is the human cost of division. We should know, more than most, how easily the temperature can rise to those levels. We left the door to the march down the Garvaghy Road closed, 28 years ago, and it is a sorry sight for all of us to see that it has been allowed to be reopened.

I have heard the parties in the House talk about rights — people's rights have been thrown about almost like a ping-pong ball. The reality is that people outside the Chamber who are watching the House want a simple thing. They want what was promised to them in 1998 — a society where people can live in peace and harmony, side by side, respectfully and in understanding of each other. The reality is that, in my 12 years in the House, I have never seen it so energised as it is now. I do not see the same level of anger or slurs across the House when it comes to our health service, children suffering in poverty or people waiting for a house. That brings us back to the fundamental point of why we were elected — to solve problems and improve people's lives. What about the rights of people who are on hospital waiting lists, the rights of those who are waiting to get a home, the rights of the families who want support for their children with special educational needs? What about those rights? The House does not get as energised about those rights. We get more energised about what divides us than what unites us. We have been through much worse. We need to realise that people outside of here are sick of it. No party in the House dare claim to speak for the entirety of one side of the community over the other. The people whom I am speaking to are sick, sore and tired of the same old messing about.

Ms O'Neill: I find it interesting that the Members on the Benches opposite who had so much to say about my defence of the Garvaghy Road residents have scurried out of the Chamber, just when I have something to say about that issue.

Much has been said this morning. I was with the Garvaghy Road community over the past few days, and I was incredibly proud and privileged to be with them. It is a strong and resilient community — a community that has had to come through the hardest of times. It needed our support. When I think about what that community has come through, and about the generations of sectarian dominance and intimidation and violence, I am mindful of the fact that, in the past few weeks, we have had the report into the murder of Robert Hamill, who was killed — kicked to death — because he was a Catholic in that community. I am minded of the three Quinn children, those beautiful kids who were burned to death in their home because of what happened being revisited on that community. I am thinking of Michael McGoldrick and of Rosemary Nelson. I listened to the powerful testimony of her son last night, and I encourage those people across the Chamber to listen to it

because that goes to the heart of what this is all about.

Mr Gaston: What about your murders?

Ms O'Neill: May I invite yourself and all those within unionism —.

Mr Gaston: What about all those who [Inaudible.]

Ms O'Neill: May I invite you into 2026? The days of unionist supremacy and domination are gone. [Interruption.]

We will not be going backwards; we are about the future. I have heard a lot today about the health service and education, and those things are valid, but so too is the right of the people of the Garvaghy Road not to be trampled upon.

It is right and proper that people stood with the community on the Garvaghy Road over the past couple of days. Those who wanted to force that march down that road need to give their heads a shake. Why does the Orange Order, the DUP and unionism in general want to railroad over the rights of those people? That is the question. Why do you want to trample over those people? Well, we will not accept that. The Garvaghy Road residents do not want that. They are entitled to live their lives free from fear and intimidation. I will assert that right for them all day long and every day, and I will come into the Chamber and say that to you. This is important, but this is 2026, folks, and we are not going back.

Ms Forsythe: The rule of law is the foundation of any Government, and because so much today has been fixated on hatred of the Orange Order and unionist people, I feel that the whole conversation has moved away from that. The Finance Minister, like myself, was in court on Saturday night into the early hours of Sunday morning and heard the ruling of the court. He heard that the points to try to overrule the determination were unarguable and the ruling was made. That was a matter of law, a legal determination for that parade. The Finance Minister said that the issue of Drumcree was closed and settled. No, it was not. The Portadown district has continued to apply, week after week for years, for the right to parade. The issue was never closed for them. Sinn Féin might say that it was closed, but it was not closed.

Every time that they got a determination that stated that they could not walk down the road, they respected the rule of law. This time, it was determined that they could go. That was the law. It was challenged in court, and that was applied. Suddenly, however, that could not be accepted. The rule of law is fundamental to us here in government, and for the First Minister, Finance Minister, Economy Minister and representatives from across Sinn Féin to put two fingers up to the rule of law undermines so much of what we are trying to do here. [Interruption.]

Let us talk about Scarva, where there was a legally notified peaceful protest in place.

Ms Sheerin: Masked men shouting at children.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Forsythe: There was a peaceful protest, legally notified and determined by the Parades Commission. The police came in to police that determination, and they came in too hard. They did not come in and police the determination this weekend. In Scarva, it was a legal protest. That was not a legal protest at the weekend.

Ms Sheerin: Masked men.

Ms Forsythe: You can say whatever you want. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs Erskine: masked men.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Forsythe: Maybe the Sinn Féin representatives should have been masked. Is that what should have happened there? I do not know. What I am saying is that the rule of law

the rule of law is fundamental for us [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Stop, stop. Members, you were heard, and there was some shouting. This Member will be heard. There can be a little shouting, but you go too far.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe in equal rights for everyone here, and you either uphold the rule of law or you do not. That is the question that I put to the Sinn Féin Members here today.

Ms Nicholl: I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on the birth of your granddaughter Esther last week. I want to talk about children. I spent last week in the children's hospital at the Royal with my son, and I thank everyone for their comments and good wishes. There is nothing quite as humbling as being in the children's ward and seeing what the staff and doctors do every day.

It is heroic work, and it is underfunded. It is unbelievable that the children's hospital sits under the umbrella of the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust when it is clearly a regional service with the best in each department. It creates a sanctuary for the most vulnerable children.

Thankfully, my son is fine, but, while I was sitting on the ward with him when he was on a ventilator, I looked at the other children who came on to the ward. What I noticed was that we are all the same: the other mothers were exhausted and worried; the other families were worried about what was going to happen to their children. I thought about them again over the weekend. I thought about the Quinn children — those precious children who died — and the people not just in Portadown but across Northern Ireland who were genuinely afraid that something was going to happen to their children. I then thought about how we do not see our issues through the lens of children enough. I speak out about what is happening in Gaza and Sudan because I care about children, just as I speak about allergies and about SEN. There is genuine fear in society right now.

I agree that the rule of law and process must be followed, but I also acknowledge that people are in pain and are genuinely afraid. It is one thing to have the right to do something and another to choose to do it, and I wonder about what happens next. I am really worried that this is a 'Sliding Doors' moment for Northern Ireland and worried about the ramifications of what we do next for the next generation. I am really worried about the children on the ward who are really sick. They need the health service to work for them. I am really worried about children with special educational needs, who need the Assembly to function because they need support.

The public have become so disillusioned with us that they do not think that we matter any more, but we matter and this place matters in creating conditions for every child in our society to thrive and to have the opportunities that they deserve. I am really worried that this place will collapse because we will have moved to a point where we do not have the grace or the dignity to see what is best. If we looked through the lens of our children, this place would be a lot better.

Mrs Erskine: I believe in a simple principle: there is a difference between right and wrong. I want to live in a society where that distinction is not blurred, where the rule of law is upheld and where violence and intimidation are never excused because of the cause behind them. When I look at Sinn Féin, however, I see a different approach.

Time and time again, we see Sinn Féin politicians attending commemorations and honouring members of the Provisional IRA — men and women who carried out bombings, shootings and murders across our communities — yet my constituents are repeatedly told to shut up and put up with it. In Fermanagh and South Tyrone, we know the terrible price of terrorism. Innocent victims are not statistics; they are husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers, sisters and neighbours. They were innocent people whose lives were taken and whose families were left to carry the pain for generations, yet Sinn Féin continues to participate in commemorations of the hunger strikers and terrorists, speaking of them in terms of honour and courage. Take Bobby Sands, a former MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and a member of the Provisional IRA who was convicted of possessing firearms. Take Jim Lynagh, a senior Provisional IRA figure associated with numerous terrorist attacks whom a Mid Ulster District Council chair commemorated as he stood with a banner depicting guns and paramilitary trappings. Those people continue to be commemorated in the republican movement.

That brings me to Garvaghy Road: 35 men walking down a road and trying to do so peacefully — no bands, no paramilitary displays, no terrorist trappings — under strict conditions imposed by the Parades Commission, yet Sinn Féin has chosen to oppose even that. Unionism will never be welcome in the united Ireland that, you say, would be inclusive of us: never. The mask has slipped again.

I will not allow the innocent victims of Fermanagh and South Tyrone to become footnotes. I believe in the rule of law. I owe it to the innocent victims of the Troubles to stand up for them and to call out Sinn Féin's absolute hypocrisy. I owe it to their families and the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, whom I am proud to represent. I will stand by the rule of law, unlike those on the Benches opposite.

Mr Gaston: It is clear from the hysteria over the weekend that nationalism is in turmoil. Sinn Féin is using the people of the Garvaghy Road as part of its election campaign. Sinn Féin is gaslighting nationalists in general to hide its failures, such as being on the wrong side of history when it comes to immigration and its obsession with an open-border policy that puts people in Northern Ireland at risk. That is why it is latching on to this issue.

What are Sinn Féin's failures? No Casement, no A5, no Irish signage at Grand Central station — all those things that it was beating its chest about and saying that it would deliver. Let us look at its Ministers, such as the Minister for Infrastructure. Our waste water infrastructure is crumbling, and potholes litter our roads, yet the Minister focuses on getting signage at Grand Central. Let us look at our Economy Minister, who stood up today to talk about tourism. What about Cantor Fitzgerald? Her toxic past and that of Sinn Féin are driving jobs away from Northern Ireland. What about Mr O'Dowd, the Finance Minister? He cannot even set a Budget. He cannot even tell MLAs in the House what his demand is and what funding formula would allow him to have enough. That is Sinn Féin's mentality: always sticking the hand out. Like Oliver Twist, it is always looking for more and never getting enough. I trust that, this Thursday, the Secretary of State will hold true and set a Budget for Northern Ireland.

When a country becomes lawless — that is exactly where we are; that is exactly what we have seen from Sinn Féin — the institutions will be on the brink of collapse. All I ask is that everybody be treated the same under the law. When the farmers took to the roads to protest about fuel prices, which affect everybody, the police called at their houses that night to give them a caution. I trust that the same police will visit the First Minister of "no alternative", the Minister for the Economy and every Sinn Féin MLA, councillor and TD who were present on the Garvaghy Road over the weekend. There cannot be one rule for some and another rule for others. It is time that the PSNI applied the law equally. It should let the parade down the road, and it should ensure that those who illegally stopped the parade are held to account.

Mr Robinson: There are several Members in the House who have broken the law in the last 24 hours. I expected that behaviour from the mouthpieces of the IRA. However, I did not expect it from the SDLP. In my constituency, the Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, called for protests against the Orange Order parade on the Garvaghy Road, which raises serious questions about the standards expected of a senior member of the Northern Ireland Executive. The Orange Order secured a Parades Commission determination permitting the Drumcree parade — a decision that was subsequently upheld by the High Court — yet, rather than respecting the lawful process, we saw Sinn Féin politicians, including senior members of the Executive, openly standing with those who blockaded the road in an attempt to prevent the parade from taking place. The police repeatedly warned those taking part that it was unlawful to block the road. That raises an obvious question for people such as Caoimhe Archibald. Does she believe that the rule of law applies equally to everyone in Northern Ireland? It cannot be acceptable for a Minister for the Economy to demand respect for the law when it suits her interests, while calling for a protest designed to prevent a parade that had received legal authorisation. She stood with individuals such as Sean McGlinchey, who murdered six pensioners in my constituency. What unsavoury company she keeps.

There must be one standard. If a lawful decision goes against you, the answer is to challenge it through the courts and the established processes, not to blockade roads and seek to prevent a parade through illegal pressure. The people of Northern Ireland want elected representatives who respect the rule of law, regardless of their background or whether they agree with the decision. They do not want to see them behaving like corner boys, which is what we saw yesterday. The same principle should apply whether the issue is an Orange parade, a nationalist demonstration or any other contentious public procession. Rights cannot be conditional on who is exercising them.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes Members' statements.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Nick Mathison has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member has up to three minutes in which to speak.

Mr Mathison: After the exchanges that we have just had in the Chamber, it feels slightly incongruous to be presenting a highly localised petition to the Assembly. I make no apology for doing so, however, because there has not been much that has been constructive in the exchanges that we have heard today. I make it clear that my party colleagues and I remain committed to representing our constituents constructively, and that is what the petition that I am presenting today is all about.

The community of Darragh Cross is in the Strangford constituency. It is a small rural village, but a busy 40 mph road runs right through it. Residents on one side of the village who want to walk their children to school and those on the other side who want to cross the road to get to the local shop have to run the gauntlet every day to get past cars that are often driving at speeds well in excess of 40 mph. Even if the cars adhere to the speed limit, however, it is a dangerous crossing on a wide and busy road. The issue has been running on for years, and it is not just about the lack of a pedestrian crossing but about the appropriateness of the speed limit in the first instance. I pay tribute to the residents of Darragh Cross, particularly to one resident who reached out to me directly. He has a visual impairment and has advised me that, unless he is accompanied, he does not feel safe accessing services in his community. That cannot be acceptable.

Regrettably, year-on-year, the Department for Infrastructure has simply adopted a "Computer says no" policy, saying that, because the village does not have the requisite amount of frontage development on both sides of the road, it will not install a crossing. That cannot be acceptable. If a policy results in scenarios in which a resident of a community feels that he cannot get out and about to access services safely and parents are clear that they will not let their children walk to school in a quiet rural village, something is wrong with the policy.

I urge the Minister for Infrastructure to listen to the nearly 500 people of a very small settlement who have signed the petition and want to see the speed limit reduced and a safe pedestrian crossing installed. I urge her to engage with her officials and permit them to meet the residents and me on-site, because, unless they are on the ground and see the situation, they will not realise just how dangerous it is. The residents of Darragh Cross have been campaigning on the issue for years. I hope that the petition today gives voice to that campaign and that we can finally see some movement and progress.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker will forward the petition to the Minister for Infrastructure and send a copy to the Committee for Infrastructure.

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

Ms Ennis: I beg to move

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We return to the motion to extend the sitting.

Mrs Mason (The Chairperson of the Committee on Standards): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. I call the Chair of the Committee on Standards to open the debate.

Mrs Mason: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I rise on behalf of the Committee on Standards to present its report on the proposed updates to the Assembly Members' code of conduct and the guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members. The code sets out the minimum ethical standards expected of all Members when carrying out their duties. It provides a clear framework of principles and rules of conduct for MLAs and helps to ensure openness, accountability and public confidence in the standards regime in the Assembly.

The report before the House recommends a number of updates to the code and guide arising from several distinct, separate developments. Those include the agreement of an unacceptable behaviours policy and advice from the Electoral Commission on Members' legal obligations under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. In addition, the recent change to the name of the Committee needs to be reflected, and the Committee has identified the need to clarify and improve certain provisions and exemptions. A revised version of the code and guide is included in appendix 1 of the report for the Assembly's consideration. That sets out the proposed amendments and tracked changes for ease of reference. Many of the proposed updates are technical or procedural in nature. However, I shall now outline the main proposals for the record.

A number of the proposed amendments flow from the development of an Assembly-wide unacceptable behaviours policy. The work on that was commenced by a cross-party working group in the previous mandate. The policy development continued in the current mandate, and, following public consultation and further consideration, the policy was refined and approved by the Committee and the Assembly Commission. It was introduced last week via communication from the Speaker to all MLAs and staff. Members are, therefore, not being asked to approve that policy today. However, a copy is provided in the appendices of the report, and it is important to note its purpose and impact on the code. The new policy was developed to provide a consistent approach to standards of behaviour and, in particular, unacceptable behaviour for everyone working for or within the Assembly. It sets out clearly that unacceptable behaviours, including bullying, harassment, sexual harassment and victimisation, will not be tolerated. It also establishes processes for raising complaints and for investigating those complaints in a way that reflects their sensitive nature.

To support the implementation of the policy with regard to complaints against MLAs and the work of the Commissioner for Standards, the Committee obtained legal advice on the procedural changes that were required. That included advice on any necessary amendments to the code and guide, Standing Orders and the procedures that are followed by the commissioner when considering complaints. There are three proposed changes to the code and guide that are intended to give effect to the policy insofar as it applies to complaints against MLAs.

First, a new paragraph is proposed within the additional "Assembly Principles of Conduct" section to clarify that the Assembly behaviour code is an aspirational principle of conduct for Members. We consider that it will provide for a more objective position than exists presently, since the behaviour code, which is caught by the existing rule 10, sets out standards of conduct that are framed in high-level terms that are open to interpretation.

Secondly, amendments are proposed to the "Rules of Conduct" section to make specific reference to the unacceptable behaviours policy and highlight its importance. Existing rule 10 would be separated into two rules, with the new rule 11 making explicit reference to the policy in the context of Members' obligation to observe and comply with policies, guidance and instructions that are published on behalf of the Assembly or the Assembly Commission.

Thirdly, the Committee considers it essential that all parties who are involved in a complaints process can have confidence in the confidentiality of that process. For that reason, a new paragraph was proposed within the introduction to the guide to the rules. That would emphasise Members' existing confidentiality obligations and highlight the particular relevance to complaints that are under consideration by either the commissioner or the Committee. As a brief aside, complainants or respondents under the unacceptable behaviours policy who are not MLAs will be required to sign a new confidentiality agreement since those parties are not bound by a similar code of conduct. The requirements of that agreement are time-limited when it comes to maintaining confidentiality from the point at which the complaint is submitted until its consideration has concluded.

On a separate matter, the Committee also proposes a number of amendments relating to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA). Those changes to the guide were suggested by the Electoral Commission and relate to changes to Members' legal requirements. They include updated reporting thresholds for donations and loans, as well as changes to permissibility requirements for UK companies. The proposed amendments also reflect updated wording to the Electoral Commission's guidance for elected office holders and party members and reinforce Members' obligations under the PPERA.

The Committee is also proposing several important clarificatory amendments to the code and guide. One such amendment makes it clear that the existing exemption regarding conduct in the Assembly Chamber applies only to behaviour that falls within the Speaker's responsibility for maintaining good order under Standing Order 65. The amendment clarifies that the code continues to apply to other matters that occur within the Chamber, including the requirements regarding declaration of relevant interests and the protection of confidential information. Other amendments clarify that the code applies to Committee Chairpersons; in particular, they make clear that the existing exemption that relates to a Member who is acting exclusively in another political or public office does not extend to a Committee Chairperson who is carrying out that role.

Finally, a range of minor amendments are proposed throughout the document. Those reflect the change to the Committee's name from the "Committee on Standards and Privileges" to the "Committee on Standards" following the repeal of Standing Order 70, and include a number of typographical and drafting improvements.

The Committee believes that those changes will strengthen the operation of the code and guide, improve clarity for Members and the public and ensure that the Assembly standards framework remains effective, transparent and fit for purpose. I commend the report and the proposed revised code and guide to the House.

Mr Frew: I rise to support the Chair's remarks on the proposed changes and to commend the work of the Committee over the past number of months and, indeed, years. It is a very good Committee, which works very well. The amendments to the unacceptable behaviours policy are common sense and are borne out of experience over the last number of years. They add to the code of conduct and the behavioural policies. It seems a bit surreal that we are speaking about good behaviour and codes of conduct in the week after the weekend that we have just had, but there you have it; this has been put down as an item of business in the House. I commend the work of the Committee and support the changes. They are common sense and will make for a better and more common-sense reading of the rules of conduct.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, as Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly take its ease until then. This debate will continue after Question Time and the question for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to speak will be Connie Egan. Take your ease.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before we begin questions to the Minister of Justice, I admonish myself for not being able to ask question 7 because I am in the Chair. There we go.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 1 and 6 together. Where a decision by the Northern Ireland Prison Service to refuse compassionate temporary release is successfully challenged in the courts, the Prison Service is required to comply with the court's ruling. In such cases, the safeguards that apply during the period of release are those set by the court. If the court directs that a temporary release should be granted and specifies the conditions under which it is to take place, those conditions form the framework for managing the release. The Prison Service cannot unilaterally impose additional restrictions that would go beyond or conflict with the court's order.

In the case of Gary Anderson, the court directed that compassionate temporary release should be granted and set the conditions that were to apply. The Prison Service therefore implemented the court's decision in accordance with those directions. As the court's order provided the legal basis and conditions for the release, no changes were made to Prison Service standard operating procedures as a result of that case.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her answer. I know that the Kelly family will be relieved, rightly so, that that murderer is no longer roaming the streets. The case demonstrates the importance of the rule of law. The dogs on the street know that Michelle O'Neill stood proudly breaking the law and calling for others to do the same over the weekend. Will the Minister of Justice take this opportunity to state clearly and put on the record that Michelle O'Neill has broken the law?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, that question is not in the context of the original question. You may choose to answer it if you wish —

Mrs Long: Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): — but if not, I am more than happy to allow that. [Interruption.]

I call Mr Frew.

Mr Frew: The Minister should have answered that question.

Mrs Long: Are you challenging the Speaker now?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Frew, you know as well as I do that you are not going to challenge the Chair. Let us have a question that is germane. I know that you probably have one. Let us go for it.

Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was certainly not challenging you; I was challenging the Justice Minister's non-answer.

We already know that there was a lack of communication between the Department's legal team and the Prison Service. It seems that the standard operating procedures had failed in this case, meaning that the Prison Service could not review the decision at the court's request. What lessons have been learned to date when it comes to the review? How did that breakdown in communication occur?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for what is a supplementary to the original question. I am more than happy to answer questions that are genuine supplementaries. When it comes to the issue of lessons learned, there was, of course, an immediate review of those proceedings. We have established the timeline and a number of communication errors. To correct the Member, however, the officials concerned were not my departmental legal officials; they were from the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO), which resides within the Department of Finance.

As the Member will be aware, however, unlike him, I will not be reaching any conclusions before the urgent review that I have commissioned is undertaken. In this case, there were a number of failings that, I believe, went beyond simply the communication from the legal team. Whilst that was one of the failings that we have identified thus far, it is not the only failing. I will, of course, keep the House updated on the progress of the review. We are in the process of agreeing the terms of reference and notifying other Ministers and other public officials who may be affected by the review, as well as identifying the precise nature of the individuals who will take the review forward. As I said last week, however, I do not intend this to be a lengthy process, but I do intend it to be a robust and thorough one.

Mr Dickson: How did the Prison Service become aware that Gary Anderson had absconded, and what action was taken by the PSNI subsequently?

Mrs Long: The Northern Ireland Prison Service presented Gary Anderson to Londonderry courthouse on Monday morning. There, after having the conditions of his compassionate temporary release read to him by Prison Service staff, he was passed to his court-appointed chaperone.

At 11.20 am on Monday, it was advised by the PSNI that it had been contacted by the chaperone who stated that Gary Anderson had absconded from his care and would not be returning to prison. The PSNI immediately put in place arrangements to alert the public, and I am assured that it devoted additional and dedicated resource on a 24/7 basis to secure the return of Gary Anderson to custody. The PSNI was also in regular liaison with colleagues in an Garda Síochána, given the geography of the particular area where Mr Anderson had absconded. I put on record my thanks to the PSNI and to an Garda Síochána for being able to ensure that he was brought back into custody.

Any consequences for the chaperone and, indeed, for Mr Anderson are ongoing legal matters. They will be under investigation by the PSNI. That said, there is no suggestion that the chaperone did anything inappropriate. That will be determined as a result of the investigation. It is not helpful to speculate at this point on any consequences that might flow from that.

The PSNI is also maintaining regular contact with the Kelly family. I put on record my thanks to Mark Durkan who facilitated a meeting for me and the director general of the Prison Service with the Kelly family last week. I am under no illusions as to the hurt and trauma that the matter has reawakened for them as a family and has caused them; nor am I under any illusions about the gracious nature of the family in the way that they conducted themselves when I met them last week.

