Official Report: Tuesday 29 September 2026

Mr Speaker: Members,

my decision yesterday on selecting the

question for urgent oral answer to the Executive Office. There will therefore be a further opportunity this afternoon for a Minister from the Executive Office to come to the Chamber. I was in correspondence with the Executive Office last night and again this morning. I direct Members that we leave it there until the afternoon. I will not take any points of order on that issue.

Miss Hargey: These are the words not of Irish republicans or nationalists but of people from a unionist background:

I could go on and on. The message is clear: there is no going back. After almost 30 years, they, like many others, are asking, "Why are these wounds being ripped open again?".

I have a message for those in the unionist community who can see through the reckless politics of the DUP and political unionism: be a voice of reason; be a voice of common sense; and continue to be that voice and stand with the people of the Garvaghy Road and for their right to live free from sectarianism and discrimination. I saw people from a unionist and Protestant background engaging with residents of the Garvaghy Road on Sunday and standing in solidarity with them in their plight — their time of worry, stress and re-traumatisation. We cannot allow the reckless attempts by the DUP to exploit that horrific situation and those residents' suffering, to undermine our peace and to drag us backwards to succeed. Every one of us has a responsibility to face that down. We have come too far; we are not going back.

Mrs Erskine: At a Stormont Committee on 15 September, Chris Hazzard MP said:

Yesterday, Sinn Féin's Sinéad Ennis described the hat that Michelle O'Neill was wearing while at the Garvaghy Road. Ms Ennis said that Michelle O'Neill:

That is strange, given the tweets from various Sinn Féin representatives describing Michelle O'Neill as First Minister while taking snaps and unlawfully joining a protest on the Garvaghy Road. She could not bring herself to do her job and come to the Chamber to face scrutiny and answer simple questions about why she led herself and her Sinn Féin colleagues to the point of debasing her office and upending the rule of law.

We all know that Michelle O'Neill was not in Cardiff as First Minister and, embarrassingly, had to walk away from the narrative that Sinn Féin had promoted to the media. Michelle O'Neill came to this Chamber to answer questions on that. It was the same mechanism and agreement through the Executive Office as it would have been yesterday, yet the threat of saying anything on the record in the Chamber when the police would come knocking on her door was a bridge too far.

Of course, the First Minister has form in running away from questions. The Committee for the Executive Office had to take the unprecedented step of getting legal advice to enact section 44 to compel witnesses to attend the Committee, the witness being the very Minister that the Committee wishes to scrutinise. In the Chamber, the deputy First Minister said that she had no issue with coming to the Committee for the Executive Office to give evidence. It is clear that the First Minister is on the run. Yesterday, Michelle O'Neill was again on the run from the Chamber to avoid answering basic questions and, instead, sat in her office with Mary Lou, just outside the Chamber.

Sinn Féin thinks that it can pick and choose its own narrative and that nobody will notice. It has got that wrong. It is time for Michelle O'Neill to face up to reality. She has treated the House with contempt; she has given two fingers to law and order; and she has turned her back on scrutiny. I have a message for Michelle O'Neill: we see you, and so do the people of Northern Ireland.

Ms Egan: When a person in Northern Ireland is convicted of a child sex offence, they are rightly barred from volunteering or working with children. The result of an Access NI check prevents convicted individuals from roles that engage children in the community for reasons of safeguarding and public protection. Why are the same legal protections not extended to the children of those offenders, and what statutory support is available for their families as they come to terms with the most horrendous of crimes by someone whom they once trusted the most?

Private family law sits with the Department of Finance, and, last April, I met Minister O'Dowd alongside the NSPCC and Women's Aid to press for the automatic suspension of parental responsibility upon conviction of murder, known as "Jade's law". In fairness to the Minister, that was a constructive meeting, and he took forward our points and committed to working with his Department to make those protections a reality.

I have since written to Minister O'Dowd requesting the same provisions when a person is convicted of child sex offences. That follows the bravery of a mother, cited as "Lucy" for anonymity, who came forward to the BBC while she fights a convicted child sex offender for parental responsibility of their shared child. I have since spoken to that incredible woman and to others who have been inspired by her courage to step forward. They have been left exhausted and financially depleted while fighting through the courts to keep their children out of the hands of dangerous individuals. For them, that is seen the same way as handing their child over to a stranger — a dangerous stranger — for the weekend. What else are they expected to do?

When a co-parent receives notification from the PSNI about such horrors, the situation must be handled appropriately. Their life has been turned upside down. Officers must be trained on how to handle such sensitive situations compassionately, with clear information available on support pathways for families of offenders as they come to terms with that horrendous abuse of trust.

Ultimately, if a person is not safe in the community, how can we reward that same individual with getting to be a parent? Whether access is supervised or restricted, children are still being put at incredible risk, and I know that colleagues in Scotland are reviewing that. We must do better, and I am calling for the removal of parental responsibility for those who commit child sex offences to ensure equal protection for all children across our communities.

Mr Sheehan: Now that we are in the midst of another political crisis, brought to us courtesy of the Orange Order and the DUP, many people are rightly asking, "Who is the leader in unionism?". Who is the leader in unionism? It was not too long ago that it was Jeffrey Donaldson. Now he is lying in Maghaberry, waiting to be sentenced for rape and paedophilia. Of course, none of his colleagues knew anything about the life of debauchery that he was leading here and in London. Is the deputy First Minister the leader of unionism? I do not think so. She was appointed by Jeffrey Donaldson. She has a good family history in terms of connection to loyalist paramilitarism and gunrunning, so that will maybe go in her favour, but, then again, she is unelected. Maybe it is Gavin Robinson, but Gavin is a bit of a part-timer here. He likes to spend his time in Westminster, hanging off the coat-tails of Reform, as other unionists have done. What happened to them? They all ended up thrown under the bus. Jim Allister tried that too. He was palsy-walsy with Nigel Farage. What did Nigel do? He tossed him under the bus.

Are there some up-and-coming stars in unionism? Jonny Buckley has been mentioned, but, as a fanboy, he hung on to the coat-tails of "The Donald", and what did "The Donald" do? It turned out that Donald was a united Irelander. That was Jonny under the bus. How excruciating it must have been for him down at the golf, when Donald Trump made those statements about a united Ireland. So that is Jonny out; that is Emma out; and Gavin is out.

Who is the real leader in unionism? There is one person left: the guy who surreptitiously and covertly taped the DUP conference and played it live online; the legal expert — the legal eagle; the man who is calling the shots. The leader of unionism at the minute, who is calling the shots, is standing at Drumcree. Who is it? The one and only Jamie Bryson — the leader of unionism, swinging you all around by the tail. Why do you not just stand up? Why has unionism given over the leadership to that buck idiot, Jamie Bryson? Why are you doing it? That is the man who is leading unionism.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Forsythe: Following on from IRA bomber Pat Sheehan, I am clear in what I say: the leader of unionism is Gavin Robinson. I am proud to say that. He does a much better job than the part-timer Michelle O'Neill, First Minister on the run from the Chamber. We will see whether she shows up later today.

A week ago, the Chamber heard from the Health Minister about the plans to close maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital. That was disgraceful then, and it remains an unacceptable way forward. I believe that the Health Minister was railroaded in his new position to move towards that plan on incomplete information. The previous Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, understood and intervened. I urgently call on Minister Butler to push back, challenge officials and take a different position on the issue.

Daisy Hill maternity services are critical to people in South Down and across Newry and Armagh. My three children were delivered there, I was born there and people across the area have a close affiliation to the hospital. The midwives are second to none; as professionals, they stand ready to continue in their services. Anxious mothers who are due to have their babies in the coming weeks look on in despair. I am working hard to ensure that messages are clear and that they know what services are there for them. The Minister needs to intervene. We need to see a Northern Ireland-wide register of gynae and obstetric doctors who are able to cover all hospitals to help them remain open.

