Official Report: Monday 05 October 2026

Mr Speaker: Before we go to Members' statements, I will make some points. I have written to a number of Members individually in relation to exchanges that have taken place in the Chamber in recent weeks, but I want to ensure that all Members take note of the points.

I fully appreciate that we are in a political context where it might be inevitable that exchanges are more heated than normal and the Chair will often have to make judgements as to when it is beneficial to allow tensions to be aired rather than to build up. However, I ask Members to note my call last week to use the ability to make important points with some restraint and without deliberately seeking to inflame tensions outside the Chamber. There have been and will be opportunities to discuss the issues at hand, but I remind Members that they should focus on the issues rather than personal attacks.

I have written to a number of individuals about the use of some terms over the past couple of weeks by Members when referring to other Members, such as "bigots", "banshee", "plonkers" and "dopey". In other circumstances, the Chair might consider that some of those instances were intended to be light-hearted, but that is not the context that we are in. The long-standing rules and conventions of the Assembly are clear that Members should refer to one another and their parties by their proper names.
All Members should know that remarks should be made through the Chair — you have been told often enough — and, over the past few weeks, Members have increasingly been directly and strongly addressing one another as "you". In the Assembly, "you" is the Chair: that is me, not the Member to whom you are referring. I ask Members to be mindful of standards of courtesy, good temper, moderation and respect.

Finally, I remind Members that it is not in order to refer to those in attendance in the Public Gallery. I acknowledge that, in most instances, Members do so with entirely positive intentions in order to be courteous and that all Members welcome those present, but there may be circumstances when all Members are not in agreement with the opinions of those in the Gallery and when references to those in the Gallery may not be positive. That might encourage noise from the Gallery, which is not permissible. I am therefore telling Members that they should not refer to or interact with those in the Gallery. This is a debating Chamber and is where the debate should remain.

Mr O'Dowd: I place on the record of the Assembly the names of those who have died as a result of the demand by the few to march down the Garvaghy Road over the past 30 years to ensure that they are remembered: Michael McGoldrick, a young father and taxi driver, murdered as a birthday present for LVF leader Billy Wright; Dermot McShane; Darren Murray, a 12-year-old boy knocked down after being chased by young loyalists; Robert Hamill, whose name has been heard before in the Chamber, kicked to death in Portadown town centre; Sean Brown, a GAA leader murdered in Bellaghy, whose family continues to demand truth and justice; Gregory Taylor; Bernadette Martin, barely 18 years of age, shot dead in her bed beside her Protestant boyfriend; James Morgan, 16 years of age, snatched from the roadside, butchered and thrown into a cattle pit; Gerry Devlin; Seamus Dillon, shot at his place of work; Philip Allen and Damien Trainor, Catholic and Protestant friends shot dead in Poyntzpass; Adrian Lamph, from Garvaghy Road, shot dead at his council yard workplace; Ciaran Heffron; and Richard, Mark and Jason Quinn, children burned to death in their beds. At the time, there were those who tried to blacken their family's name by accusing them of being involved in drug dealing. More recently, a similar attempt has been made. Those children were murdered for no reason other than that their mother was a Catholic. There was Frank O’Reilly; Brian Service; Rosemary Nelson, the legal representative of the people of the Garvaghy Road, murdered when a booby trap bomb was placed under her car; and, finally, Elizabeth O'Neill, who was killed in her home by a blast bomb. What was her crime? She was a Protestant woman married to a Catholic.

All those names are part of the dreadful, awful history of the campaign to force a supremacist march through an area where it is not wanted. I appeal once again to those who have influence over the Orange Order and other sections of society to bring this to an end. The history of that march is awful, steeped in violence and murder, and inflicting it on the community again is wrong.

I will end with this: a young mother stopped me the other night —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Dowd: — and said that she woke on Friday morning in tears.

Mr Speaker: Diane Dodds.

Mr O'Dowd: Let us not have that repeated.

Mrs Dodds: A democratic society will function only when we obey simple rules, and that rule is that everyone is equal under the law and everyone is equally subject to the law. In the early hours of Sunday 27 September, Mr Justice Humphreys, in an emergency sitting at the High Court, ruled that the case against the Parades Commission determination from the Portadown district on a parade of 35 Orangemen walking in silence down the Garvaghy Road stood; in fact, his written judgement indicates that the case was unarguable. Since then, we have witnessed an intolerant mob blocking the Garvaghy Road and preventing the lawful determination of the courts.

The law-abiding people of Northern Ireland have witnessed the First Minister of Northern Ireland, led by the hand by the dissident republican Breandán Mac Cionnaith and Colin Duffy and directed by the Provos, who were visibly present in Portadown all week. She deliberately flouts the law that she has signed up to uphold. There were also the Finance Minister, the Principal Deputy Speaker of the House and members of the Policing Board. We have the incredibly farcical situation where a member of the Policing Board can ask about the breaking of the law that she herself did. It is absolutely farcical.

The Finance Minister read into the record the names of those who lost their lives. All lives are a terrible loss in a devastating conflict conducted by the IRA. This weekend, however, we saw a supposed carnival at which old men sang songs such as 'My Old Man's a Provo'. Let us remind ourselves what the Provos did: that cowardly bunch of criminals killed 339 members of the Orange Order in the course of an absolutely rampant criminal campaign of murder and destruction in Northern Ireland.

This weekend, we witnessed — it was directed by some of the Members opposite — pure sectarianism in its most visceral form in Northern Ireland. That is what the Portadown district and the residents in Corcrain, Edgarstown and in other parts of Portadown had to listen to all weekend. We have seen members of the legal profession threatened, some requiring police protection, and we have seen —

Mr Speaker: Time is up.

Mrs Dodds: — quite frankly, a weak response from the Chief Constable.

Mr McMurray: I raise the issue of the ongoing risk of service collapse in acute maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital. Since the Minister of Health made a statement two weeks ago, the situation has not improved.

Last week, I attended a public meeting organised by SOS Daisy Hill and UNISON. I estimate that approximately 1,000 people were present. This is about the expectant mothers, the babies, the fathers, the staff and their supporters, and that attendance shows the strength of feeling about what is a vital service not just for the people of Newry but for mothers, fathers and babies across my constituency of South Down and further afield.

I have been contacted by several constituents — mothers and fathers — who are in frank despair at the prospect of having to travel in active labour to Craigavon. The length of the journey and concern about the roads are the issues that they cite. Some are at high risk of serious complications due to previous deliveries, so time is of the essence. They are, understandably, incredibly anxious. It is particularly worrying for people in Annalong and Kilkeel, who face a long journey on difficult roads.

I again call on the Minister of Health and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust to do everything in their power to ensure that a full range of maternity services remains available at Daisy Hill.

Dr Aiken: Today marks the 15th annual Science and Stormont event. I have a declaration of interest: I am proud, as chair of the all-party group on science, technology, engineering and mathematics, to co-host the event, with scientists from many of the royal societies, universities and research organisations exhibiting in the Dining Room and holding discussions in the Long Gallery this afternoon. Members are all welcome to attend.

This year's theme is the STEM economy and innovation. We are grateful to the Royal Society of Chemistry for facilitating the event and our all-party group. Among the speakers at the event will be the Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser for Northern Ireland, Professor Helen McCarthy, and the chief scientific adviser to the Food Standards Agency, Professor Ian Young.

The event will show that chemistry alone contributes close to £1·5 million in gross value added (GVA) to the Northern Ireland economy, providing high-value, high-productivity jobs and creating GVA per worker of over £84,800. The economic contribution of the wider sector — physics to engineering; geology to mathematics — is immeasurable.

The revolution in life sciences, agribusiness, manufacturing technology, AI, aerospace and cyber will also be discussed by the distinguished scientists attending the event. They will talk in particular about how Northern Ireland leads the way in those areas, particularly in invention and innovation, with developments such as the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Centre (AMIC) Factory of the Future, which will open tomorrow in my constituency of South Antrim, turning academic research into commercial development. That is the epitome of what we should be doing as a country known for its technological skill and research. It is through our thorough understanding of STEM that we can become a true global leader in building an economy fit for the 21st century.

It is good to report the opening of the Horizon and ERASMUS partnerships, which, coupled with the highly successful Turing scheme, have enabled universities across our nation to be propelled to the top of the global university rankings. That approach means that, in conjunction with universities across these islands, Europe and the globe, research centres such as Catalyst and, in the near future, AMIC can access the best science to inspire our future STEM leaders.

Finally, on our 15th anniversary, I pay special tribute to one of Northern Ireland's great scientists, Dame Jocelyn Bell, the astrophysicist and radio astronomer, who, while conducting research for her doctorate in 1967, discovered the first pulsar. Dame Jocelyn is a great supporter of Science and Stormont and an exemplar for everyone in our scientific community and for all our students embarking on a STEM education.

On a day when hope seems to be in short supply, there is a lot of it available upstairs. Please, come and join us.

Mr McCrossan: Tomorrow, the A5 case will be heard in the Court of Appeal. I will speak about that road project's importance not just in protecting human lives and ensuring the safety of our people who travel on that road daily but in unlocking significant economic opportunities for that part of the island.

To date, 57 people have lost their lives on the A5 road. There have been thousands of collisions since 2007, and hundreds have been seriously injured. People who live along the route of the A5 have been left in limbo in a state of uncertainty, and others too are very concerned about the future of the project. Of course, the Alternative A5 Alliance objection group has a lot to answer for, but that, mixed with the incompetence of the Department for Infrastructure, has led us to this place.

Tomorrow is a critical day for everyone. Today, it is important to remember all those who lost their lives on the road. They were going about their daily life, taking kids to school, travelling to work and back, and never made it home to their families: that is the story of the A5. Tomorrow, I am hopeful of a positive outcome, which will serve everybody's interests and put to bed a very long outstanding problem.

That said, if tomorrow does not go as the public would like it to go, serious questions need to be raised about the Department. The Sinn Féin Minister for Infrastructure needs to take a strong look and to hold a review of how the project has been mishandled by the Department over the past number of years and ended up in the state that it is in. Heads would roll if such gross incompetence played out in the private sector. Why, in this place and throughout our Civil Service, is there a serious and serial lack of accountability when it comes to decisions about capital projects and the significant cost not just to the public purse but, in the case of the A5, to human life?

We have no alternative way of travelling. The people whom I represent are forced to go on to that road numerous times a day. Unfortunately, far too often, the story is that many lives have been claimed as a result of that. Tomorrow is a critical and important day for my constituents and for people from right across Tyrone, Fermanagh, Derry and Donegal. It is time we got the project done, and it is time we ensure that the people of the west get what they are truly entitled to: good-quality infrastructure to put right that wrong.

Mrs Mason: In October 2021, the High Court ruled that five DUP Ministers were acting unlawfully and in breach of their ministerial Pledge of Office. Mr Justice Scoffield said that the DUP Ministers' decision to withdraw from the North/South Ministerial Council was unlawful. He stated that their actions were "contrary to" and "in breach of" their legal duties. Each of the DUP Ministers had affirmed the ministerial Pledge of Office, which committed them to discharging all the duties of their ministerial office and to upholding the rule of law.

Who were the DUP Ministers guilty of acting unlawfully? They were the then First Minister, Paul Givan, the then Agriculture Minister, Edwin Poots, and Gordon Lyons, amongst others. What was the response from the DUP's sanctimonious, law-abiding paragons of virtue who now demand unconditional adherence to the law by others? Minister Givan continued to break the law in an abject breach of his solemn pledge. Minister Lyons, too, continued to break the law in an abject breach of his solemn pledge. Edwin Poots also continued to break the law in an abject breach of his solemn pledge. We heard Jonny Buckley on the airwaves this morning telling us that the law must always be abided by. Jonny may need to have a word with his Ministers, or perhaps that is the problem with the DUP: nobody knows who is calling the shots. They are all going on solo runs. I suppose that it all depends on what their leader Jamie Bryson — sorry, Gavin Robinson — says.

I say to the Benches opposite that we will not take a lecture on the rule of law from lawbreaker and hypocrite Gordon Lyons. We will not take a lecture on the rule of law from lawbreaker and hypocrite Paul Givan. We will continue to listen to the residents and community of the Garvaghy Road and continue to stand with them. We will continue to reject a sectarian, supremacist and triumphalist march down the Garvaghy Road. Let me be absolutely unequivocal: there is no going back, not now and not ever.

Mr Buckley: It is time that the House heard some facts. The scenes on the Garvaghy Road over the past week have been a blatant and triumphalist attempt to ramp up tensions in my home town of Portadown. Sinn Féin's act of supremacy and harassment, whereby it recklessly brought thousands of activists on to the streets of Portadown to break the law, has deliberately stoked tensions, intimidation and fears for local residents who were going about their everyday business. Let me be categoric: it was those actions that closed schools last week and that have resulted in local residents living in fear. They are a blatant distraction from Sinn Féin's abject failure in government and its embarrassing stance on open borders. At every turn, its actions are designed to cover up and distract.

I have been deeply worried by the level of blatant sectarianism that we have heard. We were told that that had been consigned to the past, but the mask has well and truly slipped again. Sinn Féin president, Mary Lou McDonald's, once-proclaimed "unionist brothers and sisters" are now being referred to as "effers", "Bs" and the "Ku Klux Klan". Violent dissident republicans, pledged to the murder of police officers, have stood linked arm in arm with Sinn Féin and SDLP elected representatives, with everything from the wearing of balaclavas to the shouting of expletives. Contrast that with the Orange response, which has been lawful and dignified. There was a prayer vigil last night, at which people prayed for the residents of the Garvaghy Road. They prayed for Michelle O'Neill and Mary Lou McDonald. They prayed for peace and the rule of law. They prayed for the police and the judiciary.

One thing that cannot go unsaid is that the mythical, so-called new Ireland, in which Sinn Féin and the SDLP told us that unionist culture would be respected and unionist identity acknowledged, lies buried dead in Portadown, broken on the backs of 35 Orangemen, some of them 80 years of age, standing peacefully waiting to walk for 14 minutes in silence. In the fullness of —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: — time, only Sinn Féin will be able to decide whether that price was worth it.

Mr Tennyson: Alliance opposed reopening the wounds of the Drumcree dispute and warned the Parades Commission that doing so would resurrect pain and hurt from 28 years ago and rupture community relations. We spoke to residents in the Drumcree Community Centre over the past week and saw the trauma in people's eyes. It is clear that there has been an impact on community relations from the blatant sectarianism that has been broadcast over social media in recent days. We have called on everyone to express their views lawfully and peacefully whilst recognising that the courts cannot adjudicate on the basis of reconciliation. We each have agency and can choose to put reconciliation first. The Orange Order has established a legal right, but it is not a legal obligation. Even at this late stage, Portadown district can, and should, put the greater good of our entire community first and choose not to proceed.

I acknowledge that, for many people who live in the area, the legal process and their sense of justice feel deeply misaligned, but only dialogue and mediation can bridge that gap and address that divide. This is not simply an orange and green issue; people from across our community have expressed sympathy with the residents of the Garvaghy Road for the position in which they have found themselves, including through an open letter from a range of people with a Protestant background. The answer to a deliberate strategy of division and provocation cannot, however, be further polarisation, sectarianism or triumphalism. The taunting of victims in our society is always wrong and must be condemned. I ask those who have sought to exploit the situation and have engaged in such behaviour to reflect on the fact that they are undermining the position of those very residents. Residents must be allowed to return to some semblance of normality. Our priority should be to get the dispute off the streets and back into a political process that is focused on de-escalation, resolution and healing the deep wounds that have been opened in our community. Every day that the stand-off continues causes further damage to people in Northern Ireland. It simply must now be brought to an end.

Mr Sheehan: Sometimes, the law is just wrong. It was wrong when it prevented women from voting. It was wrong when it criminalised homosexuality. Civil disobedience is a legitimate form of protest against bad law. Rosa Parks was right when she refused to go to the back of the bus. Muhammad Ali was right when he refused to be conscripted into the American army to fight against the Vietnamese. John Hume was right when he was arrested twice for civil disobedience.

I just want to read a quote from a book that was published recently:

Who wrote that? Was it a Shinner? Was it a republican? No. That quote is from a recently published book called 'Culture War', which was written by your good friend Mr Jamie Bryson.

Mr Frew: Here, we have a member of Sinn Féin talking about Rosa Parks, Muhammad Ali, John Hume even and Lord Sumption, of all people, and expecting the House to believe that his party is in the same place, and in the same equation, as those people. We have heard some nonsense this week and continue to hear it today.

Accountability is really important. I hear Pat Sheehan across the way quote Lord Sumption, who became a hero of mine somewhat during the lockdown crisis and the disaster that it was. Of course, Sinn Féin went full tilt into depriving the people of Northern Ireland of their freedoms at that time. I stood, along with my party, to try to remove the worst excesses of that. We can stand tall in that regard, but Sinn Féin cannot, when, of course, its members went out in their thousands to a graveyard to have a sham oration for a man, who was not even buried in that graveyard, when other people could not bury their dead or organise a funeral for their loved ones, and people died alone without the comfort of their families around them. That is what Sinn Féin is.

Accountability is important, and, from the disgraceful scenes that they have witnessed this year, a whole raft of people in a new generation now see what Sinn Féin and, for that matter, the SDLP stand for. They stand for intolerance and hatred, and they stand against the rule of law. People of all ages — people my age, older people and younger people — now see that, if Sinn Féin ever were to get unbridled power in Northern Ireland or, indeed, in the Republic, the law would not be there to protect people. I suspect that people from the Republic of Ireland also see that.

Sinn Féin and the SDLP have wrapped up blocking a road and depriving 35 gentlemen of walking in silence at 8.00 am as some sort of victory, and people now see exactly what is meant by a "united Ireland" or a "new Ireland". Wrap it up whatever way you want, but the people of Northern Ireland and now the Republic of Ireland see exactly how ugly Sinn Féin really is.

Miss McAllister: There are many issues that matter to us, and it is important that all are explored in the Chamber. I will take the opportunity to speak on Menopause Awareness Month, which takes place this month, October.

Last week, I met women involved in the Bring Her Back campaign to discuss their work to improve menopause and perimenopause care. Over 50% of our population are women and therefore 100% of the majority of our population will go through menopause. Many of those — not all, but many — will have at least some knowledge of what is to come, with symptoms such as brain fog, disrupted sleep and mental health impacts. However, too many women still struggle to access the care needed to deal with those impacts. There are still far too many stories of women reporting their symptoms to their GP and not being able to access HRT. I am aware of an example where one woman went to a male doctor and was told that it would perhaps be better if she spoke to a female doctor about her perimenopause symptoms. That is simply not acceptable.

We have early evidence that early access to HRT can delay women experiencing problems such as high cholesterol levels, blood pressure issues and issues with the heart, brain and bones. However, that is early evidence, and, due to a lack of funding dedicated to women's health issues, we do not have enough to back it up.

For too long, women's health has been deprioritised in Northern Ireland. We are two and a half years on from when we first committed to a Northern Ireland women's health action plan, which was meant to be a precursor to a women's health strategy, but who knows when that will come? The Bring Her Back campaign has brought forward a six-point action plan, and I encourage all Members to sign up to improve perimenopause and menopause care in Northern Ireland. I am delighted to support the work of that campaign. A particularly important aspect of the plan is to focus on solutions that have long-term impacts and will benefit over half of our population. Women can no longer wait. They do not need to wait until they are in perimenopause to know about the campaign, to educate themselves and, most important, to be listened to by healthcare providers. We need to ensure that we have a women's health action plan that focuses on perimenopause and menopause care.

Mr Speaker: I call Peter Martin. You have two minutes.

Mr Martin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will do my best.

In an 'Irish Independent' poll over the weekend, people in the South were asked what the most important issues were to them. Do you know, Mr Speaker, what percentage of voters in the South consider a united Ireland or a new Ireland to be a priority? I am sure that the Members opposite will be interested in this. Is it 25% or 15%? It is less than 1%; in fact, it was a number so small that it did not register in the polling data. In April 2023, Sinn Féin was polling at 37% in the South: that number has halved. It campaigned to open borders and have unrestricted immigration, and voters in the South have reacted accordingly. As my colleague has just said, the new Ireland project is dead in the water. Up in Northern Ireland, we know that the self-styled "First Minister for all" is a First Minister for some. She is happy to stand with dissident

— the Members opposite are laughing. She is happy to stand with dissident republicans on the Garvaghy Road to stop 35 Orangemen walking down it at 8.00 am. She is happy to stand on the Garvaghy Road while songs like, 'My Old Man's a Provo' are sung by the crowd.

What do those from a unionist or a loyalist tradition — loyalists and unionists who are angry and rightly so — do in that context? They never resort to violence; that is the absolute key. However, there is something that unionists and loyalists who have been annoyed by what we have seen on our streets can do: they can vote. Anyone watching or anyone who has got angry or frustrated at the scenes that we have seen over the last week can call into any of our offices and we will help them to get registered to vote. They can vote and then transfer to other unionist parties along the way —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Martin: — maximising unionist representation. We will hold Sinn Féin to account. Do not get angry at the voices you hear on the —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Martin: — radio. Go and do something about it.