Mr Beattie: Minister, you have kept us well informed. I have no real issues with that. However, because of the huge media interest in the matter of Gary Anderson, were any precautions put in place with Sean Anderson that would have been able to stop him accessing a mobile phone, getting on the internet and going on to TikTok? It is a real fear of many victims that the perpetrator could end up abusing them once more.

Mrs Long: As you are aware, the two brothers are held separately because we believe them to be a bad influence on each other. Therefore, we believe that their being held separately is the appropriate way forward.

It is of profound regret that, despite the fact that an intelligence-led operation in Magilligan last Tuesday secured the phone, removed it from Sean Anderson and placed it in police custody — the police are now investigating how it got into the prison, because, obviously, that is contraband; it is illegal to own a phone in the prison system — we do not know yet how the information that was on TikTok was posted. I am sure that Members have seen it. It taunted me, as Justice Minister, the family, the victims and, indeed, the victims of many other offenders who are held in Magilligan and were photographed with Sean Anderson. We do not know how it made its way on to TikTok, whether it had already been transferred to a different person or how that was done. However, the mobile phone is now in police hands. They are doing an investigation, and there may well be charges resulting from that. Certainly, adjudication arrangements for Sean Anderson have now been put in place in the prison system.

The Member for Upper Bann rightly mentioned the impact of the matter on the family. It is not just the escape, which is hard enough; it is every mention of the case, every day. To see their brother Karol's face in the papers and on the news is traumatising. Therefore, I appreciate the sensitivity that Members have shown in asking their questions respectfully and when speaking to me, privately and in the Chamber, because I recognise that, every time it is reopened and discussed, it causes genuine harm.

Mr Durkan: Thanks to the Minister especially for agreeing to meet the Kelly family and for coming to Derry to do so last week. I know that they appreciated that. Will the Minister tell the House how useful she found that meeting to be and how it might inform her actions going forward?

Mrs Long: First, as the Member is aware, having spoken to the family, I found it really useful to understand, for example, the trauma that has been caused, particularly to Mr Kelly's youngest children, who were not aware of the circumstances of his death. That has had to be explained to them; an appalling thing for any parent to have to do for their child. It has also reawakened a lot of anger and hurt in family members, who have lived with online provocation ever since the murder occurred. That has been incredibly traumatic for them.

It was important for me to hear that, and it has influenced how we intend to take forward work. First, I warned the family in advance that questions would be asked today and that the matter might therefore appear in the press again. I also said that, before I announce to the Assembly the arrangements for the review, I will notify family members so that they are aware that I am going to do that. I have also made arrangements for the terms of reference to include contact with not only the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime but the Kelly family, because their input is vital in this case. Finally, before any of the review's recommendations are reported to the House, I will meet the Kelly family again and inform them of its outcome. That is the very least that we should do.

Mrs Long: The resourcing and deployment of neighbourhood policing teams are operational matters for the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I am committed to respecting that operational independence and the role of the board in holding him to account. The Member may therefore wish to direct her question to the PSNI.

Ms Brownlee: I expected that response. I am sure that the Minister will agree that neighbourhood policing is vital and that it provides a reassuring presence in all our communities in Northern Ireland. Given the fact that numbers are less than optimal, does the Minister believe that if Sinn Féin, the SDLP and others were to continue to break the law and encourage others to do so by calling people on to the streets in Portadown, that would have a significant impact on neighbourhood policing —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): A question, Ms Brownlee.

Ms Brownlee: — and other ordinary policing —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Question.

Ms Brownlee: — in Northern Ireland?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you may choose to answer that in any way in which you like.

Mrs Long: I will answer it openly and honestly. Yes, that would have an impact on policing. When such things occur, and there is the potential for disorder on the streets or conflict, the police are put in the invidious position of having to hold the thin green line between violence and peace. Their first priority is always to protect life. The fact that we have fewer police than we would wish to have necessarily means that they are abstracted from other duties. Those duties may be delivering neighbourhood policing, investigating domestic abuse or dealing with the consequences of child sexual abuse and other matters. Police would therefore be drawn away from a lot of other duties in order to police situations in which there was the potential for unrest.

It is a matter for the Chief Constable to decide on, but I am aware that, in line with the business case, which was approved by the Executive and for which we are now desperately seeking to get funding, given that we are not in a good position with the Budget, he has also done work internally. Unfortunately, neighbourhood policing and the organisation as a whole became out of shape because of retirements in different parts of the organisation. The Chief Constable has worked very diligently to try to address that issue in order to ensure that we can better protect our neighbourhood officers and give them a more stable career path in neighbourhood policing, while recognising the fact that, unfortunately, any kind of disruption, public disturbance or risk to life will always be the PSNI's first port of call.

Ms Bradshaw: Minister, further to your previous answer, will you provide more information about the PSNI workforce recovery plan business case?

Mrs Long: My strategic priority is to support the recovery and stabilisation of the workforce by enabling the PSNI to recruit, retain and develop high-quality officers, while protecting morale, well-being and operational resilience. Indeed, last week, at an event organised by the PSNI about dealing with misogyny, sexism and chauvinism in our society, I was photographed with one of the boards that will be used as part of the next recruitment exercise.

The earmarked allocations for PSNI workforce recovery in the draft Budget, which is, of course, not in place, demonstrate the importance that the Executive have placed on investing in policing and on recognising the critical role that the service plays, but we need Executive approval for that funding. It should be noted, however, that the funding for workforce recovery is of limited value in the absence of sufficient funding for the PSNI to pay for its existing staff complement and running costs. I will continue to engage with Executive colleagues to advocate additional funding for policing and the rest of the justice system, because we need to have a justice sector that is funded appropriately now and in future years. The rule of law and a culture of lawfulness matter.

It rests on all of us to prioritise it when it comes to the Budget.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, have you carried out an assessment of the additional policing costs associated with the loyalist racist disorder in the summer?

Mrs Long: Again, it is not for me to carry out that assessment, but I can say that it required mutual aid. That mutual aid has had to be called on again in respect of the threat of disorder in Garvaghy Road. As a result, we will face bills. I can say with confidence that, last year, disorder of that nature cost us £5 million. I would rather see that £5 million invested in new officers, new prison cells, probation services and any of the multiplicity of public services that we have that are hanging by a thread. The bill will ultimately come to the Chief Constable and to me. I have made it clear to the Secretary of State that I expect the cost of that to be met. It should not eat into the current police budget.

Mr O'Toole: I have a listed question, but we are unlikely to get to it. It relates to neighbourhood policing and associated statutory work including by the probation service in inner South Belfast, around Botanic Avenue and the Holylands, where there are vulnerable communities, antisocial behaviour and people with addiction problems. That poses real problems for the people who live in that area and for local traders —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Question, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: What work is the Minister's Department doing to address those issues in inner South Belfast?

Mrs Long: The issues to which the Member refers do not all lie with the Department of Justice. Issues such as addiction services are the responsibility not of the Department of Justice but of the Department of Health. Many of those issues are to do with accommodation, housing and social ills that we are dealing with. We take antisocial behaviour and the toll that it takes on neighbouring communities seriously. I am happy to meet the Member to discuss further any interventions that may be possible.

I am aware that the policing and community safety partnership (PCSP) receives funding from the PSNI and the Department and ought, as part of its annual plan, to prioritise areas where there are particular sensitivities and complexities. I hope that the Member will ask his colleagues in Belfast City Council how the PCSP splits up that money and invests it in areas that need additional support. I have recently had meetings with elected representatives who, with different lenses, have come to me because they are concerned about the degree to which people in communities feel vulnerable to antisocial behaviour. Fundamentally, however, going back to the core of the matter, without strong neighbourhood policing and strong cooperation between communities and the police, it is incredibly difficult to manage all of that.

Mrs Long: The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service has recently completed a public consultation on a proposal for the permanent closure and disposal of Limavady courthouse. The consultation paper and associated impact assessment documents are available on the departmental website. Thirty responses were received during the consultation process, which ran for 12 weeks from 29 May 2026 to 21 August 2026. Following the conclusion of the consultation process and consideration of the responses, I intend to announce a decision on the way forward in the coming weeks. A summary report on the consultation responses will be published alongside that announcement.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. Will she assure me that Limavady courthouse will not be allowed to fall into a poor state of repair while the future of the facility is resolved?

Mrs Long: The Member raises probably the key point in all of it. All Members are aware of the adequacy of our courts estate. Many of the buildings are listed buildings and historic buildings. Many of them are beautiful buildings, but they are not fit for current court business or for organising court business in the way that we would wish. It is really important that we look at that to see how we can do things better.

It is important to me that we do not allow heritage buildings, listed buildings and buildings of quality to fall into disrepair. I do not have the money in my budget to do anything other than basic maintenance in Limavady courthouse at the moment. However, if I were to make a decision that would lead to its closure, I would want to think about what that building could be used for. I suggest to the Member that it would be worth visiting the Court House in Bangor, which was taken on by Open House. It received significant lottery funding and has become a real asset at the seafront in Bangor. It is widely used by arts organisations and for many other purposes and has become a new community hub. It is also in absolutely pristine condition.

There are opportunities for a part of East Londonderry that, perhaps, often feels overlooked to benefit from the building and put it to better use than being used for, perhaps, at best, half a day of court business each week. I want to discuss that with elected representatives in the area as part of the overall discussions.

Ms Ferguson: I appreciate the update from the Minister on the consultation and a decision in the coming weeks. Minister, how can you ensure that access to justice is protected in any future reforms, particularly in progressing the grade A listed building at Bishop Street courthouse in Derry?

Mrs Long: The intention, as part of the overall review, was to significantly refurbish and extend Bishop Street courthouse, which would allow us to provide modern facilities, such as the space to separate witnesses and defendants, on-site without losing the asset. That is still possible, but my challenge is that there is no capital funding available for that project at this time. In the interim, we continue to do essential maintenance to ensure that the building is kept in good repair for the sake of those who work in it and because it is a pristine piece of architecture. It is an impressive building in a historic location. It is important that our heritage is protected and cared for.

The plans that we have and are developing are not about anything other than ensuring access to justice. There will be many scenarios that we will have to work through for each of the courthouses. I do not want to prejudge any of them — I have not taken a firm decision on any of them at this point — but, on the basis of the plans that I have seen, there is a real opportunity to reinvigorate and bring life back to Bishop Street courthouse in a way that allows it to conduct the modern business of the court service.

Ms Egan: Minister, I have seen in my constituency the huge success of the Court House in Bangor, following a community asset transfer from your Department. Could other areas, such as Limavady, have the same opportunities for arts and culture hubs or other community assets in their towns as Bangor has had?

Mrs Long: Absolutely. I mentioned that one because it was the first community asset transfer that the Executive managed to do. Oddly, it was from Justice, which is not always recognised as contributing something so iconic to the community.

The adequacy of our estate is a challenge, but that does not mean that those buildings are inadequate or that they should not be retained or preserved. I want to see those buildings having a permanent use. That may be community arts. It may be the provision of other services from other parts of the Executive that do not have a base in those locations or are renting property in them and could save money by co-locating in one of our buildings. Those are the creative ideas that I am looking for when it comes to the estate. The first priority for me is access to justice, but it is fair to say that my second priority is to ensure that the buildings that we find to be superfluous or not fit for purpose at the end of the process are not simply lost to the public, because that would be a shame.

Mrs Long: As lead Minister for the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, which has invested over £1·5 million to support the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland in embedding trauma-informed practice across sectors, I fully support the adoption of trauma-informed approaches in my Department and across all of our public services.

The Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland works with Justice partners to ensure that our services recognise the impact of trauma and are delivered in ways that support better outcomes for individuals and communities. The establishment of a Justice-wide trauma-informed practice group in 2021, supported by the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland, has provided a platform to share information, advice and best practice, as well as driving a consistent approach to trauma-informed practice across all Justice organisations. The group also considers the impact on and support for staff working in the Justice system, given that their roles mean that they are frequently exposed to vicarious trauma. As a result, organisations have increased awareness and understanding of the impact and signs of trauma and bring that knowledge to their daily interactions, policies and procedures to actively reduce re-traumatisation and explore pathways to recovery.

Each justice organisation is at a different stage in its trauma-informed journey. Some, such as the Probation Board and the Youth Justice Agency, are more advanced and have participated in the internationally recognised Oregon tool assessment to evaluate their alignment with trauma-informed care and to monitor their progress. Others may be only at the start of that work, but there is a common vision of a trauma-informed justice system based on the lived experience of those who engage with it.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. Can you give us a little more information about how the Youth Justice Agency uses trauma-informed practice in its work?

Mrs Long: A Justice-wide group has been running since June 2021 to support a more strategic approach to trauma-informed practice across the justice system. Included on that group is representation from the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency, the police, the Prison Service, the core Department, the Safeguarding Board and Victim Support NI. Each of those organisations is committed to implementing a trauma-informed approach to their policies and services. The Safeguarding Board is driving trauma-informed practice in all sectors across Northern Ireland, and its representation on the group ensures that Justice organisations are kept abreast of the latest initiatives and training opportunities as well as of what support is available. In addition to the cross-pollination of ideas and best practice that happens among group members at meetings, outside of this group members share information on seminars, training and research that might be helpful to others. Key to that is the experience in the Justice sphere, where the Youth Justice Agency can firmly say that it, alongside the Probation Board, has led the way on trauma-informed practice and putting victims at the heart of the work that they do.

Ms Sheerin: Does the Minister agree that implementing trauma-informed practices is important in reducing reoffending and has to be embedded at an early point and not applied inconsistently? Does that mean that there should be investment in earlier trauma-informed approaches?

Mrs Long: Without doubt, it is important that we invest earlier. We know from the research conducted by the tackling paramilitarism and organised crime programme that numbers of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) are higher in Northern Ireland than in other regions and that they have significant consequences for the life outcomes of young people. Young people with high ACE scores are more likely to engage negatively with the justice system, to have poor mental health, to suffer from addictions and to not be economically active or have secure accommodation. We have to consider all those things when responding to those adverse childhood experiences, because the bit of that research that gets missed is that an adverse childhood experience does not, in itself, set a child on that path. If they have positive experiences that counterbalance and offset that and if they get the right support at the right time, many of those children will go on to lead productive and constructive lives. It is therefore in all our interests to find ways to invest much earlier in our young people who have suffered trauma.

Mr Nesbitt: Is there an assessment of the extent of vicarious trauma in the Department and its arm's-length bodies?

Mrs Long: That is an interesting question, and I thank the former Health Minister for asking it, because I know that vicarious trauma has also affected his former Department. I do not think that a baseline assessment of staff has been conducted, but it is something that we are aware of and that we may well come to in time. At the moment, we are providing people with the opportunity for additional and, perhaps, more targeted counselling. Some of the stories that we hear when we meet victims are incredibly difficult to listen to. The Member will know that, because he has been at some of those meetings alongside me. We do not simply clock out at the end of the day and forget what we have heard; we carry it with us. One way in which I deal with what I hear is to try to find something that I can do to make it better for people coming through the system. We have to find ways of managing that, such as offering our staff, particularly those in the operational sphere but also those who work in policy development and engage with experts in lived experience, the support to cope with what they may hear.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr McGrath. Can you do it in 30 seconds?

Mrs Long: Reducing avoidable delay in the justice system remains a priority for my Department and Justice partners, particularly where cases involve children and young people. Timely progression supports rehabilitation for young people who offend and helps to minimise uncertainty and further trauma for child victims and witnesses. My Department is taking forward the speeding up justice programme with Justice partners.

That programme is focused on tackling avoidable delay at a system-wide level, reducing demand on the courts and supporting proportionate and effective responses to offending. It includes work on out-of-court disposals, committal reform, early engagement, the remit of the Magistrates' Court and digital reform. I will continue to work with justice partners to address avoidable delay while ensuring that the youth justice system remains proportionate, effective and focused on rehabilitation and the needs of children and young people locally.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. You were only 10 seconds over; well done. That ends the period for listed questions. We move now to 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mrs Long: To be clear, I did not attribute blame to anyone for the fact that we needed additional feet on the ground on the Garvaghy Road. The truth is that police were there and needed mutual aid and assistance simply because there was a potential threat to order and life. They had no choice but to call on that additional resource. The figure of £5 million that I gave is the figure from the summer before last summer. I will have the mutual aid figures for this event in due course. However, it has to be said that it is a diversion of resources and local police from what they could and should be doing in communities across Northern Ireland. That is one of the reasons why I again implore those with influence in the community to try to bring the situation to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for that, Minister. Will you elaborate on what additional resources and policing that £5 million could have gone towards in your Department, where there are already cutbacks, rather than being diverted to deal with the implications of the Orange Order's attempted parade down the Garvaghy Road?

Mrs Long: Five million pounds is what it is. People are aware of the implications that that will have on a justice system that is looking down the barrel of an overspend of over £100 million this year, just to stand still. Without wishing to advertise a particular supermarket, "Every little helps". That £5 million could be better spent elsewhere. It is also fair to say that we have to make sure that people are safe. We have no choice in this. The PSNI cannot decide that its budget has run out so it will not attend; it cannot decide that it does not have enough resources and absent itself from the situation. It has to turn up and do the job.

I will give the Member an example. The difference between my being able to approve last year's PSNI pay award and not being able to approve it was around £5 million. We were finally able to receive that from the Executive, and it allowed me, albeit belatedly, to sign off on the pay award. The gap this year is much greater, but, having watched the restraint with which the PSNI conducted itself over the weekend and the dignity with which it held itself in such a difficult situation, I am sure that everyone in the House will agree that that money would be better spent on ensuring that its officers are properly and adequately paid.

Mrs Long: There is a tendency to try to misrepresent what I say. I wondered how long it would be before all of this was the Alliance Party's fault. It has not taken long.

First and foremost, it is not my role in the House to adjudicate on whether Ministers are in breach of the ministerial code. There are authorities that are responsible for that, and I encourage the Member to approach those authorities to get a read-out on that. Neither is it my job as Justice Minister to adjudicate on whether people are breaking the law. That said, I have been clear that the law must apply equally to everyone and that people have a legal, moral and leadership duty to abide by the rule of law. That does not come as a pick-and-mix. It does not apply only when you like it; it applies when you do not. I said clearly at the weekend that standing on a road may well have been peaceful, but it was not lawful. I said the same thing when it was people standing on roads over the head of the Windsor framework, when people were blocking access to Avoniel Leisure Centre over a bonfire, and when people were behaving in other ways that were provocative or in breach of the law. Therefore, I am not the one who needs to account for my consistency when it comes to the rule of law. There are many others in the House who seem to think that the rule of law applies only to others and not to their supporters. I take the view that it is never acceptable to break the law, and I do not think that anybody would be surprised that, as Justice Minister, that would be my position.

Mr T Buchanan: It is good to get the Minister to put that on the record — I thank her for doing that — because sometimes it is difficult to get that done. Does she have plans for discussions with the Chief Constable with regard to that serious breach of the law?

Mrs Long: First and foremost, it has not been difficult for me to put it on the record. I put it on the record before what happened at Drumcree. I put it on the record in the immediate aftermath, twice in front of cameras yesterday and again in the Chamber today, so if the Member has not heard it, it is not because I have not said it.

Secondly, it is not my role — I will be absolutely clear about this — to try to influence the operational decisions of the PSNI. The police have indicated that they are carrying out investigations of any offences that may have been committed on Saturday and Sunday. That is their view, and they have set that out. I will not try to influence them in either direction; nor will I be appealing to the Public Prosecution Service to take any specific action; nor will I be leaning into the Lady Chief Justice to demand that she does anything or influences her judges. That would be political interference in the independent and lawful discharge of their duties.

If you believe in the rule of law, you do not ask me to interfere in operational matters. That is the rule of law and the culture of lawfulness that we have to instil; so, no, I will not interfere. What I have done and will do is contact the Chief Constable to talk to him about what resources he might need if it continues and about the state and morale of his officers, because that is an appropriate intervention for me to make when those people are putting themselves in the middle of an intractable situation. All of us in the Chamber have a responsibility to now row everyone back from the brink and allow those officers to get back to the work that they should be doing.

Mrs Long: There are a number of reasons. We have been looking at and working on that for some time. It is certainly my desire that we would be in a position to be able to end smoking in prisons. We are working at the moment with the health service and the Public Health Agency (PHA) on a proof of concept around allowing people to vape. It is already illegal for people to smoke on landings and in indoor spaces, but it is legal for them to smoke in outdoor spaces and in their cells. The advice at the time, I guess, was that that was proportionate given that their cells are effectively their dwelling. I recognise, however, that prison officers have to go into those cells on occasion and that the smoke is not necessarily always contained within the cell. That that continues causes me concern regarding the health and well-being of prison officers, which is why we have undertaken that proof of concept and are testing it to see whether that will help.

We have concerns about vaping in a prison context, as does the PHA. As a means of getting people to desist from smoking, vaping is helpful on occasion. However, we have also stepped up the work that we are doing on smoking desistance, and we offer people, if they wish, the opportunity to give up smoking with the proper medical support and advice.

Mr Burrows: That answer is really not acceptable. For nearly a decade, prison officers in this country have had to breathe in the second-hand smoke of prisoners because we do not have the backbone to ban smoking in cells and put prison officers' lungs ahead of the prisoners. That is wrong. What is the excuse for that, Minister?

Mrs Long: If my first answer was unacceptable, that will come as a surprise to no one, because nothing ever seems to be acceptable to Mr Burrows. It also appears that, despite what he says, Mr Burrows has no concept of working in a prison environment. Prisons are often volatile and challenging places in which a whole mix of conditions are managed. How some people's reliance on smoking — that particular addiction — is managed can be critical to maintaining the safety and stability of our prisons.

We need to proceed with caution, not undue haste. I have initiated the work. I cannot speak to what happened 10 years ago — I was not here — but I can speak to the here and now. I hope that the proof of concept and the work that we are investing in to offer prisoners cessation support will be helpful.

I would prefer there to be no smoking. In fact, as a city councillor, I was one of the first politicians in Northern Ireland to support a smoke-free environment. I was berated by some of the Member's now colleagues for being unrealistic for thinking that that should apply to people in bin lorries as well as to people in offices.

Mrs Long: First and foremost, I made no comparison between race riots and what happened on the Garvaghy Road. The Member needs to take that back. What I said was that there were comparable costs from mutual aid. That is what I said. I did not compare the two scenarios, and I do not appreciate the Member's trying to misrepresent my position. I have already said today that I am concerned about what is happening not just on Garvaghy Road but across Portadown and about the fear, tension and trauma that is being reawakened in people. I have been clear about that.

I have also said that the police must police to protect life. That means that a cost will be attached. It is not for me to determine whether bringing people before the courts is a good use of police and court time. Members may try, in the next six months, to invite me to overstep my boundaries and direct the Public Prosecution Service, the Police Service or the courts in what they should do, but I will not do it. I fundamentally believe in a culture of lawfulness that applies in this House to me as much as it does to any demonstration or public assembly anywhere else. I will not be drawn to cross that line.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister. I heard you — if you did not say it, I will take it back — compare a legal protest about racism to the Garvaghy Road. If you did not make that comparison —.

Mrs Long: I did not.

Mr Carroll: OK. I will withdraw it. That is what I would have said if you had let me finish.

Mrs Long: Thank you.

Mr Carroll: Minister, is it important to defend the principle of the right to peaceful protest, including that of people on the Garvaghy Road, given what may happen in the coming days and weeks? Is that an important principle to defend?

Mrs Long: First, I appreciate the Member's withdrawing his comment, because the only link between the two was the cost of mutual aid. To be absolutely clear, that was the only link. I was asked a question about cost, and my answer was about cost.