No matter what else has been going on, I have been working hard and continuing to raise the issue at every opportunity. It is shocking and disgraceful to see other MLAs abandon the issue when mothers across our area are devastated and midwives are heartbroken and do not know what is coming for them and their services.

They are more committed to lawbreaking, fighting to block roads and destroying others than to continuing with that local issue, with Newry MLA Justin McNulty standing blocking a road arm in arm with dissident republicans, smashing to pieces the SDLP's campaign for the great new Ireland that is welcoming to all of us as unionists.

We also have the Newry MLA Liz Kimmins, who usually speaks up for Daisy Hill, but, no, this is a Sinn Féin Minister whose priorities are standing with her First Minister and her ministerial colleagues blocking the roads, disregarding the law and defying how the country operates. Sinn Féin is not prioritising Daisy Hill. Its fundamental sectarian hatred of the Orange Order and unionists clearly comes above all.

I respect the rule of law, parade determinations and the court rulings over the weekend, and I prioritise the local health services. I will continue to fight for maternity services at Daisy Hill, and people can count on me to do that.

Mr O'Toole: We are at a moment of acute political — possibly even societal — crisis, given what has become a stand-off. My party and I have been clear that the people of Garvaghy Road did not want that deep, dark past — that wound — reopened after decades. It is clear that some people want to use that dispute to provoke division, dysfunction and polarisation in our society, and we cannot let that happen. Therefore, while I want a resolution to the issue at Garvaghy Road that upholds the rights of the residents, I also have to be clear about the unacceptability of walking away from the responsibility to govern this place.

This place is complicated and difficult to govern. I accept that we have to make trade-offs and compromises to govern here. That is distinct from the question of the rights of the people on that road. This is about how we govern every day. We are nearly six months into the financial year and do not have a Budget. Public-sector workers have no idea whether there will be a pay settlement this year. We heard the previous Member talk about Daisy Hill: people who are planning health services have no idea what their budget is for workforce and planning. How do we expect to recover public services and give people hope not just in politics but in life here?

I talked yesterday about the fleadh and how it gave us a sense of hope that we could achieve positive things together, and we can. Huge challenges have been created by Drumcree — I have been clear about who, I think, is responsible for trying to reopen that wound; Mr Sheehan is not far wrong when he talks about who is leading unionism — but nobody in the Chamber should be thinking — some are — about collapsing government, because that would lead to a darker future. I acknowledge that Mr Burrows has said that that would not be a constructive way forward and that other parties do not want to go down that road, but we need to be clear about the need to take responsibility and govern this place, even in dark moments.

My party and I have stood with the residents of Garvaghy Road and will continue to seek a positive resolution. We will also seek to provide governance and leadership to the people of this society and to move us forward together. That is why we need to reform our political institutions to make it much harder to collapse government. It simply cannot be acceptable that we have a situation where the most regular topic of conversation is when government here will collapse.

Mr Gaston: We have entered day 3 of the Portadown district being prevented from lawfully returning home for the first time in 28 years by mob rule. Let us remind ourselves that the active Parades Commission determination, which was tested in the courts twice, allows for 35 Orangemen to walk peacefully and silently along the Garvaghy Road. Sinn Féin MLAs teamed up with their dissident republican bedfellows, their new bedfellows in the SDLP and only a handful of Garvaghy Road residents to defy the rule of law and order.

Yesterday, Gavin Robinson stood in Stormont's Great Hall and demanded that the PSNI do more than gather evidence: I agree with you, Gavin. He said that it must act against those who broke the law: again, I agree with you, Gavin. He further told the media that it could not be business as usual, but, Gavin, it was business as usual yesterday in the House. The Order Paper was worked through as though nothing had happened.

As of this morning, Michelle O'Neill remains First Minister even though she refused to come to the House to answer questions and to call herself to order for illegally bringing people on to the streets in Portadown. How can she remain a fit partner in government for Emma Little-Pengelly? If the police were to call at O'Neill's door, she could simply point to the Executive and say, "Well, the DUP still considers me to be leading the Executive. I'm still the First Minister". Time needs to be called on that. If the police were to call at the door of other Sinn Féin Ministers, they could, sadly, say the same. If O'Neill should face prosecution, so should John O'Dowd, Caoimhe Archibald, Liz Kimmins and the Principal Deputy Speaker, Carál Ní Chuilín.

Sadly, we have seen all this before: the DUP pledged unalterable opposition to the sea border and then took part in the Executive to implement it. If the DUP holds the conviction and if it is right that something should happen, it is time to call an end to this farce. The rule of law must be upheld. No parade, no Stormont — and no surrender.

Mr Burrows: Two things can be true at once. My party wants a resolution to a parade dispute that has gone on for a long time and has a dark past. The Orange Order has abided by the rule of law for the past 28 years. When I worked in a senior operational role in Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon policing district, members of the Orange Order walked up to the line every Sunday. They would stop at that line not because there was a line of police or there were barricades — the sergeant was often late to turn up — but because the law said, "Stop"; in fact, they often rang the police and said, "You need to hurry up and get here because we're at our point and want to hand over a letter". It was the law and nothing else that stopped them — adherence to the law — and that has to be recognised.

I want a resolution to this. I agree that mediation is the best way to find a workable and permanent solution, but that can sit alongside something that is completely separate and needs to run in parallel: the rule of law in this country has to be upheld. It is a pillar of democracy because it places under the same set of rules the most powerful and the powerless. Whether you are the First Minister or you work in McDonald's or you have no job or whether you are 90 years of age or 18 years of age, the same set of rules is applicable to you.

A big challenge is coming down the road for Sinn Féin, because its Members broke the law. A member of the Policing Board is looking at me: she could sit in the Policing Board's interview to appoint the next Chief Constable, yet she willingly and knowingly broke the law. She has disciplinary responsibility in holding to account senior police officers of assistant chief constable rank and above if they breach the code of ethics or the law, yet she willingly broke the law. In our highly political situation, you are challenging the legitimacy of this institution because you think that it was the right thing to do.

I will be meeting the Chief Constable. Down the years, I have seen up close and personal the influence and the pressure that are applied to senior police officers and the Public Prosecution Service to turn a blind eye and to find 101 reasons not to prosecute people for breaking the law. I expect standards to be upheld by members of my party. If any of them had conducted the stunts that people in your party have pulled, I would have taken the whip from them, and they would not be in the party now. While I want a resolution and want us to dial down the drama around Drumcree — I want to get our police away from there and back to policing the streets — I will make sure that you are held to account for the crimes that, wilfully and knowingly, you committed. You have damaged the legitimacy of this place, and that is shameful.

Mr K Buchanan: As a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB), I have watched policing operations over the past number of years. I have watched operation after operation with interest. At a public session of the Policing Board, I mentioned "marshmallow policing", and we see marshmallow policing — soft policing — in some communities. I used to dismiss the term "two-tier policing", saying, "No, it does not happen", but it is evident that it has happened in the past. Given the events of the past few days, it is very concerning that the PSNI seems unable to uphold the law of this country.

On Thursday, the Policing Board will meet in public session. My colleagues will be at it, as, interestingly, will my other Policing Board colleague. It will be a very interesting session. From the Chief Constable, I expect to get information and positive feedback and not waffle. It is time for the PSNI to uphold the rule of law, because Northern Ireland is watching it very closely. This is the PSNI's last chance. It has to get it right.

I say to the young people in the Public Gallery that it is good that you are here listening to the proceedings of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I will give you some homework: when you go home, I want you to google "Pat Sheehan", the gentlemen whom you heard from earlier. Pat Sheehan is a convicted bomber. He blew up a cash and carry, so do not listen to the frills from him. He is a convicted bomber. I am not a convicted bomber; I am a law-abiding citizen. I have not broken any laws, although I think that I was caught speeding maybe 30 years ago.

Mr Speaker: Speak through the Chair, Mr Buchanan.

Mr K Buchanan: Apologies, Mr Speaker.