Mr Butler (The Minister of Health): I beg to move

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

Mr Butler: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. This morning, I seek the Assembly's approval of the draft regulations, which make important amendments to the Northern Ireland tobacco control enforcement framework as a consequence of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.

Members will be aware that smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death, disability and ill health in Northern Ireland. It is responsible for more than 2,000 deaths each year and over 25,000 smoking-attributed hospital admissions annually. In 2019-2020 alone, our hospitals spent an estimated £218 million treating smoking-related conditions. Alongside smoking, there is growing concern about vaping by children and young people. Recent research undertaken by the Public Health Agency found that 20% of young people in Northern Ireland aged between 11 and 18 have tried vaping, while 15% are current users.

The UK-wide Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, which received the support of the Northern Ireland Assembly through a legislative consent motion in February 2025, was enacted on 29 April 2026. That landmark legislation represents a significant step forward in protecting public health, reducing smoking prevalence and safeguarding future generations from the harms associated with tobacco use and nicotine addiction. The Act introduces a range of significant measures, including making it an offence to sell tobacco products to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009; prohibiting the sale of non-nicotine vapes and nicotine products to persons under 18; strengthening enforcement powers; and extending the tobacco retailers register to retailers of vaping and nicotine products. The immediate priority is to support the implementation of the Tobacco and Vapes Act, including the development of secondary legislation required to ensure that those measures can operate effectively in practice.

The regulations before the Assembly are technical and consequential upon the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026. They do not introduce any new policy; rather, the regulations amend the existing fixed penalty notice framework to reflect the new and revised retail offences established in the Act in relation to the new products in scope, including herbal smoking products, non-nicotine vapes, nicotine pouches, nicotine strips and nicotine pearls. Specifically, the regulations revise the list of retail offences for which a fixed penalty notice may be issued and prescribe the corresponding penalty amounts. The regulations also revoke the Tobacco Retailer (Fixed Penalty) (Amount) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2021, as they will be superseded by the proposed statutory rule.

The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that the legislative and enforcement framework in Northern Ireland is fully aligned with the expanded regulatory framework for tobacco, vaping and nicotine products that was introduced via the same Act. The regulations will be commenced on a phased basis to align with the corresponding provisions in the Act. On 29 October 2026, provisions will commence relating to age of sale; proxy purchase of vaping and nicotine products; a vending machine ban; and free distribution restrictions. On 1 January 2027, tobacco age-of-sale-related provisions will come into force, and, on 1 March 2027, revised fixed penalty provisions relating to the extended registration requirements for retailers of vape and nicotine products will become enforceable.

My officials have engaged with the Department of Justice and other key stakeholders, including the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) and Belfast City Council, throughout the development of the regulations. There is broad support for the proposals. As part of the Assembly's enhanced scrutiny procedures for statutory rules (SRs), the Health Committee invited views on the proposed statutory rule, otherwise known as an "SL1", through the Citizen Space platform, which involves the publication of proposals for a statutory rule, including associated documents. The call for views provided stakeholders and individuals with information on the proposals for the statutory rule. No concerns or issues were raised as a result of the Committee's consultation. My officials briefed the Health Committee at its meeting on 18 June on the proposed regulations to outline the policy intent, and they responded to members' questions. I am pleased to confirm that the Committee raised no concerns about the content of the draft regulations. It is with the Health Committee's support, therefore, that I bring the statutory rule before the Assembly Chamber today.

The regulations are an important component of the implementation programme for the Tobacco and Vapes Act. They will provide clarity for retailers, enforcement authorities and consumers whilst ensuring that the new retail requirements can be enforced effectively in Northern Ireland. I therefore commend the motion to the Assembly.

Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to confirm that, as the Minister said, the Health Committee supports today's motion. As he set out, the regulations will amend the existing legislation so that the monetary fines payable align with the new and revised offences in the Tobacco and Vapes Act. In addition to the statutory rule, the Health Committee fully scrutinised the Tobacco and Vapes Act as a legislative consent motion in early 2025 and agreed to support its inclusion here. I particularly thank the Youth Assembly for its helpful input into the Committee's scrutiny at that time.

Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death and ill health in the North. Departmental evidence to the Committee clearly stated that over 2,000 deaths and 25,000 hospital admissions a year can be attributed to smoking. In that context, the provisions of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 are to be welcomed. The impact that a reduction of 25,000 hospital admissions a year could have on our health service must not be underestimated. Members will be fully aware of the significant use of vapes and e-cigarettes among our young people. The Minister gave some Public Health Agency statistics on that. Another statistic is that almost half of year 14 pupils — 46% — confirmed that they are vape users. That stark statistic shows the scale of the challenge facing authorities in combating the use of vapes among those aged 18 and under. While the long-term side effects of vaping remain unclear, a clear picture is emerging from recent studies of its negative impacts on young people. A recent study by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health linked vaping among young people to an increased risk of respiratory problems; poor oral and dental hygiene; and sleep and mental health issues. Similar research has shown that teenagers who vape are three times more likely to move on to smoking cigarettes.

Further key aspects of the Tobacco and Vapes Act are the enhanced restrictions on the sale of vapes to under-18s, as well as controls on flavours, promotions and discounts; a ban on the use of vending machines for such products; and increased enforcement powers for local authorities in this area. Specifically, this technical SR will update the process for fines in relation to issuing a fixed penalty notice to any retailer who breaches the new regulations under the Act.

During the Committee's scrutiny, as the Health Minister outlined, it considered the SL1 policy for the SR in June and the SR itself in September, taking evidence from officials in addition to considering the written evidence that was provided. Under the new SL1 process for 2026, the Committee opened a call for views on the rule, allowing the public to submit information regarding any concerns about or unintended consequences of the policy proposal. No such responses were received, and the Committee agreed that it was content with the rule.

We raised a concern with officials about the fact that a formal public consultation with retailers had not been carried out, but officials assured us that that engagement had happened as part of the wider consultation process for the Tobacco and Vapes Act and that it had included Retail NI. Updated guidance documents have been written for use in the North as well as in England, Scotland and Wales, with input having been sought from local businesses on their development. When it comes to costs, the officials set out that the impact on retailers should be minimal. It is natural that retailers may need to train staff on any new rules, but that would not represent any ongoing financial outlay.

The statutory rule will help to ensure that the enforcement of new rules under the Tobacco and Vapes Act is effective and proportionate. In line with that, the Committee also sought to confirm with officials that they were content that councils had the resources necessary to do that. Twelve tobacco control officers work across our councils, and that is currently funded by the Public Health Agency. The Department gave assurances that the officers are fully briefed on the new rules and in a position to enforce them.

The Health Committee looks forward to the implementation of the regulations, as we see the wider implementation of the Tobacco and Vapes Act as providing crucial benefits for public health and the well-being of those across society, particularly young people. The Health Committee is committed to working in cooperation with the Department and the Minister on that important policy area.

Mr Robinson: The statutory rule is relatively technical, but it is an important part of ensuring that the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 can operate effectively in Northern Ireland. The regulations update the existing fixed penalty framework so that the offences and penalties that are applicable to tobacco, vaping and nicotine products align with the new legislation, and they revoke the previous 2021 regulations, which have now been superseded. It is important to emphasise that the statutory rule in itself does not introduce a new policy; rather, it provides the enforcement mechanism that is necessary to support measures that were already established through the Tobacco and Vapes Act.

From 29 October, fixed penalty notices will apply to a range of offences, including the sale of vaping and nicotine products to under-18s. Further provisions will come into effect from January and March next year, including the new tobacco age of sale provisions and expanded retail registration requirements. As the Chair of the Health Committee said, the Committee considered those regulations at SL1 stage in June and September and agreed that it was content with the proposal. The Department has also confirmed that the changes are technical and consequential, with no additional cost implications for the Department. Ultimately, effective legislation requires an effective enforcement framework. The regulations provide that framework and ensure that Northern Ireland's fixed penalty arrangements will keep pace with the changes that are introduced by the 2026 Act. For those reasons, I am content to support the statutory rule.

Mr Donnelly: The Tobacco and Vapes Act was a major public health measure, and the regulations mark a significant step towards ending the harm caused by smoking and creating Northern Ireland's first ever smoke-free generation.

Tobacco kills up to half of its long-term users, which equates to around 7·5 million deaths a year globally. As mentioned by the Health Minister, it kills over 2,000 people in Northern Ireland every year. Globally, about 5·8 million deaths are the result of direct tobacco use, while around 1·7 million deaths are as a result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke. Smoking is the biggest preventable cause of cancer. It is responsible for around seven in 10 lung cancer cases, and it harms almost every organ in the body. In Northern Ireland, it is also a major cause of health inequalities, with lung cancer rates in our most deprived areas 2·5 times higher than those in our least deprived areas. According to the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Sir Michael McBride, 15% of 11- to 18-year-olds in Northern Ireland currently vape, and the way that such products are displayed in shops, sometimes even alongside confectionery, is a major factor in the growth of youth vaping.

As a result of the regulations, retailers will understand their responsibilities and the law can be properly enforced. That, in turn, will help protect future generations from the harms of tobacco and nicotine addiction, thereby reducing the long-term pressure on our health service. We support the regulations.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Health to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the debate on the motion.

Mr Butler: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Before I address Members' comments, I will say that such regulations are an example of legislation that I like to see come forward for the Assembly to debate. In the many debates on health that we have had over the years, we have talked about how early identification and early intervention can lead to better outcomes, but there is nothing better than prevention. We have known for decades about the damage that smoking tobacco does. It causes respiratory diseases. Whether it is a young person, a pregnant woman, a man or an older person smoking, we know of the dangers and the outcomes, from lung cancer to COPD.

I see a crowd of young people in the Gallery. It takes me back to when I started secondary school in 1982 and how things have changed since then. Back then, I got a bus to school. When I got on the bus, the layer of smoke was down to my knees, because everybody on that blinking bus smoked. Danny Donnelly mentioned second-hand smoking. The regulations will therefore save not just smokers' lives but the lives of people who inhale second-hand smoke.

I thank the Members who spoke, in particular the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Health Committee. I will refer to a few of the points made. As I said in my opening remarks, smoking continues to have a profound impact on public health in Northern Ireland. Youth vaping, which just about every Member who spoke mentioned, is an increasing concern. I thank the Chair of the Health Committee for recollecting the input of the Youth Assembly, because it has an important role to play. It is important that young people speak to such matters, because some of the laws under which we are now making regulations will affect what they do and the choices that they have.

It is important that I respond on the record to a point that the Chair raised. When we make such regulations, it is always right for the Department to do checks and balances. The Chair made a good point about communicating with retailers to ensure that their voice is captured. The regulations are further to the public consultation that happened many years ago on the then Bill.

The regulations have teeth and are how enforcement will happen, about which I will inform the Assembly. Supporting retailers to help them understand and comply with the new requirements has been a key priority for my Department. I wanted to see where we were at with that. Departmental officials have met a number of retail organisations to brief them on the Tobacco and Vapes Act and its potential implications for retailers. In recent months, draft guidance for retailers has been shared with a range of key stakeholders, including representatives from the community and voluntary sector; retail organisations, including the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium, Retail NI and the Federation of Small Businesses; and councils. It is really important that we are not in an ivory tower up here but instead talk to councils' enforcement officers and to the retailers that will have to change their practices.

A recent review that the Institute of Public Health undertook of the health effects of vaping among children and adolescents found strong, high-quality evidence of an association between vaping and subsequent cigarette use, which supports the view that vaping acts as a gateway to tobacco use. The Tobacco and Vapes Act creates an important framework for addressing those challenges. Effective enforcement, however, is essential if the safeguards in the Act are to deliver their intended outcomes. I thank Alan Robinson for saying that there was no argument to be made against the regulations. He said that the Department had said that implementing them will have no cost implications, and he is absolutely right, but, in the long run, if we become a smoke-free society, we will see quantifiable savings in lives saved and in money that can be reused in the health service to treat other ailments. I thank the Member for bringing that up. By updating the existing fixed penalty framework, the regulations will support councils to carry out their enforcement responsibilities and help ensure that the legislation can be applied consistently across Northern Ireland.

Danny, I give you credit for using the "smoke-free generation" phrase. I wanted to get it into my speech, but you beat me to it. Hopefully, as we develop further legislation, by taking an evidence-based approach to what vaping does — I suspect that it is not good — we can encourage young people to ditch vapes as well.

These regulations represent a practical but necessary step in the successful implementation of the Tobacco and Vapes Act. Therefore, I commend the motion to the Assembly and ask Members to support the approval of the regulations.

Ms K Armstrong (The Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures): I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Ms K Armstrong: On behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I am very pleased to bring the motion to the Assembly to amend Standing Order 42A, which sets out the procedural arrangements for managing legislative consent motions (LCMs) at the Assembly. The origin of the proposed changes to Standing Order 42A goes back to March 2022, when the Assembly endorsed the previous Committee on Procedures' report on its inquiry into legislative consent motions. Although that Committee considered that the fundamental reform of the principles underpinning the Assembly LCM procedures was unnecessary, it noted that there had been a number of instances where either the procedures had not been followed or they had been followed but issues had nonetheless arisen. It was therefore of the view that there was scope to make improvements to the practice and the arrangements for managing LCMs that would enhance the Assembly's ability to carry out its scrutiny and bring more transparency to the process. The report made seven recommendations, a number of which required changes to Standing Order 42A.

More recently, the Speaker expressed concerns at the start of the plenary sitting on 9 June 2025 relating to the issue of Assembly legislative consent, including that, on some occasions, Ministers were not engaging with the Assembly in a timely manner when seeking such consent. The Procedures Committee sought the views of the Speaker on whether the implementation of the changes to Standing Order 42A that were recommended by the previous Committee would assist in addressing the issues that he had raised, and he confirmed that, in his view, they were still relevant, and that he would welcome the proposed changes being brought forward.

The Committee also received correspondence from several Statutory Committees and the Chairpersons' Liaison Group, highlighting issues with the LCM process and requesting that consideration be given to what could be done to strengthen and enhance opportunities for Assembly and Committee scrutiny of LCMs.

I am sure that we all agree that it is always preferable that, wherever possible, legislation on devolved matters be made by the Assembly. However, there are some circumstances, such as in relation to maintaining parity, or where there is a need for simultaneous enactment across two or more jurisdictions, where the use of an LCM is appropriate. Given the issues that had been clearly identified with the current LCM procedures, the Committee on Procedures commenced work in February of this year on proposals to implement the recommendations in the previous Committee's inquiry report that required changes to Standing Order 42A. The Committee also considered a proposal from the Minister of Justice to change the definition of "relevant day" for an LCM arising as a result of an amendment to a Bill.

The outcome of that work is the motion before the Assembly today, which makes a number of changes to Standing Order 42A by implementing four of the previous Committee's inquiry recommendations and changing the definition of "relevant day". Some restructuring and renumbering of the paragraphs has taken place to ensure that the revised Standing Order remains coherent and workable, together with some minor changes to language to ensure consistency.

The first of the main changes being proposed removes the word "normally" from Standing Order 42A(4). The aim of the change is to encourage greater compliance by Ministers with the 10-working-day requirement for laying a legislative consent memorandum, or a memorandum explaining why a legislative consent motion is not sought, which is reflected in revised Standing Order 42A(5).

The change implements recommendation 1 of the inquiry's report, in which the previous Committee concluded that

and saw

The next substantive change, reflected in paragraphs 6 and 15 of revised Standing Order 42A, implements recommendation 2 of the inquiry report and makes

The indicative memorandum should explain why the Minister has not laid a consent memorandum or a memorandum explaining why a consent motion is not being sought and is subject to the same 10-working-day period as those memoranda. If an indicative memorandum is laid, the Minister should, as soon as is practicable thereafter, lay either a legislative consent memorandum or explain why consent is not being sought. Providing for an indicative memorandum in Standing Order 42A will ensure that the Assembly remains informed of any Bills that require legislative consent even in circumstances where a Minister has not yet decided whether they intend to seek consent and removes any doubt on the part of Ministers that such an approach can and should be taken.

The previous Committee recognised that exceptional circumstances may prevent a Minister from laying a relevant memorandum within the period of 10 working days and recommended that provision should be made to cover such an eventuality. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of revised Standing Order 42A make provision that, in exceptional circumstances, Ministers may lay a relevant memorandum as soon as possible after the period of 10 working days has elapsed, with a requirement to explain the reason for the delay in laying the memorandum. A "relevant memorandum" is defined as a legislative consent memorandum, an indicative memorandum or a memorandum explaining why consent is not being sought.

In response to the challenges facing Committees regarding the timescales provided for in Standing Order 42A, the previous Committee recommended that the Standing Order:

Paragraph 12 of revised Standing Order 42A makes provision for the appropriate Statutory Committee to bring a motion to the Assembly seeking the Assembly's approval to extend the period of 15 working days to report its opinion to the Assembly in line with the timetable for the Bill's passage through Westminster. It is not expected that that provision will need to be used extensively, particularly if Ministers adhere to the procedures, but it will enable a Committee to seek an extension to the time period when necessary and where circumstances allow. The timescales for moving a consent motion, which are set out in paragraph 13 of the revised Standing Order, have also been adjusted to cover circumstances in which the Assembly has agreed to an extension to the time period for the Committee to report its opinion.

The last substantive change is to the definition of "relevant day". Standing Order 42A currently provides that the relevant day is:

That differs from the position in the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd, where there are explicit provisions for the relevant day to be the day on which an amendment is:

The approach taken in Scotland and Wales expressly recognises that, where an amendment is likely to be made by a UK Minister, there should be an opportunity at that point for the relevant Minister to bring the matter to the attention of the devolved legislatures. In its inquiry report, the previous Committee on Procedures suggested that:

but did not make a specific recommendation. The Minister of Justice subsequently wrote to the Committee to ask it to consider making the change. Paragraph 16 of revised Standing Order 42A expands the existing definition of "relevant day" to provide for the change and is consistent with the approach adopted by the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd. As a result of that change, consideration of an amendment can take place earlier.

To enable it to determine whether Parliament should legislate on a devolved matter, the Assembly needs sufficient time and sufficient information to inform its decision. It is therefore important that the procedures that are in place to facilitate that are robust and effective. The motion tabled by the Committee on Procedures provides for revisions to Standing Order 42A that will support that aim and strengthen the ability of the Assembly to carry out its scrutiny role in relation to legislative consent.

On behalf of the Committee, a letter has been sent to all MLAs setting out the background to the proposed changes and providing information on what they cover. I hope that that is useful and will assist with today's debate.

In closing, in my capacity as Chairperson of the Committee, I thank the Deputy Chairperson and the members of the Committee for their constructive approach and detailed input to this issue and to the work of the Committee more generally. I also thank the Clerk's team and those who provided us with legal advice throughout the process. I hope that Members will support the changes to Standing Order 42A. I look forward to hearing anybody who wants to speak on the issue.

I will quickly talk in my capacity as an MLA. Alliance supports the change. It provides clarity for Ministers, meets the Speaker's requirements and will provide Statutory Committees with respect for their place and scrutiny.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Kellie. Órlaithí, there is no need for a winding-up speech as no other Members have indicated that they wish to speak on the issue. Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is clear that there are Ayes from both sides of the House and cross-community support has been achieved.

Members, take your ease while we change the top Table before moving on to the next item of business

Mr Burrows: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for this debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will keep this relatively brief. It is an important issue, but it does not have to be controversial; in fact, it should unite us all. We are a nation of animal lovers; in particular, I am a dog lover. Everyone knows that I have my three dogs at home: Maggie, Cassie and Nancy. A test of the morality of a society is how it treats the voiceless and vulnerable. We have moral choices in front of us: whether an animal should be treated treated humanely or inhumanely and whether we should go for training or pain as a way of dealing with a behavioural issue. I commend the motion to everyone in the House.

The aversive training tools that are out there are simply literally shocking. That a dog in this country can be legally subjected to electric shocks through a collar is obscene. I am told that, even on the Stormont estate, there are dog trainers who use electric shock collars on their dogs. That is inhumane and not only is morally wrong but relies on a theory of dog or animal training that is based on pain and compliance as opposed to teaching and reward. That is fundamentally wrong.

I will read out some of the tools available in Northern Ireland that can be used legally. A grot collar puts pressure on the bone behind a dog's ear, causing significant pain. A shock collar delivers an electric shock to a dog's neck remotely or automatically, creating pain, fear, anxiety and discomfort. There are prong collars, and I have some in my desk upstairs. We are not allowed to bring props into the Chamber. I will not do a Gerry Carroll and bring a prop in, but it would have been useful to see one today. Those collars have prongs that tighten and put pressure on a dog's neck. They cause punctures, sores, scarring, burns, bald patches and inflammation. What is more disturbing is that they can break a dog psychologically. I was at the Dogs Trust not long ago and saw dogs that had been subjected to that kind of treatment, and they are broken dogs.

