Official Report: Tuesday 20 October 2026

Mr Gildernew: Éirím lena chur in iúl an imní mhór atá orainn faoi na ciorruithe ar BBC a bhfuil iomrá leo anseo sa Tuaisceart. Tá imní mhór orainn faoin tionchar a d'fhéadfadh bheith acu ar BBC Gaeilge agus ar chláir Ghaeilge go háirithe. Bainfear an bonn dár dtionscail áitiúla chruthaitheachta leis na ciorruithe ar léiriúchán na n-ealaíon agus na siamsaíochta, cuirfear poist i mbaol agus laghdófar ar na deiseanna atá ag daoine éirimiúla áitiúil a gcuid oibre a fhorbairt agus a thaispeáint. Tá daoine oilte a bhfuil taithí, ciall don chruthaitheacht agus eolas acu ar ár bpobail taobh thiar de na cláir sin, agus cuidíonn siad lenár scéalta a chur in iúl don lucht féachana. Bheadh daor orainn dá gcaillfimis an saineolas sin, ní bheadh ann ach tuí na háithe a chur ar an mhuilean.

Ós rud é gur craoltóir seirbhíse poiblí é BBC, tá freagracht orthu guth a thabhairt do na daoine, an cultúr agus na pobail a bhfreastalaíonn siad orthu. D'fhéadfadh na ciorruithe sin dochar a dhéanamh do phoist áitiúla, do thionscail chruthaitheachta agus d'ionadaíocht chultúrtha. Ní mhaolófar an dochar sin lena rá gurb é an plána mín atá á chur ar an tseirbhís.

Tá imní faoi leith orm faoi thionchar na gciorruithe sin ar an tsoláthar don Ghaeilge. Tá pobal na Gaeilge anseo ag fás, agus ba cheart aitheantas agus tacaíocht a thabhairt don fhás sin, in áit an smior chailleach a bhaint as le ciorruithe. An áit a mbíonn craoltóireacht, bíonn deis an teanga a chluinstin agus a úsáid sa ghnáthshaol ag an té atá líofa, ag an té atá ag foghlaim agus ag an teaghlach atá ag tógáil páistí trí Ghaeilge. Cuireann sí saibhreas na teanga agus an chultúir roimh lucht mór féachana fosta.

Cuirfidh Sinn Féin in éadan iarracht ar bith an soláthar sin a lagú. Tá freagraí soiléire uainn maidir leis na himpleachtaí a bheidh ann don fhoireann agus don mhaoiniú, agus do chláir bheo agus rialta. Tá infheistíocht leanúnach agus tiomantas soiléir do bhuaine na dtionscal cruthaitheachta agus na seirbhísí Gaeilge de dhíth.

Mr Clarke: As the court case regarding the decision of the Chief Constable and Secretary of State to take the course of action that they did is ongoing in the High Court, I will be careful to try not to say anything that would prejudice the outcome. However, when listening to the case in the court, it is hard not to notice what the Chief Constable has put forward as evidence. He talks about the potential of guns coming on to our streets from dissident republicans. That poses questions. First, if the Chief Constable has knowledge about those groups and individuals having access to guns, why did the police not go after the guns beforehand? If they knew that the guns were moved to the area, why were they not intercepted before they were moved into the Garvaghy Road area? Since the Chief Constable and Secretary of State capitulated to the lawlessness of those on the Benches opposite, why did they not go in afterwards? Those are three fundamental questions about the policing operation on the Garvaghy Road that remain unanswered. Indeed, we should all rightly be concerned that the current Chief Constable has done little to nothing to bring to an end the danger that the wider public of Northern Ireland faces from dissident republicans.

My colleagues on the Policing Board and I will continue to explore that in the days and weeks in front of us. It is clear — do not let this be lost on anyone — that the parade was lawful and that the Chief Constable and Secretary of State capitulated to lawbreakers and have taken little to no action. Many people have asked, on the airwaves, why the police did not intercept and stop people making their way to the parade. That is a reasonable question that has not been answered. I am clear: we will pursue the matter to every degree that we can to get the answers to the questions that remain unanswered regarding the actions of the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable should have afforded people the lawful right to which they are entitled rather than hiding behind some dissident threat. He needs to come down very hard on that.

Mrs Guy: Last Saturday morning was time well spent for me. I joined parents and carers at a wellness and information session organised by Sensability, which is a Lisburn-based group that supports adults with severe learning difficulties. A number of things struck me about the event. The first was how much care and understanding had gone into creating an event that genuinely met the needs of families. Karen and Vivien, who lead Sensability, are parents of young people with complex needs. They understand what families need, which is support, advice, time to breathe and the opportunity to connect with people who truly understand their lives.

For the young people in attendance, the session was a chance to have fun, spend time with friends and be themselves, while surrounded by carers who see them as the unique individuals they are. Alma from Caleb's Cause was also there, listening to parents and sharing vital information about navigating the transition to adulthood. She gave families a two-page checklist of things that they need to know and plan for. For many, much of that information was brand new, and that fact really stayed with me. The checklist was extensive and, frankly, intimidating, but it was also frustratingly familiar. Once again, parents were filling gaps in a system that should provide clear and accessible information and support. Those families already carry a huge amount; they should not have to rely on another parent who is fighting their way through the system to tell them what help exists, what they are entitled to and what they need to do next. One simple request that I heard was for a one-stop shop for trusted and reliable information — somewhere that families could go and know that they would get the right information at the right time. The Caleb's Cause website or a Saturday morning information session is not where families should have to find out what support is available for them or what they should have to coordinate on behalf of their family member in the absence of coherent care plans in Northern Ireland. We need our public services to join the dots, provide that information clearly and make sure that families are supported through every stage of their child's life.

Parents such as those whom I met on Saturday should not have to plug the gaps in the system. They deserve a system that is joined up and that works for them. Again, I thank the incredible teams at Sensability, Live Life Well-Being Centre and Caleb's Cause for the genuinely inspiring and impactful work that they do.

Ms Hunter: I will speak about the horrific issue that plagues our society in Northern Ireland: domestic violence. Home is a place that should feel safe, but for many victims of domestic violence, it is a place in which they have to be hypervigilant. Home should be the place where everyone feels safe. It should be somewhere where we can close our door, relax and feel at peace. Unfortunately, however, the reality for many across Northern Ireland is that they live in fear in their home.

This week is Domestic Abuse Awareness Week, but for those experiencing abuse it is something that they live with every day. A member of our SDLP women's group recently shared her experience with me. She said that all that she ever wanted was to feel at peace in her home. That is something that many of us take for granted, but it is something that had been taken away from her. Domestic abuse is not always physical violence. It can be coercive control, manipulation and so much more. It can be someone slowly taking away another person's independence, confidence and sense of safety. Thankfully, she eventually made the difficult decision to leave, but leaving did not mean that the abuse stopped. It followed her, as it does many women and victims. She spoke about the difference that Women's Aid made to her life and about the support that she had received during what was one of the most difficult times of her life.

Her story is a reminder of the importance of organisations such as Women's Aid but also of the enormous challenges facing women across the North who escape abusive relationships. Too often, we hear about domestic abuse and the one question that is asked is this: why didn't she leave? We should, however, be asking a different question: what stopped her leaving? Sadly, in the current climate, the answer for many women is financial insecurity. When rents are rising, childcare costs are through the roof and families are struggling to make ends meet, leaving an abusive relationship could mean facing even more poverty or even homelessness. How can we expect a woman to leave when she cannot afford to keep a roof over her and her children's heads? No woman should be forced to remain in an abusive relationship that she literally cannot afford to leave.

I welcome the fact that the House has introduced the ending violence against women and girls strategy, which recognises the importance of tackling the issue, but there are serious questions to be asked about how we measure its success. Without clear, measurable outcomes and proper data collection, how can we know whether the strategy is making a difference to the lives of women across the North? How do we know that it is making women feel safer in their own home? Publishing a strategy is one thing, but delivering real change for women who are experiencing abuse is another. Home is a place where everyone should feel safe. It should be somewhere where children can grow up without fear and somewhere where women can live without being subjected to intimidation and control.

All that the woman who shared her story with me ever wanted was peace in her home. That is not an unreasonable expectation. It is something that every person deserves, and it is something that we in the House should be doing everything within our gift to guarantee.

Ms Finnegan: I congratulate Crossmaglen Rangers on another fantastic county final victory and for bringing the Gerry Fegan Cup back to Crossmaglen. As a proud Crossmaglen woman, I know how much the victory means to our community. Cross Rangers are a huge part of the fabric of our town, with generations of families having played their part in the club's success. The latest victory is a credit to the players, management and everyone behind the scenes who have worked so hard throughout the year.

The title was dedicated to Crossmaglen's much-loved and much-missed teammate Stringer: Caolan Finnegan. It is a fitting tribute to Caolan, who meant so much to his teammates, the club and the entire community. He was surely in the Athletic Grounds on Sunday in spirit. I have no doubt that Stringer, Margaret McConville and all the other great people whom the club have lost were very much in the thoughts of everyone as they celebrated the victory. They were looking down over the boys, cheering them on.

Crossmaglen Rangers have given our community so many proud days over the years, and this is another one to remember. Comhghairdeas libh agus ádh mór

for the upcoming match against the Cavan champions, Gowna, in a few weeks' time.

Mr T Buchanan: The recent revelations from the Omagh bomb inquiry that the Irish Army received information on the evening of 14 August 1998 of a car bomb to be transported to Omagh the following day yet deliberately failed to pass that information to the police not only show a blatant dereliction of duty but reinforce the truth about collusion between the Republic of Ireland and terrorist organisations. That has caused further pain and hurt to the Omagh families. The evidence raises serious questions about what the Irish authorities knew before the attack, why the information was not passed to the RUC and whether the bomb could have been averted, saving the lives of 29 people and two unborn children alongside preventing injuries to the many people who carry the scars of that terrible atrocity to this day.

For many years, the finger of blame was pointed at the RUC for not acting quickly enough, yet the truth has now been well and truly revealed: the Irish Army, on receiving a warning of a car bomb heading for Omagh some 24 hours before the explosion, did absolutely nothing about it but allowed it to pass through their territory into Northern Ireland and on to Omagh with the full knowledge that there would be only one outcome: murder, bloodshed, devastation and anarchy. Yet, did they care? Of course not. If they had cared, they would have passed on that information. That clearly points to collusion between the perpetrators and the Republic's authorities, with the Dublin Government turning a blind eye to it.

The Dublin Government's lack of serious cooperation over the past 28 years is further crucial evidence that the Republic did absolutely nothing to interrupt or stop the bombing mission bound for Omagh on that fateful afternoon, yet many of our people today still carry the scars from that blatant neglect by the Dublin Government, who have done all in their power over these years to cover up their failings. It is now time for the Dublin Government to stand up and be counted for the years of collusion and harbouring republican terrorists after they had carried out their dastardly deeds of murder and bloodshed throughout our communities. Their silence and lack of cooperation has been deplorable while our people suffer and seek justice, and their hands drip with the blood of many innocent people from Northern Ireland. They refused to hand over terrorists from the Sinn Féin/IRA murder machine whom they provided safe hiding places for.

Today, I call for a full public inquiry into the Republic of Ireland's handling of the warning received and the circumstances surrounding the actions —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr T Buchanan: — of the Irish Army, which allowed that devastation to take place.

Mr Boggs: I quote:

The situation facing staff and patients alike at Altnagelvin A&E has been raised repeatedly in the Chamber, but we cannot overemphasise just how much we need to see action. Each week without fail and almost each day, I am contacted by patients or, more often than not, their families, who do not know where else to turn but to speak to their local elected representative. I know that all Members of the Assembly who cover the Western Trust area have the same story to tell, and nearly every message includes a line that I know to be true: "I know that the staff are doing their best". That could not be any truer, and it is imperative when discussing the issues that we recognise the invaluable role and dedication of the staff, who are doing everything that they can to make patients comfortable and have them treated as soon as possible.

In recent weeks, I have heard of very unwell patients in their 90s sitting waiting, some for days, to be treated. I have listened to their loved ones, at times in tears, because they feel helpless to the person whom they love. I know that situation because I too have experienced it with an elderly loved one, and it is not acceptable. I have listened to the staff who are running on empty, burned out and in need of urgent support. Last week, the Health Minister visited Altnagelvin to meet the staff and to see the current emergency department (ED). I am sure that he was left in absolutely no doubt that the facility is not fit for purpose. When a facility that is designed to treat 35,000 patients a year is treating somewhere in the region of 80,000 patients, little more argument is needed as to how important it is for a new ED to be made a reality as soon as possible.

I welcome the Minister's comments that a new ED at Altnagelvin will be incredibly high on his Department's project list when the Budget becomes available. Each of us in the Chamber and people outside will know just how dire the financial situation is, but the focus on the project cannot be lost. Therefore, I make a direct plea to the British Secretary of State, who, at present, is in negotiations with the Executive: can you see just how much our public services need to be put on a sustainable footing? We need to have sufficient funding to be able to invest in and transform public services. It is not about getting anything over and above what we need; it is about being able to deliver the services that people deserve.