I want to make sure that those young people go home and do their googling. Google one MLA. Then google all 90 and understand that, when people say things that they do not believe in, they are telling lies. Convicted bombers do not tell the truth.

Ms Brownlee: My Member's statement may take a slightly different tone from that of others. We have discussed so much that is so important to everybody in Northern Ireland, and I agree with every Member on this side of the House.

I will speak about the concerning state of the school estate in Northern Ireland, and nowhere is that more apparent than in my constituency of East Antrim, where the ongoing situation at Central Integrated Primary School and Greengables Pre-School in Carrickfergus has caused significant disruption and distress. My office first raised concerns about the condition of the roof at Central Integrated Primary School with the Education Authority (EA) in January of this year. That was nine months ago. Despite those concerns being raised, substantive repairs were not undertaken at the time. We now find ourselves in a situation in which hundreds of children, their families and the school staff are being impacted on by the temporary closure of the school. Children have been left learning from home; parents have been forced to take time off work or make alternative arrangements; and teaching staff have been placed in an incredibly difficult position.

It is not just about bricks and mortar but about our children's education and well-being and the ability of our schools to provide the safe, stable learning environment that every child in Northern Ireland deserves. I pay particular tribute to the principals of Central Integrated Primary School and Greengables Pre-School. Nuala and Tracey have worked tirelessly in an extremely challenging situation. My office has been working closely with them both, liaising with the EA and trying to find suitable accommodation to minimise disruption while the repairs are being undertaken. As things stand this morning, we are close to finding alternative sites.

Across Northern Ireland, we have an ageing school estate. We have competing demands and maintenance budgets, and there is an ever-growing list of essential repairs that need to be carried out. I fully recognise our education system's financial situation. I understand and acknowledge the significant work that the Minister of Education has done to address the challenges in his Department. In this case, however, we must ask whether the EA's current approach to prioritising school maintenance is sufficiently proactive. When serious concerns are raised, action must be taken, and it must be taken with the urgency that it deserves or our children will continue to lose out. We cannot continue to operate a system in which problems are allowed to escalate to the point at which a school closes. Preventative maintenance, early intervention and accountability must be at the heart of how we manage our school estate.

My immediate priority remains securing a satisfactory resolution for the school and the preschool, getting our children back into the classroom and ensuring that the school community receives the support that it needs.

We must learn from this experience to ensure that other schools across Northern Ireland do not find themselves in the same situation, for the sake of our children's education.

Ms Ennis: Over the past number of days and weeks, a lot has been said about the Garvaghy Road community and the people who live there. It has been said by those whose strategy is to dehumanise and demonise that community, so that they have free rein to terrorise and re-traumatise that community. On that note, I pay tribute — [Interruption.]

I will be heard today, whether you like it or not. On that note, I pay tribute to Chris Nelson, who bravely retold the story of his trauma after his mother was blown up by loyalist terrorists for representing the Garvaghy Road community.

I was 15 in 1998. I was on the Garvaghy Road in 1998, and I did not think that we would see a repeat of that situation when I was in my early 40s. It is shameful that unionism has capitulated to Jamie Bryson and extremists like him. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Ms Ennis: Over the past number of days and weeks, the Garvaghy Road residents have once again been placed in a circumstance that they did not ask for. However, rather than respond with hatred — unlike the small band of loyalists looming not far from the Garvaghy Road — over the weekend, I saw a dignified, peaceful community that just wants to be left alone.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a Sinn Féin issue or a republican issue; the wound that is Garvaghy Road runs deep in the consciousness of people across Ireland. The people of the Garvaghy Road opened their homes this weekend to those who wanted to show solidarity with them. They fed and clothed those people. The people of the Garvaghy Road were genuinely delighted to have the support of people from across Ireland.

The Garvaghy Road community is a proud and dignified community that just wants to live in peace, We will continue to show our support for its right to do so. I encourage all people across Ireland who have stood in solidarity with the Garvaghy Road community to continue to do so. Continue to talk about Garvaghy, and continue to show your solidarity.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion Members' Statements. Members should take their ease for a moment while we change the Chair.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. You often criticise those on the Back Benches when trying to uphold law and order in the House. How can you take that seat this morning after unlawfully taking part in an illegal protest on the Garvaghy Road? Surely, if we are to take this place seriously, you should not be sitting in that seat, because your actions over the weekend have done nothing but a disservice to this place.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You can approach the Speaker about that. We will move on with business.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Eóin Tennyson 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 Tennyson: At the outset, I acknowledge how surreal it feels to be getting on with constituency matters, given the difficult position that Northern Ireland finds itself in. Nonetheless, the show must go on. Assembly business must continue, and it is right that it does.

Anybody who knows me knows that I am passionate about buses, our rural communities and public transport links for our villages and rural areas. Members of the community association in Bleary and residents on the doorsteps have told me that they are poorly served by public transport in that locality. Residents face barriers in getting to work, school and local services without the use of private vehicles. There are environmental, accessibility and inclusion incentives to tackle the issue.

I thank the residents' associations, the people who live in the area and the local SPAR for supporting the petition of almost 200 signatures, which calls for action and change. Residents propose that either the 46 or 47 Translink bus route be amended to include Bleary at least once in the morning and once in the afternoon in order to improve public transport links to local towns such as Craigavon and Lurgan.

Again, I thank the residents and thank the Minister for being in the Chamber, conveniently, while I am presenting the petition. I call on Translink and DFI to move the issue forward for the people of Bleary.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Eóin. I will forward the petition to the Minister for Infrastructure and will send a copy to the Committee for Infrastructure.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

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

The order extends the power for my Department to pay a grant to NI Water in lieu of domestic water charges. Members will be aware that it is the Executive's current policy and that of previous Executives that domestic consumers should not pay a separate charge for water and sewerage services. Instead, those services are funded through a subsidy paid by my Department to the water and sewerage undertaker, which is NI Water. The subsidy to NI Water is currently paid under article 213 of the Water and Sewerage Services (NI) Order 2006, as amended by the Water and Sewerage Services Act (NI) 2016, which has an end date of 31 March 2027.

On 16 April 2026, the Executive agreed to the continuation of the policy of not implementing separate water charging for domestic customers. Therefore, to give effect to the Executive's decision for a further five years, a new statutory rule is required. I am therefore bringing forward the Grants to Water and Sewerage Undertakers Order (NI) 2027, which will extend the period during which a subsidy may be paid to NI Water to 31 March 2032.

The order is subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure, which is the purpose of the debate today. The five-year extension until 31 March 2032 will give the next Executive time to consider the future of funding for water and sewerage services. It also gives time for other policy proposals to be investigated, should the next Executive wish to do so. The order will reinforce the Executive's commitment not to introduce water charging for households, and I thank the Committee for Infrastructure for its support.

NI Water is regulated by the Utility Regulator and operates according to its licence. The regulator identifies water and waste water investment need through its price control process. A lack of subsidy payments would see those critical services fall into disrepair, risking public health, curtailing economic growth and putting our environment at risk of pollution.

NI Water's investment needs to deliver essential water and waste water services are currently defined in price control 21 (PC21), which is the seven-year investment period from 2021 to 2028, as agreed with the Utility Regulator. When the PC21 final determination was published in May 2021, the Utility Regulator recommended that NI Water should invest £2·1 billion in water and waste water services during the PC21 period. The Utility Regulator revised that funding requirement in September 2024 through a mid-term review process to account for rising inflation. The current position is that NI Water requires £2·37 billion over the PC21 period.

My Department was able to fully fund NI Water for the first three years of the price control, but, since then, the constrained budget position that has arisen from the British Government's historic underfunding in the North of Ireland has meant that funding of the price control has been subject to budget availability in recent years, and the identified need has been unable to be met. However, while we still require significant capital investment in our network and despite the ongoing challenges, my predecessor Minister O'Dowd and I were able to provide an additional £30 million of funding to enable NI Water to unlock capacity for 5,300 properties over the next two to three years, exceeding the 4,500 connections that NI Water had originally planned to deliver by 2028 if PC21 were fully funded.