It is often said that there is no such thing as a bad dog, only a bad owner, and, unfortunately, we have lots of bad owners. The proposition is a simple one. Those devices are inhumane, cruel and lazy shortcuts to training a dog properly. If people do not have the time, skill or patience to train a dog or other animal properly, they should not have the dog or animal at all. There is, therefore, no excuse for using those devices. Scotland is taking action on this. Wales has banned shock collars, and we need to do so as well. However, there has to be more than that. There have to be proper penalties for abusing animals. I do not think that there is anyone in this place who is not shocked when they see headline after headline about someone who has tortured an animal or starved an animal to death and got a slap on the wrist. Shockingly, they are banned from owning animals for a couple of years. Why on earth would anyone permit those people to own an animal ever again? That is why we need tougher penalties. Frankly, if you torture or starve a dog to death, you should never be allowed to own a dog again.

I will be unusually brief when speaking about the motion. We need not go beyond a few simple principles: first, the tools are available to purchase and use in Northern Ireland; secondly, they are cruel; and, thirdly, they reflect the mindset of an owner who enjoys inflicting pain or an owner who is lazy and cannot be bothered to train a dog properly. Those tools inflict not just physical pain but psychological trauma, and we need to see the end of them in Northern Ireland. We have listed some exemptions in the motion, which is not to say that we are convinced of the case for each exemption. There may need to be exemptions for some types of tools. For example, a dog warden might have to use equipment to get hold of a dangerous dog that we would not want an ordinary citizen to have, but we need to work those things through in legislation.

In principle, I am not opposed to the Alliance Party's amendment — we should ban the sale of those tools — but we have a query about legislative competence: is doing so within our remit in Northern Ireland? We got advice that enabling legislation or consent from Westminster might be required for us to ban the sale of such things; perhaps the Minister could clarify that. We certainly need to ban the possession, use and sale of those horrible tools.

I want us to recognise that our dogs and other animals in this country are voiceless and vulnerable, and they rely on our passing laws. This debate is on a motion, and I have criticised such non-binding motions as much as any Member has, but, where we have the opportunity of a motion, I will use it to raise awareness of an issue and to garner some kind of cross-community and cross-party support. If we all vote for the motion, perhaps we can, in the next mandate if not in this one, make a commitment that whoever holds the relevant Department will introduce legislation that would be uncontroversial and quickly agreed to protect our animals from those awful contraptions that have no place in a civilised society.

Keeping it brief, I commend our motion to all Members and encourage them to support it. I look forward to getting some clarity from the Minister on the legalities of banning the sale of those inhumane contraptions.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Burrows: Yes.

Mr Muir: I am happy to clarify that. The Member will recognise that, with the UK internal market, there are rules on it, but, if the motion is passed, that will give me a clear view from the House on which to make a case for the UK Government to introduce such a measure across the UK.

Mr Burrows: Thank you. I will conclude by saying that that would be a positive result of the debate. I think that we can deal with this one fairly quickly, and I urge Members to support the motion in its entirety.

Mr Blair: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, John. You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.

Mr Blair: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Like the proposer of the motion, I do not think that I will take all the allocated time, but I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion and begin by thanking the Ulster Unionist Party for tabling it for debate today.

In recent years, there has been a notable increase in efforts to enhance animal welfare standards in Northern Ireland. That progress reflects the dedication of the animal welfare groups and organisations that have consistently ensured that animal welfare remains high on the political agenda. A major driver of that progress has been the Alliance Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Andrew Muir. Minister Muir has made animal welfare a clear priority and has demonstrated his commitment to it through his words and his actions. In particular, Minister Muir has advanced important work through his animal welfare pathway. That pathway provides a structured, long-term framework to improve standards across the sector and to strengthen enforcement. I am pleased that the specific but serious animal welfare concern that is being discussed today is included in the animal welfare pathway. I look forward to hearing from the Minister shortly about his progress towards introducing legislation to ban aversive training devices.

Training devices such as shock collars are designed to cause pain, fear or discomfort in order to control an animal's behaviour. Electronic collars can deliver shocks of up to about 6,000 volts for as long as 11 seconds at a time. I ask Members to think through the impact that that would have on any animal. Evidence has shown that such methods can damage the relationship between owner and animal and, over time, can even make behavioural problems worse and more challenging. Positive, reward-based training is a more humane and more effective approach in the long term.

When I served as chair of the all-party group (APG) on animal welfare, the issue of aversive training devices was raised repeatedly by animal welfare organisations such as the USPCA and the Dogs Trust as a real and growing concern. Time and again, we heard from experts that those devices caused harm and that, to put it in straightforward terms, the law had not kept pace with the evidence.

To the organisations that consulted on the issue, I record my sincere thanks for their sustained work to bring it to light and to press for change. They continue to campaign against such devices and to educate the public about the harm that they can cause. I also welcome the work that Minister Muir is taking forward. His recent consultation on animal welfare reform offers a critical opportunity to modernise and strengthen protections for animals in Northern Ireland. Alongside the broader animal welfare pathway that I have already mentioned, it offers a strategic approach to raising standards and closing the gaps that have allowed harmful practices to persist.

For that reason, we tabled our amendment. It does not weaken the motion; rather, it enhances it by eliminating the references to exemptions for veterinarians, animal rescuers and dog wardens to allow them to use the tools in certain circumstances, about which we remain unclear as we start the debate. We do not believe that any circumstances warrant the use of such devices, given that there are ample more humane methods that can be used. Furthermore, if such devices can continue to be sold, legally owned or acquired, they will remain readily available, meaning that the risk of their continued use will also remain. A ban covering the sale, use and ownership of aversive training tools in all circumstances would help close the potential loopholes, restrict the circulation of devices and provide a clearer framework for enforcement.

Legislation is effective only when it can be properly enforced, however. That is why our amendment does not remove the call in the motion for:

for those who continue to use such devices. Alliance has always been a party that stands up for animal welfare. We have a responsibility to give a voice to those who cannot speak up for themselves and to ensure that our laws reflect the best available evidence on animal welfare.

In summary, I have laid out the Alliance position on the motion and the basic thinking behind our amendment. Another reason that I ask for support for the amendment is that, in my role as an MLA, in my role as chair of the all-party group on animal welfare or in any other circumstance, I have not seen conclusive evidence that those who seek or would benefit from such exemptions have trialled, scoped out or exhausted all the other more dog-friendly solutions and alternatives that would avoid the severity and cruelty that the proposer of the motion pointed out and that, I am sure, other contributors to the debate will mention. I ask that Members keep that in mind.

The Alliance Party supports the motion as amended. I hope that Members will support our amendment and deliver a clear message that it is our intention to have in place stronger protections for domestic animals across Northern Ireland.

Ms Murphy: I do not doubt that there is agreement across the House that cruelty to animals is absolutely unacceptable. Nobody wants to see animals shocked, harmed or mistreated in the name of training, and that principle should unite us all. In many cases, humane, reward-based training methods are not only kinder but more effective. They build trust, encourage good behaviour and improve animal welfare standards. As we consider introducing stronger protections, however, we must approach the issue with a sense of balance. We should not ignore the realities faced by those who work with animals every day, such as vets, dog wardens and rescue workers, who often operate in challenging and, at times, dangerous circumstances.

If legislation is to be introduced, we need clarity, for which the two Members who have spoken have asked. I do not doubt that the Minister will be able to put more meat on the bones during his contribution.

We need to know exactly what devices are being considered, how they will be defined and whether different uses will be treated differently. There is a clear difference between someone using a device irresponsibly to punish an animal and a tightly controlled intervention designed to prevent injury or protect other animals. That distinction in those circumstances really matters, and it should be reflected in any future legislation.

We also need to recognise that education plays a vital role. Many owners do not have access to proper behavioural support or training advice. If we are serious about improving animal welfare —.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Murphy: Yes.

Mr Burrows: We seem to have put the cart before the horse. I know that is not a great metaphor, but if the owners of animals do not have the knowledge, they should not take the animal in the first place. They should not take ownership of an animal if they do not have sufficient knowledge or capacity to train it properly. Good ownership involves getting that right first, and then people can take on the animal.

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

Ms Murphy: I thank the Member for his intervention. Education and training are important, and a lot more needs to be done from a departmental and council point of view.

I will go back to the need for education. If we are serious about improving animal welfare, we should support training programmes, promote awareness and help others to access expert guidance.

I will touch briefly on enforcement and the role that councils play. They carry a significant responsibility for animal welfare enforcement. While I welcome the Minister's commitment to improving animal welfare standards, additional responsibilities must be matched with additional resources to councils. Funding, training and care guidance are essential if new regulations are to be effective. We cannot expect councils to do more and, in the same vein, ask them to absorb the cost.

Our job is to ensure that any measures that we introduce are effective, proportionate and enforceable. As the issue moves forward, let us get the balance right. We need to end cruelty, prevent abuse and promote humane treatment, while recognising that, in a limited and carefully defined circumstance or circumstances, safety considerations must also be taken into account.

Miss McIlveen: I support the motion. How we train an animal is not simply a matter of personal preference; it is a matter of animal welfare. We are a nation of animal lovers. Across Northern Ireland, hundreds of thousands of people share their homes with dogs and cats. Those animals depend very much on us for their care, and they have no say in how they are trained.

As has been said, the principle behind the motion is very simple. If we can train animals effectively without causing pain or fear, why would we choose methods that do? That principle is already acknowledged in DAERA's code of practice for the welfare of dogs. It recommends "positive reward-based training" and advises against methods that can cause pain or fear, including electric shock collars. However, as has been said, we have no specific prohibition on those devices.

An e-collar can be used unless its use amounts to unnecessary suffering. The emphasis, therefore, is on proving harm after it has happened. However, where the evidence shows that a particular method carries unnecessary welfare risks, we should prevent that harm in the first place.

Looking specifically at electronic collars, the evidence does not show a clear benefit that outweighs the welfare concerns. In a controlled study of dogs with recall problems, there was no consistent evidence that e-collar training was more effective. Yet, dogs trained with electronic stimulation spent more time tense and interacted less with their surroundings.

The Scottish and Welsh Governments' positions have been mentioned, but I will look at those in more detail. The Welsh Government held an independent review and reached a similar conclusion. They found that the welfare costs of electronic collars were likely to outweigh their benefits, pointing to the potential to cause pain, the availability of effective alternatives and the risk of misuse or abuse. As a result, by following an evidence-based approach, Wales retained its prohibition on attaching electronic shock collars to dogs and cats.

The Scottish Government's guidance says that effective dog training is reward-based, warning that aversive methods can cause "unacceptable pain, suffering and distress". Recently, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission concluded:

while aversive devices:

Aversive methods can stop a behaviour without addressing why it is happening. If fear, anxiety or frustration is behind a problem, making a dog frightened of the consequences may mask the symptom rather than address the underlying issue. Scottish guidance warns that aversive techniques can worsen behavioural problems or contribute to aggressive responses. Reward-based training teaches the animal what we want it to do and gives it a reason to repeat that behaviour.
The British Small Animal Veterinary Association also recommends reward-based training, recognising that it builds confidence and trust and avoids the stresses that are associated with aversive methods.

Of course, not every dog is easy to train. Consider a rescue dog with a history of fear or neglect or a dog with serious recall or behavioural problems. Those animals may need specialist intervention, consistency and, in some cases, veterinary or behavioural assessment, not someone reaching first for a device that is designed to cause pain or fear. Of course, there are wider consequences, too. The Dogs Trust's Generation Pup research found that aversive training methods were associated with higher incidences of owners reporting problematic behaviour when dogs were a year old.

It is welcome that DAERA has formally consulted on banning specific aversive training devices, including electric shock collars, prong collars and choke chains. That consultation closed on 30 June. The Minister has indicated that he will consider the next steps once that has been reviewed. However, we need to be clear about what those next steps should be. We absolutely should legislate as soon as possible. We should prohibit the use and possession of specific aversive training devices while also carefully drafting exemptions where veterinary professionals and rescue organisations genuinely need particular equipment for safe handling or in an emergency. Mr Blair talked about his amendment. It is worrying that the amendment removes all mention of that or any consideration of whether those tools would be justified in exceptional circumstances. That warrants further discussion. Appropriately —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close —

Miss McIlveen: Of course.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): — or indeed close them?

Miss McIlveen: I will come to a close.

I will close at that point, thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed.

Miss McIlveen: I lost my run.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I now call the very sartorially elegant Daniel McCrossan. Daniel, over to you.

Mr McCrossan: I do not think that I have ever been described as that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will accept the compliment.

I welcome the opportunity, on behalf of the SDLP, to support the motion that was tabled by the UUP and, of course, I acknowledge the Alliance amendment. As Members will know, I am a very proud dog owner. In our home, I have two dogs, Hudson and Rosie. Hudson is two years old and Rosie is 10 years old. They are both bulldogs. They bring so much joy to our lives, particularly after some days in the Assembly, as people can imagine.

Earlier this month, I attended, on behalf of the SDLP, the Royal Kennel Club's Stormont Dog of the Year event, which celebrates the special bond between people and their dogs. I was delighted that, whilst he had some competition from my good friend in the Alliance Party, Hudson won the "Pawblic Vote". That was very welcome because it was an appreciation of the considerable joy, companionship and loyalty that our pets bring to our lives.

Those experiences only reinforce my belief that we have a duty to treat animals with kindness, care and respect. That is why there is no place in modern animal welfare for training methods that rely on pain, fear or intimidation. Shock collars, prong collars, choke chains and grot collars are aversive devices that are designed to alter behaviour through discomfort or punishment. Many animal welfare organisations, trainers and campaigners have highlighted repeatedly that, rather than building confidence and trust, the physical and psychological harm that those tools can cause creates anxiety, fear and long-term behavioural problems.

For reference's sake, Rosie was a rescue dog. She was two when we had the great privilege of getting her. She was terrified of men and terrified of sticks and objects, so she obviously went through a horrific amount of abuse under her previous owner. Luckily, she has come through that and rules the house these days. It shows what loving and understanding your pets can do. We know that there is a better way of doing things, and reward-based training methods are used successfully every day by responsible owners and professional trainers. Those approaches strengthen relationships between owner and animal, encourage positive behaviour and achieve results without causing unnecessary suffering. The motion is therefore about bringing our legislation into line with modern expectations of animal welfare. It is about recognising that animals are sentient beings and that training should be based on patience, encouragement and positive reinforcement.

I welcome the Minister's recent consultation on animal welfare reform, and I encourage animal welfare organisations, trainers, veterinary professionals and members of the public to participate in it. However, the consultation must now lead to the necessary action. We have an opportunity during this mandate to take a significant step forward by prohibiting the use and possession of aversive training tools. Importantly, the motion also recognises the need for sensible exemptions. Vets, animal rescue organisations and dog wardens may require such specialist equipment, as referenced by Miss McIlveen, in emergency situations or where safe handling is necessary. Those practical considerations can and should be accommodated. Finally, any new legislation must be backed by effective enforcement and appropriate penalties. There is little value in passing a law unless those responsible for enforcing it have the resources to do so effectively.

Our pets enrich our lives in countless ways. Whether it is Hudson and Rosie, who are like two children to me, or the beloved pets in households right across Northern Ireland, they deserve to be treated with compassion and be protected from all and any unnecessary harm. For those reasons, I am pleased to support the motion, and I encourage Members to do likewise.

Mr T Buchanan: In rising to contribute to the debate, I am sure that it goes without saying that a dog is a man's best friend. All those who are dog lovers can testify to the welcome that they receive from their dog when they return home each day and how rewarding that is for them. They can also testify to the loyalty that their dog has towards them, and, for many, their pets become part of the family. Therefore, the treatment and welfare of our domestic animals must be a priority.

While the training of dogs is essential for various parts of life, whether that be for the sheep farmer in gathering up his flock, the country sports personnel out to enjoy a day's shooting on land or water where the dog fetches the prey, or simply the family pet, all such training must be done in a humane manner. The aversive training tools used in today's training of our domestic animals, whether dogs or cats — shock collars, prong collars, choke chains and grot collars, as set out in the motion — are nothing short of barbaric and cruel means of training those animals by inflicting pain or discomfort on the animal to stop an unwanted action. It is clear from evidence from the Dogs Trust and the British Veterinary Association that, rather than teaching an animal how to behave, those tools have the opposite effect and create a profoundly negative impact on the animal's behaviour and well-being. That negative impact remains with that animal for the rest of its life.

Over the years, as a dog lover, I have mainly kept Labradors and springer spaniels. My last two springer spaniels were dogs that were being trained for use in gun sport but, being gun-shy, were discharged. I then picked them up for use as family pets. They were dogs that had all the signs of being subjected to such training tools, which had a lasting negative impact on them. They were shy, they cowered away to their bed at the least little noise and, when you tried to put a lead on them and take them for a walk, they lay trembling. Those are only some of the lasting negative effects. With much love and care, it took almost 12 months to gain their full trust and remove some of that lasting fear.

Therefore, it is important that the tools that are causing such adverse effects on our domestic animals by inflicting pain and discomfort are banned, both for sale and for use, as they should not and cannot have any place in modern animal care. Humane, reward-based training methods have proven to be very effective in strengthening trust between the animal and its owner, and that leads to much better outcomes. We appreciate that such methods may well take a little more patience and be a little slower, but the reward is there.

We must ensure that we do not fall behind animal welfare legislation across the rest of the UK. We have seen Scotland and Wales take action. However, as legislation is introduced, it will require scrutiny so that it does not inadvertently restrict legitimate safe handling and emergency measures related to livestock protection. That may be where I have a wee bit of concern with the Alliance amendment. It would remove from the likes of vets, rescue workers, dog wardens and so forth all the measures that may be necessary in emergency situations. For legislation to be effective, it must be developed with sufficient safeguards. The motion will send a clear message that cruelty and fear-based training methods are no longer acceptable standards of care. We must ensure that animal welfare protections are robust in principle and workable in practice. I support the motion.

Mr Wilson: I speak as someone who also enjoys all the benefits of pet ownership, having had two German shepherds over the years. I am now firmly under the control of our cat, Casper, who enjoys an extravagant lifestyle at our expense, but I would not be without him. As someone who cares deeply about animal welfare, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

I believe that ensuring that animals are treated with care, dignity and compassion commands broad support across the Assembly and throughout society. A growing body of evidence from animal welfare organisations, veterinary professionals and training experts highlights the negative impact that aversive training methods can have on domestic animals. Tools that rely on pain, fear or discomfort to suppress unwanted behaviour can cause physical and psychological distress. Rather than teaching an animal how to behave properly, they often create anxiety and confusion, and they can contribute to long-term behavioural issues. By contrast, reward-based training methods are increasingly recognised as the most effective and humane approach. Those methods encourage positive behaviour through reinforcement while building trust and strengthening the relationship between animals and their owners, as my colleague Tom has eloquently described.

It is important to recognise that the continued availability of those devices may lead some owners to believe that they are acceptable or harmless training aids, when evidence increasingly suggests otherwise. That is why the issue deserves serious consideration. Other parts of the UK have already taken steps in that direction. Wales has prohibited the use of electric shock collars, and Scotland has moved towards tighter restrictions through official guidance and ongoing consideration of further measures. Therefore, it is right that Northern Ireland examines how best to strengthen protections for domestic animals and ensures that our legislation keeps pace with developments elsewhere.

The DUP has consistently supported measures that improve animal welfare. We welcome the work undertaken by the Department in examining reforms in that area, including consideration of aversive training devices. However, it is equally important that any legislation introduced is carefully drafted and properly scrutinised. Animal welfare legislation must be both robust and workable in practice. We must guard against unintended consequences and ensure that any new restrictions do not inadvertently impede legitimate and necessary activities. In particular, there must be appropriate exemptions for situations where the safety of an animal, a handler or the wider public is at risk. Veterinarians, dog wardens, animal rescuers and others operating in emergency circumstances may require additional access to certain tools for safe handling purposes. Therefore, any future legislative framework must recognise those realities. For that reason, I have concerns about the amendment. The motion rightly acknowledges that exceptional circumstances may exist where "appropriate exemptions" are necessary. It is important that, as legislation is developed, such practical considerations are not overlooked in pursuit of a well-intended objective.

Finally, any change in the law must be supported by effective enforcement arrangements. There is little benefit in creating legislative provisions that cannot be properly implemented. That is why cooperation between the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department of Justice, alongside adequate resourcing, will be essential if the proposals are to achieve their intended purpose. If legislation is developed appropriately, with the necessary safeguards and practical exemptions, it can send a clear message that fear-based and cruel training methods have no place in modern animal care, while ensuring that public safety and animal welfare remain fully protected. I am therefore pleased to support the principles of the motion.

Mr Muir: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion, which goes directly to how we protect animal welfare and promote humane, evidence-based training for dogs and cats in Northern Ireland. Let me be clear: improving animal welfare is one of my highest priorities, and the use of devices that control behaviour through pain, fear or distress is not consistent with the standards that I want to see for companion animals. That commitment is reflected in the animal welfare pathway that I launched in May 2025, which made it clear that stronger protections for dogs and cats, including action on aversive training devices, are a key part of that reform programme. One of my published priorities is to examine the use of electronic collars and consider the approaches taken in other jurisdictions. I have previously indicated my preference for a ban on specified aversive training devices, because the welfare evidence is clear: such devices can cause pain, fear, anxiety, stress, physical injury and longer-term behavioural harm while reward-based training provides a humane and effective alternative.