The British Secretary of State talks about the Executive being financially irresponsible. I implore him to assess how irresponsible it is for him to leave the Executive in a position where they cannot fund vital public services such as this one. With one voice, all Members across the constituencies covered by the Western Trust must advocate for the ED to be upgraded as soon as possible, because people have waited long enough. Patients and their families have waited long enough.

Ms Brownlee: This morning I highlight the important case for introducing newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) in Northern Ireland. SMA is a rare inherited condition that affects the nerves that control muscle movement. It can cause progressive muscle weakness and, in its most severe forms, can affect a baby's ability to sit, swallow or breathe. The challenge is that the symptoms may not be apparent at birth but damage can begin early. Treatment can improve outcomes and identify the condition before symptoms develop, which makes a critical difference. Newborn screening offers a way to identify affected babies promptly.

Northern Ireland already offers a heel-prick blood test to check for a number of serious conditions. The question now is whether SMA can be added to that test, with the right clinical pathways in place to confirm a diagnosis and provide that timely specialist care. There is a growing difference across the United Kingdom. Scotland began screening in March, and, this month, England began a phased service evaluation. The Republic of Ireland has also begun screening through its newborn blood spot programme. Northern Ireland has not yet started such an evaluation. That means that where a baby is born can affect whether SMA is identified through the newborn screening programme.

I welcome the work of Spinal Muscular Atrophy UK, Muscular Dystrophy UK and Novartis UK to bring the issue to the Assembly's attention. Their drop-in session is on Monday 2 November in room 115, where they will set out the case for screening and give Members the opportunity to hear more. I encourage all colleagues to attend the session and to engage with the clinicians and campaigners in order to better understand the opportunities for improved outcomes for patients in Northern Ireland. I also call on the Health Minister to work with the relevant experts and screening bodies in order to assess how newborn screening for SMA can be introduced here, including the evidence, the cost and the care pathways that are required.

Like those of many others here, my office has received many emails on this important issue. Every family deserves the chance of early diagnosis and timely treatment for their child, wherever they live in the UK. I hope that we can bring the issue forward and make a real difference for babies and families in Northern Ireland.

Mr Gaston: Nineteen years ago today, Paul Quinn, a 21-year-old man, was beaten to death with iron and nail-studded bars that broke every major bone in his body. The Independent Monitoring Commission found that the Provisional IRA was responsible for his murder. Eleven years ago today, the Government published a security assessment that found that the Provisional IRA retained an army council that oversaw the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin with an overarching strategy. The assessment stated that it retained "'departments' with specific responsibilities" and that it still had weapons that had not been decommissioned. That is the nature of the party that holds the First Minister post and with which those who sit on the Executive associate themselves. It is not nice to think of a 21-year-old beaten to death by the paramilitary wing of a party in the Northern Ireland Government.

Since the illegal protest against the legal Drumcree parade, nationalists across the House have claimed repeatedly that what they were involved in was some sort of non-violent resistance. That fairy tale exploded in the High Court yesterday. We now know that republicans had firearms. We now know that there was a belief among the police that they would shoot officers who dared to move in and do their job and enforce the law. We now know that petrol bombs were ready to be deployed against the police had they gone in. Most tellingly for the House, we now know that the police were actively considering the feelings of the Provisional IRA in how to police that parade.

To some Members I say this: when you took to the street and stood beside the bomber Breandán Mac Cionnaith, the new chief constable of the Garvaghy Road, and when you linked arms with people such as the Provisional IRA's chief of staff, Martin Lynch, and when you engaged with those people, you were not involved in a modern-day recreation of Martin Luther King in 1960s America. No, everyone who stood on that road, whether they were aware of it or not, did so in the shadow of gunmen. Do not tell me that that represents progress or is some sort of by-product of peace. Armed men in the background, police weighing up their reaction and politicians calling it "non-violent resistance": welcome to Northern Ireland in 2026. Is that what this place has to offer?

Mr Dunne: I rise to pay tribute to the life of Mr Terry Harryman, who, sadly, recently passed away. Terry was a true sporting icon who brought great pride to Bangor, north Down and, indeed, Northern Ireland through a remarkable rallying career spanning more than five decades. He was one of the finest co-drivers of his generation, navigating for some of the biggest names in rallying, including Ari Vatanen, Paddy Hopkirk, Michele Mouton, Malcolm Wilson and Jimmy McRae. His partnership with Ari Vatanen was particularly successful, bringing his career to great heights and success across the world, securing six World Rally Championship victories and nine podium finishes, including wins at some of the most iconic rallies in the world, including in the Safari, Finland, Monte Carlo and RAC rallies. Terry even helped Michele Mouton to win the 1986 German rally championship and enjoyed considerable success here at home, across the UK and beyond.

It was fitting that his outstanding achievements and legacy of success were recognised by Ards and North Down Borough Council by his induction on to the wall of fame at his local leisure centre, the Aurora in Bangor, in 2024. My thoughts and condolences are with the Harryman family and his many friends at this sad time. He will certainly be remembered for his incredible career as one of the finest rally co-drivers from Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: No one else has indicated. Thank you.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move

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

Mr Lyons: This statutory rule (SR) makes amendments in relation to the lump sum payment scheme under the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. The regulations make positive amendments to equalise payments made to dependants, bringing the amounts into line with payments made to sufferers. A clear, relevant date for the purposes of calculating awards is also being introduced along with clarification of to whom payment is to be made where a person makes a claim but dies before it can be paid.

Outdated references to medical boards that no longer exist are to be removed along with redundant top-up awards.

The regulations are considered technical in nature, in that they simplify and clarify the legislation underpinning the 1979 scheme. Aligning payments made to dependants with those made to sufferers can be seen only as a positive change, so I ask Members to support the motion.

Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): As the Committee Chairperson, I support the motion that the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations be affirmed. The Committee most recently considered the regulations at its meeting on 15 October and agreed to recommend that they be affirmed by the Assembly.

While the amendments are largely technical, they make a number of useful and positive changes to the operation of the scheme. The regulations amend the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Regulations 1988. As the Minister mentioned, they will equalise payments to dependants with those made to sufferers; clarify whom should receive a payment where a person makes a claim but dies before the payment can be made; introduce a clear date for the purpose of calculating awards; remove references to medical boards that no longer exist; and remove the existing arrangement for top-up awards.

The Committee notes in particular the change in payments to dependants. At present, payments to dependants under the 1979 scheme are lower than those made to sufferers, and the arrangements can involve additional top-up calculations that are difficult to interpret and administer. The regulations will bring dependants' payments into line with those made to sufferers and provide a clearer and, we believe, more straightforward basis on which to make claims.

There is also an important clarification relating to cases in which a person made a claim but, sadly, died before the claim could be processed and paid. The Department advised that the existing legislation did not provide a clear basis for dealing with that situation. These regulations address the gap and provide greater clarity on to whom the payment should be made.

The regulations modernise some of the administrative provisions of the scheme. Existing provisions refer to determinations by medical boards that are no longer in existence, which, in practice, have been interpreted by reference to industrial injuries disablement benefit medical assessments. Those outdated references will be removed, and a clear relevant date will be established for determining the rate of award that applies to a claim.

I put on record the exceptional circumstances surrounding the Committee's scrutiny of the rule. The Minister wrote to the Committee on 23 September seeking its consideration within a shortened time frame. The reason given was the desire to ensure that people here could benefit from the changes from the same date as people in Britain, where the corresponding legislation was expected to come into force on 31 October. The Minister stated that those circumstances required a departure from the normal process and timescales for delegated legislation.

The Committee, at its meeting on 1 October, agreed to accommodate the reduced time frame in order to facilitate commencement on 31 October. At that stage, however, neither the draft statutory rule nor the explanatory memorandum was available. The Department laid those documents in the Business Office on 5 October, two working days later and before the Committee had been able to take the normal step of considering whether it was content for the Department to proceed to make the rule. As a consequence, when the Committee returned to the matter on 15 October, it moved directly to consider whether it had any objection to the rule as laid.

The Committee recognised the exceptional circumstances and, indeed, the importance of avoiding unnecessary delay to the operation of these beneficial provisions. Nevertheless, it is important that that sequence of events remain exceptional. Effective scrutiny is best served when Committees receive the documents sufficiently in advance of a rule being made and laid for there to be a meaningful opportunity to consider the proposals at each stage of the process. I therefore encourage the Department to ensure that future delegated legislation is brought forward in such a way as to allow the normal scrutiny process to take place.

The Committee's Citizen Space call for views ran from 1 October to 14 October and was updated with the relevant documents once they were made available to us. The Examiner of Statutory Rules considered the regulations and did not identify any matter that required the rule to be drawn to the special attention of the Assembly.

Taking all that into account, the Committee considers that the regulations make sensible and positive improvements to the scheme, particularly through the equalisation of dependants' and sufferers' payments and the clarification and modernisation of the arrangements for determining and paying awards. The Committee for Communities therefore recommends that the Assembly affirm the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2026.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Committee for Communities for the positive way in which it has dealt with the regulations. Its prompt consideration of them in what are, I accept, exceptional circumstances will enable the legislation to be made in a time frame that enables people here to benefit from the changes from 31 October. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to move

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

Dr Archibald: The legislative consent motion (LCM) endorses the extension of the provisions of the Sporting Events Bill, as introduced in the House of Lords on 14 May 2026. The Bill is intended to create a legislative framework that Governments can use when bidding for major sporting events, as contained in clauses 1 to 13, 18 to 24, 25 and 26 to 30, together with schedules 1 to 3, schedule 5 — paragraphs 1 and 3 only — and schedule 6 to the Bill.

I consider that to be a positive step. I recognise the economic benefit that hosting major sporting events can bring to businesses and communities here. The Bill includes provisions in the following areas: ticket touting, advertising, trading, unauthorised association, enforcement, financial assistance, and transport and traffic management in England only. The Bill establishes a framework for regulating ticket touting, advertising and trading in connection with major sporting events. Those areas do not fall within excepted or reserved matters under schedules 2 and 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and are therefore within the legislative competence of the Assembly. The Bill contains 30 clauses, 25 of which will apply here. The proposal is that they be extended to this jurisdiction via an LCM.

I now turn to the specific clauses in the Bill that require legislative consent. Clause 1 introduces the concept of a legislative framework for sporting events. Clause 2 sets out the powers to apply the framework provisions. Clauses 3 to 5 set out the conditions that must be met before the regulation-making powers in clause 2 may be exercised. Those clauses define the appropriate authority and make further provision for regulations that apply the ticket touting provisions to sporting events.

Clauses 6 and 7 enable the designation of a person to grant authorisations in relation to ticket touting. They also enable regulations to include exceptions as to when a person may be in breach of the regulations.

Clauses 8 to 10 relate to advertising provisions. They set out provisions for regulations, the designation of a person to grant authorisations and when conduct does not constitute a breach of the prohibition on advertising.

Clauses 11 to 13 make further provision for regulations that apply to the trading provisions. That includes that the regulations must specify a place or places and the period for which the trading provisions apply. The regulations also set out the provisions that allow a designated person to grant authorisations and specify the circumstances in which conduct does not breach the prohibition on unauthorised trading.

Clause 18 provides that regulations applying the ticket touting, advertising and/or trading provisions to a sporting event may provide for one or more Department or public authority to enforce those offences.

Clauses 19 and 20 set out the circumstances in which an internet service provider does not breach the ticket touting, advertising and trading offences and the prohibition on unauthorised association. They also provide for circumstances in which a ticket touting, advertising or trading offence is committed by a corporate body.

Clause 21 enables the Secretary of State to amend the maximum fine for breaches of the ticket touting, advertising and trading offences by means of regulations. Clause 22 relates to any authority making regulations that will apply the advertising and/or trading provisions having to issue and publish guidance. Clause 23 amends schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and also amends the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 so that certain enforcement powers in those Acts are available to designated enforcement authorities under the Bill. Clause 24 defines terms used elsewhere in the Bill.

Clause 25 provides a power for financial assistance, and that power is conferred on local devolved Departments rather than on the Secretary of State, thus enabling financial support to be provided for qualifying events hosted here.

Clauses 26 and 27 enable the Secretary of State to make provisions consequential on the Bill by regulation. They make further provision for the regulations to be made under the Bill, including their form and parliamentary scrutiny. Clauses 28 to 30 explain where the Bill applies, confirm any legal changes that apply in the same areas, state that the Bill will commence two months after it has passed and give the Bill its official short title.

The Bill will create a flexible common legislative framework that can be applied to support the successful bidding for and delivery of major sporting events. By having a common framework and reducing the requirement for individual administrative commitments, the North will become a more attractive prospect for hosting major sporting events. My Department has worked closely with the Department of Justice and the Department for Communities, and I acknowledge the positive and constructive engagement with officials from those Departments.

Finally, I thank my Executive colleagues, who have given their support to seek legislative consent for the Bill's provisions. I thank the Committee for its interest and engagement on the matter and for the report that it produced. I therefore commend the motion to the Assembly.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): On behalf of the Committee, I extend our congratulations to our Chairman, Phillip Brett, on the lovely news of the birth of his daughter at the weekend.