I am pleased that the Executive have recently agreed to prioritise investment in waste water, recognising that water and waste water services are critical enablers for many other Executive priorities. The order will ensure that my Department can continue to fund NI Water through a subsidy. I am opposed to the introduction of domestic water charging, as I believe that it will impose an additional financial burden on people and families in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis.

I commend the motion to the Assembly and ask that it approves the order.

Mr Stewart (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I speak on the Committee's consideration of the draft Grants to Water and Sewerage Undertakers Order (Northern Ireland) 2027. The statutory rule will extend for five years, until 31 March 2032, the Department's power to make payments to Northern Ireland Water in lieu of income that would otherwise be received through domestic water charging.

Members will be aware that domestic households in Northern Ireland do not pay separate charges for water and sewerage services; instead, Northern Ireland Water receives a subsidy from the Department for Infrastructure to support the delivery of those services. The purpose of the rule is to provide the legal basis for those payments to continue beyond 31 March 2027. Members should note that the Executive agreed, at their meeting on 16 April 2026, to continue the current policy on domestic water charging and authorised the Department to bring in the necessary legislation to extend those arrangements until 2032.

The Committee first considered the proposal on 13 May 2026. At that meeting, members agreed to issue a call for views and receive evidence from departmental officials. The consultation closed on 26 May 2026. No responses were received. The Committee subsequently received oral evidence from departmental officials on 10 June 2026. During that evidence session, officials advised that the proposed extension would enable the continuation of extending arrangements while providing certainty during the next Assembly mandate. Officials explained that the five-year period would allow a future Executive sufficient time to consider the long-term funding model for Northern Ireland water and sewerage services, undertake any necessary policy development and, should they wish to maintain the current policy, introduce any further legislation required before the expiry of the extended period.

Members also used the evidence session to explore the broader context in which the rule is being introduced. Committee discussions highlighted the critical role that NI Water plays in delivering safe drinking water and waste water services across Northern Ireland and the importance of ensuring that the organisation remains financially supported in carrying out those functions. Members also discussed the wider challenges that face the water and waste water network, including pressures arising from infrastructure capacity constraints and the implications that those constraints could have for housing development and economic growth. In response to members' questions, departmental officials acknowledged the ongoing gap between the level of funding available to NI Water and the level of investment needed, as identified by the Utility Regulator through the price control process. Officials advised that future investment requirements would be considered through the forthcoming PC28 process and outlined the Department's wider approach to addressing waste water infrastructure pressures through additional investment, developer contributions and sustainable drainage measures.

The Committee noted those wider policy and funding issues. However, members were clear that those matters sit separately from the purpose of the statutory rule, which is to give effect to the Executive's decision to continue the current policy of not introducing domestic water charges and to ensure that the Department can continue to provide subsidy payments to NI Water. The Committee also noted that the continuation of the current arrangements avoids the introduction of direct domestic water charges during the extension period. Having considered the proposal, taken oral evidence from departmental officials and noted that no responses were received to the call for evidence, the Committee agreed that it was content for the Department to make the statutory rule.

Mr Boggs: I thank the Minister for proposing the order this morning. The impact of the order is significant. The decision to extend the Department's subsidy to NI Water for a further five years shows a commitment to protecting workers and families from domestic water charges. Today's move by the Infrastructure Minister will help to ensure that already hard-pressed households are not burdened with additional costs and will protect them from domestic water charges, as the Minister says, until 2032 at least.

Sinn Féin is absolutely clear that we will not impose domestic water charges on workers and families who are already under significant financial pressure. As we know, more than £500 million is provided to NI Water each year to support its day-to-day operations. Continuing that investment will shield households from potential bills of up to £600, which is similar to the charges faced by people in England, Scotland and Wales.

The order is particularly welcome during the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, which is impacting on workers and families. As households struggle, this move shows that the Executive will do what they can to better support people. However, the British Government should act immediately to ensure that they support workers and families. They should cut taxes and VAT on petrol, diesel and home heating oil to bring down prices for consumers. A windfall tax on oil and gas producers should also be introduced. Doing nothing is a political choice for the British Government throughout the continuing cost-of-living crisis. In Sinn Féin, we are clear that we will continue to stand up for workers and families. Today, that is by ensuring that they are not hit with additional water charges.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No other Member has indicated that they want to speak, so I call the Minister for Infrastructure to conclude the debate.

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

I thank those who contributed to the debate. The order will reinforce the Executive's commitment not to bring in water charging and, by extension, will protect families and workers, particularly given the cost-of-living crisis that we face. I thank Members for their support and ask the Assembly to approve the order.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, the next item in the Order Paper is the consideration of business not concluded on Monday 28 September 2026. As Members will know, all other items of business were disposed of last night before the Assembly adjourned.

The remaining item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

Mr Speaker: Questions 4 and 6 have been withdrawn.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): May I say how pleased I am to be in my place, answering questions in the House as is required of me?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: I have not met the representatives of the night-time economy following the publication of my response to the report of the independent review of the liquor licensing system in Northern Ireland on 18 November 2025. Indeed, given the ongoing legal proceedings, any potential engagement requires careful consideration, and I am limited as to which stakeholders I can meet.

Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin.

Minister, businesses have been waiting for the reform of outdated licensing legislation, including of the surrender principle, for some time. With the mandate running out, can you explain why your Department has still not brought legislation before the Assembly and whether you intend to do so before the end of the mandate?

Mr Lyons: It is important to note that I did not, at any stage, commit to bringing forward legislation in my response to the report. However, I have continued to progress a number of commitments, including a public consultation to explore how the liquor licensing regime can better support innovation and market diversity. That consultation concluded on 23 June and is currently being analysed by officials, with plans to publish the response early next year. A statutory review of the legislative provisions that relate to local producers' licences is also being progressed; it was launched on 15 September and will close on 9 November. Furthermore, on 1 January 2026, my Department approved an industry code of practice that will strengthen existing provisions associated with the recommendation on mandatory training for licence holders and staff on responsible service, protecting vulnerable groups and alcohol harm.

Mr McGrath: I was delighted that my party colleague on Newry, Mourne and Down District Council Councillor Conor Galbraith tabled a motion that resulted in the appointment of a night-time economy champion to help redevelop Downpatrick, which has been struggling to attract a night-time economy that would assist local businesses and the local community. Minister, will your Department be able to offer any support? Towns such as Downpatrick need a little bit of support to be able to move forward, and any finance that would help that work would be really appreciated.

Mr Lyons: I am always happy to allow officials to engage with councils to see what role, if any, we can play in that regard. It is not solely a matter for my Department; there are ways in which the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for the Economy can work together. We saw that most recently in some of the work that was done in Belfast. I cannot speak for those Departments, but, if the Member would like to get in contact with my office, I will be happy to see whether and how officials may be able to assist him in that.

Mrs Cameron: This is a very important topic. Does the Minister find it ironic that Ms Sheerin is demanding more laws while she and her party blatantly choose to break laws that we already have in place?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Lyons: Yes, and that goes to the heart of why the actions of the First Minister and other Ministers are so serious. Lawmakers cannot be lawbreakers, and those who do that must be held to account.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, you mentioned a local producers' review that is happening. Given the success of the fleadh and other events over the summer, have you had any conversations with the Minister for the Economy about food and drink tourism and how we can better establish our local producers?

Mr Lyons: I have not had any direct conversations with the Minister for the Economy about that. However, she will be aware that a public consultation to explore how the liquor licensing regime can better support innovation and market diversity concluded on 23 June. That consultation is being analysed by officials, with plans to publish the response early next year. That report contains many recommendations, and I believe that most of the focus has been on the surrender principle. There are, however, other things that we can do with regard to the issue that the Member raised. I am always open to taking forward action that can make a real difference in that regard.