The consultation on proposals to ban the use of hand-held, remote-controlled electric shock collars, choke collars and prong collars has now closed. The responses have been analysed, and I am considering the advice from officials. Those devices have been prioritised because they are associated with a particular risk of pain, distress, physical injury and behavioural harm. However, the concern is not simply that such devices may be misused; it is that their intended operation relies on an unpleasant stimulus to suppress behaviour, and that can compromise animal welfare even when the user believes that they are acting responsibly. My Department has also considered whether electronic containment fence systems and spray collars should be included. However, the current policy focus is on the devices that were assessed as presenting a greater risk of direct welfare harm or misuse.

The proposal is consistent with the wider direction of travel across these islands and beyond. Wales has prohibited the use of electronic collars on dogs and cats since 2010. Scotland strongly discourages their use through guidance and promotes reward-based training methods, while the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission (SAWC) has recommended a ban on electric shock collars. England did not proceed with proposed regulations. Ireland, however, has signalled its intention to legislate. At a European level, the direction of travel has become clear in the recently published regulation on the welfare of dogs and cats and their traceability. While it is not known yet whether that regulation will apply to Northern Ireland, I intend to make the case to the UK Government that it should.

In all this, the objective is not to punish responsible owners but to prevent avoidable suffering and to make it clear that humane training must be the norm. I recognise that there are differing views. Animal welfare and veterinary organisations, including the British Veterinary Association (BVA), Dogs Trust, the USPCA, Battersea and others, have argued for stronger restrictions or bans because such devices can cause pain, anxiety, stress, injury and behavioural harm and because effective, non-aversive alternatives are available. I recognise that some farmers, rural dog owners and trainers have raised concerns about livestock worrying, recall and control. Those are serious issues, but they do not remove the need to protect animals from methods that cause unnecessary pain, fear or distress.

If legislation is taken forward — it is my desire to introduce the legislation within this mandate — I will work with the Department of Justice to ensure that penalties and enforcement arrangements are proportionate, credible and capable of deterring harmful practice. The proposal under consideration is to align any penalties with those already available under the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 in cases of unnecessary suffering, namely a maximum of 12 months' imprisonment, a fine of up to £20,000 or both on summary conviction.

The motion also refers to exemptions for veterinarians, animal rescuers and dog wardens. I fully recognise the importance of safe handling in emergency and high-risk situations and understand the arguments in support of exemptions for those groups, but I have not yet reached a final view on whether any exemptions should apply. Those professionals already have access to established handling and restraint methods, such as control poles, humane traps, nets, slip leads, muzzles and, where appropriate, sedation or anaesthesia. Such tools are designed for safe management and restraint. Using them is not the same as using aversive training devices to modify behaviour through pain, fear or discomfort. A broad exemption could undermine the purpose of the ban, create uncertainty for enforcement bodies and blur the distinction between legitimate handling equipment and devices that are intended to suppress behaviour through aversive stimuli.

Separate issues have been raised about specified service dogs that operate in particular public safety and security contexts. It has been suggested that certain operational requirements may warrant consideration separate from that that applies to companion animals. Those issues are being considered alongside wider animal welfare evidence, legal advice, operational requirements and enforceability. Any such exemption would require a cogent evidence base demonstrating operational necessity, the reason why non-aversive alternatives are insufficient, the safeguards that would apply and the way in which the exemption could be tightly controlled. My position is that any exemption must be exceptional, evidence-based, proportionate, tightly drawn, subject to appropriate oversight and capable of effective enforcement.

My position is clear: animals should not be trained through pain, fear or intimidation where humane and effective alternatives are available. The consultation has concluded, and the responses have been analysed. I will consider the consultation findings alongside the advice from my officials and the points raised in the debate before determining the final way forward. My priority, however, will remain the welfare of dogs and cats. Where there is a clear welfare risk and humane alternatives are available, I will not hesitate to act. My approach will be fair, evidence-based, enforceable and firmly grounded in animal welfare.

I thank Members for their contribution to the debate, and I reassure everyone that it is my desire to take forward the measure in this mandate, subject to speedy approval by the Executive.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, so I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until then. The debate will continue after the questions for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to speak will be Andrew McMurray.

Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): The Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime was extended until March 2027, on the condition that it was reviewed. The process is being finalised, and it will be for the Executive to consider the findings and take decisions on the next steps. The Executive Office has responsibility for the Communities in Transition (CIT) project, which has delivered £29 million of support aimed at building community resilience since 2019 across a range of programmes that improve mental health and well-being, support vulnerable young people, tackle exploitation, create pathways to employment, strengthen restorative practice and reclaim public spaces from the influence of paramilitarism.

Until the next steps are agreed, TEO will continue to work with delivery partners on mainstreaming and embedding current work. CIT will also carry out an area impact review across the areas to assess the impact of the interventions, identify what has worked well, and highlight where issues remain. That will inform any future programme.

Miss Hargey: Thank you very much, deputy First Minister. The Loyalist Communities Council (LCC) recently gave evidence to the Parades Commission regarding the Drumcree application. The LCC represents illegal organisations that are still involved in racketeering, drug dealing and asking for payments from their own communities. Do you agree that they were also heavily involved in the previous Drumcree dispute, which led to the deaths of 21 people from that community? Do you also agree that it beggars belief that illegal loyalist paramilitary organisations are facilitated in any way to influence legal processes, particularly those around parades?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: What beggars belief is the brass neck of Sinn Féin. Just last week, you stood on the road, shoulder to shoulder with dissidents, Provos and those with appalling convictions. Indeed, just this weekend, we had the First Minister standing cuddling a terrorist — Breandán Mac Cionnaith — who was jailed for blowing up Portadown's main street. If the First Minister has forgotten that, I suggest that she look up the photographs. What message does that send?

Miss Hargey: Answer the question.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Breandán Mac Cionnaith —

Miss Hargey: Answer the question.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: — left Sinn Féin because he disagreed —.

Miss Hargey: Answer the question.

Mr Speaker: Order. Just a moment, deputy First Minister. Miss Hargey, you have said that about 20 times. We have heard it enough now. Thank you.

Miss Hargey: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: There are no points of order during Question Time. You should know that by now.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Deirdre Hargey has attempted to make a blatant political point. She has done so in such a brazen way, given the hypocrisy of not only herself but her party leader in Northern Ireland and her overall party leader in standing with dissidents such as Colin Duffy and standing on a stage with a man who left Sinn Féin because he disagreed with its support for the police — a man who is unrepentant about blowing up Portadown town centre. We will not be taking any lectures from you.

Mr Wilson: Deputy First Minister, do you agree that, given Miss Hargey's very enthusiastic participation in what was an illegal roadblock in Portadown, alongside senior Sinn Féin elected representatives and, concerningly, individuals linked to dissident republicanism, she is in no position to seek updates on tackling paramilitarism, criminality or organised crime while her party shows such a blatant disregard for the rule of law?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is absolutely clear that what we have seen over the past week has appalled many people across Northern Ireland. They have seen a party that demands equality and then claims an exemption for itself. That does not work. The idea that it is somehow above the law while everybody else has to be subject to the law does not work, regardless of your view of the Orange Order or the parade. What is disgraceful, and what has appalled people, is the damage that has been done to the post of First Minister by a First Minister who stood there to defy the law. She defied the law in the face of not just Portadown Orangemen but a decision by the Court of Appeal and the PSNI, all of which made it clear that the Parades Commission decision was as it was and that the law should be upheld. That is disgraceful conduct. What is absolutely clear is that, this week, Sinn Féin has been dancing to the beat of the dissident drum, time and again. That is disgraceful.

Mr Dickson: Deputy First Minister, the programme that the question is actually about deals with the scourge of paramilitarism. How will that programme deal with paramilitary organisations that advertise their control over their areas through items such as murals and other visible paramilitary memorials?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. It is important to have leadership in that area. I have absolutely no truck with paramilitarism: there was never any role for it in Northern Ireland, and there certainly is not a role for it today. That leadership should send a clear message that paramilitarism was completely unacceptable then and is unacceptable today. Paramilitaries need to get their jackboots off the necks of local communities, and my party has always been clear about that. I welcome the fact that the programme has brought a significant amount of support — £29 million through CIT specifically. The vast majority of that work has been about trying to encourage resilience within communities, because we know that some of those people try to manipulate some very difficult circumstances including addiction, mental health issues, poverty and debt. That programme has done significant beneficial work to support resilience. That is why I support such programmes not just being mainstreamed but continuing.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 2 and 5 together.

Since opening in August 2021, the scheme has received 16,323 applications and paid over £162 million, providing important recognition of the harm suffered. Although the scheme has closed to new applications, the president can consider late applications where there has been a material change in circumstances or, in exceptional cases, where it is equitable to do so.

The Victims’ Payments Board remains in place to determine outstanding applications and appeals and continues to adopt a victim-centred, trauma-informed approach, recognising the challenges that applicants may face when recounting traumatic experiences. The board regularly engages with victims organisations and representative groups to ensure that victims' views continue to inform its work. To support applications, TEO has provided over £13 million for welfare officers and support staff in victims and survivors organisations, through the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS), to assist with the process and provide additional health and well-being services. That funding will continue alongside investment to improve efficiency and enhance applicant support.

Mr K Buchanan: Language is important, deputy First Minister. Some people in the House do not understand that. A recent appeal report from the Victims' Payments Board to a lady who had lost her husband stated:

Deputy First Minister, a lady in her 80s was expected to describe a room from nearly 50 years ago, when she was looking at her husband, who lay shot. She was expected to describe that room. Is that language appropriate? What support are victims getting to assist them with their long journey?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for raising that important case. I have no doubt that many Members across the Chamber listen to many of the people — victims and survivors — who are going through that process. Putting the scheme in place was the right thing to do. The sheer number of applications to the scheme — over 16,000 — demonstrates the huge and terrible legacy of the Troubles for the people of Northern Ireland and how many people have been impacted and are still traumatised.

Of course, anything that is said in the course of such applications, including by the panel, should be trauma-informed, sensitive and understanding of the fact that, for many victims and survivors such as your constituent, it was probably one of the most traumatic and horrific things that happened to them. It is understandable that their memories are perhaps not so clear and that, certainly 50 years later, there may be challenges with that.

I recognise that going through that process has been hugely traumatic for so many people across the community. That is why I am really pleased that, on the back of the Member's strong representations regarding the additional needs, with so many more people coming forward to victims and survivors groups, we have been able to find an additional £750,000 to go to victims and survivors groups in-year to provide that additional wrap-around support, particularly in relation to mental health.

Mr T Buchanan: I thank the deputy First Minister. What effect will the First Minister's recent actions and disregard for the rule of law and order and our police service have on victims who have been subject to permanent injury and on officers whose colleagues were murdered by the IRA in its murderous campaign, which was supported by Sinn Féin?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. As I said earlier, leadership is exceptionally important. It is really important that we make clear that the acts of violence and terrorism of the past were absolutely wrong and that no person deserved to be injured or killed during the Troubles. There was always an alternative to injuring someone or taking away their life.

We have seen, and not just in recent weeks, the commemoration and glorification of terrorists who carried out some of the most vile acts. As I referenced earlier during Question Time, we have the likes of Breandán Mac Cionnaith being taken in by not just Sinn Féin but the SDLP. They have stood shoulder to shoulder with that man, who is entirely unrepentant about his terrorist activity. He was prosecuted for bombing Portadown town centre and left Sinn Féin because of his opposition to the PSNI. We need to send a clear message that we support the rule of law, that we support the PSNI and that we certainly do not support terrorism and those who made the victims and survivors of this place.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Will the deputy First Minister explain why the dispute resolution process with the British Government regarding their outstanding financial contribution to victims' payments is still unresolved?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question, which is an important one. The scheme has attracted significantly more applicants than the number that was first envisaged back at the beginning of the scheme, when it was suggested that around 500 severely physically injured victims and survivors would come forward. We now have over 16,000 applicants. The estimated overall cost of the scheme is around £1 billion.

We know that the criteria were changed significantly by Westminster. We want to be as generous as we can be, and we understand fully that many of the people coming forward deserve that help and support, but, undoubtedly, it has put huge financial pressure on Northern Ireland's block grant. It is absolutely right that the UK Government step up and recognise that some of the decisions that they have taken have significantly increased the cost of the scheme — by not just tens of millions but hundreds of millions of pounds. Therefore, it is completely reasonable for us to ask the UK Government to make a contribution and help to alleviate some of the pressure on a Budget that we want to prioritise for the day-to-day running of public services in Northern Ireland.

Ms Bradshaw: Last week, I heard from a constituent who spent two and a half hours going through the process and then had her application turned down. She is too devastated to appeal the decision. You have indicated that there have been over 16,000 applications. I think that I am right in saying that, to date, only 35% to 40% of the applications have been processed. There are a lot of people in the system, and, at the end of it, they may not get their claim through. How long do you anticipate the process taking? What support is in place for applicants who do not get the result that they are looking for?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. It is really important that we recognise that this is a scheme that takes time. It was designed, in part, like that, because we did not want victims and survivors to have to gather all of the evidence themselves prior to their putting in an application. The way in which the system is set up means that the applications go in and then the process of reaching out to, say, the MOD, the armed forces, the PSNI, the legacy bodies or the health trusts and others starts. We recognise that all of those bodies are under significant pressure. For example, I understand that just a small number of people are working on the information requests, so I have been liaising with the MOD on my concern about the lack of a significant dedicated team in that area. That holds up the information coming to the panel and its ability to process it. Unfortunately, it will take a number of years to get through all of the applications. I welcome the fact that there was such interest in the scheme. It shows that there is a real need.

One thing that we did not anticipate was so many bereaved coming forward who perhaps did not fit perfectly within the criteria of this scheme but are clearly looking for acknowledgement, support and help, and that is something that we absolutely need to take forward.

Mr McNulty: To pre-empt your answer, deputy First Minister, I say that I was proud to stand with residents of the Garvaghy Road.

Deputy First Minister, you mentioned the victim-centred, trauma-informed approach. The reality is that, for many victims, it is almost the "Troubles permanent disablement re-traumatisation scheme"; they feel that they have been re-traumatised and hurt, because, to a large extent, they are made to speak as if they did something wrong and as if they deserved it. Multiple families were refused the payment because they could not produce the relevant documentation to meet the criteria to prove that they suffered horrendously during the Troubles: what do you say to those families?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is incredibly important that those who suffered during the Troubles get all the help and support that they can. We recommend to anybody going through that process to reach out to a local victims and survivors' group to get that help and support.

I remain disappointed that the Member is justifying his actions. It was not just standing in a line with Sinn Féin and dissidents such as Colin Duffy; he was also pictured, proudly so, with Breandán Mac Cionnaith, somebody who, as I have said, is clearly an unrepentant terrorist who carried out a bombing — a terrorist act — in Portadown town centre. Bombings were perhaps the most terrible of terrorist activities because they were indiscriminate in targeting women, children, civilians and whoever else got in the way. I am not surprised at Sinn Féin dancing to the beat of a dissident drum, but I am surprised at the SDLP doing that. It is deeply disappointing, and I suggest that the Member apologises for that behaviour.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member will be aware that, in June, the UK Government announced the resumption of medical evacuations of critically ill and injured children and their immediate families from Gaza. That follows a similar exercise undertaken in autumn 2025, when 50 children and their families arrived safely in the UK from Gaza, that included two children receiving treatment in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Yvette Cooper, recently wrote to us seeking Executive support for that further phase. Given the nature of the request, the Department of Health is initially considering the clinical, operational and resource implications. To support the work, Department of Health officials continue to engage with colleagues across the UK to assist with wider planning. As with the previous programme, any participation by Northern Ireland would require Executive consideration and agreement before a final decision can be taken.

Mr Carroll: I thank the deputy First Minister for that answer. Two is a small number of Palestinian children given the scale of destruction meted out to them by the Israeli state. As you said, those are children who were injured in a war, a war carried out by Netanyahu and the genocidal Israeli state. Minister, will you give a commitment that your party will not block this at the Executive?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is primarily for Health to lead in assessing requirements and making sure that the particular area of medical intervention is available for what needs to be done for whomever comes to Northern Ireland. Of course, there are other considerations including, for example, the size of the family or those accompanying any proposed child. There are challenges, particularly housing and school places availability, so all those issues have to be considered in the round. A proposal has been made but has not yet come before the Executive. I understand that the Health Minister submitted a proposed paper to the Executive, perhaps last Friday. I think that the proposal from the UK Government is to take one child rather than the two that the Member mentioned, but we will, of course, look carefully at that.

Mr Sheehan: The destruction of the Gaza health system is a direct consequence of the Israeli genocide against the Palestinian people, for which, of course, the deputy First Minister's party has been a cheerleader. The scale of death, injury, disability and trauma is almost beyond comprehension. Does the deputy First Minister agree that the Executive, as a matter of urgency, should do everything that they can to assist in the medical evacuation of critically ill and injured children so that they can access the medical care that they need urgently?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: There is a UK-wide evacuation scheme. As I indicated, we have been requested to take one child from the most recent phase of the scheme, which includes 50 children. The UK Government have led the way on medical evacuations. As I said, we want to make sure that, whatever is proposed, the right support network is there so that, for example, we do not place a family in an area of Northern Ireland without school places, suitable housing or the right support. All those issues will be examined in detail.

Ms Forsythe: The conflict in the Middle East is having a serious impact across society, including on our energy prices. What representations has the deputy First Minister made to the UK Government to ensure that Northern Ireland is given adequate support, especially given our heavy reliance on oil?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. There is no doubt that the impacts of conflict are now felt not just where the conflict is happening, which, in this case, is in the Middle East, but here at home. Families face pressure from increased fuel costs that are a direct result of situations elsewhere, particularly, in relation to energy price increases, in the Middle East.

We have made it clear to the UK Government that we need to be included at a much earlier stage with regard to any proposed scheme or intervention to support families. There should be that support. I welcome the scheme that my DUP ministerial colleague Gordon Lyons has brought forward to provide people with £100 for support with oil costs, but I have been contacted, as, I am sure, has the Member, by many people who are feeling the pinch from increases in fuel costs, including gas prices.

We have called on the UK Government to remove VAT from some of the energy charges. This is not the time to be raising revenue on the backs of hard-pressed families. Families here, including those with children, are feeling the pressure. They need support, and we will continue to do everything that we can to ensure that any scheme that the UK Government propose can work for Northern Ireland.

Ms Nicholl: I hope that no one who is listening is confused: medical treatment for two Gazan children is not the reason that we have energy problems in Northern Ireland. I chair the all-party group (APG) on international development, and what strikes me is that, in the media and in politics, the issue is sometimes viewed as a binary one, when, regardless of their background, people across society care desperately about what is happening to children in Gaza. The public are behind our help for those two people. Is the deputy First Minister aware of the depth of feeling across the board, not just in communities that are perceived to support Palestine? Everyone is horrified at what is happening to children, and, given our history, they would like to see us do what we can for two children.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: As I mentioned, we are being asked to take one child, not two. I previously agreed, through an urgent procedure, to take two injured children from Gaza. I agreed to it under the previous evacuation scheme, so that has already happened.

Energy prices have everything to do with the situation. The conflict in the Middle East is having an impact there, as the scheme highlights, and here. Plenty of families with children here are feeling the squeeze. What I am emphasising is this: conflict impacts not just on the place where it appears to be but across the board. At this time, we are all seeing the impact, and we should all do what we can to support people, including families with children here.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 4 and 6 together. I may therefore take slightly longer than the allocated two minutes.

The armed forces covenant has not been formally adopted by the Executive. While Northern Ireland Departments have not all signed up to the covenant through Executive endorsement, significant work is happening across some Departments. It is important to say that the Armed Forces Act 2021 applies. That Act places a statutory duty on, for example, housing, education and health services to have due regard to the armed forces covenant. I do not know why that is not talked about more — it rarely comes up in discussions on the matter — but there is a statutory duty of due regard.

The Executive Office has received correspondence on veterans' issues and on the Armed Forces Bill, which aims to build on the armed forces legislation from 2021 and include more public bodies.

The correspondence remains under consideration, and the Executive Office continues to consider correspondence received in relation to veterans issues and the Armed Forces Bill.

Mr Brett: The deputy First Minister will be aware that the democratic position articulated by the House was to adopt the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. It is clear that the First Minister for all's party is blocking the adoption of the armed forces covenant. Will the deputy First Minister join me and the 37,000 veterans across Northern Ireland in making it clear that we will not be second-class citizens and will not be discriminated against by Sinn Féin?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. I am deeply proud of the legacy of all those who served in the armed forces with dignity. Of course, just yesterday, I attended the Ulster Defence Regiment’s recommittal of the standards for its Lisburn branch. It was a time to remember that extraordinary contribution. Well in excess of 40,000 people served in the Ulster Defence Regiment, which was, frankly, one of the most dangerous regiments anywhere on the globe. Almost 200 were killed on duty and, shamefully, 61 of those men and women were killed after they had retired from duty, which creates a huge legacy. Of course, we contribute across our armed forces as well.