As the Minister indicated, the UK Government's stated policy objectives for the Sporting Events Bill are to establish a legislative framework that enables the UK Government and the devolved Governments to attract major sporting events to the UK. The Bill will provide an event-agnostic legislative framework that can be applied to support the delivery and successful hosting of major sporting events across the United Kingdom or those solely in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

The idea is to move away from event-specific primary legislation and enable commonly required measures to be applied through secondary legislation as needed. The Bill is popular among international sporting event rights holders, as it includes protections for commercial rights and the management of activities such as advertising, trading and ticketing. The Bill also makes provision to create offences for ticket touting, advertising and unauthorised association. Under paragraph 1(1) of schedule 4, that refers to the:

The Committee was briefed by the Department for the Economy at its meeting on 16 September 2026, at which a number of key issues were discussed. The Department clarified that the Bill would replace the requirement for individual Government guarantees to be administered each time that the Northern Ireland Executive were to bid, or were to be part of a bid, for a major international event, such as the FIFA Women's World Cup 2035.

The Department advised that delegated legislation would have to be applied for each major sporting event in order to enact the powers. At this time, Northern Ireland could choose, if it wished, to use the new sporting events framework. The Department advised that the Bill is designed to provide assurances for major national events organisers that see the benefit of having a clear legislative framework, particularly in the areas of unauthorised association and ticket touting.

The Department advised that the devolved powers in the Bill may be exercised by a Northern Ireland Department, with policy responsibility for a sporting event under the direction and control of its Minister. The Department indicated that powers cannot and will not be exercised by the Executive as a whole. A Northern Ireland Department would, however, seek the Executive's approval to exercise powers under the Bill if the sporting event were considered to be cross-cutting, significant or controversial.

Further to that, officials indicated that a Northern Ireland Department could make regulations through the Northern Ireland Assembly or request the Secretary of State to legislate on a UK-wide basis.

The Department advised that there were no implications if the Republic of Ireland were to hold a cross-border major sporting event. A Northern Ireland Department could choose to use the Bill's provisions or not. In the case of an all-island event, an assessment would be made of whether the provisions set out in the Sporting Events Bill would be beneficial to the requirements of a bid for that specific tournament. Officials indicated that that would involve discussions with the authorities in the Republic of Ireland on whether they would wish to align provisions in their jurisdiction with our provisions for the event in question.

The Committee noted that the departmental assurances and explanations were welcome and welcomed the legislation as an opportunity to promote related economic and tourism growth. The Committee was also relaxed about the late amendment, which includes provisions relating to recurrent events such as the Open. The Committee therefore agreed to support the legislative consent motion. That concludes my remarks on behalf of the Committee.

I will speak briefly now as a DUP MLA. We welcome the motion. We welcome the opportunities for Northern Ireland on the world stage. We love to see those events here. Northern Ireland already punches well above its weight in a number of those fields, and we welcome anything that strengthens that further.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Committee Chair for her contribution and support and welcome the interest that the Committee has taken in it. We all agree on the potential for further major sporting events and the benefits that they would bring from an economic and tourism perspective to our wider community and society. I look forward to working with Members to ensure that the North plays a leading role in bidding for major sporting events in the future. I recommend that the Assembly agrees the motion.

Ms Sugden: I beg to move

Mr Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call Claire Sugden to open the debate on the Bill.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to bring the Bill before the Assembly today. It is legislation that I have wanted to introduce for a very long time. Indeed, in many respects, the journey towards the Bill began almost 12 years ago when I was first elected to the House.

In 2014, as a new MLA, I went out to my constituency and met as many people, community groups and organisations as possible. I wanted to understand the communities that I represented, the challenges that people were experiencing and the issues that they believed needed greater attention. One thing that became apparent very quickly was how active older people's groups were throughout my constituency of East Londonderry. They are an important part of our community and voluntary sector. The groups bring people together to tackle loneliness and isolation, support people to remain active and independent and provide opportunities for older people to participate in community life. What struck me most about the groups was that they were not simply places where older people received support; they were places where older people provided support. They were volunteers, organisers, community leaders, carers and advocates. They were contributing enormously to the communities in which they lived.

Through those early conversations, I began to hear concerns about the way in which older people were treated and, in particular, about the absence of legal protection against age discrimination outside employment. That came up repeatedly. Older people told me that Northern Ireland had fallen far behind other parts of the United Kingdom and Ireland when it came to protecting their rights. They were concerned that decisions could be taken about them or services denied to them because of their age, without the same statutory protections that people elsewhere enjoy, and they wanted that to change.

Those conversations ultimately led to me establishing the all-party group on ageing and older people. Through that group and through continued engagement with older people's organisations, the issue became increasingly clear. It was not simply a concern raised by a handful of constituents; it was a long-standing omission in Northern Ireland's equality framework. That omission had been recognised by organisations working in equality, human rights and older people's advocacy for many years. The Commissioner for Older People, Age NI, the Equality Commission (ECNI) and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) have all contributed to the wider discussion about addressing that gap. The more that I explored the issue, the more apparent it became that it was a problem that would be addressed properly only through legislation. That is ultimately why we are all here today.

At the last Assembly election, I made a commitment that I would seek to introduce legislation to address age discrimination in the area of goods, facilities and services. I am pleased to be fulfilling that commitment. However, whilst I am the Member who has brought the Bill before the Assembly, I acknowledge from the outset that the motivation did not originate with me. It came from the people whom I represent. It came from older people who felt that their concerns had not been sufficiently recognised. It came from people who believed that their age should not determine whether they were treated fairly when accessing services. It came from organisations that have spent many years advocating for stronger legal protections. I have had the opportunity to take those concerns forward through the legislative process. However, the principle behind the Bill belongs to everyone who believes that a person's age should not be a reason for unjustified discrimination.

Although my own motivation began with older people, the more that I examined the issue, the clearer it became that its implications extend much further. Age discrimination does not affect older people exclusively. It can affect younger people. It can affect people at different stages throughout their life. It can affect any of us as we grow older. That is why the legislation before us is intended to establish protection for people who are aged 16 and over, rather than for one particular generation.

There is something particularly fitting about the timing of the debate. October is Positive Ageing Month in Northern Ireland. Earlier this month, on 1 October, we marked International Day of Older Persons. Throughout October, community groups, councils and organisations throughout Northern Ireland are recognising the contribution of older people to our society. They are encouraging positive and active ageing, highlighting opportunities for social connection and celebrating the important roles that older people continue to play in their communities. I very much welcome that. However, Positive Ageing Month should also encourage us, as legislators, to reflect on how we treat older people. How do public services respond to their needs? How do our policies support their independence? How do our laws provide the protections that they deserve? While we rightly celebrate older people and their contribution to society, Northern Ireland continues to lack the general legal protection against age discrimination in goods, facilities and services that is already available in the United Kingdom and Ireland. That is a contradiction that we, as an Assembly, should address. Positive ageing should not simply be something that we celebrate but something that we support through our policies, public services and laws.

There is also a wider demographic argument for doing so. Northern Ireland's population is ageing. According to the latest population projections from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA), by the middle of next year, 2027, there will be more people aged over 65 living in Northern Ireland than children under the age of 16. NISRA projects that there will be approximately 375,600 people aged over 65, compared with 365,700 children aged under 16. That is a significant demographic milestone. I hope that, subject to the Assembly's approval, 2027 will also be the year in which the Bill receives Royal Assent. There will be something particularly meaningful about those two milestones coinciding.

At a time when our population is ageing and we should be planning strategically for the implications of that change, Northern Ireland still does not afford older people the same general legal protection against age discrimination in everyday services that exists elsewhere in these islands. The implications of an ageing population extend far beyond equality legislation. They extend to health and social care, housing, transport, financial services, community provision and public services. As people live longer, the decisions made by those who provide services can have increasingly important consequences for their independence, well-being, financial security and quality of life. We know that our society is changing and that public services and the wider economy will have to adapt to that. Surely, then, the legal framework within which those services operate should also reflect the society that we are becoming.

I do not make the argument that older people deserve protection because they are becoming a larger proportion of our population. Their entitlement to equal treatment does not depend on their numbers, but our changing population makes the practical importance of the legislation increasingly obvious. Our laws should reflect the society that we are becoming rather than the society that we were when those protections were first considered. I believe that that makes the case for addressing the gap now rather than continuing to defer it.

I want to explain why the legislation matters to people in their everyday lives. When we talk about equality legislation, it is easy to become absorbed in legal definitions, statutory provisions and technical arguments. Those things are important, and I will come to them later in my speech, but, ultimately, the Bill is about people. It is about how people are treated when they access healthcare, seek financial services, use public transport, book accommodation, access leisure facilities or seek support from a public authority. Age discrimination is not necessarily something dramatic or immediately obvious. It may arise from a policy that has been in place for many years and has never been properly questioned.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way and for introducing this important piece of legislation. She talked about healthcare, insurance, housing, retail and leisure, and the policies that are in place. Does the Member believe that there will need to be a look across Departments at the policies and legislation that are in place so that they fit with this particular piece of legislation? There may need to be a review of those policies as well.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Member for her intervention. Absolutely. Indeed, Part 5 of the Bill empowers the Equality Commission to provide the knowledge and understanding of how the legislation will take effect. You are right to say that not only does the Bill affect private-sector businesses but it cuts across public-sector functions.

Age discrimination may also arise over what someone is capable of doing because of their age or it may arise because of a decision about an individual without proper consideration of their personal circumstances. For example, imagine that someone in their 70s is applying for a financial product. They have a reliable income, substantial savings, and a history of managing their finances responsibly. Yet, they discover that their access is restricted because they have passed a particular age. There may be legitimate reasons for age-based restrictions in some financial products — a lender may need to consider affordability, repayment periods and risk — but those matters should be capable of examination. The question should not simply be whether someone is 70 or 75. It should be whether the treatment has a lawful basis and, where required, that it can be justified.

Let us consider another example. An older person lives independently and has always dealt with their bank in person or over the telephone. The bank decides to move a particular service entirely online and the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of age. However, its effect may fall disproportionately on people who are less confident using digital technology or who cannot easily access it. That does not mean that digital banking in itself is unlawful. Nor does it mean that banks should not modernise, but it does raise questions about whether the policy creates a particular disadvantage, whether it can be justified and whether reasonable alternatives exist. Those are precisely the kinds of questions that equality law can help us examine.

We should also recognise that age discrimination can affect younger people. A young adult may be refused accommodation because a hotel assumes that everyone under a particular age is likely to behave irresponsibly.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. The concern that I raised at Committee was that you need to be 18 to enter a contract, so, as far as I am concerned, if you went and booked a hotel room, you would be entering a contract. I still have not got my head around how you would square that with people between 16 and 17 years of age being discriminated against.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Member. I have considered that since the conversation that we had at Committee. My understanding in respect of the Bill is that it is the subject of the discrimination rather than the contractual arrangement between the individuals, so the discrimination case that may be taken would not be between the persons who the contractual arrangement exists with. It would be against the subject — the young person, for example — because they are being treated differently on the basis of their age. There is also a section — I cannot quite remember the Part — that talks about contracts, and that ensures that contracts themselves do not provide a legal loophole in which discrimination can be written out of law. We certainly need to discuss that further in Committee because it is a fair point.

Young drivers may also encounter significantly higher insurance premiums. Although some of those decisions may be entirely legitimate, others may be based on assumptions rather than evidence. The point is, however, that the law should provide a framework against which those distinctions can be assessed. It should not automatically prohibit such distinctions, but neither should it leave them entirely beyond challenge.

I want to address health and social care in particular. While age discrimination can result in inconvenience or financial disadvantage, there are circumstances in which its consequences can be much more serious. They can affect someone's independence, their dignity, their well-being and, potentially, their health and life. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw how important questions of age, vulnerability and access to healthcare could become. I recognise the extraordinary circumstances in which decisions were made. Healthcare professionals were working under immense pressure, resources were constrained, and difficult clinical and public health judgements had to be made, but the pandemic also exposed concerns about the treatment of our older people.

In May 2020, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Commissioner for Older People issued a joint statement highlighting the impact of the pandemic on older people, particularly those living in residential and nursing care homes. That statement emphasised the importance of recognising older people as individuals and ensuring that decisions on life-saving treatment respected their rights and dignity. That is an important principle, but an individual's chronological age is not the same as their health circumstances or ability to benefit from treatment. Two people of the same age may have entirely different medical needs. Equally, two people of different ages may have similar needs. Clinical decisions should reflect individual circumstances and the available medical evidence.

Age can, of course, sometimes be clinically relevant, and no one is suggesting that healthcare professionals should disregard legitimate medical considerations, but there is a difference between making an evidence-based clinical judgement and relying on an unjustified assumption about someone because they have reached a particular age. Imagine a healthcare service introducing an upper age threshold for a treatment. Legitimate clinical evidence relating to effectiveness, patient safety or the allocation of limited resources may support that threshold. However, if the threshold is arbitrary or makes no appropriate allowance for individual circumstances, serious questions should arise. What is the purpose of the restriction? What evidence supports it? Is it proportionate? Could the objectives be achieved through a less restrictive approach? Those questions matter because the consequences for the person affected may be profound.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for giving way. She mentioned clinical decisions in health and social care. If a 16-year-old were to say that they did not want to be placed on an adult ward, would the legislation place a duty on the trust to open a new ward for that one patient?