Mr Lyons: I continue to see at first hand the excellent work delivered by community-sector partners through the neighbourhood renewal programme. In the past year, I have committed more than £21 million to the programme, and that is making a tangible difference to people living in our most deprived communities. That funding has enabled support for over 2,660 local community organisations and more than 340,000 volunteer hours in communities, helped over 2,266 people into employment through targeted training and employability initiatives and assisted community groups in securing in excess of £27 million in additional external funding.

While the neighbourhood renewal programme's achievements are significant, I am keen for it to deliver even greater benefits for disadvantaged communities in the future. I intend for the review of the Executive's People and Place strategy, which has now concluded with the development of a draft strategic framework, to help in that process. As the existing strategy has been in operation for more than 20 years, time must be taken to ensure that the draft strategic framework has been thoroughly considered to ensure that that it can address our communities' needs and be implemented as a cross-Executive framework that aligns with the draft anti-poverty strategy. Once I have considered the draft strategic framework, the next step, subject to the agreement of my Executive colleagues, will be a public consultation exercise.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he confirm that, when a Budget is finally agreed, he will ensure that the community and voluntary sector, funded through People and Place schemes such as the small pockets of deprivation programme — I have seen evidence of its good work in my constituency — will be assured of a multi-year grant to allow for better planning?

Mr Lyons: The small pockets of deprivation programme is particularly important to the Member's constituency. He will be aware that it is delivered under People and Place and administered by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE). In the meantime, the grant will be paid quarterly in advance, consistent with arrangements in 2025-26. That will provide some stability for funded organisations during this challenging budgetary period. There is currently no change to the operation of the funding arrangements for the small pockets of deprivation programme. Once we have a Budget in place, however, I will work to ensure that we provide the certainty that is required.

Mr Lyons: I concluded some time ago that it would not be possible in the current mandate to introduce a Bill of the scale and complexity necessary to achieve the comprehensive reform of gambling legislation that is required. Gambling is a complex and rapidly evolving area. The pace of technological change, particularly in online gambling, is just one example of the issues that future legislation should address. It will be for a future Minister to determine the detail of the gambling legislation that should be taken forward in the next mandate. I have, however, instructed my officials to continue to scope and gather evidence on the statutory protections that are already in place. That will help identify deficiencies that may need to be addressed through a future reform Bill, while ensuring that existing protections are maximised in the interim.

A review of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which is expected to take place next year, will assess whether the changes brought in in 2022 are working as they were intended, thereby helping to inform the future reform of gambling legislation. Work is also ongoing to assess the feasibility and sustainability of a gambling industry levy, and I am keen to see that progress. It is, however, important that any future approach be evidence-based, effective and sustainable. The issues involved are complex and require careful consideration. It is important that that work be completed thoroughly before decisions are taken on the next appropriate steps.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, I accept the complexity of the issue and of dealing with it in a shortened mandate. It would, however, be good if you could give a commitment that your Department will go beyond just scoping so that you leave the next Minister with sufficiently developed policy proposals, including proposals on online gambling, perhaps on an independent regulator and a levy, so that we are not starting from scratch in the next mandate.

Mr Lyons: We will certainly not be starting from scratch, and I think that the Member has acknowledged that it would be impossible for us to get such legislation through in this mandate. It will probably be one of the largest pieces of legislation, if not the largest, that we will ever take through the House.

I assure the Member that we are not simply doing scoping work. We have been actively comparing our regime with frameworks in other parts of the UK and the Republic of Ireland. That work relates not just to the detail that any legislation should contain but to how the regime should be administered and enforced and how we can best ensure that any regime remains up to date as circumstances change. We will be in a stronger position to talk more about it following the review of the 2022 Act. I will keep the House updated on those developments.

Mr Wilson: Does the Minister agree that Sinn Féin should stop gambling with the future of devolution through its refusal to accept the legal and just determination of the courts?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right. That is not a trivial matter. Breaking the law is not a trivial matter. The First Minister and other Ministers in this place have broken the law, and they need to be held to account for that. Let me be clear that, when it comes to the law and the legislation that we pass in this place, it is not a pick-and-mix. All laws apply to everyone. Everyone is equal under the law and equally subject to the law. I hope that that is clear.

Mr Donnelly: Given the aforementioned increasing accessibility of online gambling, will the Minister ensure, as part of a scoping exercise, that any future legislation will take a public health approach, including stronger protections for children and young people, and that there is sustainable funding for gambling-related harm prevention, treatment and support?

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I worked on the issue with the previous Minister of Health, and I look forward to doing the same with his successor. I recognise and understand the issues that the Member has raised; in fact, we wrote to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to request engagement on the Northern Ireland element of the GB gambling levy on remote operators in recognition of the fact that the issue does not impact solely on one Department's responsibilities. It is very much a Health issue as well. I commit to working with the Health Minister to ensure that we can do what needs to be done to tackle it, because it has a huge impact on people's lives; on the education of our young people; and, certainly, on the physical and mental health of our population.

Mr McNulty: I argue that both parties are playing a high-stakes game here, and there are obvious risks associated with that. Successive Sinn Féin and DUP Ministers have done nothing about introducing gambling legislation. That impacts on the ability of those of us in the North to enter RTÉ competitions, which is very frustrating. I watch 'The Late Late Show' on Friday nights, but I cannot enter the competitions. Minister, have you had any engagement on the potential for an all-island gambling strategy?

Mr Lyons: No.

Mr Lyons: The Housing Executive has advised that the net temporary accommodation expenditure from 1 June 2022 to 31 August 2026 was approximately £139·8 million. That reflects the cost incurred in providing temporary accommodation and the recoverable income through housing benefit and personal contributions.

Mr Gildernew: What has been the cost in the past year, Minister?

Mr Lyons: In the past year, on the figures that we have available, the cost has been in the region of £40 million, but I will confirm that for the Member as soon as I can.

Mr McMurray: Has any allocation of funding been made for emergency accommodation during severe weather in advance of the coming winter?

Mr Lyons: That is funded as it is required, and we ensure that that funding is in place.

Ms Forsythe: If it were not so serious, would the Minister find it laughable that a Sinn Féin Member has asked a question about homelessness, when the First Minister is blocking papers on that topic?

Mr Lyons: Yes, that is the case. As I have said, I have sought agreement from the Executive to ensure that homelessness is properly provided for. We all know that there is uncertainty around our Budget for this year and future years. I have placed a priority on prevention. I wanted to make sure that that money is in place and ring-fenced, as we have done and as the Executive have agreed to do for other issues, such as health waiting lists.

Homelessness is meant to be an Executive priority.

During the summer, I brought a paper to the Executive requesting that funding for homelessness prevention be made available. Unfortunately, not only was that refused, it was not even able to get on the Executive agenda. We were not able to have a conversation about it, because the First Minister did not prioritise the money for it. It should have been prioritised, because investing in homelessness prevention will save us so much more money later.

We know that the First Minister has a disregard for the law. She also has a disregard for her own Programme for Government. She should be ashamed of herself on homelessness, because it is important work. She should also offer an apology to Colm Gildernew for making a complete mug out of him and his private Member's Bill. He is, rightly, trying to deal with the issue. I think that he is sincere in wanting to tackle homelessness, but when it comes to it —

Mr Gildernew: That is a distraction.

Mr Lyons: It is a distraction by the First Minister; the Member is absolutely right. The First Minister is not funding homelessness prevention. I put the paper in front of the Executive, and they refused to address it. I am grateful for the Member's support, and I hope that he will be able to lobby the First Minister on that.

Mr Durkan: The Programme for Government committed to making homelessness "brief, rare and non-recurrent". We currently have almost 35,000 households, representing almost 65,000 individuals, with homeless status. Is the Minister telling us today that Sinn Féin is blocking his efforts to get homelessness support through the Executive?