Our armed forces community has clear additional needs and requirements. For example, the children of those who serve may attend a number of primary schools during their education. If you have moved to a number of bases, you do not have the same opportunity to be on a health waiting list and get the interventions that you require. There are very clear disadvantages for children, families, serving personnel and our veterans. It is absolutely right that, if you are a veteran from Northern Ireland who has served in our British armed forces, you should not suffer disadvantage and discrimination and be left out simply because of Sinn Féin's bigoted intolerance of the service that you have given.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, deputy First Minister, for your unequivocal support for our armed forces; it is important for us to hear that today.

Sinn Féin's position seems to be a denial of rights, particularly the rights of people whom they do not like or do not want to have rights. Will you agree that the denial of rights to members of our armed forces is akin to the denial of rights to those who want to complete the march down the Garvaghy Road?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. What we hear from Sinn Féin time and time again is a demand for equality, but what does that look like? Equality has to be something that applies equally to everyone, but what we hear are Sinn Féin's demands for equality and then claims for exemptions for themselves. We saw it at Bobby Storey's funeral. We see it in their unlawful behaviour on the Garvaghy Road, and we have seen it time and time again.

As I said, at the heart of the armed forces covenant is objective evidence that there is objective disadvantage for, for example, the children of serving armed forces personnel. For example, the criteria for a primary school may include that the child or family must live in the area for a sustained time or have a sibling in the school. If the family has been moved from one base to another, that is simply not possible. It is likewise with health waiting lists and housing waiting lists. There is an objectively assessed disadvantage to those families and children, but Sinn Féin care about disadvantage only when it applies to them. Sinn Féin only care about equality when it applies to them. When it comes to the evidentially objective disadvantage of others, Sinn Féin is prepared to say, "No, nay, never".

Ms Ennis: I note that the deputy First Minister has waxed lyrical about the DUP's support for British veterans. That is, of course, in stark contrast to its historical links to Ulster Resistance, which supplied weapons to the UDA and the UVF, which were involved in hundreds of sectarian murders. Of course, the deputy First Minister will be aware of the attempt by Ulster Resistance to acquire weapons in Paris from the apartheid South African regime. How does the deputy First Minister square the DUP's support for the British state's forces with its historical involvement with Ulster Resistance?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I have said it before, but people are so sick of the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin. You go along to commemorations of paramilitary organisations and individuals. You have, on your very Benches, people who have been unrepentant terrorists who inflicted incredible harm to the people of Northern Ireland. Let me say, once again, that I am absolutely opposed to terrorism and paramilitarism. I always have been, and I always will be.

One party here always goes back to the past and lives in the past. The First Minister, when called out about going to commemorations of events from 50 years ago for terrorists, turned around and accused others of living in the past. The people of Northern Ireland are not stupid. They can see what party wants to drag people back to the sectarian, bigoted past of their narrative and their glorification of terrorism and their justification. This party will not be found wanting when calling out any terrorist.

Mr Speaker: We will move on to topical questions.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will say to the leader of the Opposition that the application was submitted by the Portadown Orangemen, and they were perfectly legally entitled to do so. The Portadown Orangemen can choose their legal representatives as they wish, in the same way that any other party to the court action can choose their legal representation. Shame on you and shame on the SDLP for standing shoulder to shoulder with dissidents such as Colin Duffy and Breandán Mac Cionnaith, and getting photographed on that road instead of upholding the law — [Interruption.]

Mr O'Toole: Holding the line.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: You absolutely defied the law. It is bad enough that Sinn Féin is dancing to the beat of the dissident drum, but it is absolutely shocking that the SDLP is doing so too. The Member should take the opportunity to call out those who broke the law. They do not have to agree with the outcome of the court, but the rule of law must be upheld. That is what we all signed up to, and one party in the Chamber has been deeply reckless about it. The Member needs to stand up, be heard and call out those who defied the law, not those on these sides of the Benches who want to uphold the law.

Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, it would be very easy for me to draw you and your party's attention to your past. My party is proud of its record. We stand and have always stood as a party of rights and non-violence, and I will take no lectures from your party. However, I am not about throwing accusations around the Chamber; I am about the public good.

The public are facing charges of £2·00 a litre for diesel at the pumps. They are facing bills of £1,000 to fill their heating oil tanks. They are facing the winter with a health service that is not working. That is what we should all be focused on here. I will ask you again because you did not answer my questions: first, will you promise not to resign your office, and, secondly, will you accept that there are those in unionism who want to drag us back to a place where we should not go? Will you tell them where to go?

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Again, shame on you — [Interruption.]

Shame on you. You shake weakly in the face of calling out Sinn Féin, but you are happy to call out the DUP at every turn. May I give you some advice? It will not do the SDLP any electoral good to stand in the shadow of Sinn Féin and the dissidents on the Garvaghy Road and not stand up for the rule of law and what is right. I have made very clear that one party has been reckless in all that, and that is Sinn Féin, and one party is being responsible, and that is the DUP. [Interruption.] [Inaudible.]

Mrs Little-Pengelly: This week called for leadership. It called for people to come together to urge —

Mr Speaker: Mr McGrath.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: — calm heads, to urge people to get off the streets, to urge dialogue and compromise, but that did not happen. I say to the members of the Opposition to stop shaking weakly in the face of Sinn Féin and start to stand up for what is right.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: This is all about the type of Northern Ireland that we want to build and that we should have by now. It is not the one that is based on the intolerance, hate and bile that I have heard being directed towards British identity or culture over the course of the past week. The vast majority of people across Northern Ireland felt that we had come far. In fact, many organisations and communities take part in activities where all different types of traditions are represented.

This week, we did not hear much from the Garvaghy Road residents. For some reason, they did not seem to be able to get their voices heard. Of course, the voices who shouted the loudest were those of the Member's party colleagues, all of whom swanned on to the Garvaghy Road and dominated the headlines. We had the First Minister prancing down the Garvaghy Road with Sinn Féin videographers, photographers and MLAs and with councillors from every part of Ireland. The people whom we did not hear from, however, were the Garvaghy Road residents. Here is the reality. I appeal to Sinn Féin that, instead of running around trying to shore up the hardest possible position against compromise, instead of Sinn Féin and Breandán Mac Cionnaith, who does not even live in the area, running around talking up and creating absolute defiance of the law, that party should get off the stage and allow the residents in the area to be able to talk to local Orangemen and find a resolution through dialogue and compromise, because that is the way forward. That is the future. You are the past.

Mrs Dillon: I am a bit young to be "the past", but thanks very much for the lecture.

First of all, for clarity: the residents are absolutely in control of everything that happens on the Garvaghy Road. If you or any of your colleagues bothered to go down on to the Garvaghy Road and speak to the people in that community centre, you would understand exactly their position. Everybody who was on that stage was there at the wishes of the Garvaghy Road residents and nobody else. Nobody got to tell them, or dictate to them, who would be where or who would speak on their behalf. They absolutely dictated what would happen —

Mr Speaker: Right: that is a preamble. Come to a question.

Mrs Dillon: — and rightly so, because they are the residents and the people whom we represent.

Just for clarity — [Interruption.]

Thank you. I also want to say that I am very proud of my colleague Deirdre Hargey, and I will not have her shouted down by the Members behind you.

Mr Speaker: OK. Can we have a question?

Mrs Dillon: I am also very proud of our leader. You talk about her "prancing" down the road. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: It is a question, Mrs Dillon, please.

Mrs Dillon: She did not prance down the road; she stood shoulder to shoulder with residents who asked her to be there.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is Question Time, Mrs Dillon. I have given you ample opportunity for your preamble. It has gone beyond that. Can we have the question, please? [Interruption.]

Mrs Dillon: Yes, an answer would be great. We certainly do not dance to the beat of anybody's drum. We stand shoulder to shoulder.

DUP members' approach to the rule of law is not so clear-cut when they are breaking the law themselves. [Interruption.]

An opportunity to ask the question would be good. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

If you are so committed to respect for the law, do you now accept that DUP Ministers acted unlawfully and in breach of the ministerial pledge by withdrawing from the North/South Ministerial Council? If you feel so strongly about the law and do not agree with the opportunity for civil disobedience, outline why.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Sinn Féin needs to get real if the Member genuinely thinks that you have not done significant damage to the position of First Minister and these ministerial positions that, at their very heart, have to be about upholding the law. As I have said before, key to this is the fact that you cannot demand equality and then claim an exemption for yourselves, time and time again. The reality is that I have proven, by my track record, that I show respect, but I also demand respect. I am proud of who I am but I am also respectful of who other people are. I will say this very clearly: nobody is going to be treated like a second-class citizen just because they are asked to show a modicum of respect and tolerance. The reality is that, if we are to build the future for Northern Ireland that we want to see, it has to be about people coming together with tolerance and respect for each other and our differences.

What I heard on the Garvaghy Road was not from the residents. The Member said that there were plenty of residents there, but we have not seen them or heard from them because it has been so dominated by Sinn Féin representatives, Sinn Féin councillors, the First Minister, Breandán Mac Cionnaith and others. The reality is that Sinn Féin flooded the area for sheer electioneering purposes. I reached out to the First Minister and asked her to put out a statement to call for calm and to stand with me in calling people off the streets so that we could move forward together. The reality is that she chose to follow the law of the mob instead of the law of the land. She chose Sinn Féin politics over her responsibilities as First Minister, and that is shameful.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. We face huge issues, and that is partly why I am deeply frustrated and why I feel angry about what we have seen over the past week. Yes, there will always be challenges and issues that we need to navigate. I have been out and about speaking to so many people who are genuinely appalled, and I think that the First Minister and Sinn Féin need a wake-up call if they think that their actions have not landed really, really badly with the vast majority of people. Nobody was asking the First Minister to embrace the decisions of the Parades Commission or the courts, but they were asking her to fulfil her responsibilities as First Minister. That must mean working together on core principles and values, and that must include upholding the rule of law. That is so basic to what we are doing. Supporting the police is so basic to what we are doing. We have big challenges ahead in trying to fight for a Budget for the people of Northern Ireland and in trying to drive forward transformation and progress. That is what I am prepared to do, and that is why I am in this post. That is responsible leadership, and I have been despairing at the recklessness and disregard shown by the First Minister to these institutions, these posts and our reputation. It has been absolutely appalling.

Dr Aiken: I thank the deputy First Minister for her comments. Deputy First Minister, you may or may not be aware that, particularly in the Republic of Ireland, there are real concerns about the delivery of services and what is going on. One of the comments that has been made is that the only thing that Sinn Féin is good for is blocking roads, be it the Garvaghy Road or the A5. Deputy First Minister, is there a method by which the Government can, for example, build roads rather than block them?

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. It is absolutely important. As I said, the application for the march was put in by the Portadown Orangemen, and they have the right to do so. It was not the DUP that put in that application. The courts supported the Parades Commission and that outcome. It is absolutely right that people should have their basic civil liberties and human rights upheld, and that is what my party has said and repeated time and time again. Here is the difficulty: there is a party that accepts the rule of law only when it goes in its favour. That party accepts the decision of a court only when it agrees with it. That is not equality. That is not the way that we need to do business.

As the Member rightly pointed out, we have huge issues to face. This is a time for responsible leadership, not rabble-rousing and blocking roads, and the vast majority of people out there get that. Michelle O'Neill could have put on record her opposition to the decision in a legal and lawful way. Instead, she chose the law of the mob and the law of disorder over the law of the land. That is not right.

Mr Speaker: Nuala McAllister, quickly.

Mr Speaker: Briefly, deputy First Minister.

Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question on that sensitive issue. I met the Member previously about the concerns, in particular, around the Milltown cemetery site. It is critical that we try to preserve what is there at the moment in order to make sure that full investigations can take place. What happened at Tuam and, indeed, at other sites is horrific. It is harrowing, and we must learn the lessons from that. There has been some discussion about what can be done through legislation to protect those sites pending further investigations. I am more than happy to meet the Member to discuss that in more detail and to get an update for her on those ongoing discussions, including those with officials, the diocese and Milltown cemetery.

Mr Speaker: Thank you.

We move to questions to the Minister for the Economy. I will give Members a moment to change places.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 1 and 13 together.

I recognise the vital role that further education colleges and higher education institutions play in supporting our economy, developing skills and promoting regional balance.

Ulster University has commenced a process inviting applications under a voluntary redundancy scheme. I appreciate that it is a worrying and uncertain time for staff. My Department continues to engage with the university, and I encourage the university to continue its constructive engagement with trade unions. I hope that any compulsory redundancies will be avoided, as was the case in the further education sector two years ago.

Since taking up my role, I have sought to prioritise funding for skills, specifically for our further and higher education institutions, including successfully advocating for in-year funding for both sectors. I have allocated an additional £400,000 each to St Mary's University College and Stranmillis University College. I have increased the further education budget envelope each year to facilitate a 19·7% pay increase for lecturers over the past three years in recognition of their valued contribution to upskilling across the region. I strongly support Ulster University's delivery of higher education in Derry, Belfast and Coleraine, which contributes to regional balance. Since the return of the Executive, the university has reported an approximate increase in student numbers of 22% at Magee and 12% at Coleraine.

Whilst I remain committed to securing a sustainable future for our further and higher education sectors, both sectors are facing pressures as a result of operating within contingency funding allocations, along with an inescapable funding gap. Along with my Executive colleagues, I have consistently highlighted the unsustainable nature of current funding arrangements and continue to press the British Government for a fair and sustainable funding settlement that protects public services and supports economic development, including in further and higher education.

Ms Sugden: Both universities have been highly critical of the current funding model, including minimal inflationary rises. Minister, will you take responsibility for the inevitable outcome that the redundancies will seemingly have? How will we support universities so that they do have a sustainable future and will not have to consider more job losses?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I am on record as saying that I could not sign up to the Executive Budget that was on the table because it would have put our further and higher education institutions, in particular, in significant difficulty and limit the opportunity for wider economic development. I, along with my Executive colleagues, continue to make the case that we need to have a fair funding settlement and that we need to be able to invest in our public services, including our further and higher education institutions. I recognise the pressures that both are under. I recognise that our universities have faced pretty much flat-cash budget settlements for the past number of years and that that has had an impact. I will be making the case for them to my Executive colleagues. My paper on higher education funding was discussed at the Executive. I tabled it to make my Executive colleagues aware of the significant pressures that our higher education institutions are under. We all need to continue the work of trying to get a better Budget settlement.

Mr Delargy: Minister, from the recent Brain Gain research, there are a number of suggestions. How do you intend to use that research to support our universities' sustainability?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The Brain Gain research has provided us with an important evidence base for how we can sustain our universities into the future. It challenges what has been the mainstream narrative for quite some time, which is that there has been a brain drain, by showing that the number of students leaving here is fairly in line with numbers elsewhere and is significantly lower than the number in some regions of Britain. It is therefore important that we understand and consider the evidence base that we have and that we work with others on how we can attract more students to come and study here. I am keen to work with our universities, employers and agencies such as Tourism NI to see how we can present the North as an attractive place in which to study, build a career and live. The research also highlights how we have work to do to strengthen our jobs market. We particularly need to strengthen links between higher education and the labour market so that the skills coming out of our institutions align with the needs of the economy. There is therefore broader work to be done, but a significant opportunity exists for us here.

Miss McAllister: Minister, communication between stakeholders and Departments is always key. Will you outline further what communication and engagement have been like with key stakeholders in our further and higher education sector? It is really important that, while we are fighting for a fairer settlement from the UK Government, we listen to stakeholders' suggestions about the new ways, on which we might model our further and higher education system.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I agree with her. I have had significant engagement with representatives from our universities and our further education colleges, at both principal and board level, and with the trade unions that represent further and higher education staff. In some respects, we have the shared goal of arguing for additional investment, so it is important that we take on board their experience. We will take different positions on how to achieve certain outcomes, and that is also fine. Together, however, we can make a really compelling case for why we need to see investment in our public services, and in our further and higher education institutions in particular. It is because of the really important role that they play not only in developing our economy but in giving people opportunities and improving lives.

Mr Bradley: Given the announcement of £9·3 million in funding for Ulster University, which is made up of £7 million, £1·5 million and £800,000 for projects associated with the university, can the Minister clarify how much of that funding her Department has earmarked for Magee and how much, if any, it has earmarked for Coleraine? Project funding may not be available to meet staffing costs, so what direct support is she offering the university across its three campuses?

Dr Archibald: I do not have the specific figures in front of me to which the Member refers — I think that they come from a response to a question for written answer — but I am happy to correspond with him further. It goes back to my point about how we need to see investment in our further and higher education institutions in general in order for them to be able to deliver and to ensure that they are rightsized to meet the needs of the student population and to continue the important work that they do. That is why it is important that we continue the negotiations with the British Government and establish a shared position across not just the Executive but the Assembly on the need for proper and fair funding for this place.

Ms McLaughlin: Minister, such redundancies do not happen in isolation. In your answers, you said that the absence of a Budget is making the situation even more difficult. While we are supposed to be expanding Magee to 10,000 students, Ulster University is simultaneously being forced to cut jobs. How can those two things possibly be reconciled? What assurances can you give that the north-west will not pay the price not only for the financial crisis in Ulster University but for the financial crisis here owing to the lack of a Budget?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I reflect, as would, I am sure, our universities, that it is not a problem of just this year but one that has grown over a number of years, because we have not seen the type of investment that we need in our public services in general. Particularly in our further and higher education institutions, we have seen a kind of flat-cash settlement over a number of years. That creates challenges when there are the types of inflation uplifts that we have seen over recent years. That is a particular problem right now when it comes to the contingency allocations that our institutions are trying to work to. That is why we need to get a Budget settlement.

We have seen increased numbers at Magee. We are likely to see an additional increase in this academic year. We await the final numbers in respect of that. We have a focus on expanding the number of students. A plan on how we can do that is in place, and we continue to work to that plan. I am committed to delivering against that, as are, I think, the wider Executive.

Dr Archibald: I recognise the important contribution that the arts and creative sectors make to our society, culture and economy and the significant role that is played by further education colleges in arts and creative education. Learners who attend our further education colleges can study traditional disciplines, such as fine art, ceramics, textiles, photography, music and performing arts, alongside those in rapidly developing areas, such as film and TV, animation, visual effects, games development, virtual production and digital content. The offer extends from level 2 traineeships and level 3 vocational programmes to HNCs, HNDs, foundation degrees and level 6 qualifications, and it provides opportunities for learners to progress into higher-level education and creative industries.

The Further Education: Fit for the Future programme is designed to enable an FE sector that is responsive to the needs of learners, employers and the wider economy. A key element is the development of a curriculum framework to help shape future curriculum planning across the sector, including supporting the arts and creative industries by the provision of industry-relevant curriculum and qualifications.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister. You will be aware that, a few weeks ago, a lot of arts sector representatives were at Stormont. Amongst their asks was that there would be the continued development of people in that sector. Your initial response outlined quite a number of areas in which people can get involved. Many others and I have been contacted by lecturers in FE colleges, particularly those from Belfast Met, who say that arts programmes are being cut. That does not sit right. How do you equate courses being cut with saying that we need to continue to build our art sector? What are you doing in your Department to make sure that those courses are sustained?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Part of it potentially relates to our previous conversation about the contingency allocations that our further education colleges are working to this year in the absence of a Budget. Certainly, my hope is that we will have a better Budget settlement than that which was on the table previously and that we will be in the position to uplift the allocations.

The work on the Further Education: Fit for the Future programme, particularly that on the curriculum framework, is not about telling colleges which courses they need to provide but about providing a framework within which they can work.

That is very much about aligning with the needs of the economy, as the Member reflected. Creative industries comprise one of our priority sectors, so it is important that we have people coming out with the skills that businesses and the broader sector need. The work is designed to support that outcome. If she wants to, I would be happy for the Member to correspond with me about the specific concerns that have been raised with her, so that we can investigate them with officials in the colleges.

Miss Brogan: Will the Minister provide an update on the Fit for the Future programme, le do thoil?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The programme was launched, I think, in April. It is about strengthening the further education sector and doing exactly what the title says: making sure that it is fit for learners, communities and the broader economy in the future. Our colleges are a really important part of our skills ecosystem, which constantly changes, and our colleges constantly evolve their programmes to keep up with that, particularly with newer economies such as the green economy and the digital economy. They also play a really important role in supporting young people with special educational needs. We face significant challenges across a number of areas, including the number of young people with additional educational needs and the proportion of our population that is economically inactive, as it is called, because of the barriers that are faced. Our colleges therefore play a really important role not only in education but in social inclusion, so it is important that they are structured, funded and focused in the right way to deliver against the programme's objectives, which are about having real impact for learners, supporting employers and supporting the broader economy.

There are four strands of work to the programme. As I mentioned, part of it is about developing a curriculum framework to introduce a new approach to how we measure performance, review and fund further education and consider how we can get greater collaboration across our colleges. The work is ongoing. We are at the early stages of it, but it will roll out over the next months.