Ms Sugden: Not necessarily, but it places a duty on the trust to review the circumstances to see whether it could take a less restrictive approach. It is an interesting issue, and it came up in my constituency. The patient had reached adult age, but it was felt that it would be more appropriate for her to be on a children's ward. The suffering and the issues that not being on a children's ward caused led to an intervention, and that showed that a less restrictive approach based on her individual circumstances could have been found. This law is not prohibitive insofar as there is an opportunity for flexibility. That is important because, as the debate will, I am sure, reveal, dealing with different circumstances requires flexibility. We need to get to a situation where it is not necessarily about treating everybody the same but recognising that their circumstances may require different approaches.

A person's age should not in isolation determine the value placed on their life or the healthcare that they receive. Earlier this year, the Commissioner for Older People published 'Voices of Concern: The Reality of Health and Social Care for Older People in Northern Ireland'. The report drew on the experiences of over 1,200 older people and highlighted difficulties in accessing GP appointments, treatment and social care. I want to make an important distinction: those findings did not establish that every difficulty experienced by an older person amounts to unlawful age discrimination. A waiting list is not in itself proof of discrimination, and a shortage of care packages is not necessarily discrimination. The Bill will not resolve the structural problems that affect our health and social care system at the moment, but those experiences demonstrate why fair access, individualised decisions and effective accountability matter. The Bill seeks to establish one important protection within that wider framework.

At present, someone in Northern Ireland may believe that they have been treated unfairly because of their age. They may challenge that decision, seek an explanation, approach an organisation for assistance and discover that, although they would have had a protection in an equivalent situation elsewhere, Northern Ireland's legislation does not provide the particular statutory protection that they need. That is the injustice that I want to address.

The purpose of equality legislation is not to guarantee that everyone receives the outcome that they want; it is to establish standards by which treatment can be assessed and provide remedies when those standards are breached. Age discrimination may not seem to be an issue in 2026 until someone in Northern Ireland experiences it, seeks redress and then discovers that the legal protection simply is not there. That is why the Bill is necessary.

I turn to the legal position. We already recognise age as a protected characteristic in employment. The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 prohibit age discrimination in employment and occupation, so the principle that unjustified age discrimination should be unlawful is not new to Northern Ireland. Outside of employment, however, the position is different. Northern Ireland has developed its equality legislation through a range of separate statutory provisions. We have protections against discrimination on grounds including sex, race, disability, religious belief and political opinion, although the precise scope differs among the legislative frameworks. We do not have one, consolidated equality Act equivalent to the Equality Act 2010 that exists in Great Britain; instead, we have a collection of legislation developed over time.

I am not attempting, through this private Member's Bill, to consolidate all Northern Ireland's equality law, nor am I attempting to replace existing protections. I seek to address a specific and long-standing omission. Age remains the outstanding substantive gap in our general anti-discrimination protection for goods, facilities and services. That means that a person may be able to challenge discriminatory treatment when accessing a service because of their disability but may not have an equivalent statutory remedy if the unfair treatment is solely because of their age. I find that inconsistency difficult to justify.

I also want to distinguish the Bill from section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Section 75 places an important duty on designated public authorities to have:

between specified groups, including persons of different ages. However, section 75 is not the same as an individual's statutory right not to be discriminated against when accessing a service. It does not by itself create an equivalent civil remedy, and it does not impose comparable duties across the private sector. The two approaches serve different purposes. Section 75 is concerned with how public authorities develop and exercise their functions, whereas the Bill establishes substantive protection against unlawful age discrimination. They can and should complement each other.

Northern Ireland is also out of step with neighbouring jurisdictions. In Great Britain, protection against age discrimination in services has operated since 2012 under the Equality Act 2010 and associated provisions. In the Republic of Ireland, age discrimination is addressed through the Equal Status Acts. Both frameworks, while accommodating legitimate differences in treatment, recognise that there should be legal protection from unjustified age discrimination in everyday services. There are differences in their scope and exceptions, but the important point is that we are not legislating in an area without precedent. We can examine established frameworks, learn from their operation and adapt familiar legal principles to Northern Ireland's circumstances.

The Bill is also not the first attempt to address the issue here. During the 2011-16 mandate, proposals were developed through the former Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. The proposals contemplated protection initially applying to people aged 16 and over. However, the legislation did not progress. There were disagreements about its scope, particularly about whether protection should extend to children of all ages. Ultimately, no Bill was introduced. I do not particularly want to revisit the political disagreements of that period, but we need to learn from the experience. Whatever the reasons, the consequence has been that the legal gap remains. People who were concerned about age discrimination more than a decade ago are still without the protection that they seek. We have an established body of equality law on which to draw, and we now have an opportunity to make meaningful progress.

Before I turn to its substantive provisions, I will explain how the Bill was developed. After committing to taking it forward, I sought to establish whether the Executive planned to legislate, so, in September 2024, I wrote to the Executive Office. I received confirmation that there were no plans to introduce legislation in the area and that no comparable proposals were being developed. My preference would have been for such a significant gap in our equality framework to be addressed through Executive legislation, but, in the absence of that, I decided to pursue the matter through a private Member's Bill.

I launched a public consultation in March 2025 that ran until June 2025. It sought views on the principle of protection; the appropriate age threshold; the scope of the legislation; potential exceptions; and practical implications. I received 68 responses. I recognise that some Members may regard that as a relatively small number, and I do not want to overstate what can be concluded from the responses, but the consultation was part of a wider process. There was also the previous Executive consultation, existing research and advocacy from equality bodies and experience in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

I also undertook targeted engagement with organisations and sectors likely to be affected. Those included the Equality Commission, the Commissioner for Older People, organisations representing children and young people, Age NI and representatives of services including the financial sector. In recent days, I have continued conversations with the children's sector and the Association of British Insurers (ABI). Those discussions have been valuable, because organisations understandably approach the legislation from their own perspective. Those representing older people want meaningful protection; those representing children want the Assembly to consider whether the Bill should be extended further than 16-plus; and service providers need to understand their responsibilities and whether legitimate practices can continue. All are legitimate interests, and my responsibility as the Bill sponsor has been to consider the different perspectives and make judgements about the framework that I am bringing before the Assembly. I also emphasise that the consultation was intended to inform the development of legislation, not simply to endorse a predetermined approach.

As drafting progressed, I considered the responses received, legal precedents, practical implications and the advice available to me. That required decisions about the age threshold, exceptions, enforcement and the treatment of financial services. In some areas, the Bill differs from options that were initially contemplated. That is an appropriate part of legislative development. Where further consideration identifies a more workable or proportionate approach, the legislation should be capable of reflecting that. The underlying purpose has remained consistent: meaningful protection against unjustified age discrimination. Achieving that purpose, however, requires careful consideration of how the law should operate.

One question that was raised during consideration of the proposals concerns the extent of age discrimination in Northern Ireland. That is a fair question. When legislating, we should seek evidence to determine whether there is a gap, but we must also recognise the difficulty in measuring discrimination where the particular statutory protection does not exist. People may not recognise their experience as potential discrimination. They may not complain, because they believe that nothing can be done, and currently it cannot. Without an equivalent statutory right, there is no comparable body of litigation through which the problem can be examined. The absence of cases cannot therefore establish that age discrimination does not occur. That does not remove the need for evidence, but it means that the available evidence must be considered in its proper context. The legal gap is identifiable. The experiences of older people and other age groups must provide important context. The operation of legislation elsewhere demonstrates that statutory protection is possible. Those are all relevant considerations when determining whether reform is justified.

The Bill is substantial. It contains 50 clauses across nine Parts, together with two schedules. I appreciate that it is a significant undertaking for a private Member's Bill, but the fundamental objective is straightforward: to prohibit unjustified discrimination, harassment and victimisation on the grounds of age in connection with goods, facilities and services. Giving effect to that objective requires more than simply declaring age discrimination to be unlawful: we must define "prohibited conduct", establish the scope of protection, provide legitimate exceptions and create appropriate means of enforcement and redress.

That explains the Bill's structure. Much of its framework draws on existing legislation, particularly the Equality Act 2010 and Northern Ireland's already established equality laws. We are not inventing entirely new concepts of discrimination, harassment, victimisation or objective justifications. Those are familiar legal principles.

I am not suggesting, however, that every provision simply reproduces existing law. The inclusion of 16- and 17-year-olds, the treatment of financial services, and certain adapted provisions represent deliberate legislative choices. The Bill therefore combines established legal concepts with provisions that have been developed for Northern Ireland's particular circumstances. It is a substantial piece of legislation, but I believe that its structure is logical. It identifies who would be protected, what would be prohibited, where the protection would apply, the circumstances in which treatment would be permitted, and how the law could be enforced. I will explain those principles in turn.

Part 1 establishes age as a protected characteristic. Age discrimination is not confined to treating older people less favourably than younger people, nor does the Bill establish one fixed definition of an older person. Age groups may be defined by reference to a particular range, or a range of ages. For example, a distinction might be made between people aged 55 and over and those younger than 55, or between people aged 65 and over and those below that threshold. The important question is why the distinction has been made and whether the treatment is lawful. The Bill also recognises assumed age. Someone should not necessarily fall outside the protection simply because a service provider has incorrectly guessed their age. For example, a person may be refused a service because staff believe that they are too old to access it. That assumption may be wrong, but the treatment may nevertheless have occurred because of the age attributed to that person. The concept of assumed or perceived characteristics is not unfamiliar to Northern Ireland's discrimination law. The Bill seeks to ensure that an incorrect assumption does not, by itself, defeat the protection.

I will spend some time explaining the principal policy decision that I made in developing the legislation, which was to begin the protection in respect of goods, facilities and services at 16. I anticipate that Members will question why I chose that threshold. Some may believe that the Bill should extend to children of all ages. Others may ask why it goes further than the general services protections in Great Britain and Ireland, which generally begin at 18. Both of those questions deserve an answer. When I consulted, I sought views on protections for all ages, for those aged 16 and over, and for those aged 18 and over. The majority of respondents favoured all-age protection. I do not dispute that children younger than 16 can experience unjustified age discrimination, nor would I suggest that they are less deserving of appropriate protection. However, in developing the legislation, I had to consider how the principle could be translated into workable law, how it would interact with existing statutory arrangements and what could realistically be achieved through a private Member's Bill. I also had to consider the history of previous attempts to legislate in this area. As I have explained, the Executive previously proposed beginning protection at 16. Disagreements about whether it should extend further contributed to those proposals not progressing. The history is important, because the consequence of that disagreement was that no protection was introduced. I do not want a repeat of that outcome.

There is a substantive reason for including 16- and 17-year-olds. Sixteen is an important transitional age in our existing legal framework. It is around that age that young people reach the end of compulsory schooling and begin to exercise greater independence. They may enter employment, begin earning and managing their own money, undertake further education or training and increasingly access services independently. That does not mean that a 16-year-old is legally an adult, nor does it mean that every right or responsibility changes at 16. However, the law already recognises that 16- and 17-year-olds occupy a distinct position in a number of different contexts. For example, a 16-year-old may enter employment and enjoy statutory protection against unjustified age discrimination in the workplace, but when the same person leaves work and accesses an ordinary service, the equivalent general protection is absent. Members should reflect on that inconsistency. There is a reasonable argument for extending the underlying principle to services that young people increasingly access in their own lives.

I also recognise that including 16- and 17-year-olds represents a deliberate development beyond the general framework that already operates in Great Britain and Ireland. Although I do not want to overlook that fact, it is not an entirely unfamiliar proposal. It reflects the approach that was previously developed by Northern Ireland's Executive. It would extend the established equality law concept to a defined additional age group. There will be issues requiring consideration, particularly concerning safeguarding, contracts and the interaction with existing legislation. However, the Bill would not give 16- and 17-year-olds unrestricted access to every service. For example, existing licensing restrictions, safeguarding obligations and other legal requirements remain relevant. The Bill is intended to prohibit unjustified discrimination within its statutory scope. We are not simply copying legislation from elsewhere, nor are we attempting to create an entirely new system of discrimination law; we are adapting an established framework to Northern Ireland's circumstances and taking a considered opportunity to extend protection to 16- and 17-year-olds.

I have also engaged with representatives of the children's sector, including Children in Northern Ireland (CiNI) and the Children's Law Centre (CLC). I recognise their argument that protections should extend to children of all ages, but there is an important distinction between supporting that objective and determining how the legislation necessary to achieve it should operate. Extending the Bill to include those who are below the age of 16 would require us to examine a wider range of statutory relationships, including the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, parental responsibility, safeguarding, consent, capacity and contractual arrangements. We would also need to consider services that are specifically designed around children's developmental needs and the ways in which existing statutory age distinctions operate. For example, there are circumstances in which a parent makes a decision or enters into a contractual arrangement on behalf of a child and services where a child's age is relevant to safeguarding, eligibility or consent. There may be questions about who can pursue a claim and how a child's interests are represented. Those issues are not necessarily reasons why all-age protection cannot be achieved, but they require careful policy development; we cannot assume that simply removing the age threshold in clause 9 would resolve them. The exceptions and enforcement provisions would need to be examined in a wider context. I am conscious of the capacity and timescale associated with a private Member's Bill, and I believe that there is a difference in scale between extending established concepts to 16- and 17-year-olds and constructing a comprehensive framework that covers every stage of childhood. That is not a statement about whose rights matter more; it is a judgement about legislative scope and implementation.