Mr Lyons: Yes. I say clearly to the Member that the First Minister has not allowed a paper on to the Executive agenda that would have prioritised homelessness prevention. How often in this place do we talk about the need to prevent homelessness? Mr Gildernew has just asked me about the cost of temporary accommodation. It is out of control. We need to do something about it. I want to take a new approach. I want to invest in homelessness prevention, but I was unable to get the money that was required. I asked for a relatively small sum of money overall, but I was not able to get it.

I am still doing other work in the absence of support from Sinn Féin Ministers. I introduced a ring-fenced budget for strategic homelessness prevention. I have gone ahead and ring-fenced it again this year. I have allocated over £9 million to the New Foundations project and £10 million for the loan to acquire move-on accommodation (LAMA) scheme to help homelessness organisations to buy secure homes. However, I have not had the support required. We need to start dealing with the issue earlier. I have a proposal, but the First Minister has not accepted it.

Mr Lyons: Fundamental system reviews of grant funding and the design standards for new-build social housing are ongoing. They offer an opportunity to look at the social housing development programme afresh and identify opportunities to be innovative and creative. We need to do more with less, collectively working to address the barriers to finance and social housing supply. I recently met DFC and Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) officials who updated me on the progress of the two reviews. Both are on track to be completed by the end of October this year.

Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister. Minister, will you outline the number of new-build social homes that were projected to be viable under the previous housing association grant rates compared with how many are projected to be viable under revised rates?

Mr Lyons: I am happy to get that information for the Member. However, the reviews took effect last year, and, last year, we had a 17% increase in the number of social homes that we were able to build. That is what I am about. That is what I want to see: more homes being built. That is what I will continue to push for.

Mr Harvey: Minister, we were told by parties across the Chamber that the social housing development programme would collapse, house building would stop and the sector would fall over, due to the Minister's decision to review the grant. Did that materialise?

Mr Lyons: No, none of it materialised. In fact, not only have we delivered more social homes and record levels of investment, but I have paved a way to make it even easier to build them.

I hope that Members will reflect on that, show more confidence in our housing partners and make sure that they know what they are talking about.

Mr Honeyford: Reducing the bills of tenants is absolutely essential. Will the Minister confirm what the minimum energy performance certificate rating of the new design standards will be for any new homes being built?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for raising that issue. One of the greatest pressures on household budgets is the cost of heating our homes. That is why all of the issues are being looked at in that way. I am not saying that we should cut back on our standards in any way, and I make that very, very clear. These are issues that housing associations have identified as being surplus to what is required. Some of them are nonsensical, and some of them have come about because of the way in which the guide has been layered over the years. This is about common-sense changes. I have said that I want to work in partnership with housing associations. Yes, we have increased total cost indicators (TCI), and we have reduced the housing association grant at the same time. In addition to that, I want to make it easier for housing associations to build homes. They have identified issues that they believe are hurting their ability to build more homes. That is what we are addressing. I reassure the Member that we are not cutting down on standards. I want to have the most energy-efficient homes possible because, ultimately, that will be of benefit to those living in those homes.

Mr Lyons: I recognise the serious impact that reduced resource funding is having on voluntary and community organisations, their staff and the people whom they support. The Shared Prosperity Fund ended on 31 March 2026, and the local growth fund has different objectives and a substantially different balance between capital and resource funding — determined, of course, by the UK Government. The Executive collectively pressed the Government for greater local flexibility and more resource funding to support resource-intensive interventions, including those delivered by the voluntary and community sector. However, the funding profile was not changed.

To mitigate the immediate impact, the Executive secured the continued delivery of £11·8 million of resource funding in 2026-27 through existing arrangements, including support delivered by voluntary and community organisations. Work is now under way across the Executive to develop the approach for 2027-28 and 2028-29. My Department will continue to engage with the sector so that its evidence and experience inform that work. I recognise that significant pressures remain. I will continue to make the case for sufficient resource funding to protect essential services, subject to the funding available and decisions by the Executive.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much, Minister. As you said, the move from the European social fund (ESF) to the Shared Prosperity Fund and now the local growth fund has resulted in a 77% cut in employment and skills support programmes, which has led to significant job losses and over 8,000 people losing support. You highlighted some of the work there, but will you outline what work you are doing cross-departmentally with other Ministers to mitigate the impacts of those cuts and losses in the time ahead, as well as what you have done previously?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for that question. The Department of Finance is leading on a cross-Executive design process. Evidence from the voluntary and community sector will inform that work. I want future arrangements to recognise the important contribution that is made by the voluntary and community sector.

The Member will also be aware of the Pathways to Work project, which involves my Department working with the Department for the Economy and the Department of Health to ensure that we help more people to get into employment. That is important, because one of the biggest challenges that we face is our economic inactivity rate and the impact that that has on our productivity. Of course, I will work across the Executive to make sure that we use the resources that we have to best effect.

Mr Bradley: I ask the Minister to set out the safeguards that the Department has in place to ensure that smaller voluntary and community organisations are not disproportionately disadvantaged.

Mr Lyons: Absolutely. That will form part of the ongoing work as we design the scheme.

As I said, the Department of Finance is leading on that. We will hear from the voluntary and community sector, and I encourage any organisations in the Member's constituency to get in contact and be part of the process so that we can ensure that that good work can be continued.

Mr O'Toole: You are right to say, Minister, that the community and voluntary sector is critical to the delivery of services here. That sector has been let down by the local growth fund, but it has also been let down by the failure of the Executive to set a Budget. Will you tell us here and now what services in the community and voluntary sector under your Department's remit have had to be cut because of the absence of a Budget? Also, will you confirm that, if your party or any other party were to choose to collapse the Executive by resigning a First Minister, thereby preventing a Budget from being passed at all, meaning no budget for those organisations, that would deepen the crisis?

Mr Lyons: Our focus remains on working with the Government to make sure that there is a Budget. It is absolutely the case that we are suffering because a Budget has not been agreed; I agree with the Member on that. The situation would be even worse if we were to agree to a Budget that clearly did not meet the needs of people in Northern Ireland.

The Member also asked for some specific information. If we have that information, I will be happy to share it with him.

Ms Mulholland: We have talked about access to employment for people with disabilities: there is a concern that, with the loss of funding to the community and voluntary sector, we will lose a massive amount of institutional knowledge and skill. What is your Department doing to prevent that? Will it be possible to deliver those programmes without effective partnerships in the community and voluntary sector?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right to raise that issue. Many in our communities have been helped by the funding that was previously in place. There are many others who want to work but face barriers to work that must be broken down. We believe that we can get an extra 50,000 disabled people into work.

As I always say, we can only do what we can with what we have and where we are. I am, however, committed to playing my part in making sure that that support is in place, and I know that others in the Executive will play their part, because it would be a travesty if we were to continue as we are now.

Mr Lyons: I am pleased to advise that progress continues to be made across the Bangor waterfront programme. My officials are working collaboratively with council partners to support the development and delivery of that programme. Work to establish the professional teams required for the delivery of the programme continues, with three of the four projects having had a design team appointed. A further procurement exercise to appoint the fourth design team is expected to conclude before the end of 2026. In line with the latest programme submitted by Ards and North Down Borough Council, construction is expected to commence in 2027. Planning applications for the Pickie Funpark and Ballyholme Yacht Club elements of the programme were submitted recently. Those applications are being progressed by Ards and North Down Borough Council, and no significant planning issues have been brought to my attention at this stage.

Mr Chambers: Thank you, Minister. It is great to see work on the Queen's Parade phase progressing so well. Is the Minister aware of the local controversy and concerns over a car park that will form part of the Queen's Parade development? Is that a done deal, or is it open to further community input or consultation?

Mr Lyons: I am aware of issues that were raised during the consultation on the Pickie Funpark element of the programme, particularly potential noise impacts and health and safety concerns associated with some attractions. In response, the council design team reviewed the proposals and brought forward a number of changes, including replacing the proposed roller coaster and pirate ship with alternative attractions, so I have been told. Those revisions were informed by stakeholder feedback and are expected to reduce planning and deliverability risks while enhancing the overall visitor experience. I am not sure whether that includes the car park to which the Member referred, but I am happy to take those issues away and come back to him if he would like further information.