Peaceful assembly is an important human right, but "peaceful" assembly does not equate to "lawful" assembly. Lawful assembly in this place is governed by a separate set of rules that were designed so that the police would not continually be piggy in the middle between groups of people who wanted to protest and exercise their right to do so without having any regard to their responsibilities to wider society. That is the genesis of the Parades Commission. That law must be upheld and respected. Yes, people have a right to protest lawfully and peacefully, but I will not switch course and change my opinions. I said it to unionists when they defended illegal protests on the basis that they were peaceful, and I say it now to nationalists who are defending illegal protests on the basis that they are peaceful. It is not the same to be peaceful as it is to be lawful. It is better than being violent, but it is not the same.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Diane, you have 10 seconds for a supplementary question.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, for clarity's sake, do you support Portadown District in the exercise of its lawful right?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Time is up. You will not have a chance to answer that question, Minister. Thank you very much indeed.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Bovine TB remains a top priority, and I am pleased to advise that good progress has been made recently on a number of key actions agreed in the blueprint for eradication. Those actions, which are being taken forward with the TB partnership steering group, include further increased use of interferon gamma testing, with criteria for the mandatory use of those tests now in place; the appointment of Veterinary Resources NI (VRNI) to provide vet-led, on-farm biosecurity advice, with the first visits expected to commence in November; agreement on new criteria for the establishment of alternative control herds; and a consultation, which is under way, on the proposed deployment of wildlife intervention options in Northern Ireland. I encourage those with an interest in controlling TB to consider the consultation and submit their views.

Officials have continued to advance the innovative regionalisation initiative that was jointly launched in February 2026 by the Minister for Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and the Marine, Martin Heydon, and me to address the growing impact of bovine TB on farms in a cross-border pilot research area. I am pleased to note that that project in the north-west is progressing well.

Further actions planned over the coming months include the introduction of post-movement testing; additional measures aimed at improving bTB testing; and providing farmers with greater access to information on their herd’s bTB history to inform potential purchasers of their animals.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for that answer. Indeed, we know that bovine TB is a nightmare for farmers and can result in the mandatory slaughter of an entire cattle herd. Are there circumstances in which the Minister would support a limited and controlled badger cull in order to prevent the spread of bovine TB?

Mr Muir: I am very aware of the devastating impact that TB can have on the family farm. I have met families who have been affected by it, and those conversations will stay with me for a long time. I am also mindful of the importance of following due process. We are consulting on wildlife interventions. I want to make sure that we complete the consultation process and evaluate the responses, and I will take decisions further to that. I am mindful of the previous judicial review and the importance of following due process.

Mr McAleer: The Minister will appreciate that TB eradication is probably one of the most researched subjects, going back to the work of the TB eradication partnership (TBEP) and the earlier test and vaccinate or remove (TVR) study that former Agriculture Minister Michelle O'Neill implemented. When are we likely to see a holistic implementation strategy from the partnership steering group to move towards eradicating, once and for all, a dreadful disease that forces the cull of over 20,000 cattle a year?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Declan. The whole genesis of the blueprint is based on the Chief Veterinary Officer's report. Its three pillars are people, cattle and wildlife, and that is what we are seeking to pursue. In response to Brian, I set out the actions in all those areas. We have lost two years of this mandate. We obviously would like to have made a bit more progress on the issue through legislation, but we are doing all that we can, and we are working with stakeholders. I recognise its impact not just on the Department and its finances but on family farms. The report from the Andersons Centre is very useful from that perspective.

Mr Gaston: In typical Alliance style, the Minister likes to talk about the issue rather than grasp the nettle.

While you continue to talk about TB and issue endless consultations, many family farms continue to be put at risk. When will you stop dithering, and put in place the necessary legislation to allow for a province-wide badger cull to deal with the issue once and for all?

Mr Muir: As the Member will be aware from my previous responses, there has been one consultation on wildlife interventions. The Member will be acutely aware of the importance of making sure that the consultation is properly carried out. I have been very clear that we need to follow due process on the matter. The ability to bring forward primary legislation after the consultation is inhibited in this mandate because the institutions were collapsed for two years, and there is a lesson to learn from that. When you collapse the institutions, it has real impacts on the citizens of Northern Ireland. People need to be mindful of that when they call for the institutions to be pulled down yet again.

Mr T Buchanan: Just get on with the job and do it.

Mr McCrossan: Can the Minister give an update on the cross-border pilot and the regional cooperation programme to tackle bovine TB because it is one of the biggest issues for farmers in my constituency? Will the pilot include part of my constituency, and what will it cost?

Mr Muir: The Member has raised the cross-border initiative that we are taking forward. We have taken lessons from other parts of the world where the regionalisation approach has worked well. There has been a significant uptake by farmers of the surveys, as well as the biosecurity advice. We will update the Committee in due course on the progress that has been made, but it is a good initiative.

I heard someone chunter from a sedentary position, "Just get on with it". People also have to learn lessons and make sure that we do this right. On the last day of the previous mandate, my predecessor announced a wildlife intervention. Guess what? It was successfully judicially reviewed. It is important for us to do things correctly on these issues.

Mr Muir: Steady progress is being made to deliver the Lough Neagh action plan, with partners continuing to implement measures aimed at improving water quality and protecting the long-term health of the lough. The consultation on an updated nutrients action programme to tackle pollution from agricultural sources has recently concluded. I recently announced a £49 million Lough Neagh catchment area water quality programme, through funding from the Shared Island initiative, which will support nature-based solutions on farms.

I have also set out to the Assembly several key interventions to strengthen the regulation and enforcement of waste water activities. I seek to take those interventions forward, including the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill, which will strengthen the fines and penalties and hold polluters to account. In addition, I am seeking to leave the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI), which is an administrative arrangement that has wrongly afforded NI Water a bye ball from prosecution for waste water pollution.

I also continue to seek to establish an independent environmental protection agency. We need an independent environmental regulator, free from political interference and able to get on with the job of protecting our environment. It is wrong that we are the only part of the UK and Ireland that does not have an independent environmental protection agency, and its establishment has been blocked by the DUP. I am doing all that I can to improve water quality and strengthen regulation enforcement to hold the polluters to account. Whilst important strides have been made, it is essential to recognise that the recovery of the lough requires sustained long-term action and support for the difficult decisions that are required.

Mr Tennyson: Minister, what impact has the Executive's obstruction of holding NI Water to account had on the efforts to save Lough Neagh?

Mr Muir: The impact of not taking the correct actions to ensure that we have a fair and proportionate regulation and enforcement regime for all the polluters associated with water quality is devastating. It is not lost on me that, recently, the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee opposed an arrangement for Thames Water that is similar to the one currently in place for NI Water. The arrangement that is in place is not right, and it is potentially unlawful. In the context of the discussions we have had today about the rule of law, no one should be asking me to continue to operate something that is potentially unlawful. The SORPI regime is wrong, and it needs to go.

Mr Kearney: Minister, on Friday, you made a very important announcement about a financial mitigation package for fishermen because of the endemic pollution of the Lough. I think that we would both agree that the package will not provide full compensation for the eel fishermen's loss of livelihood because they can no longer fish in the lough in the normal way for the foreseeable future. However, can you set out in some detail how you intend to operationalise the mitigation package? What further steps do you intend to take to secure the sustainability of commercial fishing on Lough Neagh?

Mr Muir: I met with the eel fishermen last week regarding the package. I want to reassure you and those affected by this that the Department has stretched itself as far as it can to provide that support package. In Northern Ireland, it is often the least well-off who are affected the most as a result of environmental damage, so it is important that we have a just transition and support people who are affected by this.

The arrangements that have been put in place restrict eel fishermen for the next three years, which I recognise is difficult for them. We have announced a support package based on 50% reimbursement of income forgone, using a three-year fishing track record, based on 2022, 2023 and 2024. Payment to eligible fishers will be made annually over the three-year life of the scheme. The scheme will also support hauliers, and it is important that we put that in place. We will seek to operationalise this as soon as possible and ensure that we get the support out to people. We need to put administrative arrangements in place, but I thought that it was important to engage with the fishermen and make the announcement last week.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, I appreciate that the relationship between you and the farming community is not good. What can you do to support the community to help it with the Lough Neagh issue? In the past, the finger was pointed at them, but we know that it is not all their fault. They are not completely clean, but it is not all their fault. Every day, we see sewage in our rivers and on our streets that is running into Lough Neagh, but the finger is being pointed at farmers. What can you do to build that relationship and, ultimately, solve the problem?

Mr Muir: I have many good relationships with farmers who are committed to nature-friendly farming and our environment, and I congratulate them for that. As I set out in my response to the substantive question, £49 million has been secured under the Shared Ireland initiative to support nature-based solutions on farms as part of the sustainable catchment programme. We are also developing and delivering our sustainable farm initiative, which is really important. As part of that, there is capital support for people in relation to technologies that are available.

With regard to waste water pollution, I have set out to you that I have a paper with the Executive, which has been sitting there for months, to end the bye ball that was wrongly afforded to NI Water. The DUP is blocking that, so I encourage you to let me make sure that everyone is treated fairly. It is wrong that the corporate polluter is afforded a bye ball. That needs to end.

Mr McGlone: Minister, I have done a quick calculation on the support package for eel fishermen and the hauliers, and, give or take £100, it averages out at around £2,800 per annum. Will that, too, be liable for income tax?

Mr Muir: I am not in a position to advise on behalf of HMRC. That is something for it to consider. If the Member wishes to raise that issue with HMRC, I am sure that it will give him clarity on it.

Ms D Armstrong: Of the actions in the Lough Neagh action plan that are listed as "Progressing", how many do you anticipate being completed before the end of the mandate?

Mr Muir: We are making steady progress on the delivery of the Lough Neagh action plan. A number of actions are particularly challenging, one of which sits with the Department for Infrastructure, namely investment in waste water infrastructure. That is one of the key issues. We need to be brave and face up to that issue. It is holding back housebuilding and economic development, and it is also polluting our waterways. Sound bites will not cut it. It means facing up to the stark realities that we need to make sure that our waste water infrastructure is properly funded. I will support the Executive in their case to the UK Government for a fairer funding settlement, but we need to look at what we can do. We are perpetuating a cost-of-living crisis because we are not dealing with the issues. As you will know, house prices are increasing because we are not investing in that area, but that lack of investment is also polluting Lough Neagh and many other waterways.

Mr Muir: I am committed to ensuring that Northern Ireland's bathing waters framework remains fit for purpose and reflects how people use our rivers, lakes and coastal waters today. Protecting public health and improving water quality remain central to my intent. Northern Ireland continues to enjoy high-quality bathing waters, with the vast majority of identified bathing waters achieving either an "excellent" or "good" classification in recent years. To build on that success, my Department recently completed a public consultation on the bathing waters policy review.

The review has considered a range of proposals designed to modernise the current framework, including improving public information and health messaging, reviewing bathing water identification arrangements, considering a more risk-based approach to monitoring, strengthening arrangements for poorly performing bathing waters, extending the bathing season and ensuring that the framework reflects modern patterns of recreational water use.

At the same time, participation in recreational water activities has continued to evolve, and it is important that the policy framework keeps pace with those changes. The consultation closed on 21 August 2026, and my officials are analysing the responses and assessing all relevant implications. This is an opportunity to modernise the bathing water programme for generations to come, safeguarding the health of bathers and those who participate in recreational water activities. That work will complement the wider measures that are being taken by my Department to improve water quality across Northern Ireland. I will make final decisions on the future direction of bathing water policy by the end of November 2026.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. Surfers Against Sewage has long campaigned and advocated for cleaner waters for recreation. Will the Minister meet Surfers Against Sewage with me?

Mr Muir: I would be delighted to do that. What is more, I will give you a challenge. I am happy to do that down in your constituency, and, if we can go for a dip as part of that, I would be delighted to take up the offer.

Mr Martin: I hope that the Minister is not going to offer that to those of us in our constituency.

Minister, in your answer to a previous question, you said that your Department is collecting out-of-season data to inform whether bathing waters are safe. In Ards and North Down, as you might be aware, there are 231 storm overflows, of which 94 have event duration monitors (EDMs). How can the public have confidence that those waters are safe to swim in on the basis of a relatively small number of bathing water samples and given the fact that, in some areas, no live EDM data is being collected?

Mr Muir: The Member will be aware that, in our constituency, we have a number of designated bathing areas, including Helen's Bay and Crawfordsburn. I invite him to join me at Helen's Bay on Christmas Eve. I am sure that you will step up to that —

Mr Martin: It is not going to happen.

Mr Muir: — and support charity as well. I accept that — [Interruption.]

I am aware that people have a concern about what is in the outfall in those areas. We need to have more EDMs and more real-time monitoring and reporting of those. It is a key part of our waste water regulatory reform programme to see those EDMs rolled out more broadly by NI Water and to have that near-real-time reporting. That is one of the key issues. We hope to make further announcements around that in the time ahead. It is reliant upon NI Water's installing the equipment and working with us on the provision of data. I am very clear that people deserve to have that data so that they know when it is safe to bathe.

Mr Muir: I welcome the detailed advice and recommendations that I received from the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) in its response to the consultation on the proposed measures in the revised nutrients action programme (NAP). My Department is carefully considering those recommendations alongside all the other consultation responses.

I asked the stakeholder task and finish group, with representatives from the agriculture, environmental and agri-food sectors, to develop proposals that are evidence based, workable at farm level within realistic time frames and meet legislative requirements. I truly appreciate the time and effort that have gone into that process. However, the OEP has raised issues that need to be considered and that will lead to changes to the final NAP proposals. It is imperative that we protect the environment and adhere to the law. Findings from the OEP that non-compliance with nitrogen limits may be widespread and that potentially 1,990 farms may be exceeding that limit are deeply concerning and must be addressed, as must the need to reform slurry exports, as I warned about on 10 June 2025. My officials are working closely with the OEP and stakeholders to finalise the measures in the NAP. I will consider those before taking my final decisions on the updated NAP regulations.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for his response. Can the Minister set out what the consequences for Lough Neagh will be if agricultural pollution is not addressed?

Mr Muir: The consequences are twofold. They are catastrophic, frankly. If we do not address the issues that I have warned the House about repeatedly, we will have a significant issue when it comes to the long-term viability of farming and our international reputation, which we rely upon for trade. We also face the complete and utter collapse of our waterways. It is imperative that we take those decisions. I commend the stakeholders for the work that they have done, and I commend the OEP for its response. I will consider that in the time ahead. We must take action to address the issue, deliver long-term viability and recognise the great work that has been done by farmers to date and the need to go further.

Ms Finnegan: Minister, how are you ensuring that any revised requirements are practical and properly supported for small farmers?

Mr Muir: As I set out, the criteria for the stakeholder group were very clear. We must strive for that, but we also must abide by the law. When we talk about the rule of law, in this role, my focus is not just on criminal law but on environmental law, and it is important that we abide by that. Alongside that, we must support our farmers in the journey ahead, and part of that is about the funding that we are providing, particularly through the sustainable farm investment scheme, the sustainable catchment programme and that Shared Island funding and wider initiatives. I am committed to doing that so that we can ensure that we have a strong and viable future for farming while improving water quality in our rivers, lakes and loughs.

Mr Wilson: There has been plenty of talk in the House today about not going back. Can the Minister confirm that there will not be any going back to the unworkable and unfair NAP proposals, and, as Agriculture Minister, will he ensure that he will protect that industry and work with it constructively to reach a fair settlement that protects the environment and, crucially, the farmer?

Mr Muir: I work night and day to achieve a future that is thriving and resilient and is environmentally sustainable for farming. That is hard, because the challenges are immense, but I am committed to doing that. We want to see measures that are workable at farm level within realistic time frames, but we also want to meet our obligations under the law. The Member will be aware of the previous and current legal challenges against my Department. I need to be mindful of that.

Mr Muir: Waste management authorisations require operators to manage waste in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Authorisation conditions include requirements relating to fire prevention, waste storage and operational controls proportionate to the risks posed by the waste being handled. I recognise the increasing challenges associated with lithium ion batteries and the fire risks that they present in the waste management sector. My Department is actively considering whether the relevant regulatory arrangements require review. In light of recent incidents, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) is actively considering whether measures need to be strengthened to ensure the detection, segregation and safe handling of lithium ion batteries before waste enters processing or storage areas. NIEA also continues to engage with individual operators on a risk-based basis to ensure that appropriate controls are in place and that emerging risks are identified and addressed at an early stage.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his answer. I would welcome such a review. As Minister and a Member from a neighbouring constituency, he will be aware of the incident at the Clearway site on 2 September 2026, which is one of a number of incidents over the past year or two. Will he commit to publishing the NIEA inspection findings and any enforcement action arising from the incident? Will he set out what changes, he believes, should be made to prevent similar incidents in future?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. I can give him an assurance that there will be maximum transparency within the law. As he probably recognises, when it comes to any enforcement cases, we have a process to follow, but the default position is transparency.

As the Member is aware, that was the second large fire at the Clearway site for which lithium ion batteries were believed to have been the cause. The fire at Clearway was notified to NIEA on 2 September. NIEA officers attended the site in liaison with our partner agencies. That and other licensed waste management facilities that are regulated by NIEA are required to implement appropriate fire measures, including the development and maintenance of a fire action plan, as part of their authorisation conditions.

The NIEA works with the industry and the emergency services to promote best practice, and it keeps regulatory arrangements under ongoing review. Furthermore, the NIEA continues to engage with individual operators to ensure that appropriate controls are in place and that emerging risks are identified and addressed at an early stage through updated fire action and site-working plans.

Mr Blair: I know that waste management matters are important to the Minister. What engagement has there been on such matters between the NIEA and the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service?

Mr Muir: Thank you, John. The NIEA works closely with the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service on waste-fire prevention, incident response and the identification of lessons learned following significant fire events. To strengthen further that partnership, the NIEA and the Fire and Rescue Service are currently reviewing their existing memorandum of understanding, which provides a framework for information sharing, cooperation and joint working on issues of mutual interest, including waste-fire risks. That will ensure that the memorandum of understanding continues to support effective collaborative working between both organisations. Engagement takes place at operational and strategic levels, and NIEA and Fire and Rescue Service officials maintain regular contact. The chief executives of both organisations met on Monday 21 September to discuss areas of shared concern, including waste fires, and potential opportunities for closer collaboration.

Mr Muir: The draft clean sir strategy sets out a range of measures that will improve air quality across Northern Ireland, including in urban areas such as South Belfast, where people can be more exposed to pollution from transport, domestic heating and other sources. The strategy is currently out for public consultation, and I encourage everyone with an interest to have their say. Northern Ireland's Chief Medical Officer, because of its strong focus on protecting public health, has welcomed the consultation.

I was delighted that so many of our major health charities supported the consultation's launch. The draft strategy contains five strategic objectives, which are aimed at reducing harmful emissions; improving our evidence base; strengthening legislation; increasing public awareness; and supporting behavioural change. Each strategic objective has a set of practical actions attached, including, for example, consulting on limit values in order to make relevant legislative changes; achieving a fair and just transition for home heating; establishing a Northern Ireland clean air forum; increasing investment in active travel; and reviewing the local air quality management grant. Together, those measures will help deliver cleaner air for communities across Northern Ireland.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you very much for that update, Minister. Air quality is a crucial issue in South Belfast, which has so much traffic flowing through it daily. What is your assessment of the link between air pollution and public health? Moreover, how will the draft strategy be received by the health sector?

Mr Muir: The health effects of air pollution are now well established and backed up by research that shows that there are clear links between air pollution and negative health outcomes. A British Heart Foundation report from 2023, 'Air Pollution and Mortality on the Island of Ireland', highlighted the fact that 936 deaths in Northern Ireland were attributed to fine particulate matter air pollution, 314 of which were the result of circulatory diseases.

More recently, in October 2025, a landmark study published by Queen's University Belfast estimated that over 130 lung cancer cases in Northern Ireland each year are attributable to air pollution. That is why I am driving the clean air strategy through to completion in this Assembly mandate. I look forward to getting Executive agreement for the strategy. The main pollutants of concern that affect air quality and human health in Northern Ireland are particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, ground-level ozone, sulphur dioxide, ammonia and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Mr Muir: The establishment of an independent environmental protection agency is a matter that must be considered and agreed by the Executive. It is a necessary step in order to secure resources from the Office of the Legislative Counsel for the development and introduction of primary legislation. That step cannot be taken by my acting alone, and there is no alternative lawful mechanism that would allow the necessary legislation to be introduced. The reason that I have not been able to draft the legislation is that one party has decided not to allow it to go on the Executive agenda for decision. That is wrong, and that is why I have reached out to the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. I have written to them to make the case for the reform of the institutions in order to end the cycle of crisis and collapse and also that of stand-off and stalemate, whereby matters are not progressed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Mr O'Toole to ask a very short supplementary question.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for his answer. He mentioned the one party that has blocked it. That same party's Minister of Education has railroaded lots of policies through the House without Executive approval.

Lots of people's kids were off school last Friday because of his TransformED policy. Minister, will you look at what options you can to push through progress on an independent environmental protection agency, even without Executive agreement?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am afraid that the Minister will not be able to answer that, because that ends the period for listed questions. We now move to topical questions.

Mr Muir: As the Member is aware, I commissioned an independent, external review. Dr Martin Blake is undertaking that review. I expect it to be completed by the middle of October. I would like to be able to publish the review's findings and recommendations, and the departmental response, in due course thereafter. As the Member will also be aware, despite other people's assertions, I neither authorised nor directed that operation, but I understand the concerns around it, which is why I commissioned the independent, external review.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister. Yes, I am very conscious of commentary from some on the opposite Benches that has, at times, been highly inappropriate. Minister, can you confirm the total costs to your Department and the public purse of the operation that was carried out on that day in slaughtering 51 cattle: the staffing costs, the veterinary costs and the costs of removal and disposal of the animals?

Mr Muir: I do not have the information to hand, but I will pass it on to Dr Blake as a question that has been raised and to which a response is sought. I say this to you and to many others: I am sincere about animal welfare and understand its importance. At a previous Question Time, I set out the review of our enforcement policy. The findings of that review will come to me at the end of next month. We need to move firmer and faster on all aspects of enforcement, including farmed-animal welfare.

Mr Muir: I do not have the exact figures, but it is a ground-breaking and really welcome initiative. There is a conditionality associated with the farm sustainability payments that we give to farmers to take part in it. The reason for that is the benefits that it can deliver in relation not just to animal health and disease but to productivity and environmental outcomes. I congratulate and thank all those involved with the initiative, and I encourage all farmers to participate in it.

Mr Burrows: I thank the Minister for that answer. You encouraged uptake. The closing date was not listed on the announcement. I have been told that it is 15 May 2028. What is the Minister doing to maximise awareness that it is time-limited?

Mr Muir: I take that on board and will consider how we can raise awareness of the scheme. Genetics and science are a way through some of the challenges that we have in agriculture, and it is important that we embrace that. I take on board your point about how we can raise further awareness of the scheme. Again, I thank all those involved with the initiative, because it is really significant for us and will provide a much stronger future for our agriculture.

Mr Muir: If that is all that you can muster for Question Time, given the major challenges that we have in farming and the environment, I question your ability to do proper scrutiny in the House.

Mr Frew: I remind the Minister to talk through the Chair. Does the Minister stand over his bizarre claims that farmers who called for his resignation were motivated by homophobic or misogynistic tendencies?

Mr Muir: The Member will know well that that is not what I said, but why let facts get in the way of a good story? The reality is that I have massive respect for the overwhelming majority of farmers in Northern Ireland. They are the custodians of our countryside who do a fantastic job. What I said at the Committee, which you and your party would do well to recognise, is that the abuse and the comments on social media — misogynistic abuse against officials in my Department, sectarian abuse against officials in my Department and homophobic abuse against me — was wrong.