During my engagement with the children's sector, a concern was raised that limiting protection to those aged 16 and over amounted to writing younger children out of equality law. I understand the concern behind that statement, but we need to distinguish between the legal effect of the Bill and the argument over how far its protections should extend. The Bill does not remove an existing statutory protection afforded to children, reduce children's rights under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 or disapply existing safeguarding, welfare and other legal protections. Children under the age of 16 will continue to benefit from the statutory frameworks that already apply to them. I would not suggest, however, that those frameworks provide an equivalent general prohibition on age discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services. They do not, and that is precisely why the children's sector is concerned. There is, however, an important difference between saying that children are not included in a new statutory protection and suggesting that an existing right is being taken away from them. They are not being written out of an existing protection or being written into this particular new protection. I recognise that that distinction does not resolve the argument about whether the Bill should extend to all ages, but it accurately describes what the legislation does.

I want to avoid creating a debate in which the rights of older people are set against those of children, because both deserve appropriate legal protection — of course they do. My motivation has always been to address a long-standing gap that affects older people in particular. While older people may benefit from other statutory protections such as disability discrimination law where it is applicable, older age does not in itself attract the general services protection that the Bill seeks to establish. That is the gap that I am seeking to address.

Ultimately, the scope of the legislation is a matter for the Assembly, and I am not suggesting that 16 is the only possible threshold or that it is some perfect dividing line. It is a deliberate policy choice, informed by a legislative history, the statutory framework and the practical considerations associated with bringing the Bill forward. I will be candid about the risk. Having spent many years engaging on this issue, I remain concerned that seeking to extend the Bill to all ages could result in the legislation becoming stalled once again. That is not a certainty or a reason to dismiss the arguments for all-age protection, but it is a risk that Members should consider. I would regard establishing meaningful protection for people aged 16 and over as an important step forward. I would also welcome further consideration of extending it further. Clause 45, for example, establishes a statutory review mechanism. As drafted, it does not expressly require consideration of extending the age threshold, but I am open to strengthening that provision so that an examination of all-age protection becomes part of that review. That would allow the relevant Department, informed by the experience of implementing the legislation and engagement with the children's sector, to examine the wider statutory framework and bring forward its own recommendations. I remain open to the Assembly's consideration of the threshold during the legislative process, but I ask Members to reflect upon the consequences of failing to secure any protection. I would much rather see the Assembly establish meaningful protection that can be developed further than allow another decade to pass without addressing the gap.

Part 2 of the Bill defines the conduct that is prohibited. It addresses direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, victimisation, instructions and pressure to discriminate and responsibility for unlawful acts. Those concepts are familiar from established equality law, but I will explain briefly what they mean in practice. Direct discrimination concerns less-favourable treatment on the grounds of age. Take, for example, an older person who approaches a service provider: they meet the ordinary requirements for accessing a service and are otherwise eligible, but they are refused because they have reached a particular age. The question would be whether that treatment could be justified under the legislation. If there is no lawful justification, it may constitute direct age discrimination. Similarly, a hotel might refuse accommodation to everyone below a particular age. There may be legitimate reasons for restrictions in some circumstances, but where the statutory test requires justification, the provider must be able to demonstrate that its approach is proportionate. An unsupported assumption that everyone within an age group will behave irresponsibly is not necessarily sufficient.

Indirect discrimination is different. It can arise where a policy applies, apparently equally, to everyone, but places people of a particular age group at a disadvantage. For example, a service provider may introduce a requirement that all customers use a smartphone application — a rule that applies to everyone. However, depending on the circumstances, it may disproportionately disadvantage older customers who cannot easily access or use that technology. That does not automatically make the policy unlawful. The issue arises where a relevant disadvantage occurs and whether the policy can be justified. Could the same objective be achieved through a less-restrictive approach? Could an alternative means of access reasonably be provided? Those are the kinds of questions that arise.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Member for raising the issue of older people and the use of the internet through a laptop, computer or, particularly, mobile phone. I recently had a constituent in my office who does not use any of that equipment. The constituent has a basic mobile phone to keep in contact with family members but was expected to use it to access the home heating oil scheme. Subsequent enquiries to the Department on that, by myself and my office, showed a very narrow understanding of the circumstances and, in reality, there was a virtual point-blank refusal to assist in any other way. The person on the phone was incredulous that an older person could not use a mobile phone or that that mobile phone would not give her access to the internet.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Member for that intervention. That is a perfect example of potential indirect age discrimination, and it is operating within a scheme that is currently active in Northern Ireland. The Department might argue that it provides a reasonable alternative through the telephone line, but, from my experience in my constituency office, it is poorly staffed. I would go one further and suggest that it is a form of indirect discrimination but, sadly, the legislation does not exist for us to pursue that avenue. That is why we need to move forward on the Bill.

The Bill also recognises circumstances where someone outside the age group can experience "substantively the same disadvantage" as those within the age group. The intention is to avoid an overly rigid approach to identifying those who are affected by a discriminatory policy.

Harassment concerns unwanted contact connected to age that has the purpose or effect of violating someone's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The statutory test considers the person's perception, the circumstances and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. For example, repeatedly humiliating an older customer because of their age may raise issues under the harassment provisions, but the law does not simply treat every instance of offence as unlawful harassment. The relevant legal requirements must be satisfied.

Victimisation concerns detriments suffered because someone has asserted their rights or undertaken another protected act. For example, a customer should not be penalised simply because they have complained about age discrimination, nor should someone be disadvantaged for supporting another person's complaint or providing evidence. The Bill also addresses instructions and pressure to discriminate together with the responsibility of employers, principals, employees and agents. Those provisions matter because discrimination may arise through organisational policies and instructions, not simply the isolated actions of individuals.

I want to give particular attention to objective justification, which is one of the most important principles underpinning the legislation. The Bill recognises that there may be legitimate reasons for treating people differently because of age. The question is whether the objective being pursued is legitimate and whether the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving it. That is an established legal test; it has not been invented for the Bill. What does it mean in practice? A provider must be able to explain the purpose of the distinction and demonstrate why its approach is proportionate. Consider insurance. Insurance may use reliable, statistical evidence to assess risk. Age may be relevant to that assessment. We should not expect insurers to disregard evidence of genuine differences in risk, but neither should age automatically become a justification for whatever restrictions or premiums a provider chooses. The relevant legal framework must allow the treatment to be assessed. What evidence supports it, what legitimate aim is being pursued, and is the treatment proportionate? The same principle applies in other contexts. A healthcare provider may take account — .

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes, go ahead.

Ms Bradshaw: I will pick up on the point about car insurance. As you know, a lot of providers and underwriters do not provide a service in Northern Ireland. Is there a danger that an unintended consequence of the new financial requirements could be fewer providers in Northern Ireland?

Ms Sugden: That is a legitimate concern, given that this legislation departs slightly from what the Equality Act provides insofar as a justification test is applied, whereas there is more of a blanket exception in the GB legislation. I have spoken with the Association of British Insurers, and it wants to revise that. In the Part of the Bill dealing with exceptions, however, there is an opportunity for the association to advocate that and appeal to the Executive Office, and it would be able to make a regulation that might create an exception in that circumstance. There is therefore an opportunity to allay those concerns and, potentially, to make an exception if required. Further to that point, this is about justifying the need through actuarial evidence. Where it can be demonstrated that younger car drivers are a higher risk because of their age, that could be a justified form of age difference. I will get to that further along in my comments.

Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sugden: Yes, go ahead.

Mr McGrath: On that point about car insurance, one case that I dealt with involved the automatic renewal of payments. The person had not realised that the automatic renewal had taken place, and payment was taken. Where people are not just on top of their finances or their accounts, there are practices that providers use, and they should look at ways to work with people. Automatic renewal could result in money coming out of accounts. Any number of things can be bought online: travel insurance, car insurance, house insurance — you name it. If a policy is toggled to automatic renewal, that can be a bit confusing for people who are not across IT equipment and insurance practices. Do you envisage that as something that could be covered?

Ms Sugden: I have not considered that example, but I suppose that it fits into the argument about indirect discrimination in the use of digital services. A policy of auto-renewal is arguably such an example, in that a group might disproportionately affected by that. That could constitute age discrimination under the Bill. In that regard, the Bill aims to ensure that financial providers are informed about those practices. A huge body of guidance was developed following the Equality Act 2010, and the Bill instructs the Equality Commission to provide similar guidance. It is not something that I have thought about, but it will be important to include those examples in the interest of fairness.

Insurance companies may use reliable statistical evidence to assess risk, and age may be relevant to that assessment. We should not expect insurers to disregard evidence of genuine differences in risk, but neither should age automatically become a justification for whatever restrictions or premiums a provider chooses. The relevant legal framework must allow treatment to be assessed: what evidence supports it, what legitimate aim is being pursued and whether the treatment is proportionate.

The same principle applies in other contexts. A healthcare provider may take account of clinical evidence, or a transport operator may provide age-related concessions in order to promote access. A leisure provider may introduce restrictions for legitimate safety reasons. Those distinctions are not automatically unlawful, but they must operate within the proposed relevant statutory framework. The Bill's purpose is not to insist that everyone must always be treated identically; it is to ensure that differences in treatment are lawful and, where required, are properly justified. That distinction is fundamental to understanding the legislation.

Part 3 contains the central prohibition concerning goods, facilities and services. It applies broadly to services provided to the public or to a section of the public, including private businesses and relevant public services and functions. It covers areas such as banking, insurance, accommodation, recreation, transport, professional services and other everyday activities. The prohibition addresses the refusal of services, discriminatory terms, termination of services and other detrimental treatment. It also applies the relevant harassment and victimisation protections, and its breadth matters.

Age-based treatment can arise in many circumstances. A person may be refused insurance, accommodation or access to a leisure activity, or a public authority may operate eligibility criteria that distinguish between people of different ages. Some distinctions will be legitimate, while others will not. The Bill's purpose is to establish a consistent framework through which that treatment can be examined, and I particularly welcome its relevance to public services. Public authorities already have important equality responsibilities, but the substantive right established by the Bill would provide an additional means of addressing unjustified age discrimination.

Part 4 concerns exceptions to the services protection. They are important because age can legitimately influence decisions in ways that require a carefully constructed legal framework. Age may be relevant to health and safety, financial risk, safeguarding, service eligibility or the provision of benefits to particular groups. The legislation must recognise those circumstances, but exceptions also require scrutiny. If they are too narrow, legitimate activity may be unnecessarily restricted; if they are too broad, the substantive protection may become ineffective. The Bill seeks to balance those considerations.

Clause 12 allows for proportionate positive action. Sometimes, people of different ages experience particular disadvantages, have different needs or are under-represented in certain activities and an organisation may wish to take steps to address that. For example, a community organisation might identify that older people are significantly under-represented in an activity and develop a programme to encourage their participation. The Bill is not intended to prevent that; indeed, it would be counterproductive were legislation that is designed to promote equality undermined organisations seeking to address age-related disadvantage. Positive action must, however, have a proper basis. There should be a reasonable belief that the disadvantage, different need or under-representation exists, and the action must be proportionate. For example, if a scheme is limited to people aged 65 and over, there should be a rational connection between that threshold and the purpose of the scheme. That does not require a mathematically perfect age threshold, but it does require a defensible basis for that decision, and the law allows for reason and flexibility. Positive action should also be distinguished from routine-based commercial concessions and other legitimate differential treatment. Depending on their nature and purpose, different provisions may permit different arrangements.

Clause 13 concerns the relationship between the Bill and existing statutory authority. There are circumstances in which legislation already requires or permits different treatments on the grounds of age, such as the purchase of alcohol. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that the Bill operates coherently alongside those arrangements, but the breadth of the exception requires consideration. It should not become a means through which the new protection is unnecessarily undermined. I would welcome the Committee's scrutiny of how the provision interacts with existing and future legislation.

Clauses 14 and 15 provide mechanisms through which exceptions may be specified by regulations. I anticipate that Members will ask why all exceptions are not in the primary legislation. The answer is that goods, facilities and services cover an enormous range of activities. There may be legitimate age-based distinctions in health and social care, insurance, transport, safeguarding, sport and concessionary schemes, and it would be difficult to anticipate every relevant circumstance in the primary legislation. A regulation-making mechanism allows issues to be considered in detail in a way that is informed by evidence and consultation. Flexibility must, however, be accompanied by appropriate safeguards. Clause 14(3) therefore requires:

The clause requires consultation with the Equality Commission and other appropriate persons, and the regulations are to be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. That means that the Assembly must approve draft regulations before they can be made. That is important. An exception may determine whether a particular age-based treatment is lawful. The Assembly should therefore retain an appropriate role in scrutinising such decisions.

Financial services deserve particular consideration. Age can be relevant to legitimate commercial and actuarial decisions. An insurer may rely on statistical evidence when assessing risk. A lender may need to consider affordability, repayment periods and other financial circumstances, and I recognise those realities. I do not want legislation that unnecessarily restricts the availability or affordability of financial products, but nor do I believe that financial services should receive a blanket exception from age discrimination protection.

Access to financial products can have significant consequences for someone's independence and financial security. Clause 15 therefore establishes particular considerations for financial services exceptions. Those include reliable actuarial or statistical data, relevant underwriting or commercial factors, access to financial products and consistency with protections elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Importantly, it prevents regulations under clause 14 from providing a blanket financial services exemption. The intention is to accommodate legitimate risk assessment while maintaining meaningful protection.