Mr Martin: Minister, I will stay on the matter of the public consultations on Bangor waterfront and your Department interacting with the developer. Local stakeholders have strong views about the project; we hear a lot that the development is mission-critical to the development of Bangor. Will you agree that the stakeholder feedback and input to those public consultations are mission-critical in informing the future development of the project?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. A number of issues were raised during the consultation process, and I am aware that the council and the design team took those on board. If there are further issues, it will be important for those to be made known so that we can progress with this. Like him, I understand how important this is, and I am certainly happy to play my role and act as a go-between if necessary on this issue.

Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions.

Mr Lyons: First, I acknowledge the fact that it took some time to put the scheme together. It is because those are issues that, primarily, do not lie with the Department. We took the scheme on, we put it together and we delivered it. I said at the time that it was going to take a long time for this to materialise. We did not have everything that we needed and did not have all the necessary information and the databases, so officials have been working exceptionally hard to put that all in place. I know that it will offer only some help to those who require it, but I am glad that we were able to get that money from the Government and to add our own resource to it.

I absolutely agree that people need further support at this time. People are really struggling. People who never thought that they would be in a position where they would be struggling based on their personal circumstances are finding it really difficult right now. I do not believe that the right approach is for us to put in place another scheme. The most simple and straightforward thing to do is for the UK Government to take direct action and cut tax. That is what they should be doing. That makes it easier not only for people to heat their homes but for them to drive their cars. The Government should not be using this as an opportunity to bring in extra tax revenue. They should be using this as an opportunity to cut people's taxes in order to make it easier for people who are struggling, and it helps the economy overall. I urge the Government to take the appropriate action because they have the levers that would enable real help to be given.

Mr Durkan: I am not disagreeing per se with what the Minister said. He has outlined the time that it takes to design a support scheme of this nature. Given that and given that there may — just may — be the possibility of further cost-of-living assistance being announced in London — a Barnett consequential for us that I would like to think would be ring-fenced for that purpose and added to from the Executive's coffers — does it not make sense for the Minister to have officials looking at options for support schemes in the eventuality that that money does arrive?

Mr Lyons: First, I reiterate that, if the Government are serious, there is something that they can do that is very simple and straightforward, and I hope that everyone will agree that that is what should happen in the first instance. A considerable amount of learning has come from the process that we have put in place. If there is additional funding, we will be able to borrow from that learning to ensure that other help may be provided. Again, the most simple and straightforward thing would be for the Government to cut tax because that helps not only individuals but the economy overall. That is what they should be focused on because that helps everybody.

Mr Lyons: The First Minister is blocking the fraud and error parity Bill to keep us in line with the rest of the UK. If that is not agreed, there could be financial penalties. The First Minister is blocking the fraud and error paper that would help us to retain more of the savings that we make by cracking down on fraud and error.

Through the actions that we have taken, we cut our fraud bill by £60 million last year.

She is blocking the paper that would ensure that social housebuilding had a ring-fenced budget to allow us to build the number of homes that we promised in the Programme for Government. She is blocking a paper on the allocation of homelessness funding, which I referred to earlier. She is blocking the housing Bill, which would deal with antisocial behaviour in our constituencies. That is a hugely important issue. I am sure that there is not a Member who has not had a constituent come to them to tell of problems that they have had as a result of antisocial behaviour. Housing associations and the Housing Executive have not had the powers that they need in order to deal properly with the issue. I want to give them more powers to be able to deal with antisocial behaviour. Those are five of the papers that the First Minister is blocking.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his depressing update. Does he not think that it is highly hypocritical of Sinn Féin to talk about things being held up at the Executive when, in fact, it is that party that is blocking many of the things on which we all agree?

Mr Lyons: I do. There are things that we are not allowing to progress out of the Executive. The reason that we do not want them to is that we believe that they would be harmful to the people of Northern Ireland. Take the so-called good jobs Bill, for example. We share the view of every business organisation in Northern Ireland that it would be detrimental to jobs and to the economy. Sinn Féin's opposition to my proposals is inexplicable, however. The First Minister is simply blocking them because they are coming from me, not because of any disagreement that she has with the proposals. Why on earth would anybody want to block a paper that would deal with fraud in the welfare system? Why on earth would anyone not want to ensure that we have the funding that we need to make good on a commitment in the Programme for Government on the number of social homes that we want to build? Why on earth would anyone want to block a paper that would allow us to tackle homelessness properly by funding it properly? Why on earth would anyone want to let the scourge of antisocial behaviour continue to wreak havoc on communities and clog up social housing for those who need it? That is the reality of the situation. The issues are not being allowed on to the Executive agenda for discussion and conversation, yet Sinn Féin has the cheek to say that it is this side of the House that is causing blockages in the system.

Mr Lyons: Let me be clear: the First Minister is not above the law. Furthermore, she should be coming to the House to answer questions. First and foremost, I was acting in my role as an MLA, but I accept that the ministerial code applies at all times. That is why I came to the House and answered questions. I did not shy away from doing so. It is right that MLAs had the opportunity to scrutinise me. I never run away from scrutiny in the House. I think that I have brought more ministerial statements to the House than anyone else and have answered more questions than anybody else. I have no issue whatsoever with Members asking me questions.

Mr Gildernew: You did not accept the report.

Mr Lyons: The Member says that I did not accept the report. No, I did not agree with the then commissioner's report, because it was full of speculation. She put in a retrospective subjective empathy test and over-interpreted neutral language, and the report was full of internal contradictions, evidential thinness and hindsight bias, so, no, I do not give that report, or the former commissioner, any credibility. I believe that she had a preconceived outcome in mind before any evidence was considered. I therefore rejected the report's findings, but I made myself available. I made myself available to the House, made myself available for a debate and made myself available to the media and anybody else, because I do not shy away from what I do. I do accept, however, that, even though I was acting in a constituency capacity, the ministerial code applies at all times.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Minister, for that. Just to be crystal clear: do you agree that Michelle O'Neill should come to this place to answer questions, just like every Minister is compelled to do?

Mr Lyons: Of course, I do. When I woke up this morning, I did not think, "Will I go into the Chamber to answer questions today?". I came here because it is my duty and responsibility. Sometimes, Members ask me questions that are irrational and irrelevant. Sometimes, the questions are silly. Sometimes, they are downright dopey — no offence, Mr McNulty; I do not mean to single anybody out. However, I come in here to answer questions, because that is what is required of me. If the people of Northern Ireland decide to elect representatives who want to ask questions, those representatives should have the right to do that. I make myself available to the House, because I am accountable to the scrutiny of the House. That does not apply to just the Minister for Communities or DUP Ministers; it applies to every Minister. That is why I am here today. We do not get to pick and choose — we do not get to decide — because the law is clear. I am required to be here today, and that is why I am here. Others are required to be here today, and they should be here as well.

Mr Lyons: The Member clearly does not have respect for the rights of everybody. Guess what? The rights of the Portadown district should be respected as —.

Mr Sheehan: Is it being traumatised?

Mr Lyons: Sorry. If you want to talk about being traumatised, Mr Sheehan —.

Mr Sheehan: Is the Orange Order being traumatised?

Mr Lyons: Mr Speaker, that is a Member who caused an explosion. That is a Member who thought that it was right to go down a route where he could take life, and that is exactly — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order, order. The Minister will be heard.

Mr Lyons: The Minister will be heard, Mr Speaker, because I speak not only for myself but on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people across Northern Ireland who believe in the rule of law — who believe that the law should be obeyed and followed, and that Executive Ministers have no right whatsoever to stand in the way of that law. I will take questions from Members, but I will not be lectured by a terrorist. He set off an explosion, yet he lectures us on the traumatisation of people in our society. He is an absolute joke.