I said that it was wrong that people were making such comments. In addition, there were six death threats against me and an assault. If you cannot fathom a way to condemn that and not play politics with it, I despair. This place needs to be better than that. People look to this place for leadership on the issues that matter rather than to see Members driving a wedge between us on issues and distracting people from the job at hand.

Mr Muir: I have not met the new UK Prime Minister, but my colleagues have. I continue to engage with my ministerial counterparts, including the DEFRA Minister. The fundamental issue is that Northern Ireland needs a fair funding settlement. Look at the settlements for Wales and Scotland. It is not right that we are not funded fairly in Northern Ireland. As part of that funding, capital support is critical for us. Members will not be aware of this, but I will set out that the level of interest in the sustainable farming investment scheme has been significant. Having the capital funding to support farmers through that scheme is key. That is why I continue to support the Finance Minister and the wider Executive to ensure that we have a fair funding settlement for Northern Ireland.

Ms Finnegan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra.

It is heartening to hear that those discussions are ongoing, but, Minister, in your responses, you highlighted the fact that funding pressures are affecting Lough Neagh and other matters as a result of the loss of EU funding, owing to Brexit, and years of British austerity. Will you commit to continuing those discussions to ensure that funding is secured for the likes of dealing with Lough Neagh and helping farmers and those in rural communities, who absolutely need it?

Mr Muir: I will continue to fight my Department's corner for farmers and the environment, because that is really important. On Brexit, if people look at the figures on the headcount in my Department, they will see that there has been no increase in resources since 2018, setting aside the additional resources that had to be allocated as a result of the EU exit. The EU exit has created an awful lot of bureaucracy, and we needed to create many more positions. It also stunted growth in the wider UK. Leaving the EU was a really bad idea. If people cannot see that, they are living under a rock.

Mr Muir: I continue to engage, as the Member outlined, with producers and processors. I recognise the pressures that they face, especially relating to the costs of fuel and fertiliser, which are particularly acute, according to what I read in the farming press. The Chancellor's forthcoming Budget will be critical, not only for Northern Ireland but for the rest of the UK, to address the pressures on the industry from the cost of living and the cost of doing business. A particular challenge for processors relates to the UK migration reforms. That is a particular pressure for them, and I continue to engage with the UK Government on that.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, will you tell us what the outcomes of your engagement have been?

Mr Muir: The outcome from my continuing engagement is that I then engage further with the Department of Finance about Budget allocation. You mentioned the farm sustainability payment. We have managed to safeguard that payment this year and in future years. It is critical that we provide that support to the farming community in Northern Ireland while also delivering further schemes, including Farming with Nature. One outcome from my engagements is that processors often come to me to tell me about the impact of UK migration policy on their ability to staff their premises correctly and to operate. I make those cases to the Home Office, but it does not help me when your party takes the approach of going even harder on restrictions on the migration of people who would fill those posts.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Sian. For those who are not aware, Lucy's law is a ban on the third-party sale of pups and kittens. Many people have asked me to introduce it, and I am passionate about doing so. Many animal welfare organisations have also called for it. I compiled an Executive paper, circulated it and allowed Ministers to come back to me, but it got on to the Executive agenda for discussion only last Thursday. The current situation is that I have had to seek the First Minister and deputy First Minister's approval of it by urgent procedure. I hope that that will be done today, because we should progress it and ban third-party sales of pups and kittens. I want the legislation to be in place by the end of the year. There is no good reason why the First Minister and deputy First Minister cannot sign off on it.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for the continuous and passionate fervour with which you are pursuing this. Will you outline your plans for animal welfare for the remainder of the mandate?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Sian. I do not apologise for being passionate about this, because animal welfare is a really important issue. I am incredulous that the deputy First Minister could not agree to it last Thursday. I do not ask much of Ministers: read your Executive papers, raise your queries and allow matters to go to a decision.

The animal welfare pathway is one of my top priorities. Significant progress has been made on that ambitious programme of animal welfare reform. Legislation mandating CCTV in slaughterhouses is now in place, and the independent review of the regulations for dog breeding establishments has been published, delivering two major commitments. A public consultation on phase 1 of the proposals relating to dog breeding establishments will be launched in the coming months, and a supplementary report on canine fertility services has also been completed and will be published shortly. A public consultation outlining proposals for banning specific aversive training devices, enhancing microchipping requirements and regulating rescue and rehoming organisations closed at the end of June and received over 700 responses. That demonstrates the high level of public interest in animal welfare and in providing views to inform final policy proposals. I expect to receive advice on the final policy shortly, following which a consultation summary and a way forward document will be published, setting out proposed next steps, including progressing legislation. For the remainder of the mandate, my focus will be firmly on turning policy into action by securing the approvals required to introduce legislation and tackle animal cruelty in Northern Ireland.

Mr Muir: The Member will be aware that each site is considered on its merits, but I am glad to outline the additional steps that we are considering taking. The issue of lithium ion batteries is of growing concern, not just in Northern Ireland but across the waste management sector more widely. The increasing number of batteries entering mixed-waste streams presents significant challenges for operators and regulators, particularly given the fire risks associated with damaged or improperly handled batteries. My officials are working closely with regulators, industry stakeholders and UK Government counterparts to assess potential measures to mitigate battery fire risks. A consultation on the implementation of the EU's batteries regulation and wider UK policy alignment is expected later this year and will help to inform any future policy interventions. Addressing this issue requires action across the supply chain, from consumers disposing of batteries correctly to operators implementing robust controls and regulators ensuring that effective safeguards are in place to protect people, property and the environment.

Mr Brooks: Has the Minister made any assessment of the threat posed to the lough by fire water run-off, given the vast amounts of water used to control such a fire over a long period of time?

Mr Muir: I will write to the Member. There is a challenge around that because of the nature of the area. If it was a river, it would be much easier to establish the threat. I will write to the Member, because I recognise his concern about the matter.

Mr Speaker: Phillip Brett has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the First Minister. I do not see her.

Ms Ennis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I spoke to Michelle O'Neill about this item of business. She informed me that she told the deputy First Minister in writing what the position was, which is that she engaged with the Garvaghy Road community in her role as Leas-Uachtarán Shinn Féin

not as First Minister. That position

should have been communicated to your office, unless it is being blocked in TEO.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to what the Member has said, just a few moments ago, I received an email from the First Minister's office outlining that she is refusing to come to the House —

Some Members: Shame.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: — to answer the question for urgent oral answer. I want to put on record that I am absolutely clear that the First Minister should come to the House. She should not be running from scrutiny or legitimate questions that need to be asked about her behaviour and lawbreaking. Unfortunately, because of such late notice from the First Minister of her refusal to come, I responded by saying that that must go down as a First Minister-only comment, because I do not agree with her position, and that that should be communicated.

Mr Brett: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I say this as the Member who was granted permission to ask the question for urgent oral answer on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland: the First Minister has once again shown her utter contempt for the people of Northern Ireland. Her arrogance knows no bounds. She has clearly been carried away and is drunk on her belief that she is the First Minister for all and that she is not answerable to the House. It is clear that, after breaking the law on Sunday, she is on the run.

Mr Speaker, what options are open to the House to demand the presence of the First Minister to explain why she is refusing to discharge her duties? Instead, she is sitting in her office, which is behind the door of the Chamber, hiding from the House.

Mr Speaker: I came in this morning to a number of questions for urgent oral answer to a number of Ministers, and the independent members of staff recommended that I accept all of them. However, I chose to accept one as opposed to rehearsing all the arguments over and over again, and it seemed obvious that I should choose the Executive Office — the office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister — to respond. I am responsible for making that decision, not the First Minister.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: It is a gross discourtesy to every Member of the House from every party for the First Minister to decide, when that has been established and is on the agenda, that she will not attend the Chamber to answer questions. We hold Ministers to account. It does not matter which Minister it is. I have always sought to ensure that Ministers, regardless of the party from which they come, are held to account, because that is the role of the Assembly on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.

I also remind the First Minister that she is the First Minister. It does not matter where she goes. Wherever she is, she is the First Minister. I live my life knowing that I am the Speaker, as a consequence of which I have to avoid going to certain things. There are a lot of things that I would naturally have gone to that I do not go to any more because I am the Speaker. The First Minister is always the First Minister. The deputy First Minister is always the deputy First Minister. She may have duties in her constituency, for example, but she always has the title of deputy First Minister. I expect the First Minister to attend, and I will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes to allow the First Minister to come to answer to the House.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Speaker: We still have a question for the First Minister, but she is still not in her place.

Ms Ennis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Agreement was not sought from the deputy First Minister, nor would it have been given, for Michelle O'Neill to attend the Garvaghy Road and stand in solidarity with that community. She was clearly there, as she is entitled to be, in her role as leas-uachtarán Shinn Féin

She was clearly not representing TEO — it is not a matter for TEO. If there has been discourtesy to the House — [Interruption.]

If there has been discourtesy to the House, it has come from the deputy First Minister, who has withheld or blocked that information from getting to you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, order.

Mr Gaston: On the run.

Mr Speaker: Order, order.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely outrageous for the Member, who is not part of the Executive Office, to come to the House —. I do not know where you are getting your information or misinformation from. Let me make it absolutely clear that the deputy First Minister's office chased the First Minister's office for an answer, and I made it absolutely clear that the First Minister should not run away from scrutiny but come to the House and answer for the actions that she wilfully took. Despite that, we received only very late notice of her refusal to do so. On the back of that

I indicated that the First Minister should attend. It is exceptionally important that we make it clear to people who are listening, given that there is deflection and distraction, that I was more than happy for the First Minister to attend. I indicated that she should attend for the House's scrutiny. I also agreed to her comment on her view on the matter going to the Speaker as a First Minister-only comment. Nothing was blocked by the deputy First Minister's office. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

The first matter is that I did not get this information until I came into the Chamber. Funny, the media got it. It is an utter discourtesy not just to me but to every Member that the media were briefed that the First Minister did not intend to attend, but the Speaker's Office, which had requested her attendance, was not. Secondly, it is unprecedented for a Minister not to come to the House when the Speaker's Office has made the call. You might not like the call that the Speaker's Office made, but it is a gross discourtesy to every Member to choose not to come to the House.

Ms Ennis, you have made comments on behalf of the First Minister in your role, I assume, as Sinn Féin Chief Whip: the First Minister could have made those comments. Members may well have disagreed with them, but she could have come here and made the case herself, and she should have. It is apparent that she is not coming today. I will be willing to accept further questions on the issue, and we will consider those tomorrow. If we have them tomorrow, I will expect the First Minister to be in attendance tomorrow. It may well be that all Ministers are called tomorrow, if I choose to call them. I am in no way minded to allow Members to show contempt for the House. There are articles and rules on calling people. I went through the code of conduct and the ministerial Pledge of Office, and it is clear to me that, under the Pledge of Office, the Minister should attend the House when the Speaker's Office requests that.

On so many fronts, this is just unacceptable, but the front on which it is most unacceptable is this: we, the 90 Members of this institution, hold to account Ministers from whatever party — it is a multiparty Executive — so a Minister who refuses to be held to account shows gross contempt for all those who cast their votes to elect Members to the Assembly. That is unacceptable in my book. I have said that to every other Minister whom I have challenged on some issue in my time as Speaker. I am not picking on Michelle O'Neill because she is a Sinn Féin Minister; I am making it clear that we are here to represent the community of Northern Ireland and she needs to come to the House to answer to the community of Northern Ireland.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Were you able to ascertain whether the First Minister is in the Building or in police custody or whether something else is preventing her from coming to the Chamber? She is big enough and brave enough to make speeches on the Garvaghy Road but, seemingly, not big enough and brave enough to answer elected representatives' questions. It seems that she can comment only when she has Mary Lou McDonald beside her. Would it be in order to make provision to allow Mary Lou McDonald to stand beside Michelle O'Neill if that is the only way in which she will answer questions?

Mr Speaker: Order. Nobody other than Ministers will come to the Chamber, because that is how it is. I have no idea where Michelle O'Neill happens to be. She may well be in the Building or she may not — that is not something that I can answer — but she had adequate notice to be here and therefore should have been here.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, you have the power under section 44 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to compel a witness to produce documents and to come in front of the Assembly to give evidence. Mr Speaker, I urge you to use the powers at your disposal to ensure that Ms O'Neill comes here. I also urge you to suspend the sitting until then.

Mr Speaker: At this point, we are going to return to the previous item of business.

Ms Egan: I will make some short remarks on the updated code of conduct and the unacceptable behaviours policy. As the Chairperson said, a considerable amount of work has gone into redrafting the policy. That involved the Committee, a cross-party working group of MLAs, stakeholders and those who work in the Building. It is important to be clear that, today, Members are not being asked to approve the unacceptable behaviours policy itself. As I said, the policy has been the subject of extensive work, and, Mr Speaker, you circulated it to MLAs last week. The motion is about ensuring that the code and the guide properly reflect the agreed policy insofar as it applies to complaints against MLAs.

The term "unacceptable behaviour" is particularly important. The policy now clarifies that:

on people who work in this Building. It continues:

That is part of the code of behaviour that already covers MLAs in the Building, which includes showing respect; valuing everyone; being aware of your power, influence or authority and not abusing those positions; thinking about how your behaviour affects others and always striving to understand their perspectives; acting professionally towards others; speaking up about any unacceptable behaviour that you experience; and displaying the highest ethical standards of integrity, courtesy and mutual respect. That is extremely important. The amendments to the code do not create a new standards regime for Members; they simply clarify existing obligations and improve objectivity and confidentiality, as referred to in the agreed policy.

Before I conclude, I will say that it was appropriate to change the name of the Standards and Privileges Committee, of which I am the vice chair. The technical update to rename it the "Committee on Standards" reflects more closely the role of the Committee in what it can adjudicate on.

Ms D Armstrong: The Ulster Unionist Party does not sit on the Committee on Standards. However, I will make some comments on behalf of the party.

Given the events just now, with the non-appearance of the First Minister to respond to a question for urgent oral answer, this debate could hardly be more relevant. At the heart of public service is a simple principle: that those entrusted with representing the public must conduct themselves in a way that earns and maintains the public's trust. The Assembly's code of conduct exists to establish the ethical standards expected of every Member, to provide clear and transparent rules and, ultimately, to protect public confidence in this institution.
The changes before us today are, as has been outlined by Committee members, largely technical and procedural in nature. They reflect the work undertaken by the Committee on Standards and ensure that the rules remain fit for purpose and consistent with evolving expectations around behaviour, accountability and public life. Every Member is expected to uphold the principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Alongside those principles, we have obligations around respect, professionalism and the way we conduct ourselves towards colleagues, Assembly staff and members of the public. The revised code strengthens the Assembly's ethical framework in several important ways, and those have been clearly articulated by members of the Committee today.

The amendments help to ensure that the standards framework governing Members remains robust, relevant and credible. Members are elected to serve the public. We are entrusted with public office, public resources and the responsibility of legislating on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.

With that privilege comes a responsibility to lead by example. At a time when public confidence in political institutions can never be taken for granted, it is more important than ever that the Assembly demonstrates its commitment to the highest standards of conduct.

The public rightly expects those who make laws and hold others to account to be willing to uphold those same standards themselves. Therefore, as we consider the revisions, we should reaffirm our collective commitment to integrity, transparency, accountability, respect and service. By doing so, we not only protect the reputation of the Assembly but strengthen public confidence in our democratic institutions. The credibility of the Assembly rests on not only the decisions that we take but the standards that we uphold while taking them. The public rightly expects those standards to be high, and we should expect nothing less of every Minister and MLA. I commend to the House the updated code of conduct and guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Chair of the Committee on Standards, Cathy Mason, to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mrs Mason: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I start by thanking all Members who contributed to the debate. I appreciate the consideration that has been given to the Committee's proposed amendments to the code and guide. I specifically thank the members of the Committee, the Deputy Chair, officials Shane McAteer and Ashley Mitford and the whole team who supported this detailed piece of work. I thank them for not just this but all the important work that they do on and for the Committee on Standards.

The Committee is satisfied that the proposed revised code and guide remain fit for purpose and continue to promote the high standards of conduct that the public are entitled to expect from all Members. I thank the Deputy Chair for clarifying that today's debate is not about the policy but how the updates to the code and the guide relate to the rules of conduct for Members.

On behalf of the Committee on Standards, I commend the report and the proposed revised code and guide to the House. I ask Members to support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease while we make a change at the top Table before moving on to the next item of business.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, I will not call amendment No 3, as it is mutually exclusive to amendment No 1, which has been made.

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

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

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Irish-medium Education (Workforce Plan) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item.

Mr Speaker: The next item in the Order Paper is the resumption of the Second Stage of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill. I return to the speaking list and call Diane Forsythe to continue her contribution.

Mrs Cameron: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like some clarity from you, given that your office has received correspondence from the Christian Institute, the Free Speech Union and Genspect UK, saying:

Discussion of that term has been shut down on a number of occasions by the Deputy Speakers, so it would be good to get clarity on what we can and cannot debate on the subject.

Mr Speaker: If it is in the Bill and relates to the scope of the Bill, it is acceptable.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome that clarity.

I was coming to the end of my remarks on the Bill. The general theme of my contribution had been that the main dangers in the Bill were based on the lack of definitions of the terminology used in it, particularly the term that Mrs Cameron mentioned in relation to the joint letter from the Christian Institute, the Free Speech Union and Genspect. There is a lack of definition of the term "gender identity" in the Bill. We have seen the debate closed down time and again, but, through my contribution, we teased out the dangers of not having a clear definition of what the term means, the number of identities, the scope or the general intentions. The Bill sponsor indicated his intention that the definition be drawn out and tested in the courts to bring clarity as to what would and would not be included in the definition.

Mr Martin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Mr Martin: I should apologise to the Member, because she is only on her feet.

The Member has made an excellent point about gender identity. Over the past weeks, as the Bill has been debated, a range of opinions have been expressed. Is the Member aware that a journalist Sam McBride opined on the matter with a highly critical double-page spread entitled:

The article states:

Does my colleague agree with Sam McBride's comments on the issue that she referred to: inventing genders?

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, I read that piece by Sam McBride and thought it was really good. I agree with it. It makes the same points that I and other Members have made. My colleague Brian Kingston gave a few examples of things that he had looked up online that might or might not be included in the definition. A lot of Members poked fun at my colleague when he did that, but it is a totally valid concern. As Mr Martin said, the definition is left open if it is not in the Bill.

As I said, the Bill sponsor indicated his intention that the courts, through case law, would further define what that term means. I am concerned about that. Through their opinions, judges can move things in different directions. We are being asked to vote on the principles of the Bill, and we need to know what the intent and direction are and what the terminology means in order to do so.

I was in court late on Saturday night and saw some of the outworkings of the application of judges' discretion, with a poor judgement that had been made during the day being overturned in the Court of Appeal. That just shows the subjective nature of some of what is decided on in the courts. Had that been a case involving gender identity, it could have gone strongly in one direction, only for there to have been a very different opinion given on another day in another court by another judge. The new offences that the Bill would create are very vague in nature, and that is at the heart of what I consider the danger in the Bill to be. The joint letter that my colleague Pam Cameron referred to is very important, and I welcome the Speaker's guidance in that respect.

I feel very strongly that the Bill is not in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. It constitutes a strong overreach into private and family life. If the Attorney General were to review the Bill, I believe that that is what would be found. We talked about the Bill's lack of an equality impact assessment (EQIA) and of a high-level review by the Human Rights Commission or the Equality Commission. There has, however, been no detailed testing of how the Bill would affect rights because of its lack of definitions and the impact that it would have on parents, counsellors, teachers and so many organisations.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for giving way. Has she read any of the evidence from the Gay Men's Network (GMN)? It contains some very serious concerns. In evidence that it provided to me, it states:

Does the Member agree that that is highly concerning and that the Bill clearly would not achieve its stated intention?

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for her intervention. I agree. My colleague Mr Givan mentioned the wide range of lobbying that we have received on the Bill. The Member has received that evidence from the Gay Men's Network. I have received correspondence from a range of organisations, including a variety of Churches, schools, youth organisations and sporting organisations, as well as from individual constituents, and it flies in the face of comments from other Members across the Chamber, particularly those from Pádraig Delargy, who, in his outburst, accused the DUP of creating a chilling effect. In fact, I was quoting the psychotherapist Stella O'Malley, who outlined in an opinion piece how the Bill would have a chilling effect. She regularly works with children. That concern from a number of professionals therefore comes from a very sincere place. The talk of a chilling effect is not coming from these Benches. Rather, the lobbying has been strong on saying that the Bill would have a chilling effect. It is not a unionist/nationalist issue. Mr Givan outlined the strong lobbying that came from a number of nationalist organisations. There are people in my constituency who feel as though they have no voice on the issue in the Bill, and, for the first time in their life, they are coming to the DUP, because they feel that we are the ones who are speaking up for them.

The legislation is dangerous. It lacks definitions. It is a severe human rights overreach.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for taking another intervention from me. Does she agree that, somehow, the Bill sponsor, the SDLP and Sinn Féin have managed to unite people? Sometimes, it is difficult in the Chamber to unite a range of people, but, in opposition to the Bill, they have united people of faith and people of no faith whatsoever, people who are same-sex attracted and people who are straight, and even groups ranging from Christian groups to LGB ones. I have been astounded by the correspondence that I have received on the issue from such a range of people. I wonder whether the Member will agree with this email that I received last week. I have anonymised it, because I told the person who sent it to me that I would. He writes:

The Member opposite laughs. Maybe he wants to listen to what this man has to say, but he can —.

Mr Martin: I am reading this email out. The Member should do me the courtesy of listening. [Interruption.]

Mr Martin: Guys, I can wait. This man should be heard in the same way as anyone else in Northern Ireland. Members on the Benches over there will not give voice to these people, so I will read out what they have said. He writes:

Mr Durkan: They never are.

Mr Martin: It goes on:

Those on the other side of the Chamber can laugh and make fun of people like him, but I point out to Members and to anyone else who is listening to the debate that such people have as much right to be heard in the Chamber as anybody else. If our party has to be the one that stands up and reads out correspondence such as that, we will do so. Those on the Benches opposite can laugh at and make fun of those people, but I will read out their correspondence and I will be heard.

Does my colleague agree with the tone of the email that that man sent to me and that those on the other Benches do not represent the views of people such as him?

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for that intervention. Yes, I agree. More and more, it seems guaranteed that, whatever position the DUP takes on anything, there will be widespread opposition for whatever reason. Our reasons are sound: this is bad legislation, lacking in clear definitions, and it should not be able to progress. It has dangerous overreach into people's human rights. I do not support its progressing any further.

Mr Givan: I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate. I do not intend to speak unnecessarily lengthily, but I want to cover some key points. Colleagues have successfully dissected the Bill in great detail. I will touch on some high-level points for consideration.

I will start with the broad question: what problem is the Bill sponsor trying to fix? Typically, draft legislation is brought forward when it has been identified that there is a legislative defect that requires remediation. The Bill sponsor has a responsibility to clearly identify examples of where there has been practice of a violent or intimidatory nature, which he references in clause 5 of the Bill, "Coercive behaviour", that has gone unchecked by existing legal provisions. My understanding is that nobody should be subject to violence or intimidation and that, if they have been, they can seek recourse to the police and, ultimately, prosecution in the courts. As a party, we support that. That is a universal application of the law. In whatever circumstances prevail, that recourse is available to anyone who is a victim of such a practice.