There is a deliberate distinction between the approach taken in the Bill and that in the Equality Act 2010 framework that exists in Great Britain. Its framework contains specific exemptions permitting certain age-based practices in financial services. In developing the Bill, I considered whether equivalent exceptions should be reproduced here and ultimately took a different approach.

The Bill begins with the general principle of protection and provides mechanisms through which appropriate exceptions may be developed. That distinction is important. Rather than beginning by excluding an entire area of activity from protection, the Bill considers the circumstances in which different treatment can legitimately be permitted. I recognise that financial services providers need certainty and that inappropriate restrictions could have implications for the availability and affordability of products, which is why engagement with the industry matters. I discussed the issues with the Association of British Insurers, and I welcome the opportunity for further engagement alongside conversations with other financial bodies, because there are legitimate questions to be asked about the interaction between the general prohibition, objective justification and the exceptions provided through regulations. Those deserve careful scrutiny, but meaningful consumer protection and a workable framework for providers are not mutually exclusive. My objective is to ensure that legitimate differences in treatment can continue without placing an entire sector beyond the protection of the law.

I acknowledge the relationship between exception-making powers and clause 46. Clause 46 provides for general regulation-making powers, but subsection 2 provides for a specific power to:

conduct that would otherwise be unlawful under clause 10. That is a significant power, because Part 3 contains the central services prohibition. It therefore deserves examination in relation to the ordinary administrative operation of regulations. In particular, the relationship with the safeguards in clauses 14 and 15 needs to be clear. Clause 14 expressly provides for consultation and proportionality requirements. Clause 15 establishes specific conditions concerning financial services. Clause 46(2) does not expressly reproduce all those safeguards. I would therefore welcome the Committee's consideration of whether the relationship between those provisions should be clarified or strengthened. My intention is not to create a means by which substantive protections can subsequently be removed without proper justification but to provide necessary flexibility while preserving the purpose of the legislation. If the drafting can be improved to ensure that that balance is maintained, I am very much open to amendments.

The Bill also contains exceptions concerning small dwellings; particular arrangements for care provided in the home; employment-related matters; and associations. Those provisions recognise that different circumstances may require different legal treatment. For example, privacy considerations in someone's home may differ substantially from those that apply to a commercial accommodation provider. Likewise, an organisation established principally to benefit people of a particular age group should be able to continue to operate within the relevant statutory framework. The provisions are intended to ensure that protection is practical and proportionate. The Bill seeks not to make every age-based distinction unlawful but to prohibit unjustified discrimination while recognising that legitimate differences in treatment can and should continue.

I turn to the Equality Commission and the enforcement provisions. A legal right is of limited value if people cannot understand it, exercise it or obtain a remedy when it is breached. Part 5 extends the Equality Commission's functions to age discrimination in goods, facilities and services. Those functions will include promoting equality of access; working towards eliminating unlawful discrimination; providing research, education and guidance; and discharging enforcement-related responsibilities. The commission undertakes comparable functions under existing equality legislation, and the Bill builds on that institutional expertise. Its educational role will be particularly important. The objective should be not simply to establish a new basis for litigation. We should want organisations to understand their responsibilities and to comply with them; we should want individuals to understand their rights; and we should want discriminatory practices to be addressed before they result in disputes. Effective guidance and awareness-raising will be central to that.

Part 6 establishes the principal enforcement mechanisms. The central discrimination protections operate through civil proceedings, including claims in the County Court. The intention is not that an ordinary act of discrimination should automatically result in criminal prosecution; instead, the Bill creates a civil route through which the unlawful treatment may be challenged. It addresses matters including time limits, the burden of proof, information gathering, and assistance from the Equality Commission. Those provisions are important. In discrimination cases, the person affected might know that they have been treated less favourably but might not know why. Relevant information may be held by the service provider, and the legal framework therefore needs an appropriate means of examining the decision and determining whether unlawful discrimination occurred. The Bill draws on established equality law approaches to those questions.

The Bill also provides mechanisms concerning formal investigations; non-discrimination notices; persistent discrimination; and undertakings. Those mechanisms are important because discrimination may arise from a wider organisational policy rather than an isolated incident. The law must be capable of addressing individual complaints and broader patterns of unlawful conduct. Although the principal framework is civil law, there are certain enforcement-related breaches that may constitute criminal offences. The central purpose, however, remains the creation of meaningful, enforceable protection against unlawful age discrimination.

Part 7 addresses contractual protections. There would be little point in establishing statutory rights if organisations could simply exclude them through contractual terms. The Bill therefore provides safeguards against attempts to contract out the protection. I also wanted to distinguish the person entering into the contract from the person potentially affected by discrimination. For example, a parent may enter into an insurance arrangement relating to a 16- or 17-year-old. The fact that the parent is the contracting party does not automatically resolve whose age is relevant to the allegation of discrimination. The conduct, the person affected and the relevant statutory provisions must also be considered. The issue that arose from the Committee Chair's engagement illustrates why relationships between contractual arrangements and the rights of individuals deserve scrutiny. The purpose of Part 7 is principally to prevent contractual provisions from undermining statutory protection. It should not be treated as resolving every question concerning who may bring a claim about a particular contractual arrangement.

I will address the practical implications of implementing the Bill. New statutory protections bring responsibilities. Public authorities, businesses and voluntary organisations may need to review policies and practices. Staff may require training. The institutions responsible for enforcement may require additional resources. Those are legitimate considerations, and I do not dismiss them, but I also think that we should recognise the difference between creating an entirely new institutional framework and extending responsibilities within the structures that already exist. The Bill takes the latter approach. We already have an Equality Commission, we already have equality law procedures and we already have courts capable of determining civil discrimination claims. The intention is to build upon that existing infrastructure rather than duplicate it. That should assist with the Bill's implementation. It does not, however, mean that implementation will necessarily be cost-neutral. I anticipate three principal categories of cost. First, there are the additional responsibilities placed upon the Equality Commission. Secondly, there are the compliance costs for public authorities, businesses and voluntary organisations. Thirdly, there are the potential costs associated with investigations, complaints and litigation.

The Equality Commission may require additional staff, administrative resources and funding for guidance, education and enforcement. Indeed, the commission indicated during the consultation that appropriate funding would be necessary to discharge those additional responsibilities, and that deserves serious consideration. We should not establish new statutory responsibilities without examining whether the institution responsible has sufficient capacity to fulfil them.

In the public sector, organisations may need to review eligibility criteria, policies and administrative procedures, which is what Deborah Erskine spoke to earlier. For example, a council may need to examine the age restrictions applying to leisure facilities; a public-service provider may need to consider whether an age threshold is justified; and a health and social care trust may need to review relevant policies to ensure that they comply with the new protection. Those reviews may involve legal advice, staff training or changes to procedures. However, many public authorities already have established equality arrangements, including expertise developed through their section 75 responsibilities, and that experience should also assist in implementation. It does not replace the substantive duties created by the Bill, but it provides a foundation upon which organisations can build. Private businesses and voluntary organisations will also need to understand their responsibilities. For some, that may involve reviewing existing policies and providing basic training. For others, particularly organisations operating complex age-based eligibility systems, the implications may be more substantial. Clear guidance will therefore be important in helping organisations comply without incurring unnecessary costs.

I also distinguish the cost of administering the legislation from the possible financial implications of changing a particular service delivery practice. The Bill does not establish an unrestricted entitlement to every service, nor does it prevent legitimate age-based restrictions where the relevant legal requirements are satisfied. There may, however, be circumstances in which an organisation needs to change an existing practice because the practice cannot be justified, and that could involve expenditure. For example, changing an age-based eligibility criterion may affect how a public service is delivered, or a business may need to reconsider conditions attached to a particular product. We should acknowledge that that is a possibility. However, the fact that compliance may involve costs is not by itself a reason to leave unjustified discrimination without legal protection. The proper question is whether the obligations are proportionate, clearly understood and capable of being implemented effectively.

There may also be additional complaints, investigations and civil proceedings, and that is to be expected when a new statutory protection is introduced. We should not assume, however, that every complaint will proceed to court. Education, guidance and early resolution may prevent or resolve disputes. The eventual demand will depend on awareness, compliance and the nature of the complaints that arise. Those factors make precise forecasting difficult, and the explanatory and financial memorandum identifies the anticipated areas of expenditure. However, I acknowledge that it does not provide a definitive monetary estimate for implementation. I, therefore, will welcome further examination of those matters during the Committee Stage, if the Second Stage passes today. In particular, I would welcome a detailed assessment from the Equality Commission of its anticipated staffing and funding arrangements. I would also welcome engagement with the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service, relevant departments and public bodies, which should help establish a clear picture of the financial implications before the legislation completes its passage.

I will not promise Members that implementation will involve no additional public expenditure, but using existing institutions provides a sensible starting point for managing the costs. There may also be wider social and economic benefits from reducing unjustified discrimination, including improved participation, independence and access to services, and those benefits matter as well. However, I would not present them as a guaranteed financial saving without the evidence necessary to support that conclusion.

Clause 44 requires guidance to be published before the principal substantive provisions commence, and that guidance should help service providers and the public understand the prohibition, justification test, exceptions and practical examples of lawful and unlawful treatment. I would particularly welcome sector-specific guidance. A small hotel should be able to understand whether its age-related booking conditions are lawful. A community organisation should understand when it may operate an age-specific programme, and a financial services provider should have clarity about legitimate risk assessment and the relevant exceptions.

The Bill provides for the principal substantive provisions to commence 12 months after Royal Assent. Part 5, which concerns the Equality Commission's functions, comes into operation sooner than those 12 months, and the sequencing is intended to provide time for preparation, guidance and implementation. It is important that organisations have a reasonable opportunity to understand and meet their obligations.

Clause 45 requires a review of legislation within three years of the substantive provisions coming into operation, followed by further reviews at intervals of no more than five years. That would provide an opportunity to assess how the protections are operating, whether the exceptions remain appropriate and whether implementation has revealed issues requiring further attention. It also provides an opportunity to consider further development. As I explained earlier, I would welcome an examination of whether the review provisions should expressly require consideration of extending protection to children under the age of 16. That would provide a structured means of returning to the issue informed by evidence and experience.

I also acknowledge the legal and procedural work involved in bringing the legislation forward. The Bill has required legislative competence to be considered, and its interaction with existing statutory frameworks, including financial services provisions and relevant consent requirements. The Bill was referred to the Secretary of State for consent, and that consent has been obtained, which is an important part of the legislative process. It does not, however, remove the separate requirement that the Bill's provisions fall within the legislative competence of the Assembly or its responsibility to scrutinise them. I recognise those responsibilities, and welcome further examination were necessary.

I recognise that the Bill is substantial. I recognise that Members may have concerns about particular provisions. There are legitimate questions about age thresholds, exceptions, delegated powers, enforcement and implementation. There may be areas where the drafting can be improved. I have never approached the legislation on the basis that every word must remain exactly as introduced. The development of the Bill has involved making decisions, considering different perspectives and identifying the most appropriate approach. I expect that process to continue through the legislative route.

I welcome the expertise of the Committee for the Executive Office, the Department’s officials — who are, sadly, not here — equality bodies, service providers and other stakeholders. In particular, my conversations with the children sector and the insurance industry demonstrate why detailed scrutiny matters. Different organisations will have different concerns, and those concerns all deserve consideration, but there is an important distinction between being open to improving legislation and being uncertain about its underlying purpose.

I am confident about the purpose of the Bill. The principle is to prohibit unjustified age discrimination in everyday services while recognising that legitimate and proportionate differences in treatment can continue. The detailed provisions are there to give effect to that principle. Where they can be strengthened, I welcome that constructive engagement.

Before concluding, I acknowledge that many people have contributed to bringing the legislation before the House. First and foremost, I thank my constituents, particularly the older people's groups and individuals who have raised the issue with me over many years. Their experiences, concerns and determinations have been the motivation behind the work.

I also thank my parliamentary assistant, Bethany Holmes, for her support and assistance throughout the Bill's development. I acknowledge Age NI, the Commissioner for Older People, the Equality Commission, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and many other organisations and individuals who have engaged with the issue. Some contributed directly to the development of the Bill. Others have advocated for reform over many, many years. Their work has helped to ensure that the absence of age discrimination protection has remained on the public policy agenda.

I also thank the Assembly Bill Office, the legislative drafters and wider Assembly staff who have assisted me throughout the process. Producing legislation of this scale requires considerable work, and I am grateful for their professionalism, expertise and support. I also acknowledge the Committee for the Executive Office. I appreciate the engagement that has taken place, and I recognise that detailed scrutiny of a Bill of this size will require significant work from Committee members and staff. I look forward to working constructively with them should the Bill proceed, and I thank Members in advance for their contributions to today's debate.

I will finish by returning to where I began. When I was first elected to the Assembly in 2014, I went out in my constituency to meet the people whom I had been elected to represent. I met community organisations, voluntary groups and individuals doing extraordinary things in their communities. Many of those groups were made up of older people who were active, engaged and determined to continue contributing to the places in which they lived. They were not asking for special treatment or privileges; they were asking to be treated fairly. They were asking why, in Northern Ireland, they did not enjoy the same protection against age discrimination in everyday services as people elsewhere already had.