Ms Flynn: Minister, I will ask it again. We are talking about responsibility and duty, and you are the Minister responsible for communities and social inclusion. Why can you not recognise the serious damage that is clearly being done to community relations, not just in Portadown —

Mr Givan: By Sinn Féin.

Ms Flynn: — but right across the North, by the threat of a supremacist Orange Order march

—

Some Members: Shameful.

Ms Flynn: — being forced down the heart of the Garvaghy Road —

Ms Sheerin: Order! [Laughter.]

Ms Flynn: — against the wishes of its residents? [Interruption.]

Ms Sheerin: Order! You shout it all the other times. [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Sheerin, any more of that and you will be out. OK? [Interruption.]

Mr Lyons: Every time I hear Ms Sheerin, I am reminded of Shakespeare: "sound and fury, Signifying nothing". [Interruption.]

It is not her job to moderate these debates.

The Member talks about social inclusion and the impact on the Garvaghy Road. Why was a school closed this week? A school had to be closed because of her party's actions in bringing people on to the street. This week will be remembered for one thing: it will be remembered as being when the "new Ireland" project died.

The nonsense that there is room in a new Ireland has been completely shot to pieces because —

Mr Speaker: Order, again, please.

Mr Lyons: — we see exactly what they are like. We see clearly, more than anything else, their hatred and their intolerance; that has shone through more than anything else. Again, they are speaking about the rights of only one community. Here is the thing: Protestants and unionists have rights as well. Protestants and unionists have rights, and the courts have said that they have rights. Sinn Féin Members have acted unlawfully, and they will be held to account. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister for Communities.

Mr Speaker: As Members will know, I accepted —

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

Mr Speaker: Just a moment.

As Members will know, I accepted a question for urgent oral answer to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. The First Minister indicated to me that it had been her intention to come to the Assembly this afternoon to answer the question but that she was not now available owing to another urgent engagement. [Interruption.]

However, I have been given an assurance that the First Minister will attend the Chamber at our next sitting on Monday. There is a precedent for questions for urgent oral answer to be taken on a different day when a Minister has other, unavoidable business, so, given the circumstances, I think that Members will understand that Ministers and party leaders are involved in various discussions. I am content that that resolves the matter. It gives the Assembly the opportunity to discuss the issues and to hold the Minister to account. The question for urgent oral answer will be taken on Monday. I suggest that we move on.

Miss McIlveen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The First Minister was on the run yesterday, and she is still on the run today. We are now told that she is not available and that she will grace the House with her presence on Monday. That will be more than a week after she stood on the Garvaghy Road breaking the law and encouraging others to break the law. There can be no evasion of accountability — not before the House, and not before the people of Northern Ireland. We know that she is only a part-time First Minister

but her first duty should be to the office that she holds and in answering to the people of Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]

That means all the people. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Miss McIlveen: Surely, that is the least that we should expect from the self-proclaimed First Minister for all. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: OK. Order.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the fact that we have strong feelings about the rights of the people on the Garvaghy Road, I ask you to rule on whether both main parties are dragging the Assembly into disrepute with this spectacle. It does nobody in Northern Ireland any good — [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask — [Interruption.]

May I ask, in relation to some of the — [Interruption.]

May I raise a point of order without the DUP barracking me?

Mr Speaker: Order. Members will be heard.

Mr O'Toole: I simply wanted a ruling from Mr Speaker on whether Mr Lyons calling a member of my party "dopey" was in order. [Interruption.]

That was excessive and personal. [Interruption.]

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the severity of the issue and the need for the House and the wider community to know what will happen about peace and reconciliation, could we please have one hour for the question for urgent oral answer to the First Minister as opposed to the usual 30 minutes?

Some Members: Hear, Hear.

Mr Speaker: I will take that away, Ms Bradshaw.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is important for me, as deputy First Minister, to clarify that I have made it clear to the First Minister that she should make herself available. I welcome the fact that she is now indicating that she will make herself available to the House. It is important that the roles that we hold be scrutinised by the House. I want to be clear about that, because there was an attempt at confusion and deflection by the Sinn Féin Members opposite me yesterday. I will not stop Michelle O'Neill coming to the House. She should be here; she should have prioritised being in the House today over whatever she is doing. Whatever I do, I will certainly not stand in the way.

Miss Hargey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Some are trying to use the House, so it was important that you clarified that the First Minister is off doing other urgent business. She is not afraid of any of you — let me make that fact clear. [Interruption.]

She showed that at last week's Question Time. While some try to use the House to inflame the situation, Michelle O'Neill is trying to de-escalate it. [Interruption.]

That will become apparent. She will come to the House, and she will eyeball each and every one of you

in the time ahead. She will do that in a respectful way. She is not afraid of anyone. She is there to de-escalate the situation, and others need to do the same.

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What we see unfolding here is a farce. The First Minister has been on the run from TEO Committee, and now she has confirmed that she is not going to come before it until the end of October. She is on the run from the Assembly, and, although she has given an assurance that she will be here at the next sitting, I take that with a pinch of salt. Mr Speaker, I urge you to commence the section 44 powers to ensure that Ms O'Neill comes here on Monday. We have heard from the banshee from Mid Ulster. We have heard from the cash-and-carry bomber [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Gaston: We have heard from the woman who hid in the toilets when Robert McCartney was murdered [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Gaston: We will take no lectures from Sinn Féin/IRA [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Gaston: Any of its promises should be treated with the contempt that they deserve. Pat Sheehan sits there smiling and smirking away. I hope that that smile gets wiped off your face when this place crumbles.

Mr Speaker: OK. Right, Members.

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

Mr Speaker: Mr Burrows, I will give you a go.

Mr Burrows: Mr Speaker, like the promised border poll, the First Minister has failed to arrive and turn up. This is a pantomime of the highest order. Today is a typical day. Anyone watching what has gone on today will know that there has been barely any business, except for Members' statements and a few other bits and pieces, that makes any difference to the lives of the people of Northern Ireland . They must be absolutely —.

Mr Lyons: How dare you.

Mr Burrows: Well, there has not been.

Mr Lyons: Question Time.

Mr Burrows: Question Time — wonderful.

This is a farce. Another day has been wasted, and the blame for that has to lie at the door of Sinn Féin, which, at its heart, cannot obey the law. As I said this morning, you have a member of the Policing Board who thinks that she can hold a Chief Constable to account but turns up and breaks the law. The sooner that doors are knocked the better, and the sooner that heads are knocked in this place the better so that we have competent people in it who want to make Northern Ireland work.

Mr Sheehan: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I agree with one thing that Mr Burrows says: this is a pantomime, because, in terms of the party opposite —.

Mr Gaston: It is not a point of order, Pat.

Mr Sheehan: In terms of the party opposite, its leader is not even in the Chamber. Jamie Bryson is not here. Could one of you not stand down and co-opt him, and then he can officially be the leader of the party? [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have had remarks from Members on the Benches opposite about those on these Benches inflaming the situation. Let me make it clear: I am in the House this afternoon as deputy First Minister. I have turned up to do my job. The First Minister was on the Garvaghy Road at the weekend, chanting, encouraging people to break the law, riling up people and dialling up the temperature and the rhetoric. There is one party here that has been responsible: that is us. There is one party that has been deeply reckless, and there is one First Minister who has been deeply reckless. She needs to come to the House to answer questions and subject herself to that scrutiny.

Mr Speaker: There is not much value being added here. I will take one more from Mr McGlone and then close it up.

Mr McGlone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We seem to be conflating Members' statements with points of order. I would appreciate it if Members restrained themselves and moderated this place, because the outside world is listening and watching.

Mr Speaker: We should all take the wise counsel of the former Deputy Speaker, who did his job so eloquently.

The First Minister will be here on Monday. Section 44 would have been used, had she chosen not to give me that advice. She will be here next Monday. That is agreed.

We will move on.