I do not see a problem having been clearly identified. The issues that the Member and those who are supportive of the Bill have wished to address throughout the debate are what they regard as being offensive by way of free speech, whether that is expressed by individuals, by parents in the way that they go about leading their home or by pastors in the pulpit. Those Members do not like language that is used in a way that they regard as being inappropriate.

That is a broader attack on free speech, because nobody has the right not to be offended in a free and democratic society. I am offended daily by what people have to say. It causes me distress, but I do not believe for one moment that I should have the right to take them to court or that I should seek to criminalise them. The Bill wants to put people in jail for two years. When we walk through the various aspects of the Bill, we find that the low bar that has been set — the threshold that needs to be passed — is one that, we believe, will be open to activists pursuing challenges against people who take a contrary view to them, be that on one's sexual orientation or gender identity. Therefore, we will oppose the Bill.

Clause 1 relates to the provision of conversion therapy. Clause 1(1)(b) states that a person commits an offence if:

the issues to which the Bill speaks. I have touched on this before: whether it be in a religious setting or in the home, the reason why parents seek to provide "instruction" or "coaching" is that they believe that they are providing the best possible advice to their children. The Bill interprets "instruction" and "coaching", where it is contrary to the individual's self-identified gender and if it is with the intent of changing it, as something for which you should be imprisoned for two years. Tens of thousands of parents could get caught in such circumstances. I do not believe that the number would be as high, because I do not believe that the issues that we are relating to would translate into that number of young people coming forward and saying that they had been coached or instructed by their parents contrary to their self-identified gender. However, it could capture a wide number of people because they hold a contrary view.

Clause 1 refers to suffering "physical or psychological harm", but you have to go to clause 8 to see the definition, and it highlights "distress". Therefore there is a very low bar: being distressed. That would meet the threshold that, the proposer of the Bill feels, would merit going to court, facing a prosecution and, ultimately, being in jail for two years potentially. What is the purpose of the Bill if it is not to send a chilling effect to parents, pastors and others who take a view that is contrary to that of the proposer of the Bill?

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. Over the course of the debate, I have said that the question of the harm threshold is a legitimate policy question. That does not mean that there is not a coherent test of harm in the Bill. As the Member will know, this definition of harm is lifted from the domestic abuse legislation, which the Member was supportive of in his tenure as Chair of the Justice Committee. Why is the threshold inappropriate in this Bill but appropriate when distinguishing between difficult conversations and coercive control in a domestic abuse context?

Mr Givan: In a previous intervention in the debate, I raised a point around clause 5, which relates to coercive behaviour. It has been lifted from the domestic abuse legislation, which I supported. I have an issue with this Bill and coercive behaviour. If somebody is treated violently, threatened or intimidated, that is wrong, regardless of the issue, but they are protected by existing law. That has been lifted and brought into a discussion around conversion therapy, and it is loosely defined and vague and would have a chilling effect. We do not even need to get to clause 5, because the two penalties are separate. The offence that is created in clause 1 is separate from the issues in clause 5. There are, therefore, two penalties associated with the legislation. The clause 1 offence is the offence that will capture more people, due to the low thresholds that I have outlined. That should cause us concern.

The Bill is designed to have a chilling effect. That is affirmed for me when I read through the opt-outs that are identified in the Bill. That is referenced in clause 7, "Intent to change or suppress". We have there areas where you can opt out in respect of the application of the legislation, yet we find that positive affirmation of one's sexual orientation or gender identity is in the clause that relates to opting out of the penalties attached to the Bill. That just confirms to me that it is OK — indeed, it is positively affirmed — that, where parents, pastors and others will say, "You are right. I support you in coming forward and saying that you now want to self-identify in whatever way that you want", the Bill is completely absent in curtailing the scope of what gender identity relates to. We have clearly now exposed that there are deep flaws around clause 6 to do with gender identity — you can be anything. I do not say that to trivialise, but, if the proposer of the Bill wanted this to be constrained to a small area of gender identity, he would have specified that in the Bill. He has not, and therefore that leaves it open to the 78 genders that Mr Kingston referred to, and there are many others. That was deemed to be a trivial use of examples by us, yet the proposer of the Bill could remove that from the debate if he was much more specific in what he means by "gender identity", but he deliberately chose not to do that.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member has touched on two of the most disturbing aspects of the Bill. First, there is no list of genders in the Bill, and we are left to look up on the internet whatever crazy list we can find. The one I have had 72; I think others found a list of over 100. I will read a few of them. Affectugender is based on a person's mood swings or fluctuations: having mood swings is not a gender. Astergender means that a person has a bright and celestial gender identity. Astralgender is having a gender identity that fails to be related to space. I do not know what any of those mean. Biogender means having a gender that is closely related to nature. They sound more like having an interest in something; they are not genders. Colourgender: in this category, colours are used to describe gender, for example, pink gender or black gender. Femgender is a non-binary gender identity that is feminine. It is non-binary and feminine: does that mean "female"? Genderblank is closely related to a blank space.

I would have to conclude that, under the Bill, anybody can create their own gender and say that it has to be recognised. The Member also pointed to one of the most important parts of the Bill — clause 7(1)(c) — as a get-out clause where a person will not be accused of an attempt to change or suppress if:

If a child says to a parent, "I think I am genderblank", and the parent says, "Are you sure?", apparently that is the wrong response. You have to say, "Oh, that's wonderful. I'm pleased for you". You cannot question the child or say, "Look, I think this is not healthy for you", as any parent would want to do, and challenge their child or anyone who is counselling or supporting that child. You can only affirm, you cannot question. It could be that the child comes back a couple of days later and says, "Actually, I've decided I'm something else. I'm surprised you didn't challenge me when I told you the first time".

As the Member said, people challenge us all day about our politics and views on matters. We expect that and we take that, and that is part of having views on anything. On this issue, you are not allowed to question somebody. You just have to affirm it, and, if you do not do that, you are potentially committing a criminal offence.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for again putting examples on the record. I appreciate that Members may say, "That is utterly absurd", and it is absurd, yet the Bill does not define "gender identity" in a constrained manner that would rule out what the Member said. If the Bill sponsor says that the examples that Mr Kingston has just outlined, such as celestial being — that you could somehow think that you are an angel and that that is now your identity is a nonsense — are absurd, he should rule them out by specifying precisely what is meant by "gender identity", but he does not.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. I know that there has been some discontent about the extent to which we have been able to discuss gender identity, but, at this stage, it feels to me as though we have been discussing it for hours. I have to say that, from my perspective, it is starting to get a little tedious, given where we are as a society and everything else that is going on. The points have been raised, however, so I will respond to them.

I have already said at least three times in this debate that the UK's draft Bill contains a statutory definition of "gender identity". If Members wish me to replicate that in order to constrain the definition and take away the vacuous notion of other gender identities being lobbed into this, I am happy to do so. I hope that that provides Members with reassurance on that question. If they want a statutory definition, I am up for that: let us do it. There is an example that we can lift and work with. There is no issue with that, but I do not believe that Members would support that because it is not the crux of the issue.

The Bill does not provide a belief-based set of offences. I have said that a number of times. It is not belief-based; it is harm-based. It is not the case that we are criminalising particular views on gender identity or saying that the only thing that is acceptable is to affirm. We are setting out what is unacceptable, which is pseudoscientific therapy or coercive behaviour that causes harm. As I have said repeatedly, if Members want the additional clarity of a statutory definition, that is an option at Consideration Stage.

Mr Givan: I look forward to the Member testing us by tabling amendments in due course and giving evidence to the Committee, when he will provide greater specificity on what he regards as "gender identity". I note that the Alliance Party rejected the UK Supreme Court ruling on the Equality Act 2010 that "male" and "female" refer to biological sex, so let us wait and see how it scopes out "gender identity" in what the Member brings forward. I remain to be convinced.

The Bill is profoundly illiberal. It is not conducive to a society's being based on free speech and freedom of religion. It is designed to have a chilling effect not just on parents but on pastors. It is a charter for activists to pursue people and seek prosecution. They have done it before. Supported by the Equality Commission, shamefully, they did it through the Ashers bakery case. It was only the Supreme Court that, at the last instant, was able to intervene and provide a defence for the young Christian family who stood by their convictions. There is a track record of activism and of persecution through prosecution in challenging people who are engaged in the issues and who hold views that I and the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland also hold.

Why is it that only unionists seem to oppose the Bill? Like others, I have been contacted by people who hold very different political views from mine, along with different religious views and different positions on sexual orientation, yet they are depending on the DUP and other unionists to provide their voice of opposition. Where are the nationalist representatives and those who proclaim to come from a more Catholic perspective? They are absent — utterly absent — when it comes to the issue. Again, it is left to unionists to provide the voice of those who come from a sincerely held Roman Catholic religious tradition —

Ms Ferguson: It has nothing to do with religion.

Mr Givan: — and other religious traditions.

Ms Ferguson: It has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

Mr Givan: The Bill has everything to do with the chilling effect on those who hold religious views on these matters.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Will the Member give way?

Mr Givan: It has everything to do with it, yet unionist parties are the only ones raising concerns on behalf of others in our society.

Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way?

Mr Givan: I will give way to the Minister.

Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member's giving way. He will note the laughing and guffawing from the other side of the Chamber. Perhaps they —.

Ms Ferguson: There is no laughing. There is absolutely no laughing.

Mr Lyons: If the Member wants to make an intervention, she is able to do that, but I doubt that she will, because I do not think that she has the ability to properly articulate an argument. Sinn Féin today seems more interested in just shouting across the Chamber.

Is it not the case that there is so much laughing and guffawing from those on the other side of the Chamber because they are protesting a little bit too much? They are bound to know that — I have the same correspondence that he has, and I know that many have sent it to those on the other side of the House — this is not a unionist or nationalist issue. There are people from across the community in Northern Ireland who have concerns about what the Bill could mean, and it is only right that the Member highlights that.

Mr Givan: I agree with the Minister's point. It is because they want to ignore the substantive detail of the Bill that many of the Members opposite have resorted to directing personal abuse towards the DUP. They have brought up historical grievances, because they do not want to confront the substance of the Bill. It is distraction politics.

For our part, we will continue to represent those who are opposed to the Bill. It will go through, no doubt, to the Committee Stage. We will continue to provide detailed scrutiny of the Bill, and, when it comes back to the Assembly, we will seek to oppose it by whatever means to make sure that we protect parents, pastors and a free society.

Mr T Buchanan: A lot has been said on the Bill over the last few days on which it has been debated. Members have gone into the clauses in a lot of detail, so my comments on the Bill will be fairly broad.

The Bill is presented to the House as a safeguard or a shield of protection for the people. Who is the Bill sponsor trying to fool, given that nothing could be further from the truth? When we look at its clauses, we find something very different, and Members have gone over that in detail in the last number of days. We discover a Bill that threatens the Churches, our pastors, our families, our parents, therapists, youth organisations, youth workers, Sunday school teachers and children's workers — anyone who dares to engage in honest, compassionate conversations about identity, faith or personal conduct. The Bill really is a blatant attack on free speech.

I noticed last week that Emma Sheerin said that we are all created "in the image of God". When we take that a little further, we find that, when God created us, he created "male and female" — two genders. There was no ambiguity there whatsoever. However, man, through his sinful practices, is seeking to turn that into multiple genders. The Bill sponsor has been asked how many genders are in his Bill, and he has been unable to tell us. He wants us to vote for his Bill, yet he does not know what is in it and the damage that it will cause. The Bill does not simply ban conversion practices; everyone in the House opposes them. Instead, it criminalises intent, beliefs and conversations.

It is causing concern and anxiety amongst a raft of people across our constituencies, and, again, that has been highlighted in various speeches about the Bill. It appears that the Bill sponsor is turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the concerns that are being raised even by people in his constituency who have sent him letters and correspondence. Let us be clear: conversion practices are illegal. Abuse should be illegal; harm should be illegal. There are existing laws that cover abusive treatment, albeit some of them may need to be tightened up a little. However, they are there, so what is the Bill all about? It goes far beyond that. It reaches into the private sphere of homes, churches, pastoral care and counselling rooms, and it tells people what they can and cannot say or do. Churches across Northern Ireland have always provided pastoral support to people who are wrestling with questions of identity, faith, behaviour and conscience. Under the Bill, a pastor who prays with someone at their request or who teaches the Christian understanding of sexuality could be accused of suppression or of efforts to change a person. What, however, is the Christian faith all about? My colleague Paul Frew said in his speech last week that it is about changing our sinful ways, converting and turning to Christ. Paul quoted Acts chapter 3, verse 19, which states:

The Bill, however, would criminalise the people who stand firmly for the Christian faith. It is a Bill that does not distinguish between abuse and belief. It does not distinguish between coercion and consensual pastoral care. It does not distinguish between harm and doctrine. When a law cannot distinguish between those things, it becomes a tool to silence people. Is that not what the Alliance Party wants to do, however? It wants to silence people, and we saw that last week in the House during the debate on the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill. It now wants to silence people right across Northern Ireland. It does not want them to stand for the truth.

The Bill would place parents in an impossible position. If their child were to express confusion about their identity, a parent who gently encouraged them to slow down, reflect or seek balanced advice could be accused of interference. A parent who shared their faith perspective could be accused of harm. A parent who wanted to protect their child from irreversible decisions could be criminalised. The Bill treats parents and pastors as potential offenders rather than as protectors. Do we want to see a Bill go through the House that would criminalise our parents, our pastors and others who show genuine care and compassion for our children and young people?

Professional therapists have also raised concerns that the Bill would make it impossible to conduct open-ended exploratory therapy. The Bill's definition of "conversion practices" is so vague that any discussion of sexual behaviour, identity development, trauma or faith could be interpreted as an attempt to change or suppress. Therapists would simply stop engaging, meaning that clients would be left without support. The very people whom the Bill claims to want to protect would be those harmed. Youth workers, teachers, chaplains and volunteers would be forced to avoid conversations initiated by young people. The Bill would create a chilling effect, whereby adults would fear prosecution for offering guidance, moral teaching or even a personal testimony. That is not safeguarding but state-mandated silencing. That is exactly what the Bill is intended to achieve.

The Bill relies on a subjective interpretation of "intent". It would invite complaints based on offence rather than on evidence, and it would empower activists to target Churches, faith groups and families with which they disagree. Once again, the Assembly is being asked to pass a law that is vague, overreaching and wide open to misuse: a law that would be weaponised against ordinary people acting in good faith. I say this with respect: the Bill sponsor is not stupid — he has probably forgotten more than I have ever learnt — and he knows that the concerns that this side of the House has raised are 100% correct. He has, however, turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to them because he wants his ideology to go forward through the Bill. If it does, so many people and families across Northern Ireland will be affected.

If the Assembly wishes to ban coercive and abusive practices, it can do so through precise, narrow, evidence-based legislation, but this Bill is not that.

The Bill is a threat to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and parental rights. We must protect our people from harm, but, equally, we must protect the fundamental freedoms that define a democratic society.

The content and the lack of clarity in the Bill are so grave that I have received numerous items of correspondence via email, letter and telephone from parents, church leaders, community organisations, voluntary groups, women's networks, youth groups and many others raising concerns about the Bill and expressing outright opposition to it. I say this to the sponsor of the Bill: just stop for a moment and listen to the genuine fears and concerns and take a step back from pressing forward with a Bill that is causing so much alarm among all sections of our community. Why press forward with something that is causing so much concern?

Mr Boggs: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We had this discussion last week as well, but Standing Order 31 — correct me if I am wrong, as I am a new Member — states that a Second Stage debate is about a Bill's general principles. Is it in order for Members to paint the picture that we will be voting for the Bill as it is now rather than voting for it to proceed to the next stage where it can be better shaped? Some Members are trying to suggest that this is the be-all and end-all and that this is what Members who support the Bill will be voting for: that is not correct.

Mr Speaker: Members, in general, will speak on the Bill as it exists — before amendment — which is entirely reasonable.

Mr T Buchanan: I will read from a letter that was sent to the Bill sponsor from someone in his constituency. I am sure that other MLAs have received it, but I will put it on record:

Mr Tennyson, are you listening? The letter continues:

He ends by saying:

Mr Tennyson, that letter is from someone in your constituency. I wonder what consideration you have given to it.

Parents have every right to be extremely alarmed by the content of the Bill. The definition of "coercive behaviour" in the Bill includes:

as well as making someone feel "punished". Therefore, a parent who exercises their parental responsibility to raise their children by setting boundaries — by limiting what they can or cannot watch on television or the internet; by saying no when it is the right thing to do; or by deciding where they may or may not go and what time they are expected to be home — will be left open to being criminalised. Is that really legislation that the House wants to pass? Everyone in the House needs to do some real soul-searching today to decide whether it is exactly what we want. When trouble breaks out in an area and young people are out on the streets, we often hear Members say, "Where were their parents? It is a parent's responsibility to know where their children are and to set parameters for them". Yet, every vote in favour of the Bill tonight will be a vote to diminish parental responsibility, because parents will have a fear of setting parameters for their children in case they are criminalised.

The Bill is also an attack on places of worship. Clause 4 defines conversion therapy as including "counselling ... coaching or instruction". There is no doubt that that will capture the ordinary work of pastoral care. Bible studies, prayer and preaching will readily fall under those terms. The requirement that a perpetrator has

is a real threat to religious freedom. While not normally described in these terms, Christian teaching has the intent of changing how we live, and Christians want to suppress any idea of sin in their lives. The ordinary work of Churches will be left wide open to wrongful accusations. It is easy to see how biblical teaching on the consequences of sin could be used to claim that fear or alarm had been caused. That leaves our pastors, ministers, Sunday school teachers and children's workers wide open to prosecution. As I thought about the Bill, I could not help but think back to the Covenanters in Scotland, who, years ago, were burned at the stake for the stand that they took for their faith. If the Bill goes through, it is nothing short of a step back to those days.

The House would do well to heed the legal advice from Aidan O'Neill KC. Mr O'Neill states that the Bill is devastating and poses a severe threat to basic civil liberties. We would do well to take on board what he says.

My colleague Paul Frew mentioned having been elected in 2012, and he said that he had never seen such dangerous legislation. I will take my colleague back to 2003: in all my time in this place since I was first elected in 2003, I have never seen such dangerous or evil legislation before the House, legislation that goes against the moral fabric of mankind. It would silence the minister and the pastor at the pulpit and the street preacher who is presenting the gospel and threaten them with criminalisation should they counsel an individual about their spiritual condition. It is a Bill that threatens Christian homes where parents instruct their children in the ways of God and seek to raise them

For that reason, my party cannot support the Bill. I urge everyone else in the House who will put their hand to voting for the Bill to think carefully about what they are doing. Remember this: the Bible tells us that

We would do well to heed the warning in God's Word.

Mr Speaker: As we are sitting until 10.30 this evening, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 6.00 pm. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.

Mr Gaston: As a Christian blessed to be co-opted into this North Antrim seat, I have a moral duty to speak out against the dangerous and reckless legislation that Mr Tennyson is attempting to bring in. I do not claim to be a theologian or a preacher; I am just a sinner saved by grace. That is my qualification to speak on the issue.

The starting point for any Bill is to recognise the Bill's intention. Through this Bill, the liberal elitists who lead the Alliance Party are once again attacking the Church and attacking the family unit. They do not want anybody to be able to give direction or instruction on how a Christian should live out their Christian life and bring up their children. The Bill's sweeping language will capture innocent, everyday conversations, risking criminalisation of standard pastoral care, prayer, parental guidance and, indeed, instruction. Passing a Bill that includes a term that is not defined by the Bill sponsor will have serious legal ramifications as to how the courts of this land interpret the term used in clause 6, namely "gender identity". My advice to anyone who is liable to go with a sex or gender identity that is not their biological reality is that they need all the pastoral support and care that they can get. Listing gender identity as:

exposes the lunacy behind the Bill.

The question before the House is not whether abusive conduct should be banned; of course it should. The truth of the matter is that Mr Tennyson knows fine well that it already is, but his ideology is more important than the facts. The question is whether the Assembly should create sweeping new criminal offences that combine violence and coercion with counselling, prayer, instruction and ordinary conversations. The question is whether the House wants to pass legislation in which key terms are either undefined or extraordinarily subjective and could result in a person being imprisoned. That is how serious the words on this blue paper are.

Clause 4 defines conversion therapy as including:

That is wide-ranging and chilling. Those words are extraordinarily broad. They plainly extend beyond "violent", "degrading" or "pseudo-medical practices". They potentially encompass the ordinary work of counsellors, ministers of religion, youth workers, parents and friends. The Bill then criminalises such conduct where there is an intent to "change or suppress" a person's sexual orientation or gender identity and where physical or psychological harm results.

Yet, the Bill never says what it means by "suppress" sexual orientation or gender identity. For example, does suppression include encouraging someone not to act upon every sexual desire that they experience? Does it include teaching that sexual relations belong exclusively within marriage between one man and one woman?

Mr Tennyson presents clause 7 as a protection of freedom of expression. It provides that there is no intent to change or suppress where someone is expressing only:

Members, that safeguard is wholly inadequate. Christianity is not confined to an abstract expression of opinion from the pulpit. The Christian gospel is a message of repentance, conversion and changed lives. Let us consider what Paul says in 1 Corinthians, chapter 6, verses 9 to 11. This is where, I believe, the Bill sponsor has an issue, leading to the Bill that is before us this evening.

Verse 9 states:

Verse 10 continues:

Verse 11 states:

Let us think for a moment about what is said in those verses. Paul says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. In verse 11, however, he immediately adds:

Members, the issue with that passage is the word "were". Some of those whom Paul wrote to in Corinth were homosexuals before they were exposed to Christianity through the preaching of Paul. Let us say that a minister takes Paul's passage and simply points out that the Bible teaches that homosexuals can change so that homosexuality becomes a thing of the past. As Paul says in verse 11:

Surely that is teaching that people can change or suppress their sexuality. Would Mr Tennyson's Bill criminalise Paul? Would it criminalise me for quoting Paul?

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

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

Mr Carroll: Does the Member believe that homosexuality predates Christianity and the Bible?

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention; at least, I think that I thank him for it. I am not saying when homosexuality started.

All I am saying to you, Mr Carroll, is that that is what the Bible lays out, and, if Paul talked about that in the early Church, I have no doubt that that was taking place and, indeed, that was why he wrote to the early Church. Yes, homosexuality predates the Bible.

I want to move on and illustrate to Members, for a moment, a scenario that, I believe, will apply to the Bill. If Paul, whose letter to the Corinthians I referenced, were to arrive here in Northern Ireland and come to Belfast the day after the Bill is passed into law and were speak to somebody in his office after he has delivered a sermon and provide "counselling" — I use the language of clause 4 of the Bill — and say, "You can leave homosexuality behind. You can be washed, sanctified and justified in the name of Jesus", would he be guilty of an offence under the new Act? That thought process is not some sort of fanciful idea. One only has to look at what has happened in Finland, where a serving Member of Parliament, a former Government Minister, was subjected to years in the courts because she tweeted Romans chapter I, verses 24 to 27.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for giving way. I always think that it is interesting when people quote specific parts of the Bible because there are all sorts of parts in the Bible that can be taken out of context and actually advocate some quite strange things that are outdated now. However, one constant in the Bible is kindness, compassion and not judging, and loving your neighbour. I wonder how the Member applies those principles to something that, clearly, has clear tests by which it will need to be met. Is he conscious of the fact that there are actually people in the House who are homosexual and may find his narrative somewhat offensive?

Mr Gaston: And there we have it exposed by the Alliance Party. I said that I thought that those Bible verses were the ones that they took particular offence to. Indeed, I am just quoting from the Bible, so, if you say that that is offensive —

Ms Nicholl: No, I —.

Mr Gaston: — does that mean that that would be criminalised under Mr Tennyson's Bill?

Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way.

Ms Nicholl: The Member is deliberately misrepresenting what I said. My question was as follows. Given that there are things in the Bible that can be taken in different contexts, such as sowing different types of seeds together or not doing anything on a Saturday or a Sunday, there are all sorts of things that may not apply to one directly, but every Christian, regardless, believes that the key principles are love, compassion and not judging, and being a good neighbour. I wonder how the Member takes those key principles when he looks at the Bill? I am not trying to expose him. I am just saying that one can take the Bible in all sorts of contexts, but the key message is what is important. In addition — it is not about offence — are you minded that that is very real for people, and how you talk about it actually matters? There are people in this Building to whom you come across as quite judgemental when you talk about it, and the Bible is clear on that.

Mr Gaston: I take the Member back: I was only quoting verses of scripture.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: The Member may find that offensive or believe that people in the House will find that offensive, but, as a Christian, you either believe the Bible or you do not. Loving thy neighbour is also warning thy neighbour of certain dangers. All I am doing is using those passages to tease out, essentially, from the Bill sponsor, whether the verses that I quoted would, indeed, criminalise me or a pastor, and, if they would, it cuts through to the very heart of the arguments that we are making.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. Maybe it will reassure him to know that he would be as entitled to get up in the Chamber and read the passage that he has just read after the Bill passed as he was before, because, first, it is not a conversion practice; it is not targeted at any individual. It is reading scripture, so there is clearly no intent around that. The test in the legislation is not whether it causes offence. People say lots of things that I find unsavoury or offensive. They are not criminal offences. The test in the Bill is whether the conduct took place, it was therapy or coercive behaviour — that is neither — and it caused physical or psychological harm. Causing offence really does not have that much to do with it.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for intervening. I gave him a scenario in which somebody comes to a preacher or pastor after they have preached those verses on a Sunday to ask them go through them again, and the preacher or pastor says that they believe that the practice is wrong and that that person could convert and leave it behind them. I notice, however, that Mr Tennyson did not pick up on that point.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for giving way. I make the point that he has a right to freedom of religion or belief. He may also be offended by things that he hears in the Chamber. It is unfair for one person to say that what the Member says is offensive but for them not to listen to the other side of the argument. I take Mr Tennyson's point about how everyone is free to speak to their scripture, but does the Member agree that he was conveying his purpose and his religion and that he has every right to do so?

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. I thank the Member for her intervention. I have a right to do that. I read out that passage and laid out a scenario because ministers and pastors in Churches across the country are concerned about the implications of the Bill and its chilling effect, because it would inhibit them from carrying out their duties in the way in which they otherwise would.

We are talking about offence. Coming from the Alliance Party, that is ironic, given that, last week, one of its Members said to me, "So you are happy to abuse a child", after I had intervened to say that I have the right to bring up my child in the way in which I see fit and on the basis of the biblical principles to which I hold. I will take no lectures from the Alliance Party about offence, because I am yet to receive an apology from the Member who said that. She may say to the Speaker that she did not say it, but she did. She said it in the House.

I return to the point that I was illustrating about what we have seen happen in Finland and how the protections played out when that Member of Parliament tweeted Romans chapter 1. Yes, she was ultimately acquitted, but she was convicted on the basis of a booklet that she had co-authored in which she described homosexuality as a "sexual deviation". I fear that Mr Tennyson, through his ideology, is trying to take his Bill down that route. Clause 8 defines psychological harm as including "fear, alarm or distress". My goodness. Distress? I get distressed in here often, but that does not mean that somebody should be taken to court or imprisoned or that there was any harm behind what they said. It is about how the Bill is interpreted, including how words such as "distress", "fear" and "alarm" are interpreted. That exposes the nature of what the Bill sponsor wants to achieve and the cunning way in which he is doing it.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Yes.

Mr Martin: I cannot imagine the Member ever getting distressed in the Chamber. His point touched on ideology. That is a very important aspect of the Bill that we are debating. We have a view on the dangerous ideologies that the Bill could bring into law. Does the Member accept, however, that the range of individuals and groups that oppose this dangerous legislation are not just people of faith? I will give an example. I circled some bits of the Gay Men's Network's response to the Bill. It is a UK-based organisation, and the document that I have runs to 57 pages. It is comprehensive, and it is absolutely damning about the Bill. I thank that organisation for being so clear about the dangers that the Bill presents not just to people in Churches, for example, including pastors and ministers, but to those who are same-sex attracted. It is worth reading out point 199 and part of point 200:

That is from an organisation that does not claim any faith basis but that represents gay men across the UK, and it opposes the Bill. Does the Member agree with the passages that I read out?

Mr Gaston: Indeed. That is an impassioned and detailed breakdown of how the organisation views the Bill and the outworkings and problems that it will bring forward.

It is important to recognise that not everybody has my world view, and it is important that those with a world view are allowed to express it regardless of whether I like it. It is good to see that the argument is not purely between Christian and secular views. A number of people have come together to show and describe the ill intention behind the Bill and the ill-thought-out consequences that it would create in everyday life.

I recognise that it is not purely the Churches that will fall victim to the Bill. I wonder whether Mr Tennyson is aware of the concerns of the vast range of groups coming forward. He consulted and met a number of Christian organisations, but he obviously had his fingers in his ears when he talked to them, because a lot of this seems to be new to him. Time after time, more groups and more legal advice are coming through to say how unworkable and idiotic parts of the Bill are.

Reading the Bill and considering some of the unintended consequences that would flow from it causes me distress. There is reference to "distress" in the Bill: that is an exceptionally low and subjective threshold on which to construct a criminal offence carrying the risk of imprisonment. Let that sink in. Distress and imprisonment: that is where ideology has got in the way of creating good legislation. Difficult conversations frequently cause distress. Getting called to the Chamber to account for actions over the weekend obviously caused the First Minister such distress that she felt that she could not come here. I do not think — well, maybe her actions deserve imprisonment, but I am not sure that, just because someone is distressed, someone else should be imprisoned.

Mrs Dillon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What relation does what Mr Gaston has said — any of it, to be perfectly honest, but particularly his most recent comments — have to what we are discussing? At what point will you intervene, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: We are talking about conversion therapy. Mr Gaston has referred extensively to the issue of conversion. That falls within the ambit. He also referred to people with a homosexual background being converted. There is an issue about the potential criminalising of that. Surely those things have to be tested and listened to. If you wish to challenge Mr Gaston on what he is saying, I welcome that. That is what debate is about. If you have a contrary view to his that, you believe, can deconstruct his arguments, feel free to express it. That is what a debating Chamber is about.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Any Member who has asked to make an intervention to date has been given one. There is no time limit on the debate. I am happy to accommodate those who do not agree with me to call me out or to have that debate.

I was talking about distress. Difficult conversations frequently cause distress. A person may already be distressed before they seek pastoral care. A child may be distressed when a parent imposes necessary boundaries for their own good. A person may experience distress on hearing teaching that they disagree with. That can often cause distress. The existence of distress does not demonstrate abuse. In fact, conversion is a central experience of Christians. Mr Tennyson and others simply cannot see outside their world view. As I said to Mr Martin, I might not agree with everything that he has said, but I respect his world view. I have listened to it — it is reasoned — and we can debate it, but the ideology of the Alliance Party is, "It's our world view, and nobody else's matters".

The Bible refers throughout to the true believer being one who has passed from death into life, one for whom:

and one who is freed from sin. When somebody becomes aware of their sin and realises its ultimate consequence, that will cause distress in the first instance, as they will realise that they need a saviour. Martin Luther described the law as the "thunderbolt of God" that strikes down the sinner and brings them to tear and despair. I asked earlier whether the Bill sponsor would criminalise the apostle Paul. He addressed my comments, but he failed to talk about the pastor who would preach about Paul. I have little doubt that Mr Tennyson's Bill would criminalise pillars of the faith for comments made throughout the Bible and in their teaching, which is relayed by impassioned preachers across Northern Ireland, which is still a Christian country.

Clause 6 would create further uncertainty. It states that a person's:

what the alleged victim considers it to be and what the accused considers it to be. How could we pass legislation that would open the door to somebody's setting their own gender identity? That would be absolute folly. Last week or the week before, somebody in the House said that there could be 136 genders, 134 of which are fanciful because they are not in touch with biological reality. I have severe reservations about passing legislation that does not define "gender identity" anywhere in it. Biology tells me — it was not so many years ago that I was at school — that you are born either male or female. What objective meaning is the court to apply after listening to this debate? As I said a couple of weeks ago in a point of order, when courts are trying to interpret legislation, they often look back to get an idea of the definitions that the sponsor of a Bill uses. However, when we try to ask the Bill sponsor how many genders he believes there to be in reference to "gender identity" in clause 6, we are closed down time and time again in the House. That answer is still outstanding. It would be helpful if the Bill sponsor were to confirm that before the House tonight. There was deflection and shielding from those who were in the Chair; they did not want that question to be put to Mr Tennyson. How could we write something into our law for the first time while not being able to define the exact number of genders?

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. He is always kind about it. He has not come to clause 7 yet, but he has talked about distress. I find many things in the Bill distressing. Undoubtedly, one of the key tenets is what the Member is talking about. On the question of gender, I take the Member to clause 7(1)(c). He mentioned the number of genders. Whether there are 72 or 85, it does not really matter. Clause 7(1)(c) states:

That is one of the most dangerous phrases in the Bill. There is an irony in that what I have just read out is a defence against change or suppression, which are referred to earlier in the Bill. If someone's intent is to affirm one of the wide range of gender identities that a victim presents as or thinks that they are, they can use that as a defence in court, but it does not go the other way. I do not understand that.

I will ask a wider question to see whether the Member agrees with me. So many young people in particular — teenagers — are gender-distressed, gender-questioning or gender-dysphoric and need effective and supportive counselling. For somebody to prove that there is no intent in their counselling, however, they have to affirm what that young person presents to them. Does the Member agree that that is just crazy stuff?

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. I was just coming to clause 7. Clause 7 creates that imbalance. It makes it a one-way system that protects conduct intended to affirm a sexual orientation or gender identity that a person considers themselves to be. It goes back to the earlier point that, if somebody is distressed and trying to find themselves and they come forward for pastoral support, anybody who does not fall under one of the listed exemptions would be in breach of the law if they were to try to counsel the person through that. If that person says, "I identify as A", and the person seeking to counsel them does not agree that they identify as that —.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — that will create an imbalance and a chilling effect for somebody who is delivering pastoral care or counselling that person.

I am happy to give way to the Bill sponsor.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. Members have been quick to point to organisations, some of which are fairly fringe, that oppose the Bill, but they do not point to the myriad of medical, therapeutic or psychotherapeutic organisations that have supported the banning of conversion therapy. Legitimate therapy is explorative; it does not have a predetermined outcome. That will be challenging at times. It will be about asking questions — "Why do you feel like this?" — to support people in making their decision and understanding themselves. Conversion therapy is where you start with a predetermined outcome of stating that one sexual orientation or gender identity is wrong and, if a person does not conform to that — if that is not who they are — forcing them to change their behaviour.

People have a right, of course, to express their views; people have a right to freedom of expression; but people do not have a right to harm anybody — the test in the Bill is "harm" — or to forcibly impose their beliefs on others. That is the balance that the Bill strikes.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Bill sponsor for coming in on that. I liked his use of the word "explorative". That is what the Alliance Party is all about: it wants people to explore who they are. It wants people to consider all things apart from their biological reality.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. The Bill sponsor raised an interesting point. He did not name the therapeutic organisations that use exploratory counselling, but I probably know the ones to which was referring. Is the Member aware that NHS services in England have used an LGBTQI+-affirmative approach? I do not think that they use it now, but they did through most of the 2010s.

For example, an NHS talking therapy service describes its LGBT+ programme as an "affirmative stance" in which "therapists", who, I assume, are those to whom the Bill sponsor refers, aim to "accept, affirm" and support people's "sexual and gender identities". That is widespread. Therefore, I imagine that, in the past, the organisations in the Bill sponsor's list have probably used exactly that approach, which is fine for them because they are affirming a gender identity that the person has presented to them, but I do not think that that is the sort of counselling that I want to see, which is not affirmative-plus. I want actual counselling for a young person who presents and for them to be talked through gender-questioning ideals.

In the past, we have seen the LGBTQI+-affirmative approach in the UK. I asked the Health Minister about it when we were talking about puberty blockers, and he assured me that it was not being used and had been stopped in Northern Ireland. It had been used consistently for a number of years in England. I do not share the Bill sponsor's confidence in his list of organisations, because, in the past, some in that list may have used exactly that approach.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention. When I talked about somebody exploring who they are or their gender, there was sniggering from the usual suspects in the Alliance Party. The last thing that a young and vulnerable person needs is activists and ideology-driven people imposing their world view on them and getting away from the biological reality that they were born a boy or a girl. Having the likes of the Alliance Party bringing forward this distressing, dangerous and reckless legislation is part of the reason why this world is so messed up.

The Bill sponsor talks about "harm". Clause 8 — I am bouncing about here — states:

Really? "Distress" ?"Fear"? "Alarm"? That is an incredibly low threshold and a very interpretative way for somebody to air their grievance against somebody.

Mr Burrows: I thank the Member for giving way. I am pleased to hear some of his insightful comments. Does the Member agree that "fear, alarm or distress" are emotions that are felt by children throughout their childhood, for any number of reasons, and are not necessarily "psychological harm"?

Mr Gaston: Absolutely. Those types of emotions are a natural outworking of a child's daily life. Proving something like that in law would be difficult. The Member has had years of experience in the police. I do not understand how a court or the police could, on the basis of what we see in the Bill, prove that one way or the other. Clause 8 contains the word "distress". If somebody presents as crying, is it to be believed that that is distress? I do not know. I think that, at times, the Alliance Party is on a different planet from those of a conservative, Christian background and outlook on life.

I go back to clause 7 and the imbalance that I was referring to. There is no equivalent protection for helping a consenting person who wishes to resist particular sexual impulses or to live consistently with their biological sex and religious convictions. Therefore, as we have talked about, one direction of counselling is expressly protected, but there is no mention of ministers or pastoral support. The Bill sponsor has identified that there could be problems, but he has not taken a neutral perspective on it. He is trying to protect one side: the side that is in line with his ideological vision.

The fact that an individual expressly requested the counselling would, as we have seen, not provide a defence, and I used that example in an intervention. Clause 1(3) states:

Clause 2(3) states:

Clause 3(3) states:

If somebody was old enough to be a consenting adult and old enough to consent to doing that at the time, that must be a defence, and it must be allowed. It is astonishing that those three subsections are in the Bill. Consent may not make violence or abuse lawful — it should not happen — but the Bill also covers talking therapies, counselling, coaching and instruction. That is where consent must be taken into account. The Assembly is being asked to declare that an adult's informed consent to a conversation is legally irrelevant. That does not protect personal autonomy; it denies it.

The Bill's treatment of parents is equally troubling. Clause 5 defines coercive behaviour as including controlling, regulating or monitoring someone's day-to-day activities, restricting their freedom of action or making them feel punished. Such conduct must — must — take place "on two or more occasions". Those words have been adopted from domestic abuse legislation but are being deployed here without sufficient recognition of the proper authority and responsibilities of a parent over their child. Parents routinely regulate their children's daily activities. For their children's safety, parents monitor internet use, restrict where children go, what they wear and whom they meet. They impose discipline that, by its nature, may make a child feel punished. Under the Bill, such behaviour could be criminal, where it is said to be intended to suppress a claimed gender ideology or sexual orientation and cause distress.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. He has been generous in giving way. I have to challenge what he says because it is manifestly untrue. He is right when he asserts that the definition of coercive behaviour is lifted from domestic abuse legislation. We have learned from that legislation. At the moment, that applies where people are personally connected, and we are seeking to apply that definition to a broader range of relationships. That is why we have raised the harm threshold and have an additional test of intent: there are more legal tests and requirements to be met before an offence would be found for this legislation than for existing domestic abuse legislation.

At the moment, the behaviour of a parent towards a 16-year-old child could fall under domestic abuse legislation. Can the Member point to a child or parent who has been prosecuted as a result of ordinary discipline under domestic abuse legislation? That has not happened, because it does not cause harm and is reasonable. In addition, it is not, under this legislation, motivated by a desire to suppress or change sexual orientation or gender identity. In the vast majority of cases, it is motivated by the welfare of the child. Therefore, what the Member has claimed about ordinary discipline and other parental activity being captured is simply not true, but that falsehood has been repeated ad nauseam in the debate.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Tennyson, for your input. I just want to give you another scenario. Could a mother or father who refuses to purchase clothes intended to present their son or daughter as the opposite sex to what they actually are find themselves accused of coercive behaviour if that happened on two or more occasions?

Mr Tennyson: The Bill is really clear that a failure to do a thing is not a conversion practice. Failure to act in a way that another person expects is not in itself a conversion practice and is not coercive behaviour under the legislation.

Mr Gaston: I find it hard to believe that that would be the case. From my reading of the Bill, if a parent does not want to affirm the gender that, the child says, they are, it being something not in touch with reality that is different from their biological outlook, the —

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — Bill provides that — it may be an unintended consequence — if, later in life, the child were to decide to take a grievance case against the parent, they could use that example as the second occurrence of the behaviour.

I am happy to give way to Mr Burrows.

Mr Burrows: Does the Member agree that it is important to seek clarity? If a parent were to dress their child according to their biological sex, that would be a positive act rather than a failure. If the child were to say, "I am a girl, and I want to wear a skirt", and the parent were to reply, "No, you're going out in trousers" and the child were to be distressed by that, would that fall within the ambit of the Bill? If so, would that be concerning?

Mr Gaston: It is certainly something that concerns me. I see the Bill sponsor shaking his head, but —

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: — my reading of the Bill is that, if that were to happen on two or more occasions and the child were to present as alarmed or distressed — the fluffy words in the legislation — that would fall within its ambit. I am happy to give way to the Bill sponsor.

Mr Speaker: Before you intervene, Mr Tennyson, I will say that we are getting into the minutiae to a considerable degree. Mr Tennyson has indicated his views, but perhaps that would be better tested in Committee. Would you like to respond, Mr Tennyson?

Mr Tennyson: No. I am happy to proceed.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will take your advice to move on at this hour.

I will look at the medical exemption in clause 4, which raises further questions. The Bill exempts therapy provided by persons regulated by four specified bodies and acting within those bodies' professional standards. I take the Bill sponsor back to the point that the Bill offers no comparable protection for ministers, providers of pastoral care, counsellors or parents. I ask him why he made that conscious decision. If his intent, as he is trying to portray it in the Assembly, were genuine, that should have been put into the Bill as a safeguard. I know that the matter was raised with the Bill sponsor during the consultation. That is why I believe that he had his fingers in his ears and did not really listen to the concerns that were raised with him. There is no protection in the Bill for ministers, pastors, counsellors or parents. I trust that the Bill sponsor will take up that point.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. There is another issue that the Bill sponsor needs to address when considering to whom the Bill applies. We have talked about the freedom that a minister, a pastor or whoever may have at the pulpit to express certain views. During the debate at some stage last week, it was implied that the provision would not apply to someone speaking in front of a crowd, because there would not be an identifiable victim. That, I believe, was the view that Mr Tennyson took. My reading of the Bill, however, suggests that the victim just needs to have been there and to have felt as though there was a suppression or an intent to suppress. If the person felt "fear, alarm or distress", that could fall under the category of "instruction" in clause 4. I do not believe that it is Mr Tennyson's intention to include that, because he has said in the House that it is not his intention for something such as that to be included. We need to be able to understand that from reading what is in front of us in black and blue, however. If the Bill progresses to Committee Stage, as, we all accept, it will, that is another issue that will need clarity. On the face of it, however, that factor would bring the issue within the scope of clause 4.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for his intervention. I completely understand why he is concerned about that. I have listened to Mr Tennyson who has been at pains to say that that is not the case, but the reality is that it is not about what Mr Tennyson says in the Chamber; it is about what is written in the Bill.

If somebody was speaking at a meeting, and you were coming under their instruction, I can see how that could, quite quickly, pass a lot of the tests in Mr Tennyson's Bill. You could tick those boxes. Take "distress": absolutely, if someone was coming under instruction, that would be the case. If the legislation is so tightly drawn, innocent counselling should be exempt in it and never be criminalised.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

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

Mr Kingston: The Member makes an important point on clause 7. We had a debate last week about a minister of religion or a pastor preaching their sermon during a service. What happens if a pastor or a minister is approached by an individual who asks them, "Can you tell me your understanding of what the Bible teaches on these matters?" and the individual requests that support? The get-out clause in clause 7(1)(b) is:

Again, that comes down to how it is perceived. If a minister or a pastor is asked to give their interpretation of what is taught in the Bible and they do that genuinely, the person could say that they were directing them towards a particular sexual orientation or gender identity, even though they requested that counselling and guidance. I feel that the Bill is suppressing traditional Christian beliefs and practices that people sincerely see in the Bible and that have been taught for centuries through the Christian church.

I do not think that any of the clauses that are meant to provide some sort of protection provide any protection at all, because, if you are asked sincerely what you believe and you present your belief, a person can say, "Oh, you are directing me towards a particular view", even though you are doing so genuinely and in a loving way.

While I am on my feet, if the Member is content for me to continue, clause 7(1)(c) also seems to be a contradiction. It states:

That is like saying, "There's no intent to change someone's political views if you are just confirming them". It seems like a pointless clause. You cannot be accused of trying to change somebody if your intent is to affirm what they already think. Again, to me, there is no protection there whatsoever.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Kingston, for your input. Indeed, going back to some of the comments that I have made on the verses referenced, if a pastor or a minister takes said person to First Corinthians and talks them through it, they might not be saying, "You need to change your way", but First Corinthians quite openly says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God, so they would be counselling that person to a different —. It is not saying, "You need to be straight" or whatever, but it is saying, "You need to change your ways, because this is what the Bible teaches". In doing that, I believe that they would fall foul, given that it states:

Mr Tennyson has included that by reason of those verses. Mr Tennyson has acknowledged that there will be problems, and that is why he has put in the exemptions necessary for selected regulated professionals. However, there must be exemptions in the Bill for ministers of religion and pastors to ensure that they are not caught by what is in front of us. He quite clearly wants to protect the side that is in line with his ideology, but he is not willing to put in protections for those from a conservative, Christian background.

I move on to clause 3. Clause 3 goes even further by criminalising causing or facilitating a person to leave Northern Ireland:

Once again, consent is expressly excluded as a defence. Therefore, a parent could be prosecuted for taking a child elsewhere in the United Kingdom to obtain counselling that is lawful there but does not conform to the ideological approach embedded in the Bill. Could someone be investigated for helping a consenting adult attend a residential programme outside Northern Ireland that has a Christian focus and ethos? Those are not fanciful questions: they arise directly from the breadth of the language in the Bill that the Assembly is being asked to approve.

There is also the question of a jury trial. Under Article 29(1) of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, an accused person ordinarily has a right to claim trial by jury for a summary offence, where a sentence exceeding six months is available, subject to the exceptions specifically listed in the article. Those offences carry a maximum summary sentence of 12 months. Clause 9, therefore, deliberately adds them to the exemptions and removes the accused person's right to claim a trial by jury. Indeed, the clause heading could hardly be clearer:

Why? The Bill creates contentious offences that turn on subjective allegations of distress, undefined concepts and highly contested beliefs about sex, sexuality, religion and family life, yet the Bill sponsor proposes to not only create those offences but remove an existing procedural safeguard from those accused of committing them. The right to be judged by one's peers is especially important where the law enters deeply disputed areas of social, moral and religious belief. That should be strengthened; it should not be deliberately removed, which is what the Bill sponsor is proposing in the Bill.