That was a perfectly reasonable question in 2014 and an even more reasonable question in 2026. Twelve years have passed. We have had further debate and consultations. We have examined proposals and seen legislation of this kind operating elsewhere, yet the gap remains. During that time, Northern Ireland's population has continued to age. By the middle of next year, there are projected to be more people aged 65 and over living in Northern Ireland than children under the age of 16. I sincerely hope that 2027 will be the year in which the Bill, if supported by the House, receives Royal Assent. There would be something particularly meaningful about those two milestones coinciding.

At a time when Northern Ireland is becoming an older society, the Assembly has an opportunity to establish protections that recognise the rights of people as they age. There is something particularly fitting about having the debate during Positive Ageing Month, given that recognising the contribution of older people is important. Just last week, we had the Older People's Parliament in the Assembly, and its Members talked about what the Assembly has done for them. Would it not be wonderful if the Assembly could finally enact what they have wanted for years? Recognising the contribution of older people is important. Celebrating their lives, achievements and participation in society is important, but, as legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that our legislation reflects the rights and needs of the people whom we represent. We can do that in the Chamber.

I recognise that there are questions about individual provisions, and I hope that I have addressed many of those today. I fully expect that further matters will arise during Committee Stage. I also ask Members to distinguish between the detailed scrutiny that must take place and the general principles that we are considering today at Second Stage. We are being asked whether Northern Ireland should establish meaningful legal protection against unjustified age discrimination in goods, facilities and services. That is the central principle of the Bill. It is already recognised in other areas of our equality law. It is reflected in legislation elsewhere in the United Kingdom and Ireland, and people and organisations across Northern Ireland have been calling for it for many years.

The Bill recognises that age can be relevant to legitimate decisions. It recognises that, sometimes, different treatment is necessary. It provides for exceptions, enforcement and review. However, it also establishes the principle that people should not be subject to unjustified discrimination simply because of their age. Where unlawful discrimination occurs, there should be a meaningful remedy. That is a reasonable expectation. It is one to which people in Northern Ireland should already be entitled.

There is a wider point about the responsibility of the Assembly. We are elected to represent our constituents. We scrutinise government, hold Ministers to account and debate the challenges that face our society. However, we are also legislators. One of the most important responsibilities that is entrusted to us is the ability to change the law when it is inadequate. That is how we make a real and lasting difference to people's lives. We can identify a problem, examine the evidence, consider the options and legislate to address it.

That is what I have sought to do with the Bill, which began with conversations in my constituency 12 years ago. It has drawn extensively on legal frameworks to address a gap in Northern Ireland's law. I recognise that there is more work to be done. However, there is a risk that, in concentrating on the difficulties of legislation, we lose sight of the consequences of not legislating. There are real considerations when it comes to the difficulty of reaching agreement on the age threshold, the complexity of financial services, the need for appropriate exceptions and the financial implications of implementation, and they deserve examination. However, so, too, does the consequence of continuing to leave people without protection. We have had more than a decade to discuss the issue. We know that the gap exists and that other jurisdictions have established legal frameworks to address it. We know that people in Northern Ireland continue to lack an equivalent protection. At some point, we have to move beyond recognising that a problem exists and take responsibility for addressing it. That opportunity is before us today.

The Bill is not about me, any one Member or political party: it is about the people whom we all represent; the older person who wants to continue living independently, the young adult who is beginning to access services in their own right, the person who is seeking healthcare, insurance, accommodation or other essential service, and the person who experiences unjustified age discrimination and finds that the particular legal protection that they need is currently absent. The people who first raised that with me were asking for something entirely reasonable: their age should not be a reason for unfair treatment. They were asking that, when discrimination occurs, the law provides meaningful protection. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. It is a substantial piece of draft legislation. It is an important change for our equality framework. It is long overdue.

I commend the Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill to the House. I ask Members to support its passing Second Stage.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): As Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Second Stage debate on the Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill, as introduced by Ms Claire Sugden.

The Bill seeks to prohibit unjustified discrimination, harassment and victimisation on the grounds of age in the provision of goods, facilities and services. It would establish age as a protected characteristic in that context and create a legal framework for addressing age-based discrimination outside the workplace. Members will be aware that Northern Ireland remains the only UK jurisdiction without specific legislation prohibiting age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services. While protections exist in employment through the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, equivalent protections are not currently available in many aspects of daily life, such as access to services, accommodation, leisure facilities and financial services. It is clear that the Bill seeks to address that gap.

It is important to emphasise that the Committee has not yet formed a view on the merits of the Bill's individual provisions. The Committee had an initial briefing with the Bill sponsor at its meeting last week, on 14 October. Members were provided with an overview of the Bill's provisions by its sponsor.

The Bill is extensive in scope. It creates prohibitions on direct and indirect age discrimination, harassment and victimisation while providing for a range of exceptions and enabling the Executive Office to make regulations in specified circumstances. It further assigns significant functions to the Equality Commission relating to guidance, investigations and enforcement. Should the Assembly agree the Bill's Second Stage today, the Committee will undertake detailed scrutiny and seek evidence from a range of stakeholders, including older persons' organisations, youth organisations, service providers, business representatives, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, legal experts and relevant Departments. Given the delay in getting the Secretary of State's approval, however, the timescale for detailed scrutiny of the Bill is now limited, and that may give rise to pressure on the Committee's scrutiny process.

Nevertheless, the Committee will wish to examine a number of issues during its scrutiny. Those are likely to include the operation of the objective justification test; the proposed exceptions for areas such as financial services, health and social care, age-related concessions and safeguarding; the potential impact on public authorities, businesses and the community and voluntary sector; and the adequacy of the proposed enforcement arrangements. Members may also wish to consider whether the balance to be struck between protecting individuals from unfair age discrimination and allowing proportionate age-based distinctions is appropriate and workable in practice. The Committee will be keen to understand the legislation's practical implications and whether sufficient guidance and support will be available to those who are required to comply with its provisions. The Bill also provides for guidance to be issued by the Executive Office before the substantive provisions come into operation, while periodic review of the legislation is required after implementation. The provisions recognise the importance of ensuring that any new framework can be effectively understood, monitored and, where necessary, refined over time.

Second Stage is concerned with the principles of the Bill rather than with the detail of each clause. If the Assembly agrees on the Bill's principles today, the Committee looks forward to engaging constructively with the Bill sponsor, stakeholders and interested parties during Committee Stage and reporting back to the House following its scrutiny. I therefore note the Bill's objectives and the important policy issues that it raises and look forward to the Committee's examination that will follow should the Assembly agree its Second Stage.

I will now make a number of points in my capacity as an individual MLA. My party, as many in the Chamber know, is very much in favour of having a single equality Act, which would incorporate age discrimination protections in the provision of goods and services. As such, we would much prefer that that be done through a Bill from the Executive Office itself to tidy up equality law in its entirety, but we are keen to see what we can do to tackle age discrimination, even in the absence of that comprehensive legislation. I commend the Bill sponsor on not just her work on the Bill to date but her contribution in the Chamber today. It was lengthy, comprehensive and well put together.

The Equality Commission has identified age discrimination in the provision of goods and services as being a significant gap in Northern Ireland's equality legislation currently. A commitment to close that gap did appear in 'New Decade, New Approach', now almost seven years ago, but, frustratingly, as with many other aspects of that document, no progress has been made by the Executive Office. We would therefore like to see the Bill scrutinised to determine whether it can be made fit for purpose in a Northern Ireland context. We certainly understand why the Member introduced the Bill, and we share her evident frustration that she is doing so by herself rather than the First Minister and the deputy First Minister getting on with the job of introducing legislation themselves. I note that it is frustrating and disappointing that we do not have any of the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or the junior Ministers in the Chamber today.

The Bill sponsor would be the first person to suggest that the Bill still requires some scrutiny. She said that in her opening remarks, and there are elements of the Bill that will require consideration. My concern is that the Bill is complex. The more that is contained in it, the more risks that there are of unintended consequences as it progresses. In fact, the Bill goes well beyond Great Britain's Equality Act. I understand why that has been attempted, but I wonder whether, given that it is a private Member's Bill, sticking closer to what was done in the rest of the UK might have been more advisable.

I do not wish to go through the Bill clause by clause, but I will highlight a few areas on which I will be focusing during the scrutiny process. My first point concerns age itself. What many people understand by ending age discrimination in the provision of goods and services is ending age discrimination against older people. Conversely, we have all had correspondence from the Commissioner for Children and Young People arguing that ending age discrimination means ending all age discrimination.

The Bill appears to want to do that, but it sets a limit at age 17. I understand Ms Sugden's justification for that, as I listened to her intently, but, as we scrutinise the Bill, we might look at whether it would be tidier to amend the Bill so that it covers all ages.

As the Bill sponsor commented, there is an issue in the juxtaposition of the Bill with contract law. The Bill sponsor answered my query about that, so I will not dwell on that point.

The Bill's use of the word "unjustified" presents a risk of serious unintended consequences. It is a highly subjective term, although, as someone whose private Member's Bill is passing through the House, I appreciate that some terms are used in law that may cause civil servants or others trying to implement the legislation to speculate about how drafters arrived at a certain position. One example that we should concentrate on relates to policy decisions by Departments. I will pick up on category 1 accommodation, which is housing for over-55s. I understand that category. In some ways, in my constituency, I see that a lot of developers get around the requirement for there to be a certain percentage of social housing in any private development by going for category 1, because they know that they will get less pushback and fewer objections from the local residents. I will be 54 next week, so I might say, "Why is the limit 55, not 54?". There are potential dangers in how Departments arrive at policy decisions. The Bill sponsor said that a justification has to be set out, but, for people with different circumstances and life challenges that they have had to endure, such as trauma or health conditions, they might be —

Ms Sugden: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Yes, go ahead.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate that point, and I have considered it since the Committee meeting. My understanding is that the way in which the legislation is written needs to allow flexibility when it comes to the age group. If a policy can be justified or if flexibility can be demonstrated, arguably, they have not committed age discrimination. However, if they cannot do that, the legislation might cover that situation. Certainly, the guidance from the Equality Commission will be able to advise on that, because the point is not that there will be an arbitrary age or a line but that it is about an age group. Where it can be demonstrated that a particular group suffers from disadvantage, they potentially will be covered under positive action. I agree that we have to reflect on that more.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for that. A similar area concerns policy decisions relating to Translink about who is eligible for concessionary fares, for example.

Ms Sugden: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Go ahead.

Ms Sugden: I looked at that one too, because I thought that it followed a similar rule. However, the concessionary fares scheme was enacted by legislation, and the Bill would not override any existing legislation. Therefore, in that example, the Bill would not necessarily override that policy, because it is already protected as part of a statutory framework.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. That is certainly worth noting as we scrutinise the Bill.

There is a question about what constitutes "goods" and "services". They are probably defined in legislation somewhere, but we probably need to look at the practical application of that terminology. I cannot help but think that it might have been easier simply to match the single Equality Act that applies in Great Britain. While I welcome the ambition to go beyond that, I wonder whether doing so creates too many risks of unintended consequences. For example, the Bill states that financial services are not to be exempt from the legislation, even though they are exempt in Great Britain, but it also requires that regulations in Northern Ireland take account of what happens in Great Britain. In effect, Northern Ireland should take account of what happens in Great Britain in that regard but must not do what Great Britain does. I am not sure that that circle can be squared. At best, it could create a law for the courts to interpret without a precedent from anywhere else in the UK. At worst, there is a serious risk that providers, as I mentioned, may simply not bother to provide services in Northern Ireland if the legislative framework is so uncertain about what is or is not justified and how that can be demonstrated.

Ms Sugden: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: Go ahead.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Member for making that point. I appreciate the concern. It was a deliberate drafting choice to depart from the Equality Act in order to make our legislation stronger here so that financial services do not necessarily have a blanket exception, not least because the protections that a lot of older people ask for in our constituency offices probably involve financial services. From my perspective, it is about strengthening that law, but there is a safeguard insofar as the Department will be able to make regulations for those exceptions. If justifiable and evidence-based reasons are found for exempting some services from the protection, that has to be demonstrated by those financial services. I appreciate the concern about access to products and services in Northern Ireland. The Committee should have that concern, but that is why engagement with the financial sector is critical to see whether the safeguard that I have put in place is enough to allay its concerns about what is appropriate.

The other point to make is that the Bill will come into effect 12 months after receiving Royal Assent. It will become law 12 months after that point. If the Department, which is absent from this conversation, has not made the regulations by then, the responsibility will be on it to make financial services subject to that. I am also conscious that this institution has a terrible habit of collapsing. There is something that we need to consider in that. We may have to put something in to safeguard against that, but I would hate to write into law this institution's inability to do its job.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. I concur with your thought that we should not use the Equality Act as the baseline. When we conducted our inquiry into gaps in equality legislation, there was feedback that the Act in Great Britain is not perfect and could be modernised and added to. I appreciate your intervention there.

The Bill sponsor touched on the consultation, which had just 48 online responses, of which 19 were detailed responses from stakeholders. We as a Committee have not put out our own call for views, because the Bill has not passed Second Stage yet. I hope that we are successful in attracting a wide and varied range of responses, because I want to drill down into the issue of 16 versus 18 versus no specified age. I will certainly encourage children's charities to engage with us when we put out our call.