Ms Forsythe: In light of the further education colleges having to cut places and courses and the impact of that on sectors such as the arts, does the Minister regret supporting John O'Dowd's draft Budget earlier this year? Further to that, does the Minister agree that it is important to make clear to the groups that blame their current financial pressures on the operation of the contingency Budget that, if they had adopted the original draft Budget, those pressures would be worse now?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. We would all like to have been able to agree a three-year Budget. It would have put us in a much stronger position from a strategic perspective for planning how we deliver across all our objectives, particularly our Programme for Government and Executive commitments. Unfortunately, when we drilled into the detail of what that would mean, it became apparent to me that the challenges that my Department faced, particularly across further and higher education, could not be met by what was on the table. That is the position that the Executive collectively came to. It is right that we continue to argue for a proper Budget settlement. We have made progress. The British Government have acknowledged that we require additional funding. They have put additional funding on the table, but it has not gone far enough yet. It is important that we speak with one voice in continuing to make the case for a proper and fair Budget settlement, not just as an Executive but collectively as an Assembly.

Mr Nesbitt: Our third-level institutions have an admirable focus on finding the next Allen McClay or Frank Pantridge. Does the Minister detect the same enthusiasm to unearth the next Liam Neeson or Seamus Heaney?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member. We have performed really well in the creative industries, particularly the screen industries, and our colleges and universities have been key to our being able to do so. However, it is important that we continue to support the sectors and make sure that the skills provision meets the needs of the businesses and wider sectors. That is where the work of the Fit for the Future programme is really important, as is making sure that our universities and colleges are properly funded. My own perspective is that we need to make sure that we have appropriate programmes and provision in relation to our arts sector in the same way as we do for our STEM sector. A lot of focus is, rightly, on our STEM sector, but the type of critical thinking and analysis skills that people gain from arts courses are really important and are very often the types of skills that are in demand from business, so it is important that we make sure that we have a very rounded programme of skills provision.

Dr Archibald: I am delighted that the fleadh will return to Belfast in 2027, providing an important opportunity to attract new audiences and further enhance the tourism and economic benefits delivered to communities and businesses across the North. On 21 September, alongside Minister Kimmins and Belfast City Council Lord Mayor Róis-Máire Donnelly, I met key partners involved in delivering the fleadh 2026 to reflect on the event's success and look ahead to its return. There was a shared ambition to build on this year's achievement and make the 2027 fleadh even bigger and better.

Planning is already under way. Belfast City Council, as the lead delivery partner, is working closely with Comhaltas, Tourism NI and industry stakeholders to develop plans for 2027. That includes reviewing lessons learned from the 2026 event and drawing on insights from visitor behaviour, spending patterns and business feedback to enhance the visitor experience and maximise the long-term tourism legacy.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

Of course, as well as Fleadh Cheoil na nÉireann, we also had Féile, which attracted tens of thousands of visitors to dozens of events ranging from political debates, book launches and history tours to big concerts. Among the best concerts was that of Young Spencer from the Shankill, who supported Kneecap in their great gig. When will the impact report of Féile 2026 be available?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Féile has certainly grown into one of the largest community arts and cultural festivals across these islands. It attracts audiences from across Ireland and beyond. Responsibility for evaluating the economic impact of the festival rests primarily with the organisers and funding partners, although it is recognised that the event generates significant economic activity for Belfast and the wider region. I understand that the evaluation for this year's Féile will be completed early in the new year.

Mr Kingston: Does the Minister agree that the generosity displayed by unionists during the fleadh in Belfast this summer stands in stark contrast to the lawbreakers of Sinn Féin, whose intolerance of unionist culture is damaging community relations in Portadown?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The fleadh showed the best of us. It was an inclusive and positive event that attracted hundreds of thousands of people to Belfast. Part of the reason for that was the involvement of people from across all of our communities. That is something to be welcomed and built on.

Let us be very clear: what is damaging community relations in Portadown is the desire to force an unwanted sectarian march through a community that does not want it. The Secretary of State needs to intervene and remove the threat of that unwanted march being forced through that community. The issue has been settled for the past 28 years. Why is it being rehashed now? There are clearly political agendas at play.

Ms Egan: North Down is the home of the fleadh host branch Ards Comhaltas Ceoltóiri Éireann (CCÉ). We had an incredible fleadh fringe event alongside the pipe band championships. Minister, how are you engaging with councils and local businesses outside Belfast to bring the maximum economic benefit of next year's fleadh?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. My Department and Tourism NI have a particular focus on that. While we want everyone to experience the fleadh in Belfast, there is so much on offer across our region, and we want to encourage people to stay a while and experience what else is on offer. We — Tourism NI in particular — are actively working on that and on how we can build on this year's experience and understand visitor behaviours. Straight off the back of this year's fleadh ending, we were straight in the market with promotion and putting marketing material on social media to encourage people to book for next year. I am sure that we will have bigger numbers next year and that our offering will be bigger and better.

Mr McGrath: Building on the previous question, I ask the Minister whether there is an intention to draw together similar types of packages. For example, in Downpatrick, in my constituency, we have the home of St Patrick, which would be of great interest to those who visit for the fleadh. Will the Minister's Department undertake assessments to try to connect those packages and share the economic benefit around all areas?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. I encourage him to engage with Tourism NI on that, because planning is under way on how to maximise the benefit of the fleadh and ensure that offerings are available. Some of that happens organically, but, where councils can have input and want to be involved, we should encourage that. I am happy to take that on board, and I encourage the Member to also engage on it.

Dr Archibald: Restoring a direct air service between Belfast and a major United States hub remains an important objective for my Department. The North continues to experience connectivity challenges arising from competition from other regions and from our geographic location and consequential reliance on air travel to access critical markets. Research identifies direct access to the US East Coast as one of our most significant connectivity gaps and highlights the importance of direct transatlantic connectivity in supporting inward investment, international trade, business travel and tourism. My officials continue to engage with Belfast International Airport and industry stakeholders on potential transatlantic connection opportunities. While the aviation sector currently operates in a very challenging environment, with airlines facing increased costs when making network and route planning decisions, we remain committed to working with industry partners to identify credible opportunities. Any future intervention by my Department must be evidence-based, affordable, compliant with subsidy control and, of course, represent value for money. A primary objective will be to support routes that are capable of becoming commercially sustainable over the longer term.

Mr Chambers: I used that service quite frequently when Continental Airlines and United Airlines operated it, and there were never any empty seats in either direction. I am sure that the Minister would agree that the lack of a direct link is an important missing piece of the local economy jigsaw. Is the Minister hopeful that there will be positive developments in the near future on a direct link being restored?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. That issue is raised with me frequently and consistently, particularly when engaging in North America. It would be of huge benefit to have a route re-established. The airport leads on those discussions in the first instance, but my Department is happy to support the continuing conversations. Some things will be commercially sensitive, but I have met the leadership team of Belfast International Airport to discuss potential opportunities, and officials continue to work with the airport to see how we can best support it.

Ms Ferguson: As the Minister is aware, the Derry to Dublin route is critical to promoting and supporting a thriving all-Ireland economy. Will she provide an update on the British Government's decision to apply air passenger duty (APD) to the Derry to Dublin route?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Members will be aware that the Derry to Dublin air service was a New Decade, New Approach commitment and that both Governments committed to supporting its development. Unfortunately, the British Government have doubled down on their position in refusing to exempt the route from air passenger duty. I have engaged with the Secretary of State for Transport on a number of occasions. I am concerned about the application of APD to the route, which will be applied only to the Derry to Dublin leg of the route and not the other way round. My understanding is that the Irish Government intend to treat it as a public service obligation (PSO). The argument that I have made to the British Government is that that is what it is intended to be, exactly like the Derry to Heathrow route, which is a PSO. APD will add cost to that leg of the route. In my view, APD, particularly short-haul APD, on an island is an unfair tax. That is why we continue to make the case to the British Government for its removal.

Mr Brett: According to the Minister's departmental business plan, she was meant to have produced an aviation strategy for Northern Ireland over a year ago. If the Minister spent less time blocking roads and breaking the law, would she be able to get on with doing her actual job as Minister for the Economy?

Dr Archibald: It is funny that the Member seems not to have taken on board the number of occasions on which it has been explained why there has been a delay with the aviation policy or the details of the work that my Department was required to do last year because of decisions taken by the British Government. He is also aware that we intend to publish the aviation policy later this autumn. Key components of the policy include things such as a new air route development scheme, but, obviously, those depend on securing a satisfactory Budget settlement. I encourage the Member, along with his party, to continue to play a part in the efforts that we are making collectively for a better Budget settlement.

Mr Speaker: We move now to topical questions.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I reiterate the point that I have made on a number of occasions: the absence of a fair and proper Budget settlement does damage not just to our public services but to our efforts in respect of economic development. In an earlier response, I mentioned the reason that I was unable to support the Budget that was on the table: it was partly because of the lack of investment in our further and higher education institutions, but it was also because of the inability for us to fund Invest NI to do the important work of economic development. The absence of a Budget is far from an ideal place for us to be in. It is damaging that we are not able to properly fund our public services, but that damage is being caused by us not being appropriately funded according to our level of need. I appeal, as I have done already, for a collective voice across not just the Executive but the Assembly in making the case for us to be properly funded so that we can deliver public services and promote the development of our economy.

Ms McLaughlin: The vacuum is causing severe strain on businesses, colleges and organisations across the economy. They are being asked to plan, invest and create jobs without any certainty of what funding is available for next year.

Minister, do you accept that an Executive who cannot agree their own Budget are making it harder for the economy to compete for investment for skills and jobs with a Government across the border who are already planning for next year?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I do not disagree with her about the impact that the Budget situation is having.

The point that I would make is that agreeing a Budget that is inadequate and forcing it on our public services will damage those services. That is why we have engaged in negotiations with the British Government and why we continue to engage.

The British Government have accepted our point about needing additional funding. They have put additional funding on the table, but it does not go far enough. It will not allow us to deliver public services in the way in which we need to be able to, and it certainly will not allow us to undertake the type of economic development that we are capable of doing. The work that we are doing is delivering economic benefits. Even in the absence of a Budget, we are outperforming Britain on economic growth and on a number of other economic measures. I argue that we need to be funded properly so that we can unleash our potential, and we have significant potential to unleash.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act 2022 is important legislation that was passed in the previous mandate, and I remain committed to laying the regulations to introduce paid domestic abuse safe leave before the end of this mandate. The 2022 Act will provide employees and workers who are the victims of domestic abuse with 10 days' paid safe leave in each leave year. That right to leave will be available from the first day of employment. My officials are working through the remaining technical and legal issues. The aim is to finalise the draft regulations by the end of October to allow time for the necessary Assembly procedures and Committee scrutiny. Detailed guidance is being developed alongside the regulations so that employers and those who need to use the entitlement have the clear, practical and sensitive information that they need before they come into operation. We are working with a group of stakeholders to develop that guidance so that it is practical for those who will need it.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Go raibh maith agat

, Minister. That is good news. I have been working with a group of people for a long time, and they are now impoverished owing to having had to flee their homes as a result of violence.

On a separate issue, next week is, as you will be aware, Baby Loss Awareness Week: do you have an update on an overview of the impact that paid miscarriage leave has had since it came into effect in April?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As we mark Baby Loss Awareness Week, I acknowledge the devastating impact that miscarriage can have on parents and families. We are now the only region in these islands providing paid bereavement leave for miscarriage. The new regulations have been in place since 6 April. Since then, eligible employees and their partners experiencing a miscarriage before 24 weeks have been entitled to two weeks' statutory parental bereavement leave and pay, and the pay is available from the first day of employment.

HMRC has recorded 151 claims under the enhanced arrangements, around three quarters of which relate to miscarriage. It is too early to provide a full evaluation, but the introduction of the entitlement has been successful, in that no operational issues have been identified. It is clear that the scheme has given bereaved parents protected time to grieve when they need it most. I have heard testimonies from some organisations that support those affected by baby loss and pregnancy loss about the significant difference that the scheme is making to those who use their services.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. In recent weeks, certainly, we have seen the price of oil tick upwards again, which is deeply unwelcome as we move into winter and people fill up their tanks. At the previous Executive meeting, I proposed that we collectively write again to the British Government about the need for a proper cost-of-living support package as part of the Budget that will be announced at the end of the month.

We have had some intervention. The £100 oil payment is rolling out, and the £63 electricity payment will be available from tomorrow, but, in the grand scheme of things, those are not huge amounts and will not resolve all the pressures that people face. It means, hopefully, some money going back into people's pockets, but we need a proper cost-of-living intervention, and it is the British Government who have the levers to deliver that.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. This is a really serious matter. The £100 payment will not touch the sides. The price of oil is now double what it was this time last year. Do you recognise how much stress people who consume oil are under and what the cost of living is for those households? How much have you stressed the case that Northern Ireland is disproportionately affected in comparison with the rest of these islands?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. She articulates the point really well. Over two thirds of our households depend on home heating oil, so we are particularly exposed. There is also a higher rate of diesel car usage here, so, in many cases, people are being hit twice. That is why we need to see a cost-of-living package in the Budget. I have reinforced that message at every opportunity with my counterparts in the British Government. I have also encouraged them, urged them and pleaded with them to engage with us at an early stage when they are developing schemes so that those schemes are appropriate for people here. Engagement often comes lastminute.com, and we have to design something specific for here that does not work as well as it should because there is often a time lag. We have reinforced those points, and I know that colleagues across the Executive, including the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, have done likewise.

Mr Speaker: Gerry Kelly is not in his place.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I am aware of and fully recognise the challenging position that faces Colin Glen and the value that the forest park provides to the local community. I have engaged with the AERA Minister on the issues, and I encourage Colin Glen to continue to engage constructively with DAERA as it seeks a sustainable way forward.

As the Member mentioned, my Department has a range of programmes that are designed to help people to develop skills and progress into employment while supporting employers to meet their skills needs. Those programmes include apprenticeships, traineeships and Skills for Life and Work alongside employer-focused interventions such as Assured Skills academies and Skills Focus. Such programmes provide established pathways for Colin Glen to access support, develop its workforce and meet its skills and workforce needs.

Ms Flynn: I will stay in touch with the Minister to see whether any of that practical support could feed into the multi-agency structure around the forest park.

My follow-up question also relates to West Belfast. We know that St Mary's University College is a vital community asset: can the Minister provide an assurance that her Department will prioritise the college once a Budget is agreed?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I recognise the really important role that St Mary's college plays not just as an educational institution but as a vital social and economic anchor in West Belfast and beyond. I am acutely aware of the financial pressures facing St Mary's as well as the wider higher education sector, as we discussed earlier. I remain committed to securing the funding necessary to support a sustainable future for all our higher education institutions. I can provide an assurance that, once we have an agreed Budget, the needs of our university colleges, including St Mary's, will remain a priority for my Department.

I have already demonstrated my commitment to supporting both university colleges, and they now receive an additional £400,000 annually in recognition of their small and specialist nature. My officials and I continue to engage regularly with them about the support that they need and any issues that they may face in the current academic and financial year.

Mr Speaker: Miss McAllister had to pull out at the last moment.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The criteria did not change, but the guidance about who was eligible for the skills for life and work programme was clarified. I am glad that all the young people he engaged with have been sorted out. I encouraged my officials to make sure that we had appropriate places for all those young people, and most of them received a satisfactory outcome. If the Member becomes aware of any young person who has changed their mind and wants to change course, I encourage him to engage with the colleges, the training providers and my officials. If any particular issues arise, I am happy to correspond with him.

Mr Speaker: That draws to a conclusion questions to the Minister for the Economy.

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the first question for urgent oral answer, let me deal with a number of matters. First, I make it clear to the House that the important point for me in the First Minister being here today is not about the Minister or the issue involved in the question for urgent oral answer — that is for the exchanges with Members shortly. As Speaker, there is a larger principle involved, and I say to all Members, across every party, that they need to reflect on the potential implications of a Minister not attending the House in every instance when a question for urgent oral answer has been selected and not just on this occasion.

For example, on 3 November 2025, I selected a question for urgent oral answer from Cara Hunter to the Minister of Education that related to a visit to Israel and whether he had undertaken the visit in his ministerial capacity. Ministers are always subject to the code of conduct, regardless of the capacity in which they are engaged. No Speaker or, indeed, any Assembly could tolerate a precedent that any Minister could decide for themselves whether they agree with the Speaker's decision that a question for urgent oral answer should be selected and whether they wish to come to the House to answer it.

Members know my views on the importance of Ministers being accountable to the House on behalf of the people who put us all here. Therefore, I want to be clear, for the benefit of all Ministers and their Departments, about the authority of the Assembly: the Speaker's Office makes the decisions on which questions for urgent oral answer are accepted, not Ministers. The decision not to attend last Monday was discourteous to Members and, indeed, to the wider public. It was unacceptable, and, had it continued, the Assembly has the power to call witnesses, and that power would have been exercised. As Speaker, I will ensure that the rules of the Northern Ireland Assembly are observed by every Member of the House.

Secondly, I turn to the point of order made by Ms Bradshaw last week about whether the time allowed for Members to ask supplementary questions to the question for urgent oral answer could be increased from 30 minutes to one hour. The time that is allocated for responses to a question for urgent oral answer is not defined in Standing Orders, but it is dealt with by a Speaker's ruling. Therefore, I have discretion on the duration. While I am mindful that there is other business in the Order Paper, if a large number of Members wish to contribute, I will be guided by trying to include as many Members as possible within a reasonable period without setting a precise time period. It may be an hour, or it may be less than an hour, but from the anticipated interest, I certainly think it will last more than 30 minutes. Given the likely interest, I remind Members to get to their question and ask one question.

I anticipate that there will be strong differences of opinion in the Chamber on the question for urgent oral answer. Members will also bear in mind that the decision by the Parades Commission was before the Court of Appeal this morning, and I believe that judgement has been reserved. While I am not naive enough to expect the House to observe everything in silence, I expect Members to ensure that the questions and the answers can be heard, and I will intervene as I feel necessary. You wanted the First Minister to be here, so I want to hear the answers to the questions. Even if you do not like them, please let them be heard.

Ms O'Neill (The First Minister): As First Minister, I am fully committed to the Good Friday Agreement and everything that flows from that seminal agreement, including the ministerial code and the Pledge of Office. I am also fully committed to the right, set out explicitly in the Good Friday Agreement, to freedom from sectarian harassment, and I stand resolutely with the residents of the Garvaghy Road in defending those rights. I welcome the fact that more than 1,000 people from Protestant backgrounds have spoken out also in their defence. I also welcome the fact that bipartisan members of the US Friends of Ireland Caucus have intervened to underline the importance of protecting the progress made under the Good Friday Agreement. Elected representatives from Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Social Democrats, People before Profit, Aontú and Labour stood alongside the community and independent voices in support of the Garvaghy Road residents, and did so proudly.

The Garvaghy Road community has suffered generations of sectarianism, domination, intimidation and violence. They are again experiencing sectarian intimidation as a result of the reckless demand for an unwanted, sectarian and triumphalist march through that peaceful community. Only two weeks ago, we were reminded here in the House of the brutal sectarian murder of Robert Hamill, kicked to death by unionist bigots in Portadown right in the midst of the so-called Drumcree dispute. Today, I am thinking about Marie Therese Murray, who lost her son Darren at the height of the previous stand-off on the road. Again, it was as a direct result of sectarian intimidation in Portadown. I am thinking about Rosemary Nelson, who was murdered for defending the rights of the community that we speak of today. I am thinking about the family of Michael McGoldrick, who was murdered by the UVF in 1996. I am thinking about the three beautiful Quinn children and the many others that my colleague read into the public record this morning. They all lost their lives as a direct result of the sectarian demand to walk over the rights of the Garvaghy Road community.

Folks, there is no going back to those dark days. My party unequivocally supports the people of the Garvaghy Road in their total opposition to that sectarian, triumphalist march —

Mr Speaker: Minister, your time is up.

Ms O'Neill: — through their community. As leas-uachtarán

of Sinn Féin, I am incredibly proud and privileged to stand alongside my party colleagues with —

Mr Speaker: Minister, you are well past your time, please.

Ms O'Neill: — the strong, resilient and concerned community of the Garvaghy Road.

Mr Brett: First Minister, my thoughts are with victims, too, but, unlike you, they are with all victims of terrorism. I do not celebrate terrorists. First Minister, your refusal to come to the Chamber last week showed utter contempt not just for the House but for the people of Northern Ireland. When you became First Minister, you took a Pledge of Office, which is in place at all times. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has now stated that a protest that you were involved in and encouraged others to be involved in was unlawful, so let us drop the bravado and the meaningless, scripted statements from behind a microphone and give the people of —

Mr Speaker: Can we have a question, please?

Mr Brett: — Northern Ireland a clear answer. If you are found to have breached the ministerial code or the law, will you do the decent thing for once and resign as First Minister? [Interruption.]

Ms O'Neill: Catch yourself on. That is where I will start with that one. I will continue to turn up for the people of the Garvaghy Road. I am proud to stand with them, and I will continue to stand with them.

Mr Gaston: The Parades Commission issued a determination that has been upheld by the courts not once but twice. Ms O'Neill, you, along with your bedfellow, the IRA chief of staff, encouraged people to illegally block the Garvaghy Road to defy the court's determination. It is clear that you are the First Minister of lawlessness. Will you now support all those who dislike legal decisions and, ultimately, take to the streets, or will you do so only when it is to ensure that there is not a Prod with an Orange sash allowed about the place?