In conclusion, I note that the Bill sponsor's explanatory memorandum acknowledges that the clear majority of religious organisations that responded to his consultation expressed concerns about the vague definitions, unintended consequences and interference with freedom of belief, expression and family life. Those concerns have not been answered in the Bill. The Bill fails to define the central concepts of what it is trying to impose. It makes consent irrelevant. It gives privileged protection in only one direction. It exposes parents and churches to criminal investigation. It provides selective exemptions. It permits imprisonment without any intention to cause harm. It raises profound human rights issues. It deliberately removes the right to claim trial by jury. It is not a Bill that can be repaired through a few technical amendments at Consideration Stage. Its defects arise from its fundamental structure and purpose. That takes me back to where I started: the purpose of the Bill is to attack the Church and the family home. From my reading of the Bill, that is its intention. Therefore, for those very reasons, I will vote against the Bill tonight. I trust that other Members will do so too.

There are definitions that have not been included and have not been forthcoming, and the Bill sponsor still cannot define how many genders he believes there are. That is deeply disturbing for a blue Bill. The Bill states:

That is vague. It can be interpreted in whatever way a person sees fit, much like gender. One minute somebody could define their gender as x, and the next thing it could be y. They could change it numerous times depending on how they feel. We need to get back to reality. Gender identity should be based on biological reality. This Bill tries to push the boundaries further than any legislation has done before on gender. I trust that it will be voted down tonight and binned.

Mr Carroll: When I initially wrote my comments, I wrote that it had been a long day, but it has obviously been a long few days over two weeks. I pay tribute to the Bill sponsor for proposing the Bill and, like others, staying throughout the debate. People have waited a long time for conversion therapy to be outlawed, so, unfortunately, the Bill is a needed piece of legislation. I and my party welcome and support the Bill. I thank the organisations that have supported the Bill and those that organised the demonstration two weeks ago outside the Building — the Rainbow Project, Cara-Friend, HERe NI, TransgenderNI, the Northern Ireland Humanists, the Ban Conversion Practices Coalition — and, above all, all the survivors of conversion therapy practices who have fought for years to get us here. I thank the groups that attended the protest and the parties that spoke at it — I was delighted to be asked to say a couple of words.

As a starting point, I will say that conversion therapy is completely inhumane. As has been mentioned by a few Members, researchers from Queen's and Ulster University spoke to people who had gone through conversion practices within the last decade, and seven of the 10 participants came from faith groups. People should be aware of that. We heard about a 13-year-old girl who was taken from her friends at a church youth club and locked in a dark closet. She was told that Satan would come and rape her. That is completely disgusting, despicable stuff that nobody can stand over, whether they are religious or not. A teenage boy also endured a three-hour exorcism in the middle of the night, with oil thrown over him and prayers shouted and screamed in his face — deplorable, disgusting and abusive stuff. The report makes for harrowing reading, and I encourage people who have not read it to do so. The National LGBT Survey found that 12% of cisgender respondents here have been offered or subjected to conversion practices, compared with 7% across the UK. Institutional homophobic and transphobic abuse is clearly rife across our society.

In recent weeks, unfortunately, we have heard a chorus of unionist politicians trying to smear the Bill and undermine the reason for the Bill sponsor bringing it. The Communities Minister, whose job is to protect the young people we are talking about, told the public that parents could be jailed. He said that the Bill:

His party leader called it, "A real threat to freedom". Diane Dodds called it a:

The Ulster Unionist Party tabled a motion five years ago calling for a ban on conversion therapy in all its forms. It has now performed a U-turn and called it:

I suppose that trans and non-binary people are not welcome in Jon Burrows's Union.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Burrows: I want to place on the record that I never said that people who are gay, lesbian or other are not welcome in my party. They are very welcome in my party, and I would challenge anyone who treated them poorly.

Mr Carroll: The Member needs to listen to what I said: I said that they were not welcome in your Union. Maybe they are not welcome in your party either; I do not know. I would say that you need to vote for the Bill to show that they are welcome in the Union that you are trying to protect.

Let us deal with the myths, given that a lot of what has been put out during the debate has been exactly that: a myth. Parents will not be jailed for talking to their children. Every offence here requires "intent to change or suppress" someone's identity and cause real harm. Coercive behaviour must be "violent", "threatening", "controlling" or degrading, and it must be repeated. I do not know why people would do that generally, especially in any form of parenting. Whilst parenting is a difficult job, why anybody would do any of those things, regardless of whether it was connected to someone's sexuality or identity, is beyond me.

Prayer and preaching are not banned. Clause 7, I think, states clearly that expressing a belief without directing someone is not an offence. As I understand it, across Europe, such bans have not criminalised worship, sermons or, indeed, family conversations. If there has been such a case, I would be happy to hear about it. Therapists are not gagged. Obviously, regulated professionals who work within their professional codes are exempt. Supportive exploratory work is protected, as the proposer of the Bill has said countless times. To those who say that abuse is already illegal, I say this: I think that it was Galop that found that 42 out of 52 religion-based cases involved coercive control. Our current laws cannot grapple with that kind of psychological and spiritual pressure.

Freedom of religion is important and absolutely must be defended. However, it is not, as people have suggested, under attack from the Bill or more generally. That is completely inaccurate. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights has never been a licence to harm others. What unionist parties are defending here is not freedom of religion or thought but the freedom to tell young LGBTQ people that they are broken and need a cure. A lot of dead cats and red herrings — probably hundreds — have been thrown out during the debate. In some ways, it would be impressive if it were not so dangerous in trying to cast shade and doubt on the Bill.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for giving way. I ask him this question genuinely: if, as he believes, the Bill has so many exemptions and so many people would not be captured under it, what is the point of the legislation? If he is aware of abuses or harmful conversion therapy practices, can he tell us what those are?

Mr Carroll: I do not know whether the Member heard my opening comments: I outlined cases in which people were threatened that Satan would rape them, locked in a cupboard and exorcised for three or four hours. That is reason enough for the Bill to proceed.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he not understand that the crimes that he mentioned are already covered in law and by much harsher sentences, should they be proved, than the Bill would allow?

Mr Carroll: I do not believe that they are.

The politics that we hear is the same hateful, dead-end politics that fought the decriminalisation of homosexuality and blocked equal marriage. Now, it stands between teenagers, young people and maybe, in some cases, children and protection from exorcism. Opposition to the Bill can be dressed up in the language of "freedom", or however people desire, but people can see it for the homophobia and transphobia that it really is.

My party will back the Bill and work to strengthen it.

Mrs Cameron: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will in a second.

We will work to strengthen the Bill wherever possible. To every LGBTQ+ person who is watching the debate and might be disheartened or hurt by some of the things that we have heard over the past two weeks, I say this: there is nothing wrong with you and nothing to fix. I will give way to the Member for South Antrim — North Antrim again.

Mrs Cameron: It is South Antrim. Thank you.

I appreciate the Member's giving way again. He referred to objections to the Bill as homophobic and transphobic: I am neither of those things. I was able to quote, when I spoke previously in the debate, from the ongoing conversations that I have with my trans woman friend — a man who transitioned completely to a woman. I do not have an issue with that, so I am not transphobic. I am not homophobic. I challenge what you have just said. Large groups of people, including the Gay Men's Network, oppose the Bill. Are you going to tell me that they are transphobic and homophobic?

Mr Carroll: I have not met that group, but I guess that it is probably opposed to trans rights, as some other organisations are. I doubt that it is a mass organisation in the way that the Member suggested. If the Member is — [Interruption.]

You can laugh all you want. If the Member is for trans rights, as, she says, she is, I say this to her: vote for the Bill and put your money where your mouth is, regardless of your friends. I do not know who your friends are.

A lot of stuff that I referenced talked about gender identity, what it is and what is going on. Despite the accusations thrown at liberals or people on the left about being obsessed with gender, I say that the right — the people to my right — are absolutely obsessed and fascinated with gender, genitalia and all things connected to that. I will quote the Britannica online dictionary, which states that "gender identity" is:

It goes on a bit longer, but I am sure that Members will be happy with that definition. If they are not, they should maybe do a bit more research.

Ms Sugden: I support the Bill at Second Stage. I support the general principle that people should not be subjected to harmful practices intended to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity. I have concerns that I will speak to, but I believe that the Bill can address those concerns within its existing scope and architecture. It will need amendments if I am to ultimately support it through to its Final Stage, but fixing those issues would not require us to fundamentally rewrite the Bill or turn it into something different. Its basic structure is capable of carrying the changes that are required while retaining the purpose for which it was introduced, and that is really important to my support at Second Stage. If I am wrong and the changes do not go through, I may not support it at the subsequent stages.

The Bill is criminal legislation, and it creates offences that can carry a custodial sentence of up to two years. Therefore, we need to be clear about the conduct that could be criminalised, the intention that must exist, the harm that must be caused and, equally important, the conduct that remains lawful if the Bill is put into statute. Like others, I have received considerable correspondence from constituents who are genuinely concerned about how the legislation will be interpreted. I probably came to the debate from a perspective that I was likely to support the principle of the Bill, but I have tried to understand the concerns that have been put to me and whether they have a legitimate basis, whether they have a basis in law or whether the drafting could create unintended consequences. It is not enough for us to simply say that something is not the intention of the Bill; if there is ambiguity in the wording, what ultimately matters is how that legislation can be interpreted and applied. That is particularly important when we are creating a criminal offence.

One argument has been that we already have laws covering assault, harassment, domestic abuse and coercion and that there is no need for an additional offence. I am not often persuaded by that argument. The fact that conduct may already fall into some area of criminal law does not necessarily mean that the existing framework adequately identifies or deals with a behaviour that we are trying to address. We have done that elsewhere in the law. Sometimes, legislation is needed because a particular pattern of behaviour is not being adequately captured. Coercive control and domestic abuse legislation is an example of that. Sometimes, naming the behaviour specifically matters, because it helps victims and practitioners in the criminal justice system to recognise what exactly is happening.

The Bill sponsor's case is that there are conversion practices that may not fit neatly within the offences that already exist: for example, purported therapeutic interventions intended to change or suppress somebody's sexual orientation or gender identity or coercive behaviour by someone who does not fall within the definition of "personal relationship" under our domestic abuse law. The Bill therefore creates separate offences relating to "conversion therapy", "coercive conversion behaviour" and:

That is a legitimate gap that we have to examine.

Does our current law provide for that? I am not sure that it does. There has also been considerable concern expressed about whether ordinary conversations between parents and children, religious teaching or difficult therapeutic conversations could be caught by the Bill.

I do not see that as an accurate reading of how those offences would operate as a whole. For conversion therapy to be an offence, there would have to be conversion therapy, a specific intention to change or suppress the victim's sexual orientation or gender identity and a specific intention to cause physical or psychological harm as a consequence. Those three key elements are required to come together. There is also the defence of where the conduct was "reasonable in the particular circumstances", but how we deliver on the principle matters just as much as the principle itself. The legislation would have to be understood by the public, parents, religious organisations, therapists, the police and, ultimately, the courts. Where a legitimate boundary can therefore be made clear in the Bill, I believe that we should make it clear. That is essentially what Members across the House have been saying.

The parental issue is a good example. I do not believe that I would support a blanket exemption for parents, because being a parent cannot provide immunity where there is genuinely harmful or coercive behaviour towards a child. I do not believe that any one of us would support that. I do think, however, that the relationship between the Bill and the domestic abuse legislation from which the coercive behaviour provisions have been drawn deserves much closer examination. The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 contains an exception where the alleged victim is under 16 and the accused has responsibility for that child. The 2021 Act's explanatory notes make clear that the reason for that is not that direct abuse by a parent is acceptable but is because other child protection offences are considered the appropriate mechanism for dealing with that abuse. That is important.

A parent will routinely do things that, in a relationship between adults, could look controlling. Between two adults, monitoring where a person is, restricting internet access, setting curfews or deciding where they can go or whom they see is quite worrying. Between a parent and a child, however, that is parenting. The 2021 Act recognises that difference in context. The Bill appears to borrow substantially from that coercive control framework but does not carry across the parental exception. There may be a good reason for that.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way and for raising that point. As the Bill sponsor, I have found her contribution so far to be insightful and constructive, and it has been useful for me to listen to her views. On that particular point, the Member is right that an exception for under-16s exists in domestic abuse law. The reason that it is not included in the Bill, however, is so as not to allow, where abuse happens, a blanket carveout for parents. As the Member will know, the 2021 Act also amended the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 so that psychological harm comes under the auspices of that legislation where there are allegations of domestic abuse or cruelty towards a child. There is therefore still provision in law that, where psychological harm is caused to a child, that can still be prosecuted. That was another outworking of the 2021 Act.

I am conscious of what the Member has said, however, and that is why, having reflected on the views that Members have expressed in the debate, the harm threshold is really important in order to ensure that we strike the right balance and do not create the chill factor for parents that they might be prosecuted, even if that would not be the outworking of the legislation. I would be really keen to engage with the Member further on that matter.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Bill sponsor for outlining that intention, but, to go back to my earlier comments, the wording has to reflect that so that we can feel confident that the Bill would not create that unintended consequence. Certainly, if the Bill passes Second Stage this evening, the Committee will need to focus on why that part of the source legislation has been lifted out and what alternative safeguard is intended to distinguish between legitimate parental responsibility and coercive conversion behaviour.

There is a much more useful question to be asked than one simply about whether parents would be criminalised or whether they have nothing to be worried about. That also applies to religious expression. People must remain free to believe, preach, disagree, discuss and persuade. Clause 7(1)(b) provides that there is no intent to change or suppress where:

I will give my thoughts on that. That is an important protection, but religious freedom cannot mean that harmful or coercive behaviour becomes immune from criminal law simply because it has happened in a religious setting. Again, the distinction can be drawn, but the question for scrutiny is whether it has been drawn clearly enough.

I will spend more time on gender identity, because it is one of the most important drafting questions to be asked about the Bill. Sex, gender reassignment, acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and gender identity are related concepts, but they are not interchangeable legal concepts.

The Gender Recognition Act applies in Northern Ireland and provides a particular statutory mechanism with particular legal consequences. The Bill does not amend that framework. It does not amend the law on sex. It does not change the law governing single-sex services. Its purpose here is to protect people from conversion practices directed towards their gender identity, and I support that purpose.

Clause 6 deserves careful scrutiny, however. Clause 6 says:

I understand why the second part of that is necessary. If someone — the accused — believes that another person is gay or transgender and subjects them to harmful conversion practices for that reason, the relevant issue is the characteristic that they believe that they were targeting and their intention to change or suppress it. However, my difficulty is why we need to say that gender identity includes whatever the victim considers it to be. Gender identity actually has appeared in legislation affecting Northern Ireland — census legislation in 2019 — but referring to a characteristic is not the same as giving the courts an interpretive rule about how that characteristic is to be understood in respect of a criminal offence that can lead to imprisonment. Therefore, whether intentionally or otherwise, clause 6 does more than simply mention gender identity.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for being generous in giving way. It is an important area, and I agree that it is worthy of scrutiny. The reasons that, during drafting, we included consideration of both what the alleged victim considers their sexual orientation or gender identity to be and what the accused considers those to be are, as the Member rightly identified, so that we can make out that the accused acted with intent, and so that we do not create a loophole whereby, after the fact, the accused says, "I didn't consider that person to be gay. I had no idea. Had I known, I would never have acted in that way". Giving the courts a framework where they have to have regard for both perspectives would allow the courts to come to a reasonable judgement.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Member.

I understand why people are asking about the wording and how it could be relied upon as a statutory definition or recognition of self-declared gender identity. I do not think that that is the policy objective of the Bill, but there is uncertainty there. The Bill sponsor needs the law to protect someone where a perpetrator targets someone's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. The Committee needs to examine whether that can be achieved without the current wording around what the victim considers their identity to be.

It may be sensible to make it explicit that any interpretation of gender identity is "for the purposes of this Act only". Many Members have talked in the debate about how it may be interpreted, but I understand that there are instruments in legislation whereby we can say that the interpretation of a Bill applies to only that Bill. That would ensure that the Bill does not give an unintended definition of "gender identity". It does not alter the meaning of "sex" or "acquired gender" or alter existing rights or exceptions elsewhere in law, but the principle matters to me. We should be able to protect transgender people from harmful conversion practices without the Bill inadvertently becoming a vehicle for changing the meaning of "sex" or establishing a wider system of gender self-ID in Northern Ireland law. I do not believe that that is necessarily what the Bill does, but, if we can remove ambiguity, particularly in criminal legislation, we should.

That brings me to article 2 of the Windsor framework. I appreciate that the sponsor has indicated that the Equality Commission did not identify an article 2 breach during the development of the proposal, but it is still worth examining the issue properly. Article 2 protects certain existing rights, safeguards and equality protections in Northern Ireland from diminution following Brexit. The fact that the Bill engages equality and human rights does not, in itself, mean that article 2 is breached, but the question is whether an existing protected right is actually being reduced. The conversation around gender identity potentially comes into that.

I have not really seen it demonstrated that the Bill removes an existing sex-based right. It does not expressly amend sex discrimination law, the Gender Recognition Act or single-sex exemptions. However, if we are giving "gender identity" a new or uncertain statutory meaning, it is reasonable to satisfy ourselves that doing so will have no unintended consequences for existing sex-based protections. I would expect the Committee to test that carefully with the Equality Commission, the Human Rights Commission and the appropriate legal experts. Again, if a saving provision could make it explicit that the Bill leaves existing sex-based rights elsewhere in law untouched, that is worth considering. Again, a lot of the opposition to the Bill is about giving a definition to gender identity, but if we can explicitly write into law that the provisions do not go beyond the confines of the Bill, might Members around the House accept that and support the Bill?

There is also a question around "psychological harm". Clause 8 says:

I do not accept the suggestion that someone merely saying, "This conversation upset me" automatically establishes an offence. Other elements still have to be proven. "Distress", however, is a broad term. Difficult conversations can cause distress. Parenting can cause distress, as can therapy. The Chamber often causes me distress. However, if we mean genuine psychological harm, the Committee should look at whether the legislation needs to be made clearer so that trivial or transient distress is not sufficient.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for giving way. She has outlined much of the detail of the Bill. Does she agree that, regardless of where we end up with the Bill, given its ambiguity and all the uncertainties, questions and concerns that are out there, should the Bill be enacted, it would cause a huge chilling effect, not just for parents and churches but for councillors and the medical profession?

Ms Sugden: I thank the Member for her intervention. The legislative process is such that we can amend and shape the Bill, so that it does not give rise to that. I support the principle of the Bill — in fact, I think that most people do — but if, when we get to the detail, it can be worded differently, then, hopefully, we can get to that with the support of the House.

Equally, if the Bill is not changed to my satisfaction and I think that those things cannot be addressed, I will not necessarily support it at its Final Stage. The role of the House and of us as legislators is to create good law, and, right now, the Bill needs work. Certainly, I hear that suggestion from this side of the House and, indeed, throughout the House. I support it because there is the possibility of changing the Bill without undermining its integrity and what it tries to do. There have been other Member's Bills in the House that I thought needed too much change and could not be changed to the point at which I could have supported them. We can, however, do it with this Bill, and if we cannot, we have various stages at which we can reject it. We have a Bill sponsor, but the Bill belongs to the House. It is now our job to get to a point at which everybody agrees with it.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for giving way again. Does the Member recognise that this type of Bill has been proposed at Westminster? Parliament has been working on it for somewhere between six and eight years but has not been able to come up with an answer, such is the controversy. Is the Member concerned about the length of time that we have left in the mandate to scrutinise legislation that could have such great consequences and so many unintended ones?

Ms Sugden: I have a great concern that we may have a week left in the mandate to get through any of the various stages. That does not mean that we do nothing. We have to do what we can. If our scrutiny does not get the Bill to the point that it is right for everyone, then we do not vote for it. That is our job as legislators.

There is an opportunity to learn a lot from the Westminster context and perspective. To some extent, the legislation introduced there is a different vehicle. This is a contained Bill, which might not go as far as Westminster's, but I do not think that we should do nothing. A harm exists. Those in the Member's party, as well as others, have acknowledged that harm. If existing legislation does not address it, it is OK that we are seen to address that inadequacy. It may mean that we do not eventually end up with the Bill that has been presented at Second Stage, but it does not do any harm for us to test it at least. That is our job.

I will go back to my point on distress. We need to be clear that transient or trivial distress is not sufficient. We need to provide greater certainty without weakening the protection that the Bill intends to create.

Therapy is another area in which I need greater clarity. Someone who is questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity should be able to explore that openly with an appropriate and qualified practitioner. Exploration is not conversion. Good therapy should not start with the predetermined conclusion that the person must be affirmed in one direction or pushed in another. That is the defining difference. It should allow someone to question, explore and understand what they are experiencing.

The Bill protects certain regulated healthcare professionals where they act in accordance with their professional standards, but the Committee needs to examine whether that protection adequately reflects the wider range of counsellors and psychotherapists who practise legitimately outside the bodies that are specifically listed. I would be comfortable with legislation explicitly protecting neutral, exploratory and non-directive therapeutic support. That would not provide cover for conversion therapy; it would help us define the difference between genuine therapeutic exploration and an intervention the predetermined purpose of which is to change or suppress somebody's sexual orientation or gender identity.

There is also a question around children. The Bill does not appear to contain an age-specific exclusion for someone accused of the offences. I do not accept that ordinary playground disagreement, unpleasant comments or bullying would automatically become conversion practices. The specific conversion intent and the other elements of the offence would still need to be established. However, Northern Ireland has a low age of criminal responsibility, so the Committee will need to consider how the offences are intended to operate in peer-to-peer situations involving children and whether existing youth justice safeguards are sufficient. Such things are not an issue until they become an issue, which is why we have to anticipate how the legislation could be interpreted.

There are occasions when I support the policy objective behind legislation but conclude that the Bill itself is fundamentally the wrong vehicle for it, and I have said that. I made that distinction with the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill. It was absolutely the right intention that we progress that issue, but the vehicle was not right. That is not where we are today, however. This Bill needs shaped, but its core architecture is capable of carrying those changes. The Bill already separates conversion therapy from coercive conversion behaviour. It deals separately with taking someone outside Northern Ireland for conversion practices, and it requires intent and harm. It contains protections around expression of belief and regulated healthcare. The work now is to make those boundaries sufficiently precise. That scrutiny will also force us to confront difficult but worthwhile questions about the interaction between criminal law, equality law, freedom of religion and expression, parental responsibility, existing sex-based protections and the Windsor framework. Those conversations are not a distraction from the legislation; they are part of getting it right. To come back to Mrs Cameron's point, we may not have time to do that, but having those conversations on record will help to set a foundation on which we can potentially look at this again if we run out of time.

I support the Bill today, because I support the principle that harmful conversion practices should be outlawed and because the concerns identified are capable of being addressed without abandoning the legislative framework in front of us. That support is not unconditional. If my concerns cannot be satisfactorily resolved as the Bill progresses, I will reconsider my position at later stages, but I believe that they can be resolved and that the Bill should now have the opportunity to go through to detailed scrutiny. On that basis, I support the Bill's Second Stage.

Mr Lyons: I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate over the past couple of days, or is it weeks? I have genuinely lost track. It has been a useful debate, however. We have been able to tease out issues, and having that time has allowed Members to consider some of the issues that have been raised.