Ms O'Neill: I am the First Minister of what is right. [Interruption.]

I will continue to be the First Minister of what is right. That includes standing up for the residents of the Garvaghy Road, and we will not need to use AI for it. [Interruption.]

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, First Minister, for coming to the Chamber. You will not be surprised that my question focuses on reconciliation. We are still working under the 2013 framework for Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) and the good relations strategy, and work on the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) report from 2020 started in 2016. What is your Department doing? What can we tell people outside the Building about its work on peace and reconciliation? We are all so saddened and in such despair that, nearly 30 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, we are still going back to this place.

Ms O'Neill: Thank you for that, and I concur with you. This is absolutely about protecting the peace and progress of the past 28 years. Any right-minded person across society would want us to do that. For our part, the work that we are doing in the Executive Office to support community relations will be pivotal. It has been thus far, but we need to double down on that, particularly in the aftermath of what is now being foisted back upon that community. In particular, I am mindful of the need to be vigilant to the needs of the wider Portadown community in the aftermath of what is currently happening. I will look forward to coming back to the House to talk about the next stage of our T:BUC work and moving on to the next iteration of that. We will all need to work on that together, because community relations have been damaged. One thing that I would say is this: those in the Garvaghy community did not ask for this. It has been foisted upon them. They did not ask for it.

Mr O'Toole: First Minister, you are right to say that the residents of the Garvaghy Road did not ask for this. They want to be left to live in peace, which is the least that they should be able to expect. I agree with that. It is also true that this place needs to be governed. There are sincere reasons why you and others, including our party, stood with those residents. We also need to govern this place, including setting a Budget. Do you agree that, in that regard, it would be wholly unacceptable for you or the deputy First Minister to resign office?

Ms O'Neill: I can assure the Member, as I do every time that he asks me that question, that I intend to continue to turn up for people, including the people on the Garvaghy Road. I want us to get a Budget. We were in the midst of that process when a small minority of people out there decided to try to pull us backwards. We need to fight back against that and protect the peace and progress of the past 28 years. We need to get a Budget; one that is right and allows us to invest in our public services. I think that we all share that collective view.

Mrs Dodds: Today, the Court of Appeal has reserved judgement on the unlawfulness of what is going on on the Garvaghy Road. Will you ask residents on the Garvaghy Road — the few residents who there are — and the people whom you have bussed in to go home and await the judgement of the court rather than continue to break the law?

Ms O'Neill: Of course, those residents did not ask for that to be foisted upon them, but your party has been the cheerleader of it since day 1. Your party has been cheerleading for the Orange Order in trying to drag that community back and to railroad and trample over the rights of the Garvaghy Road residents. We will not allow you to do that. I will continue to turn up for those residents every day.

Mr Carroll: First Minister, like you, I was proud to stand with the residents of the Garvaghy Road during the past week. It is worth reminding ourselves that, less than a year ago, the majority of MLAs in the Chamber voted that the Education Minister had failed to uphold the Pledge of Office over his Israeli Government-funded propaganda trip. He is still in place only because his party used a veto to protect him. Does the First Minister agree that the DUP has forfeited any right to lecture the House on the Pledge of Office?

Ms O'Neill: Yes, absolutely, I do. I fear that we are hearing a lot of noise here because they are uncomfortable with that statement. Yes, it is one rule for the DUP and one for others.

Mr Buckley: This past week, Sinn Féin has subjected my constituents to blatant sectarianism, lawlessness and intimidation. First Minister, as we speak, the Court of Appeal is awaiting a judgement on a challenge brought by the Garvaghy Road residents to the decision on the Drumcree parade. As First Minister, will you accept and abide by the lawful decision of the courts or only the decisions that you agree with?

Ms O'Neill: When the law is wrong, I will stand firmly against it. It is morally wrong what is happening to the people on the Garvaghy Road.

Mr Burrows: The so-called First Minister for all justifies the murder of thousands of citizens by her associates in the IRA and now justifies breaking the law. Does she agree that most people in Northern Ireland now see her as completely morally bankrupt?

Ms O'Neill: No, I do not.

Mr Brooks: Given that we have seen the evidence of her intentional lawbreaking and encouraging others to do so, I was going to ask the First Minister whether she would take the opportunity to recommit to her Pledge of Office. However, given what she said only moments ago, can I ask her to read it first?

Ms O'Neill: There is no question.

Mr Dickson: First Minister, given the events of recent days, will you commit to working with other political parties to stabilise institutions here in the Assembly and to ensure that the Executive can deliver on the public's priorities going forward?

Ms O'Neill: The widespread support for the Garvaghy Road residents not to be plunged into the days of old is clear. No right-minded person wants to go into reverse; they do not want to be where we were at the end of the 1990s. I think that the vast majority of people will want us to continue to build on the peace and prosperity of the last 28 years. I will work with others who share that aspiration, as, I know, you and your party do. All of us who have that spirit and that vision for a more hopeful future for people will work together. I hear a lot in the Chamber about equality: equality does not mean putting your rights above someone else's. Equality is about fairness across the board, not domination or supremacy.

Ms Forsythe: When the First Minister has been out on the Garvaghy Road, people have been enraged by the blatant disregard for the law. A huge sense of rage that I have been getting in my constituency is from those who are suffering after the withdrawal of maternity services from Daisy Hill Hospital. They cannot get that on the agenda or in the headlines, and they are asking, "Does this not matter to politicians in Northern Ireland?". I ask the First Minister this today: is a sectarian hate fest the priority of Sinn Féin, or are real-life services important to Sinn Féin?

Ms O'Neill: You see, you are trying to pit one section of the community against the other. You are trying to pit the maternity services that the women in that area are absolutely entitled to have against the Garvaghy Road residents' rights. That is a decent community that has lived in peace for 28 years and had an issue resolved that has now been reopened, and it has been reopened with the support of your party. People can see you for what you are.

Ms Brownlee: First Minister, given that you, along with a number of Sinn Féin reps, have stood alongside individuals such as the convicted murderer Colin Duffy, the bomber Breandán Mac Cionnaith and others at the unlawful protest on Garvaghy Road, what message does that send to the law-abiding communities across Northern Ireland that want to move forward?

Ms O'Neill: Do you know who wants to move forward? The Garvaghy Road residents. Do you know who has had this foisted upon them? The Garvaghy Road residents. I will stand with that community. I have stood with that community over the last week, and I will continue to stand with that community. That community deserves to live free from fear and intimidation. Your party has championed this. You certainly have; you can shake your head all you want. You have been a champion of this. Shame on you.

Dr Aiken: First Minister, you will probably recall that, quite a while ago, all the leaders of the political parties met to discuss the Bobby Storey funeral, and we asked to resolve with you the issues so that they would not escalate into this situation.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have heard the deputy First Minister say today that she reached out to you to do something similar: why did you not act on that? Why, instead of raising tensions, have you not acted to reduce tensions in Northern Ireland?

Ms O'Neill: Everything that I have been doing is about trying to calm tensions. Everything that I have been doing is about supporting a community that is under siege. I make no apology for that.

Mr Clarke: Everything that you have done goes against the Pledge of Office. Your Pledge of Office is clear.

Ms O'Neill: That is your opinion.

Mr Clarke: No, it is not my opinion. The Pledge of Office is clear that you pledge:

You have abolished your support for them all. Have the police been in contact with you yet about your lawbreaking ? If not, are you prepared to offer yourself to them for questioning?

Ms O'Neill: You are not the police, of course, Trevor, but let me tell you that, no, I have not been approached. I own my choices.

Ms Nicholl: When I was doing some outreach in South Belfast on Saturday, people kept saying that they were so despairing and were having to explain things that had happened in the past to their children and young people. As the joint First Minister, with the remit for children and young people, will you outline what you are offering those young people, who are feeling quite hopeless at the moment?

Ms O'Neill: I agree with you. I have met many families over the past week whose kids are asking them questions. They had never imagined they would have be having those conversations with them. I met a family whose child had walked up a Portadown street and been called a "Fenian". On coming home, he had to ask, "What is that, Mummy?". I have met families whose children have come home and asked, "Am I a Catholic or a Protestant?". Is that not a disgrace? That is what the whole debacle has reopened. That is the trauma that is being visited on that community, which did not ask for it. All that those people are asking for is the chance to live free from hatred and intimidation. All that they are asking for is to get on with their lives, and I will back them on that every step of the way.

None of us wants to see this. I want us to build a more prosperous and better future for every child. I want every child, be they Catholic, Protestant or from whatever background, to be able to go to their school. They should be able to have opportunities in life. They should not have to live in a society in which they are told that they are second-class citizens and that someone else can trample all over their rights. I will not tolerate that. It is 2026. We are 28 years into the Good Friday Agreement. In two years' time, we will celebrate its 30th anniversary. There is a lot to celebrate in that. We have made an awful lot of progress, but there is a small minority against that, championed by the DUP. The DUP is the cheerleader, and it is doing so for electoral reasons and for electoral reasons only.

Mr K Buchanan: First Minister, your actions over the past few week have made your definition of a shared future clear to me and the 1·9 million to two million people living in Northern Ireland. On the Garvaghy Road, you held the hand of Mr Mac Cionnaith, the bomber of Portadown, who called me an "effer": I am an Orangeman, but I am not an effer. Will you apologise to me and to my community for his comments? I want you to look into that camera, First Minister for all, and tell those 1·9 million people why you have let them down.

Ms O'Neill: I did not call you such names. I do not speak for anybody else. I speak for myself. On this occasion, I am speaking for what is right, what is morally right. The residents did not ask for this to be brought upon them. You should give your head a big shake as to why you thought that it was a good idea. Maybe Carla took you there without even asking you.

Mr Wilson: First Minister, sadly, your party has a track record in this area: first, with the Bobby Storey funeral, then the illegal Newry billboard and now, of course, Garvaghy Road. Do you accept that the unnotified protest gatherings on the Garvaghy Road were unlawful then and remain unlawful now? Do you believe that you and your party are above the law?

Ms O'Neill: I understand the law. I have said publicly that I understand the law. I understand the choices that I am making, and I choose to stand with the residents of the Garvaghy Road.

Mr McMurray: First Minister, many like me and from my background have been filled with deep regret and sadness that Drumcree has had new life breathed into it. They have, however, also expressed confusion and a sense of being let down by some of your actions as First Minister. What leadership will you now show to ensure that peacebuilding and reconciliation are at the forefront of all that we do?

Ms O'Neill: As I have said, we need to fight really hard to protect everything that we have achieved over the past 28 years. We need to build on it and do more. That is my determination. That is why, despite the challenges of this arrangement, I turn up every day to try to do my very best to improve people's lives.

I am glad that some of your colleagues decided to stand with the Garvaghy Road residents; that was the right thing to do. I very much welcome that, because that community asked us for our backing.

You cannot build a society that is about trampling over someone else's rights. You do not build fairness and equality across the board by saying that some have more rights than others. This can be seen for what it is. Those who have opened up this wound have an awful lot of head-shaking to do in terms of why they have brought us back to this spot. Let us not allow that to be the case. Let us fight for peace and equality. Let us fight for progress. Let us fight for all the progress that has been made over the last 28 years and build on it.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the First Minister for finally turning up today. On several occasions today, she has referred to the fact that she will continue to turn up. She did not turn up last week; in fact, when I bumped into her and Mary Lou in the corridor last week straight after the question that she did not turn up for, she thought that it was a great joke.

Does the First Minister accept that the protest gathering on the Garvaghy Road remains unlawful?

Ms O'Neill: Pam, I think you will find that you made a joke with me, but let us not let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Mrs Erskine: You did not answer my colleague Mr Buchanan when he asked you to call out the abuse that has been levelled at Protestant, unionist and loyalist people. You talk about a shared future: that just indicates that you do not want a unionist about the place. There was abuse directed at my colleagues Carla Lockhart and Diane Dodds by those at a gathering outside court. Some of your colleagues were in that gathering, so I will ask again: will the First Minister apologise directly to my colleagues and to the unionist community for the language used — they were called little b-s and little effers — and publicly call out those gathered on the Garvaghy Road and ask them to stop the orchestrated abuse?

Ms O'Neill: I encourage the Member to practice what she preaches. When her party colleagues call the people on the Garvaghy Road a "rabble" or call them a "mob"—

Mrs Erskine: I have never called them that.

Ms O'Neill: You might not have, but you are accusing me of something that someone else has said. Do not look so shocked. Public discourse needs to be measured across the board. It starts with you and your party.

Mr Kingston: First Minister, the illegal blocking of the reduced and legal Drumcree parade eight days ago was a disaster for the community relations and mutual tolerance in Northern Ireland that we should all uphold. Indeed, it has been a slap in the face for the unionists who encouraged people to take part in the all-Ireland fleadh in the summer that dominated Belfast for a week. If it has not taken place before then, would you support the Drumcree parade, as legally approved, taking place as part of the fleadh in 2027?

Ms O'Neill: If we are still having this conversation next year and the issue has not been resolved, we will all be in a very difficult spot.

You make the point about the fleadh: the fleadh was the best example of how to do culture. The fleadh was inclusive and welcoming. It was about everybody. It was about standing together. It was about music. It was about dance. It was about song. It was not about treading over the rights of another. The approaches are very different.

I want to see a resolution. I want the Garvaghy Road residents to be able to sleep at night. I want us to get a resolution that allows us to move forward. However, you have to ask yourself this question: why did you think that it was a good idea to open this up? The only answer that I can take from it is this: the election.

Mr McNulty: First Minister, do you agree that Drumcree is a touchstone issue that resonates in a visceral and emotional way with both communities? Will the First Minister applaud all those who turned out in their thousands for a peaceful demonstration of solidarity with the residents of the Garvaghy Road?

Ms O'Neill: Yes, I will absolutely do that. It was a powerful symbol to all the residents who have been feeling the pressure, the fear, the intimidation and the sectarianism. They felt that really acutely this week, and it was a really good way in which to show them the love and the care that people hold for them and their rights and that they are entitled to live their lives free from fear and intimidation.

Mr Martin: The First Minister used the word "siege" a number of times in her answers. Does she believe that 35 elderly Orangemen, walking down a road at 8.00 am, constitutes a siege?

Ms O'Neill: I often hear you trying to distil the issue down to 35 or perhaps even —

Mr Buckley: That is what it is.

Mr Frew: It is.

Ms Ferguson: Listen.

Ms O'Neill: Do you want to hear me?

A Member: Not really. [Interruption.]

Ms O'Neill: You wanted me to come to the Chamber, folks, so listen. Whether it is 35 or five, it is still triumphalism. [Interruption.]

It is still an unwanted march. It is still about trampling over the rights of the Garvaghy Road residents. It does not make a difference. The number is not the point. The point is that it is triumphalism and an unwanted sectarian march.

Mr Speaker: I have no more —. I was going to say that no more Members have indicated, but I see Mr McCrossan indicating.

Mr McCrossan: I am sure that the First Minister will agree that this is not where any of us want to be today or ever. Does she also agree that it is deeply depressing that Jamie Bryson has been able to swing the DUP by the tail for the past week, though it has not realised it yet?

Ms O'Neill: Yes, I agree.

Mr Robinson: Will the First Minister tell the House and the two million people in this Province what she fears from 35 Orangemen, walking peacefully and silently down a road in the early hours for a few minutes?

Ms O'Neill: Supremacy will never be tolerated. Those days are gone, and we are not going back.

Miss McIlveen: The First Minister chose to ignore this question previously, but my party colleague Carla Lockhart has been threatened physically and subjected to horrific online abuse by a mob that was created by the First Minister. Will she condemn the actions of the mob?

Ms O'Neill: Do not talk nonsense, for a start. [Interruption.]

It is shameful for you to call the people of the Garvaghy Road a "mob" and a "rabble", because that is what has come out of your party. I also heard your party colleague Carla Lockhart talking about taking us into the "abyss". What does that mean?

Mr T Buchanan: First Minister, what message are you giving to law-abiding citizens, students and young people in our schools when you, who should be a law-abiding citizen, blatantly break the law?

Ms O'Neill: For me, it is simply a matter of right versus wrong.

Mr Frew: There are thousands of Parades Commission determinations every year, relating to every constituency. Why is the Garvaghy Road one a problem, meaning that the First Minister blocks the road, when she does not do so in respect of any other Parades Commission determinations?

Ms O'Neill: You are absolutely right; about 2,500 Orange Order marches pass off peacefully with no issue. The issue with Garvaghy Road is that the march is unwanted. In the first dispute, 21 people were killed. I cannot fathom why anyone wants to reopen that wound and that sore. Why do people want to plunge us into those days again? Why do they want to retraumatise that community? The difference when it comes to this march is very clear: it is a triumphalist, sectarian and unwanted march. No one wants to see that. We are not going back to those days. There are no issues with parades across the board. Over 2,500 parades happen. It is not an issue of rights; it is about what is right and wrong.

Mr Bradley: Does the Minister not agree that we have had a masterclass in evasiveness? She has not answered any questions. Does she not accept that what she did at Garvaghy Road has set the scene for discord, disharmony, segregation and divisiveness in the community? The biggest opposition to a united Ireland sits opposite me.

Ms O'Neill: The discord and the scenario in which we find ourselves is very much the making of those who wanted to revisit the issue on that community, reopen the sore and engage in triumphalism by walking down the Garvaghy Road against the wishes of the residents. That is who is responsible for where we are. Everybody in the House has a duty to try to dial it down and build on good relations and the progress of the past 28 years. I know where I stand: on the side of what is right, folks.

Mr Dunne: Does the First Minister now accept the principle that elected reps cannot simply pick and choose which court or lawful decisions they wish to obey according to whether they agree with them, even if they are the so-called, self-styled First Minister for all or some?

Ms O'Neill: I am still your First Minister. I can tell you this: I will always choose the side of what is morally right. I know exactly which choices I am making now, and I do so in support of the Garvaghy Road residents.

Mr Harvey: What message does the First Minister think her actions send to people who have spent decades being told that political disputes in Northern Ireland must be resolved through the application of the law?

Ms O'Neill: Again, I stand with the residents of the Garvaghy Road. That is the right thing to do. It will always be the right thing to do. This issue should not have been reopened. We should not be having this conversation today. The Garvaghy Road residents deserve to be protected and to live their lives free from fear, intimidation and sectarianism.

Mr Speaker: I think that that is everyone who has stood in their place. Members should take their ease while we change the top Table before the next question for urgent oral answer. I am glad to see the Minister in her place.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): My priority remains to secure a fair, sustainable multi-year Budget that gives Departments certainty and enables them to plan, invest in and transform public services. That requires sufficient, stable funding from the British Government. The Executive have engaged extensively with the Secretary of State, and I have met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor to press for a fair, sustainable settlement. Given the scale of the challenge and the consequences for services, I wrote to the Secretary of State last week seeking more time for the Executive to respond to his latest offer.

Departments face acute pressures. The British Government's offer falls well short of what is needed to deliver fair pay awards, protect front-line services and provide the stability that our public services, our economy and our communities urgently need. It also fails to address issues that have been repeatedly raised with the British Government, including borrowing powers, baselining, reprofiling and adequate funding for reform and transformation. It therefore provides neither fair funding nor long-term financial stability for our Departments. The pressures are not new; they reflect structural underfunding and over-reliance on one-off allocations that are neither sustainable nor equitable.

The scale of the gap is clear. If we were funded above need in the same way as Wales — eight percentage points — we would have an additional circa £1 billion to spend per year of the spending review period. If we were funded above need like Scotland — 20 percentage points — that could be around an additional £3 billion each year. The Executive are playing their part — work on reform and transformation is under way — but the British Government must also now provide the fair, sustainable funding that is required. Agreeing a Budget and securing funding go hand in hand. We remain committed to engagement that is aimed at protecting services and achieving financial sustainability that delivers for workers, families and communities.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Minister. First of all, in your constituency, there is a very important issue to your constituents. A deep wound has been reopened, so I acknowledge that that will have taken some of your time, legitimately and properly. However, it is also true to say that we need to govern this place. As of last week, we are halfway into the financial year, and we do not have a Budget yet. That is not abstract accounting. At a time when diesel is hitting £2 a litre and it costs nearly a grand to fill up a tank of home heating oil, we need to take responsibility. We, as the Opposition, support maximum funding for this place, but do you, Minister, agree that, if we accept that the UK Government do not prioritise this place — they are not offering enough money at the minute — it would be an utter failure of the Executive to hand power to the UK Government to set a Budget here? Does he agree, and will he promise that that will not happen?

Mr O'Dowd: It is not my intention or desire to hand any power over to the British Government. When it comes to the two issues that he mentioned — fuel and energy prices — he will know that the Executive do not have the power or the financial clout to deal with them. However, it would be wholly unacceptable for the British Government to set a Budget. Instead of issuing ultimatums, the British Government need to properly and fairly fund this place. They need to fund it in the same way as they fund Scotland and Wales, which receive fairer funding settlements than we do. The British Government tell us that there is no more money, but they cannot expect workers, families and businesses here to bail them out. That is not how it works. People here pay their fair share of taxes but are not getting a fair return on those taxes. It is only right and proper that the Executive continue to put pressure on the Government to correct that failure.