Before I go any further, I will address a few comments to Mr Tennyson. First, I acknowledge that the Bill is deeply personal to him. It is a subject that he cares about and has done for a long time. That can sometimes be a virtue and a vice when bringing through legislation such as this, but I acknowledge that he has clearly put a lot of work into it. It is clear that, in some cases, he has examined alternatives to the clauses that he has put in. It is clear from our conversations and many, many interventions that have been taken throughout the debate that he has answered some of the queries that have come up and has given rationales, much as I may disagree with some of them. It is clear that he has examined this and weighed up the pros and cons. I acknowledge that, when you spend a lot of time on something, work hard and put considerable effort into it, it is difficult when others are as robust and passionate about their position as you are about yours.

I hope that he understands that our opposition to the Bill is based on what is in it. I have been sincere and genuine in that regard.

I need to comment on some of the contributions that have been made. What frustrates me most about this place is how readily it rushes to a populist position. On the surface, a ban on conversion practices sounds compassionate and progressive; the sort of measure that photographs well and wins easy applause. However, I have come to the conclusion that some of the Members opposite either do not grasp the profound difficulties with the evidence base, the elastic definitions or the inevitable chilling effect that the Bill would have on free speech and religious liberty, or they understand those difficulties perfectly well and still choose silence because the alternative looks unpopular. That is the abandonment of scrutiny in favour of the appearance of virtue.

The deeper problem with this place is that it is all too quick to support something that merely sounds good rather than something that actually is good. Sounding good can be easy; doing good requires the harder work of precise drafting, the honest assessment of evidence and the courage to resist popular pressure when the long-term cost to liberty and truth are clear. That was very apparent from the contributions made by Sinn Féin and SDLP Members in particular. There was no scrutiny of the Bill. There was no answer to the questions that we asked. Members spoke in very general terms about the issue at large but not about what is in front of us.

Mr Boggs made his maiden speech on the issue and made many good points. The Deputy Speaker called it an "inaugural" speech, but I do not think that Mr Boggs is a president. I hope that that is not some new woke ideology. It was not an "inaugural" speech; it was a maiden speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I assure you that I would not have used those words.

Mr Lyons: No, it was not you. I do not mean to have a go at someone making their maiden speech, but it is fair to say that many of the speeches were fluffy and did not address the issues of concern.

Before I turn to the Bill, I will address some of the comments about the legal advice that was provided by Aidan O'Neill KC. Members are of course entitled to scrutinise that advice. That is part of our role as legislators. However, it is not appropriate for the Assembly to dismiss or disparage professional legal advice simply because its conclusions are inconvenient or contested. Mr O'Neill provided his professional assessment of the Bill. Members may agree or disagree, but any legal assessment should be considered on its legal merits and treated with the professional respect that such advice warrants. It is important to put that on record.

I also want to make a very important rebuttal of something that Mr Tennyson stated during the debate. He said:

That is incorrect. Mr Tennyson forgets about the Sign Language Bill, which received Royal Assent on 9 July this year. That is an Act that the Assembly can be proud to have passed. I assume that he did not mean the offence that he caused by those comments. I think that that is more down to his version and view of what equality is, but I am immensely proud to have been part of that legislation and to have signed the first commencement order for last week.

Mr Kingston: Well done, Gordon.

Mr Lyons: Thank you very much, Brian. [Laughter.]

Second Stage is about debating the general principles of a Bill, but that does not mean that we speak only in generalities. The question before us today is not whether people should be protected from harm. Of course they should. Nor is it whether abusive conduct should be challenged. Of course it should. The question is whether the Bill provides a lawful and workable framework for creating new criminal offences. In my view, it does not.

I assure the House that I have given the Bill careful consideration. I am aware that it deals with a sensitive issue that requires care and compassion, and that is why I hope that Mr Tennyson will reflect on the comments that he has made about me and others in relation to the Bill. He was on the radio shortly after me one day and said that it was clear that I had not read the Bill. I would have hoped that he would not take that approach. I hope that he understands that I have read the Bill but have come to a different conclusion from him on it. The debate has taken place over a number of days, during which time he seems to have accepted that there are legitimate concerns on this side of the House, particularly about the definition of "conversion therapy" and the meanings of "talking therapy", "coaching" and "instruction". He appears to have moved on that. I do not doubt, therefore, the sincerity of his position. I hope that he affords the same attitude to others in the Chamber who have come with genuine concerns about what the Bill will mean. It is unfair that people have said that there has been scaremongering from this side of the House. The concerns on this side are not based on a view that we have just taken on any one day; they are considered and are the result of legal advice and a plain reading of the Bill. I hope that that will also be understood.

I recognise the fact that individuals have experienced coercive or harmful treatment that was carried out in the name of changing or suppressing their sexual orientation or identity. The fact that I have concerns about the Bill should not be taken as indifference to those experiences or the harm that can arise from abusive practices. As I have said, the Second Stage is about debating the principles of the Bill and deciding whether it should progress. Our task is not simply to agree with an intention, especially when that intention is unclear, but to consider whether the proposed legislative framework is sufficiently clear, robust and workable to justify creating new criminal offences. That is an important point: they are criminal offences that would result in a criminal record with potential jail time. Even those who support the aims of the Bill should ask whether the provisions contain the degree of certainty that criminal law requires.

The stated objective of the Bill is "to end" so-called "conversion practices in Northern Ireland". It is directed towards ending discredited therapies and stopping harmful or abusive behaviour towards LGBT people. As I have said, I support that objective in principle. However, we cannot debate the principles of the Bill without looking not only at what the Bill intends to do but at how it intends to do it. That is where the problems lie.

In considering those principles, I have three broad concerns: concern about the clarity and legal certainty of the Bill; concern about whether the Bill is sufficiently targeted at genuinely harmful conduct; and concern about whether the offences that are to be created have been demonstrated to be necessary and proportionate. It is those concerns that lead me to conclude that I cannot support the Bill. After closely examining the provisions, it became clear that the Bill may capture all sorts of normal, everyday behaviours, infringe on human rights and use criminal law in a way that is neither appropriate nor reasonable.

My first concern is about whether the Bill provides the clarity and legal certainty that is required in criminal law. When offences that may result in criminal liability and imprisonment are being created, people should be able to understand where lawful conduct ends and criminal conduct begins. It is against that standard that I have examined the Bill. The first offence in the Bill is "providing conversion therapy". It is that clause that attempts to address discredited therapies that are aimed at changing an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. However, the definition of conversion therapy is extraordinarily broad and includes those who provide or carry out:

That has the potential to capture all manner of actions, including parental guidance, youth mentoring, pastoral conversations and even private advice. Mr Tennyson has sought to provide reassurance on that point. He has argued that the use of the word "therapy" is deliberate and that there would need to be a "fact-specific assessment" by a court as to whether an instance of coaching or instruction amounts to a therapeutic intervention.

I struggle to see where that additional limitation appears in the Bill. The Bill does not state that "coaching or instruction" must amount to a therapeutic intervention. Clause 4 expressly states:

any of the listed activities, which expressly include "coaching or instruction".

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Minister for giving way. As he knows, there is significant concern and apprehension about the Bill and understandably so. I find it to be one of the most extraordinarily dangerously drafted pieces of legislation, given what it could do. It is incredibly important that there be certainty. The Minister has outlined situations that the Bill sponsor has indicated that the courts would need to look at, but the important point to make is that, by the time a person gets to court, they would have been through an entire process in which they had been prosecuted and, because of the legislation, perhaps did not have that certainty. Does the Minister agree that that certainty is important not just for the judges and those implementing the law but because it is a core, basic legal principle that the ordinary citizen must have legal certainty about whether they are committing a criminal offence. Otherwise, by the time the case gets to court, it would be much too late.

Mr Lyons: That is absolutely —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before we continue, thank you very much, Emma, for your contribution, but you should have been making it from the Back Benches, not the Front Benches. I know that it was just a wee mistake, was it not?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. Back to you, Minister.

Mr Lyons: I will not ask her to go to the Back Benches

and make it again, because I get her point. We have heard it in here time and time again, and there have almost been guffaws and an attitude of, "A judge would never do that". First, we will have to wait and see what is in the legislation, because that is what a judge would have to go on. Think, however, about what a person who had been accused of something under the legislation would have gone through by the time that the case got to court. Think about how difficult it would be for a parent or a pastor — someone who had meant only the best and had the best intentions at heart — who got a knock on the door and had to give statements and go through a process of engaging with all the relevant authorities to allow the PPS to do its job before the case was sent on again. That would cause huge concern and distress for the people involved, so it is not good enough to say, "Oh, it will be OK at the end".

I give the example of the Ashers case, which happened over 10 years ago. What that family was put through at the time was absolutely disgraceful. Yes, we could say that it all worked out in the end, because the Supreme Court did its job and accurately interpreted the law, but look at what that family was put through in the meantime. That is why it is important that people know exactly what the law states in the first place. That is why there is an issue with clause 4. If the intention is that "coaching or instruction" should be criminalised only where it constitutes a genuinely therapeutic intervention, I ask this straightforward question: why does the Bill not say so? When the Assembly is creating a criminal offence carrying the possibility of imprisonment, Members should not be asked to rely on assurances about how broadly drafted words are intended to operate. Those limits should be clear in the legislation. I say that because clarity matters. Members may support the Bill's objective, but they should also ask themselves whether the offences are drafted with sufficient precision to ensure that people can understand what conduct would and would not be prohibited. It is clear from the debate that there is not certainty in the Chamber about what clause 4 means.

There is also an offence of "engaging in coercive conversion behaviour". Of course abusive and coercive behaviour is unacceptable; no one in the Chamber should have any difficulty saying that. The coercive behaviour offence, however, is grounded in a concept that is so broad that it may criminalise conduct that the Bill sponsor does not wish to criminalise. The real challenge for us as legislators is to ensure that, in seeking to prohibit genuinely harmful conduct, we do not inadvertently criminalise legitimate conversations, ordinary family relationships, pastoral support or professional guidance.

Mr Tennyson has noted that the Bill's definition of coercive behaviour draws on language contained in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021.

He has also made clear his intention that the coercive behaviour offence should be capable of applying in the context of parent/child relationships. However, that demonstrates precisely why caution is required when comparisons are made, as the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act provides a specific exemption for those who have parental responsibility for the individual. This Bill, therefore, seeks to apply concepts drawn from the domestic abuse framework in a different context and, importantly, to relationships involving parents and children. While existing legislation already provides protections for children from harm, neglect and cruelty, the coercive behaviour concepts relied on in this Bill have not previously been applied in that way. That is why I do not accept the argument that those provisions can simply be regarded as equivalent to those in the Domestic Abuse Act or that their operation can safely be assumed to be the same.

Parents necessarily set boundaries, provide guidance and supervise their children's activities. They regulate aspects of their children's day-to-day lives. Parents monitor their children's welfare and, where they believe it to be in their children's best interests, place limits on what they can and cannot do. The fact that language has been borrowed from the Domestic Abuse Act does not mean that the legal effect is the same. Context matters, and, in the case of parents and children, those differences matter a great deal, particularly when a completely different approach has been taken in the Bill.

Leaving aside the significant issue of parents and children, lifting the "coercive control" wording and applying it to a wider context than that of specific domestic relationships is not without issue. For example, the absence of the intent part of the provisions in the Bill is significant. The prosecution of offences under the Domestic Abuse Act must establish that the accused intended to cause harm or was reckless as to whether harm would be caused or that a reasonable person would consider the conduct likely to cause harm. Supporters of this Bill may argue that the threshold is higher because it requires physical or psychological harm to have been caused, but that does not answer the point that I make. The question is not simply whether harm must be shown; the question is whether the offence is supported by the same wider framework of intent, recklessness and objective assessment as exists in the domestic abuse legislation from which those concepts have been drawn.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for giving way. That is an important point regarding the tests that are added in the Bill, given that the provision is being applied in a different context. He noted that, in domestic abuse legislation, there is no requirement for there to be intent; it can be simply that the behaviour was likely to cause harm or the individual was reckless as to whether harm was caused. We have narrowed the scope of the application of the "coercive behaviour" definition in the Bill by specifically requiring:

We have narrowed the circumstances in which that could be defined.

As I have done before, I acknowledge what he said about the repeated mention of "harm" in the debate. Claire Sugden and other Members also talked about that. I am happy to look at the "harm" threshold in order to ensure that we get the correct balance of rights. I believe that there is a way through that can provide some reassurance.

Mr Lyons: I am glad that the Member has acknowledged that that reassurance needs to be given. I recognise his other point as well, but I will come to that shortly.

Of course, this is all about definitions. What does it mean to intend to suppress or change someone's gender identity? We have been over, time and again, what that means and looks like, so there is still a concern there. Those issues have not been done away with or made any easier to deal with. It is misleading to suggest that the provisions in the Bill are directly comparable with those in the Domestic Abuse Act. Similar language has been adopted, but it has been placed within a significantly different legislative framework.

The issue before us is not whether coercive behaviour should be prohibited; it is whether the offence is defined with sufficient clarity that an ordinary person can reasonably understand where lawful conduct ends and criminal conduct begins and can distinguish genuinely harmful conduct from lawful and legitimate supportive, pastoral and professional interactions. The issue of intent in the Bill further illustrates the challenge of clarity in it. For each of the offences, it is specified that the accused has:

That goes to the heart of how those offences would operate in practice, but it relies on a potentially vague or uncertain assessment of what was perceived. A person may have a conversation with someone that is intended as one of care or concern, but it could be perceived as an attempt to change or suppress their identity. We should be extremely cautious before creating offences where the dividing line between lawful conduct and criminal conduct is unclear. It is also specified for each offence that the victim would suffer "physical or psychological" harm, which is certainly reasonable, with psychological harm being defined as "fear, alarm or distress". My concern is about those who simply attempt to offer support, do not in any way intend to cause harm and do nothing that could reasonably be considered to cause harm but still fall foul of the legislation.

I also have concerns about the Bill's use of the term "gender identity". The reason why that matters is straightforward. The term is not a peripheral feature of the Bill; it sits at the heart of the proposed offences and is therefore capable of having significant legal consequences. The Bill introduces its own definition of gender identity, providing that it is:

My concern is not that the Bill seeks to address questions relating to gender identity but whether the definition provided gives sufficient legal certainty for legislation that creates criminal offences. During the debate, Members have heard differing explanations of what the term might mean and how it may be intended to operate. We have also had back and forth between Members and the Chair about whether the issues can even be debated. Why did that become an issue in the House? It did so because these are sensitive, contested issues. They became issues because we do not know what they mean. That, in itself, should give us pause for thought.

If there is uncertainty in the Chamber about the meaning and practical application of a key term, we should carefully consider the challenges that might arise for members of the public, the police, prosecutors and, ultimately, the courts. I make the point again: criminal law should be capable of being understood by those who are subject to it, and it should be applied consistently by those who enforce it. Good legislation should reduce uncertainty, not create it. Where a term is central to the operation of a criminal offence, the Assembly should be confident not only that it can be defined but that it can be applied consistently and predictably in practice. That threshold has not been met.

There were laughs and guffaws around the Chamber as some of my colleagues gave ridiculous examples of certain gender identities. The examples were laughed at because they were so ridiculous, but they are real to many people. That is why it is so important that the issues be teased out: the lack of certainty.

The use of the term "suppressing" in relation to sexual orientation or gender identity is problematic, and there is a lack of clarity on what that might entail.

I draw Members' attention to what has been described as the "reasonableness defence" that applies to each of the offences. The provision is intended to provide reassurance that conduct that is "reasonable in the particular circumstances" will not attract criminal liability. We need to look carefully at how that protection operates. The burden is not on the prosecution to establish that the conduct was unreasonable; instead, the burden of establishing the reasonableness defence rests with the accused.

I recognise that reverse burdens of that kind are not unprecedented in criminal law, but we should not regard that as insignificant, because it engages an important and long-standing principle of criminal justice: that an individual is presumed innocent and that ordinarily it is for the prosecution to establish criminal liability.

My key concern is that this does not answer the wider issue about the potential chilling effect of the legislation. For someone trying to decide in advance whether a difficult conversation or a piece of advice is lawful, being told that they may ultimately be able to establish that their conduct was reasonable is not necessarily the reassurance that it first might appear to be. They still face the prospect of an investigation and potentially having to rely on and establish that defence before a court.

For all of those reasons, I am not convinced that the Bill satisfies the first test of clarity. That is why we must ask whether we have sufficient clarity on the offences and the confidence that people can understand in advance where the boundary of criminal conduct lies.

My second concern is about whether the Bill draws the boundary in the right place. Of course, harmful and coercive conduct should be prohibited, but the challenge for legislators is to ensure that, in doing so, we do not inadvertently capture lawful conduct as well. It is here that I have concerns about the scope of the proposed offences. Mr Tennyson seems content, however, that normal everyday scenarios will not be captured by the Bill. Let me give you an example. What about a boy who comes to his parent and says, "I want to be a girl"? If the parent shows concern and tries to steer the child in some way and dampen down those notions, would that parent be implicated by the legislation? Mr Tennyson would say, "No, of course not". However, let us look at what the legislation says. Clause 4 states:

The parent in my example could be described as instructing the child. Clause 1(1)(b) states:

The parent could be described as having attempted to suppress those inclinations. The definition of psychological harm in clause 8 includes "alarm or distress". The child could decide at the time or later in life that they felt distressed following that conversation. The parent who is trying to care for their child and guide them could, it seems to me, reasonably be captured by the legislation. I have asked the House to tell me where I am wrong in this —.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I thought the Member might bite on that.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for giving way. The Minister and I have talked at length about clause 4 and the clarity that can be provided for parents and all of those things. However, even taking the Minister's interpretation of clause 4 as written, there is clearly an overriding intent around the child's welfare — I do not think that that could be disputed by Members of the House — where the parent is saying, "Take your time, slow down, these are big decisions". Under the intent test in the Bill, where there is consideration given to both what the victim considers their gender identity to be and what the parent considers it to be, the parent would have to consider that the child is transgender in order to act with deliberate intent. The intent test alone has safeguards even under the Minister's interpretation of the Bill, which, he knows, I disagree with. There are protections there. I understand the concerns that the Minister has raised about the Bill, but there are clear protections there.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for the intervention. He obviously disagrees with my interpretation of the Bill, and he obviously disagrees with my interpretation of my interpretation of the Bill as well. We have been over that a few times, but I still believe on the basis of what is written in front of us that, if the parent does as I said in that example, they will fall under this.

I do not think that we should have to rely on assurances about how a law may be interpreted. It is clear from our debates over the past few days that there is a difference in how we interpret the legislation. If that is the case here, it could also be the case with the police, the PPS and the court. That is why it is important that, if the Bill goes forward, that is tied down. If the Member is sincere in saying that he does not want those sorts of examples captured, we need to see an amendment to that effect, because many people agree with my position on this one.

For the record, I am not suggesting that such a conviction or prosecution would always be likely, but my concern is that legislation should make such an outcome impossible, not just merely unlikely.

Mr Kingston: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Lyons: I will.

Mr Kingston: Does the Minister agree that, whatever Members in other parties say, a substantial number of people who do not want to cause offence to anyone will always believe that your gender is your biological sex. People might want to live their private lives in whatever way they wish, but, when it comes to public policy and public matters, your gender is your biological sex. People who genuinely hold that view should not be criminalised for thinking or expressing it without wanting to hurt anyone. I think that that is the majority view in society. People will try to avoid offending somebody, but that is their genuine view, and that should not be criminalised.

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to Mr Kingston for his intervention. It is important to acknowledge what he said, because the views expressed on this side of the House are certainly not minority views. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland believe what we have said about gender. I believe that the vast majority of people want to be able to instruct their child in how to deal with these issues because they believe that that is best.

Mr Tennyson said again this evening that the test for the Bill is harm. It has been backed up by studies with much supporting evidence that affirming somebody in a gender identity that does not match their biological sex can and does cause harm. That is the basis of so much of what we have seen through the Cass report as well. We find a reference to that in clause 7, which states that it is OK if you want to affirm someone. That creates a contradiction. I thank the Member for his intervention on that point.

I will move on to another example. Imagine that a minister or pastor in a church is teaching from the Bible and says something about the distinction between men and women. Would they be criminalised by the Bill? Mr Tennyson would say, "Of course not", and he would point to clause 7(1), which states:

Clause 7(1)(b) states:

I do not know about other people of faith in this place, but I do not go along to my church on Sunday morning or Sunday evening simply to hear other people's beliefs or opinions; first and foremost, I go to hear truth. As a Christian, I expect that of my minister as he stands up and speaks. I require from him instruction and teaching on these issues. As Christians, we need, I believe, to get that instruction. I simply do not want somebody standing up there saying, "Here is my opinion. Here is what I believe, but you do whatever you want with that". First of all, I would have no confidence in that minister or preacher. If they lack such conviction in their belief that they are not willing to instruct other people that it is good for them as well, I do not want to hear from them. It is not simply their role to express beliefs; it is their role to direct, guide and instruct. It seems to me, however, that such a faith leader is captured by the legislation.
Mr Tennyson may say that that is not the Bill's intention, but intentions are not what governs criminal prosecutions: the wording of legislation does that. If ordinary faith leaders who are acting in accordance with their beliefs and carrying out their pastoral responsibilities cannot easily determine whether their conduct is lawful, we should pause before we create such offences. I would like Mr Tennyson to touch on that, either in his closing remarks or during the Bill's progression, because he has said that it would not apply to somebody who is standing up and speaking to a group of people. He feels that the Bill intends there to be a specific victim who feels specifically targeted. I do not believe that that is reflected in what is in front of us in black and blue. That would have required more careful consideration from him. Again, I say that it is important that someone can easily determine whether their conduct is lawful, and criminal liability should not depend on assumptions about how provisions might later be interpreted. As I have said, I am not convinced therefore that the Bill satisfies the second test as to whether it is sufficiently targeted.

My third concern is about whether the creation of those offences has been shown to be necessary and proportionate and have regard for existing legal protections, the practical challenges of enforcement and the impact on fundamental rights.

We have talked a lot about faith tonight. I feel particularly Presbyterian tonight because I have given three points. I make absolutely no apology for that whatsoever. Three points are very helpful to us on this issue. My speech is not an exposition of scripture, although it has touched on scripture many times. Those are my three points, and I am sticking to them.

Even if Members disagree with my concerns about the clarity and scope of the Bill, a further question remains. Before creating new criminal offences, the Assembly must be satisfied that those offences are necessary and proportionate. That requires us to ask whether a clear gap in existing protections has been identified, whether the proposed offences are workable in practice and whether they strike the right balance between competing rights. That is an important question when it comes to the Bill.

Members will be aware that the UK Government recently published a draft Bill on conversion practices. That follows many delays, due partly to concerns around matters including the inclusion of gender identity and the formulation of a robust legal definition of "conversion practices". There have also been concerns in the different jurisdictions of the UK on how to draft legislation on the issue that aligns with the protection of human rights freedoms. Those concerns are valid, and I believe that they are pertinent to the latest UK draft Bill and to consideration of the private Member's Bill.

It is worth putting that on record because many in the House have criticised me for the lack of progress on such draft legislation. I will be very honest with the House: it is something that I have discussed extensively with officials during my time in office. We have had some useful and really interesting debates and got into the detail of it. However, the same challenges that we are talking about in the debate are the challenges that came up when we were drafting it. I did not think that I was in a position to bring forward a Bill that would gain the agreement of the House and be able to do something that did not infringe on the human rights concerns that have been expressed by many in the House.

When we look at what Governments across the UK and the Republic of Ireland have been grappling with, we see that they examined the same difficult questions and faced the same legal and policy challenges that confront us today. It is worth noting that, to date, none has succeeded in implementing comprehensive legislation that meets all the key human rights challenges. That should give us pause, because it demonstrates that this is not a straightforward legislative exercise but one that raises complex questions of law, rights, definitions and enforcement.