Ms Forsythe: Minister, when you released your draft Budget earlier in the year and said that it was a good deal, our Ministers, including the Education Minister, came out very quickly to set out the significant issues that it would cause for our public services. I am glad that the Executive now stand together in looking for a better deal. Minister, do you agree that all of the organisations that are setting out the pressures that they are currently under, including potential cuts because they are operating within a contingency planning envelope, would be in a worse place if that Budget had been imposed, because it would have led to more definitive cuts?

Mr O'Dowd: What I said when I published my Budget was that I was in listening mode. I met all Ministers around the Executive table, including yours, and engaged with them about the pressures that they face. We continue to engage with the British Government, and we have put forward a very strong case.

The reality is that, in the absence of a Budget, there is no way to pay public-sector workers the pay rises that they are due. I continue to engage with legal teams and the Attorney General (AG) on that matter, but no one has yet been able to identify a method by which we can pay public-sector workers the pay rises that they are due. That is the challenge that the Executive face in the time ahead.

In the absence of further funding, there would have been real-terms cuts to public services. However, if we continue on the current 95% trajectory, that will also result in damage to public services. Despite our differences on many issues, which were demonstrated earlier, we have to remain united in our approach to the British Government in order to secure a fair funding settlement for this place. The Executive plan to meet in the morning to discuss that very matter, which is a good thing. Despite everything else that is going on, the Executive plan to meet on that matter, and we will have further discussions on the way forward.

Mrs Dillon: Minister, do you agree that the British Government and the Secretary of State have an opportunity to save this place significant amounts of money — up to £1 million a day — by making a call on the Orange march, which is what they should have done a week ago?

Mr O'Dowd: There are obvious pressures on policing as a result of a failure of leadership and the failure of the British Government to step in. It is now time to call that out and ensure that the pressure is lifted off the people of the Garvaghy Road so that that community can continue to move forward.

Miss McAllister: I respect that there is an ongoing process when it comes to the financial settlement for Northern Ireland. It is important that the Executive are united in those negotiations with the UK Government. However, there is now another issue that is compounding financial pressures, particularly for policing. Of course, the police must do their job, but the Chief Constable said that, as of last week, the policing of the current Drumcree/Garvaghy Road parading dispute had cost £3 million. It is important that the Executive are together in putting the argument to the UK Government that they should foot the Bill for mutual aid in particular. Will the Minister ensure that the Executive work together and give assurances that that is put firmly on the UK Government's radar?

Mr O'Dowd: The cost of mutual aid is much higher here than it is elsewhere, because, as one of your Ministers has pointed out many times, mutual aid elsewhere crosses county lines. When coming here, officers have to come across the Irish Sea, and we have to put up bed and board for them, so there is an additional cost that the British Government should meet.

Dr Aiken: Minister, will you confirm that the Secretary of State's offer is for the full value of approximately £63 billion over three years? Has there been any discussion about reprofiling within that settlement?

Mr O'Dowd: The current offer that is on the table is £450 million resource for 2026-27; £400 million resource for 2027-28 and 2028-29; £50 million resource DEL per annum for transformation, which the Executive must match-fund; £50 million capital to invest in social housing; and the ability to keep 50% of any moneys raised by fraud and error in the benefits system up to a value of £25 million per annum. That is the offer that is currently on the table, and it is well short of meeting the pressures on the Executive.

I missed the second part of your —.

Dr Aiken: It was about reprofiling, John.

Mr O'Dowd: There have been discussions on reprofiling with the Government and Treasury. In the case of the offer that is on the table, reprofiling would assist in the first year, but we would run into the same problem in the second and third year. They make the same mistake every time that they come to us in relation to this. What we need is a sustainable funding package that allows the Executive to do their job, including the transformation of services. I do not want short-termism from the Government; I want a sustainable funding package.

Dr Aiken: But reprofiling is in the mix.

Mr O'Dowd: Yes.

Mr McGrath: Nobody objects to the assertion that we need to negotiate with London for better and improved money. At the same time, the lack of a Budget is having a direct effect on the delivery of public services, including health services. There are 520,000 people sitting on health waiting lists. The lack of a Budget is impacting on them. Minister, what message do you have for them, given that the failure to set a Budget is impacting on their health? Do we just have to tell them to remain sick until this is all sorted?

Mr O'Dowd: Early in the process, the Executive took the decision to retain the ring-fencing in the Department of Health's budget to tackle health waiting lists. That funding is in place. The Health Minister has an opportunity to spend that funding. There have been significant improvements in our health waiting lists over the past period of time as a direct result of the Executive working together and a focus being placed on those waiting lists.

I will not stand at the Dispatch Box and suggest that the absence of a Budget is a good thing or that it helps us to improve our services, because it does not. We need a fair and sustainable Budget, and that is what we are working towards.

Mr Harvey: Minister, has the Secretary of State committed to continuing to engage with the Minister and the Executive, despite the deadline having passed, in an effort to see a sustainable Budget being agreed? Does the Minister agree that there can be no cuts to front-line public services?

Mr O'Dowd: The Secretary of State has a style of engagement, on a range of issues, that is unique to him. That does not always bed well in this place. Perhaps, once he has been here longer, he will understand us as a people. Further engagement between the Executive and the British Government is required.

Mr Chambers: Minister, I do not envy you the job that you are trying to do at the moment, but help me to understand something. You said that, if nothing changes, there will have to be cuts. We are halfway through the financial year. If those cuts are to be applied to just half a financial year, rather than to a full financial year, will they be felt more acutely by the public? Will they be more severe than they would be if they were being taken over a full 12-month financial period?

Mr O'Dowd: Each Department has been planning on the basis of receiving a 95% budget since August. The permanent secretary of the Department of Finance has been advising Departments of their financial position. Each Department will have to make its own decisions on how it plans against that 95% budget and then work its way through things strategically. I cannot speak on behalf of each Department and how it is managing its budget at this stage, but each Department is aware of the parameters within which it is working.

Ms Murphy: Would the Secretary of State's proposal see the funding package be baselined?

Mr O'Dowd: No. That is an important engagement and settlement that has to take place. As I said earlier, short-termism has not worked for the Executive. It has not worked for our public services or for the public who rely on them. There needs to be a proper recognition from the British Government and the Treasury that they have been underfunding this place for many, many years, and that, in order to correct that, the funding that comes, and the final figure, when it is agreed, will have to be baselined, meaning that this Executive and future Executives will have the basis on which to transform our public services and build our economy.

Mr Kingston: If the SDLP had had its way, and the Executive had sought to implement the inadequate Budget as set out by the Finance Minister earlier this year, that would have been truly devastating for public services and jobs across all nine Departments. The Secretary of State had requested a response by last Thursday to the offer of £1·5 billion across three years. Will the Finance Minister confirm what engagement is continuing to take place between His Majesty's Treasury and him and the wider Executive to seek to reach agreement on a —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Mr Kingston: — workable Budget for the Northern Ireland Executive?

Mr O'Dowd: I wrote to the Secretary of State last week, asking him to extend his deadline. He responded to me within 24 hours, setting out his position. I shared that with my Executive colleagues. On Friday, I asked them to hold an urgent Executive meeting so that we could establish a position with which to go back to the British Government. Obviously, the Secretary of State is also involved in engagements to do with the ongoing situation on the Garvaghy Road, but there has been a focus on the Budget, and there is a continued focus on it. When the Executive meet tomorrow, I will be better placed to go back to the Secretary of State to set out our position.

Mr McCrossan: Minister, your party and your partners in Government — the DUP — have presided over a shameful failure to deliver a Budget for the people of this place. Do you accept that it is not sufficient simply to say that some health funding is ring-fenced, or do you accept that there is a failure and that people are suffering day and daily, particularly given the statement this week that we cannot fund the mental health strategy that was promised to our people? Is it the case that the DUP and Sinn Féin are ruling by fooling?

Mr O'Dowd: I have set out my position very clearly. We require a Budget. There was a duty on me to publish a Budget in advance of the start of the financial year, and I did that. No alternative Budgets were provided by anyone, including the Member's party. If the SDLP is advising me as Finance Minister, and other Ministers, that we should go ahead and settle negotiations now with the British Government, provide me with an alternative Budget to look at. At least have the good manners and decency to say to the public, "Here is what we would do". If the Member were standing where I am now, what would he do with the money that is currently on the table? How would he divide it up? If he is serious in what he is saying, and if he is serious about defending public services, he should produce a document and say, "If I were in John O'Dowd's position as Finance Minister, I would publish this as the Budget", and we would then be able to have a proper conversation about it.

Mr McCrossan: You have been in Government for 20 years, John. [Inaudible.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Gaston: A number of weeks ago, I asked the lawless Finance Minister what funding formula he needs to ensure that all current services can run in Northern Ireland, and I ask the question again. Minister, what is the fair, sustainable funding model for which you are holding out, or is it the case that building your new Ireland through propaganda is more important than protecting front-line services?

Mr O'Dowd: The Speaker's Office may want to examine Mr Gaston's comments towards me. Once a response to that is back, I may consider answering his question.

Mr Carroll: Minister, you are well aware that the health trusts have been told to make cuts of 4% every year for three years, which, the unions have said, will cost the jobs of porters and cleaners. At the same time, the highest paid director of the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) has had a £40,000 pay rise in two years. Is it right, Minister, that the lowest paid workers in the health service are paying for the Executive's Budget crisis while those at the top are being more than looked after?

Mr O'Dowd: Gerry is aware that the current difficulties that we face come directly from budgeting decisions of the British Government. I made it clear in the draft Budget that was published that any pay increase for workers and those on the ground should be considered against those going to the highest paid officials and staff in health trusts or anywhere else. There is a quare difference in cash terms between a 3% or 4% pay rise for somebody on the minimum wage and a 4% increase for somebody on a high wage. I stated in my draft Budget and have said to officials that that should be taken into consideration before pay rises are made.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, I was interested in the question asked by your colleague Linda Dillon, who has, sadly, departed the Chamber. She seemed to imply that the cost of policing the Garvaghy Road was the fault of Orangemen. They asked only for a 15-minute parade with 35 Orangemen. That is another example of Sinn Féin's inversion of reality. Therefore, I will ask you the same question as I asked the First Minister, and maybe you can answer it. Since the Court of Appeal has reserved judgement on the issue, will you call on those who are taking part in an unlawful protest on the Garvaghy Road to go home and save the Police Service of Northern Ireland some money?

Mr O'Dowd: That is not a finance question, but I will answer it in this way: I call on those who have influence in the unionist/loyalist/Orange community to lift the pressure that is on the Garvaghy Road community and to return home from the church along the route by which they went to the church. You and I know that there is an alternative route. You and I know that the community of the Garvaghy Road already hosts an Orange parade out to the church. You and I know that that is the unwritten, unspoken compromise, and your colleague, Carla Lockhart, and Jamie Bryson have, for whatever reason, decided to reopen that old wound. I appeal to you to use your influence to bring that to an end.

Miss Hargey: Some in the Chamber believe that citizens here should be treated as second-class citizens: if it is not trying to force a march through the heart of a community, it is saying that we should accept an unfair funding proposal from the British Government. It is clear, as the Finance Minister said, that we are underfunded compared with other devolved Administrations. The British Secretary of State said that the package that he offered addressed all the issues that were discussed: does the Finance Minister agree that that is the case?

Mr O'Dowd: It is not. It does not cover baselining, and nor does it respond to borrowing powers for the Housing Executive, which would allow us to build more social housing. There are two issues that it does not deal with. Nor does it deal with the quantum of money required to stabilise public services, which has come about as a direct result of years and years of underfunding.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the —

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will get to you in a wee minute, Matthew, thank you.

That ends the question for urgent oral answer.

On a point of order, Matthew.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you. It is a very small point of order. The Minister indicated that he was legally obliged — I presume that he means under the NI Act — to publish a Budget before the financial year: that is true, but he did not mention that it is supposed to be agreed by the Executive Committee. I just wanted to put that on the record.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have it on the record even though you know that it was not a point of order, but, sure, do not let Standing Orders get in the way of a good video.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before Andrew McMurray is called to make a winding-up speech on the amendment, I apologise to Connie Egan for her not being called earlier in the debate. An administrative error meant that the Table was not aware that Connie wanted to speak until we had moved to the Minister's response: I apologise on our behalf.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Andrew, you have five minutes to wind.

Mr McMurray: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am glad to speak on the motion. Having listened to other Members' contributions, I will take the opportunity to reflect on my experience of training my dog. Members will be aware that I am the proud owner of a wonderful dog, Rey, who is so wonderful that she is the reigning Stormont Dog of the Year. Before Rey, we had Dude Dog, a golden lab. When I say "lab", I mean that he was part lab, part polar bear. They were two very different dogs but, thankfully, both lovely-natured and easy to train. Well, Rey was easy to train; the Dude would just abide.

Training a dog is such an important process. "Sit", "Stay", "Heel" and all those things make it into a game. Even though no one has asked, I will tell you what, I think, the most important drill in dog training is: get the dog to sit and then let him or her feed only when you say so. That is an important and effective method. It is positive and about affirmation, rewards and role, and it gives the dog a purpose.

While it can be hard not to become frustrated and impatient at times, getting cross in any relationship serves no purpose. A scared dog will not want to listen to you, never mind come anywhere near you. I am just a layman dog trainer, however; I just go by what I have picked up from other dog trainers. No one whom I have spoken to would endorse the use of electric shock collars.

A sheep man told me:

A gun dog man told me:

Others said, "Cause more harm than good", "Wouldn't use one", and "Can do real, long-lasting damage". Those are some of the responses that I have had from people who know much more about the subject than I do.

The representative organisations have also made known their views on the issue. Aversive training tools are cruel, dangerous and counterproductive: the British Small Animal Veterinary Association therefore recommends that they should not be used to train animals. One study showed that owners were more confident about applying reward-based methods, which suggests that such methods are more sustainable for medium-to-long-term training. That evidence is reflected in the position taken by the British Small Animal Veterinary Association:

I am not convinced by the exemptions that are proposed in the motion. As the Minister has outlined, for emergency and high-risk situations, professionals already have access to established handling and restraint methods such as muzzle, net, control pole, humane trap, slip lead and, if needed, sedation and anaesthesia. That is not the same as using aversive training devices to modify behaviour by applying pain and discomfort. The Minister recognised that there may be separate considerations for specified service dogs operating in a particular public safety and security context that is different from that of companion animals. The Minister rightly recognised, however, that exemptions for such considerations would need to be tightly drawn, based on evidence and capable of being enforced.

My party has a proud history of promoting animal welfare, as my colleague Mr Blair detailed, and it is a priority for us. Aversive training devices are unnecessary because other, much more humane and effective methods are available. Studies clearly show that reward-based methods are as effective as aversive methods and lead to better welfare outcomes. As Mr Blair stated, we agree that there is a need for legislation, and we want to see aversive training tools banned.

The legal situation on these islands is a mixed picture, with electronic collars banned in Wales and guidance in Scotland that discourages their use. Nothing is yet in place in Northern Ireland, but we should be at the forefront of the movement. I thank Minister Muir for his work towards achieving that goal. Banning aversive training tools already forms part of Minister Muir's animal welfare pathway, and I look forward to the introduction of the relevant secondary legislation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Diana Armstrong to make a winding-up speech. Diana, you have 10 minutes.

Ms D Armstrong: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and apologies for my late arrival in the Chamber.

I thank Members across the House for their contributions to what has been an important debate, and I thank the Minister for being in the Chamber to respond. At its heart, the motion is about how we believe that domestic animals should be treated. We all accept that pet ownership comes with responsibilities. Animals need training and boundaries, and, at times, difficult behaviour must be addressed; however, there is a clear difference between training an animal and deliberately causing it pain. Shock collars, prong collars, choke chains —

Ms Finnegan: Will the Member give way?

Ms D Armstrong: Yes, certainly. Go ahead.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Member for the information in her winding-up speech. The proposer of the motion said earlier that education was key to owning dogs and that people should not own dogs unless they are educated to do so. Will the Member agree with me that animal welfare is a wide-ranging topic, and that therefore people who leave dogs in their cars while they are at work would be frowned upon?

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Member for her intervention. I think the topic has been well rehearsed, and my colleague has clearly explained the issue.

Shock collars, prong collars, choke chains and other aversive devices rely on an animal avoiding an unpleasant consequence. We should move away from training methods that are based on fear and discomfort and, as other Members have said, towards humane reward-based approaches. That view is supported by leading animal welfare organisations, including the Dogs Trust, the USPCA and Cats Protection, which have all highlighted the benefits of positive training methods and the need to reduce reliance on devices that cause unnecessary suffering.

There has been discussion today about where the line should be drawn, and that is a legitimate debate. Members' contributions to the debate covered that issue further. The purpose of the motion is not to make life more difficult for responsible pet owners, nor is it to prevent professionals from taking the necessary action when an animal presents an immediate danger to itself or others. That is precisely why the motion recognises that appropriate exemptions may be necessary for veterinarians, animal rescuers or dog wardens when particular equipment is genuinely required for safe handling or an emergency. In an ideal world, we would not want anybody to use aversive tools and for all such tools to be banned. We do not want any domestic animal to have those tools used on them as a way of controlling them by inflicting pain and suffering. However, in some genuine emergencies, professionals should have the right to use an aversive tool to control environments, such as in rescue situations, where a dog warden or rescuer may need to use a slip lead to control a highly aggressive dog when it is not possible to clip on a harness or a collar. Therefore, appropriate exemptions for some of the tools, such as slip leads, are necessary, but we do not want anyone using those tools unless it is an emergency and they are a professional. We should not allow legitimate concerns about exceptional circumstances to prevent us from dealing with the routine use of devices that can cause unnecessary suffering.

I turn to Members' contributions. The proposer of the amendment, Mr Blair, spoke about the dedication of animal welfare organisations and the Minister's work to ensure that animal welfare remains high on the agenda through the animal welfare pathway. He was pleased that the motion’s proposal is included in the pathway. Horrifyingly, he spoke of shock collars delivering shocks of up to 60,000 volts for as long as 11 seconds at a time. Áine Murphy spoke against aversive tools, saying that banning them is a principle should unite us all in the Chamber. She focused on the role of councils in implementing dog welfare legislation and said that more education was needed for councils, as well as more resources.

Michelle McIlveen said that we are a nation of animal lovers, and, while there is no specific prohibition of those devices in Northern Ireland, the evidence does not show that e-collars are a more effective means of training. In fact, they can make an animal more tense. The DUP supports the prohibition of aversive devices, and the legislation needs to be carefully drafted with exemptions where handlers need safe handling conditions. Daniel McCrossan told us that his lovely dogs, Rosie and Hudson, brought joy to his life. He said that we have a duty to treat animals with kindness and respect, with no place for training methods that rely on fear and pain. Tom Buchanan said that a dog is a man's best friend, demonstrates loyalty and is part of the family, and that aversive tools are nothing short of barbaric. Gareth Wilson stated that our legislation must keep pace with that in other jurisdictions, but it must be workable and guard against unintended consequences. I missed the end of Andrew McMurray's speech, but he acknowledged that we should be at the forefront of this. I welcome those comments.

The UUP welcomes the fact that the Minister and his Department have already examined this issue through the recent animal welfare consultation, which has now closed. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the responses received, but the consultation cannot be the end point. At some point the consultation must lead to action, and that is what the motion seeks. Northern Ireland should have a modern animal welfare framework that reflects our understanding of animal behaviour and responsible training. Any prohibition must be practical, enforceable and clearly understood by owners, trainers, retailers and enforcement agencies. If new offences are introduced, appropriate penalties and adequate enforcement resources will be required, which will necessitate cooperation from DAERA and the Department of Justice.

Alongside legislation, there must be education. Most pet owners care deeply about their animals and want to do the right thing, so we should ensure that they have access to reliable advice and humane, evidence-based training methods and support when behavioural problems arise.

Animals cannot tell us when a training method has frightened them or caused them pain. They depend entirely on us to set the standards to which they are treated. Today, we have an opportunity to say clearly that unnecessary pain and fear have no place in the training of domestic animals. We have an opportunity to promote humane alternatives, strengthen animal welfare protections and turn those principles into meaningful action. Therefore, I hope that Members across the House will support the motion. The UUP will not support the amendment, and I urge the Minister to introduce the necessary legislation —.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Will the Member give way?

Ms D Armstrong: Yes, certainly.

Mr Muir: As I set out in the debate, the consultation has been completed, the responses have been analysed and I am carefully considering the advice from officials. I seek that people respect the fact that it is a complex area, and I need to take advice from officials on the way forward, particularly on exemptions. The context in which the amendment was tabled was to provide the capacity to carefully consider the issue. I have some concerns about the exemptions that are set out in the wording of the motion. That is the context, and that is where I was coming from.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for providing that context. In closing, I urge him, following the examination of consultation responses, to introduce the necessary legislation in this Assembly mandate, if possible, or, if not, the next mandate.