I will not go into all the specifics. The Bill sponsor touched on the penalties for discriminating on the basis of age in providing goods and services. There is the issue that it would be purely on civil matters and dealt with via compensation or enforcement action. Would there also be the potential for investigation by the Equality Commission or the Human Rights Commission for binding action plans that could be subject to criminal proceedings, as in Great Britain? I will leave that question hanging.

In conclusion, I join others in commending the Bill sponsor for introducing the Bill. I share her frustration that there has been a significant gap in equality law in Northern Ireland for a significant time. As I said, the issue of age is something that I want to return to. I want to ensure that the Committee plays an important role in putting forward, in our Committee report, guidance to the Executive Office on what should go in the regulations. Nevertheless, I commend the Bill sponsor for her work and look forward to working with her in the months ahead.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. This debate will continue following Question Time, when the next person to be called will be Carál Ní Chuilín. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.

Mr Speaker: Questions 7 and 8 have been withdrawn.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I chose not to respond because it was clear that the DUP had already made up its mind, regardless of what I had to say. Time and again, your party has proven itself to be insincere, uninterested in facts and evidence, opportunistic and self-serving. My time as Minister was better spent dealing with important departmental business. As I have said before — I will say it again for those with selective hearing — I neither sanctioned nor authorised the operation at Fivemiletown. I acted decisively to ensure that an independent external review of the circumstances is under way, and that will report shortly. If mistakes were made by my officials, they must be identified and lessons learnt.

Mr Frew: The Minister failed to respond to the debate in the House. Irrespective of which political party moved the motion and irrespective of the content of that motion, the Minister is a very important person. The House is here to hold the Minister — the very important person — to account. Will the Minister apologise to the House for failing to respond to that debate?

Mr Muir: I will take no lessons on accountability from the DUP. After all, it was the DUP that delivered Brexit, the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme, climate denial, hypocrisy and collapsing the institutions — a catalogue of scandals that are eroding confidence in the institutions.

It is clear that populism has a grip on the DUP and political unionism more broadly. Instead of showing the leadership needed to make this place work for everyone, you are determined to drive division and heighten tensions to distract from your failures. The sad reality is that the politicians on my right are not interested in making Northern Ireland work. They are seeking to dismantle the institutions and undermine the very United Kingdom that they claim to support. Time and again, the DUP has proven itself to be own-goal specialists with no strategy, no vision and nothing to offer to the electorate.

Ms Sheerin: Minister, you remarked on departmental business, and I know that you have a lot in front of you. Have you had much correspondence from applicants to the rural business scheme? I have been contacted by constituents who have been unsuccessful. Despite being told that they had scored highly enough, they were told that the pot was too small, particularly in my constituency of Mid Ulster. Will you engage with Mid Ulster District Council to potentially increase the pot so that more of my constituents can benefit from that important scheme?

Mr Speaker: Interesting segue. Minister, I will leave it in your hands.

Mr Muir: I am happy to follow up on that issue and come back to the Member. One of the challenges is budget cover associated with us delivering what the Department wants to deliver.

When it comes to departmental business, on the day of that stunt of a motion, I was at the Court of Appeal to hear the outcome of the A5 case. I was proud to work with the Minister for Infrastructure on that to deliver something really important for our rural communities.

Mr Blair: With the state of our rivers and the quality of our air, I can barely believe that we are here asking the Minister about a motion that failed weeks ago. Does the Minister agree that that motion was more about attacking a Minister who is committed to delivering across the full remit of his departmental responsibility and taking his environmental and climate responsibilities seriously than about anything else?

Mr Muir: John, that is exactly what it was about. While the DUP has treated Northern Ireland as an environmental sacrifice zone, I am proud to be the only Minister in the history of the Department to treat the needs of our environment with the respect that it deserves. Environmental protection and climate action are not optional extras; they are central to the future of agriculture, rural communities, fisheries, food production, our economy and public well-being. What you get with me is openness, fairness, an ethical approach to policymaking and a belief that we can create a healthier environment for everyone. It is therefore little wonder that the DUP does not like me: I do not bow to its self-serving demands and the narrow sections of society that it seeks to serve.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, I appreciate that you have come here with prepared remarks about the DUP. I am no fan of the DUP, and I well know how venal and self-interested it can be. However, you are a Minister accountable to the Assembly. I did not support that motion. My party was never going to support it; we agree with many of the things that you are trying to do. However, not coming here to be accountable and instead engaging in a stunt of your own simply undermined trust in this institution further. I ask you to reflect on that, given that your party and mine are about improving trust in the institutions, rather than engaging in the kind of stunts that we accuse others of.

Mr Muir: I did reflect on it, and I read through Members' contributions in Hansard. To be honest, there was not much real substance to an awful lot of what was said. A lot of it was extremely personal against me.

I am here to answer questions at Question Time. I go regularly to the Committee, and I believe in scrutiny. However, some Members do not come here to scrutinise. The question is not about scrutiny; it is about performance and TikToks, rather than asking detailed questions about what I am doing in the Department to serve everyone in Northern Ireland. To be fair, Matthew, you ask about that, and you perform that scrutiny role. It is important that we have you, as the official Opposition, to do that.

Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for being here to take questions. Do you accept that relations between you and farmers are not where you would wish them to be? What steps will you take to improve working relationships with farmers?

Mr Muir: I meet farmers regularly. I had a constructive meeting with the Ulster Farmers' Union last week and spoke to its president yesterday. I will continue to engage with people.

Perhaps we need to distinguish between perception and reality: many farmers have approached me to state that they support the respectful way in which I conduct myself. I appreciate the many people who have reached out to condemn the threats and abuse directed not just at me but at officials in the Department. The president of the Ulster Farmers' Union was clear in his condemnation of those threats and of homophobia, misogyny and sectarianism. We all need to unite against all that and say that it is wrong. I will continue to do my job on the basis of the values of fairness, respect and courage that were instilled in me by my parents and grandparents and have guided me throughout my life. That is what we need to do.

Mr Gaston: Minister, with the nutrients action programme (NAP) consultation now closed, will you outline whether you require Executive approval before the recommendations can be implemented?

Mr Muir: Following substantial engagement through the NAP stakeholder task and finish group, a revised set of proposals has been consulted on. The consultation closed on 7 September. No final decision has been taken on the proposals. I intend to meet the stakeholder task and finish group shortly to agree the way forward. I say, "Thank you" for the work that the stakeholder group did. It was a significant amount of work, and it was done constructively. I am grateful for that. I will consider the issue of Executive referral once we have finalised the proposals.

Mr Muir: My Department is fully committed to the long-term future, sustainability and enhancement of Roe Valley Country Park, which is one of Northern Ireland's most important natural and recreational assets. Alongside an ongoing programme of routine maintenance, inspections and site-management activities, the operational management plan identifies a number of significant infrastructure improvements, including reroofing the corn store; the restoration and maintenance of the historic lades; repairs to the Blue Bridge and associated steps; the construction of a new bridge at Dog Leap; and the creation, fencing and landscaping of a riverside path upstream of Dog Leap.

Subject to the availability of capital funding, those projects will help to protect and enhance the park's environmental, heritage and recreational value; improve the visitor experience; and support the long-term sustainable management of that important public asset. They demonstrate my Department's long-term ambition to invest in Roe Valley Country Park to protect and enhance its internationally important habitats, wildlife and cultural heritage while ensuring that visitors can continue to enjoy safe, accessible and high-quality recreational opportunities.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. I very much welcome the proposed improvements to the park.

Minister, I am in that park often. One of the most common questions that I get from users of the country park is whether the duck pond will be reinstated. I pose that question to you today in order for me to be able to respond to the many people who raise that issue with me.

Mr Muir: I suspected that the Member might raise that, so I have an answer. [Laughter.]

I thank my officials for pre-empting that.

The pond is managed primarily for its biodiversity value. Given its location upstream of the River Roe and its tributaries and its special area of conservation and area of special scientific interest status, management of the site is undertaken sensitively in order to protect its conservation interests. To safeguard habitats and species, any clearance work must be carried out during periods of sustained low flow and in accordance with best practice. I will take the concerns that the Member has raised back to my officials, so that they can further consider them.

Mr Mathison: Does the Minister have an update on Scrabo Country Park in my constituency?

Mr Muir: Scrabo Country Park, like all our country parks and nature reserves, is an important local asset with significant tourism, recreational and community value. The park is managed under an operational management plan that sets out planned improvement projects and routine maintenance, which is subject to available funding. This year, planned works include routine grounds maintenance, repairs to steps in the park and improvements to surfaced areas of the main car park. The walled garden is managed as a mixture of amenity grassland and wildflower habitat, providing visual amenity and biodiversity benefits. I have asked my officials to engage with the Department for Communities and Ards and North Down Borough Council to explore opportunities to further develop and promote Scrabo Country Park as a visitor destination.

Mr Muir: My Department is driving a broad programme of climate action through cutting emissions, building resilience and delivering a fair transition for all people, businesses and rural communities. That work includes delivering the Northern Ireland climate change adaptation programme, establishing the just transition commission and developing a just transition fund for agriculture alongside action across government to meet the carbon budgets and emissions targets set out in legislation. Northern Ireland’s first climate action plan (CAP1) has been completed and is awaiting Executive approval — it has been awaiting it since August. CAP1 will provide the coordinated, cross-government framework for delivering the first carbon budget. Many of the policies within CAP1 are already under way, delivering emissions reductions. Publication of the plan will give Departments, businesses and communities much greater certainty about the transition ahead. Securing Executive approval without delay is a necessity.

At the same time, work is progressing on the second climate action plan, which will cover 2028 to 2032 and demand a step change in the ambition and strength of policies across government if they are to meet the scale of the challenge ahead.

Notably, the recent Court of Appeal judgement on the A5 project, which I welcome, provided important clarity that essential infrastructure and climate action are not mutually exclusive. It also reinforced the fact that every Department has responsibility to be able to demonstrate that its decisions are consistent with the obligations placed on it by the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Meeting those obligations demands shared ownership across the Executive and urgent and ambitious action across government. To those who have directed commentary on the A5 scheme at me, I say that I await your apologies.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your book recommendations earlier, at the Book Week event, especially 'The Poo That Grew'.

Minister, will you outline the opportunities that exist for Northern Ireland from tackling climate change?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Andy. Tackling climate change is not simply a must-do but a major opportunity for Northern Ireland. It can create significant opportunities for our communities; new green jobs and skills; greater energy security; warmer, healthier homes; businesses; nature restoration; and more resilient farms. That is alongside sustainable land management, low-carbon construction and the circular economy. The economic case is strong. The Climate Change Committee (CCC) estimates that, under its balanced pathway to net zero, every £1 spent towards net zero could deliver between £2·20 and £4·10 in benefits, and that the UK health and well-being co-benefits will equate to £2 billion to £8 billion each year by 2050. That is further backed up by the work of Nicholas Stern, who sets out the benefits associated with climate change. Stern said:

Seizing those opportunities, in line with the just transition principle, could diversify rural economies, retain skills and support long-term prosperity while protecting low-income households and ensuring that no community or sector is left behind. That is the Northern Ireland that we want and deserve.

Ms Finnegan: On the back of our meeting, yesterday, with the UK CCC, it was agreed that we need to take a balanced approach to climate action being delivered. We have made it known and promoted the fact that climate action must be progressed through a just transition. I would therefore like to know the time frame for the establishment of the just transition fund for agriculture.

Mr Muir: The just transition principle is something that I hold dearly. It runs through the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, and it is important that we implement the principle. The Just Transition Commission is being established. It has been set up in law, and the public appointments process is under way. We are in the second year of the just transition fund for agriculture and will consult on the regulations associated with it. We were successful in getting funding for it last year and this year, and I encourage people to respond to the consultation on the principles associated with the fund when it launches very soon.

I thank Nigel Topping, the chair of the CCC, for being in Northern Ireland yesterday and today. There was constructive engagement, and it was inspirational to see the benefits that we can grasp from climate action.

Mr Wilson: Minister, I will refer to a climate of equal importance: the financial climate that affects businesses. I have been contacted by concerned applicants to the rural business development grant scheme about the disappointing news that almost £400,000 of funding that your Department promised to rural businesses in the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon (ABC) Borough Council area was withdrawn just days before successful applicants were due to receive letters of offer. That has been met with huge concern from an organisational perspective on ABC Council and from an individual rural business perspective. Will you commit to restoring that withdrawn funding in order to enable the scheme to progress to its original and full potential?

Mr Muir: I am aware of the concerns, and I share some of them. I spoke with officials yesterday and am seeking to get an understanding of the issues associated with the scheme. I will write to the Member. It is important that we support rural communities not only through that grant scheme but through a just transition on climate action. That is why we are setting up the commission and why we have the just transition fund for agriculture. The Committee met the chair of the Climate Change Committee informally yesterday. He found that meeting useful.

Mr Muir: The joint fisheries statement, which was published in 2022, provides the overarching framework for fisheries management across the UK. Its ambition is to deliver world-class, sustainable fisheries management while supporting a profitable fishing industry and a healthy marine environment.

I recognise the significant challenges facing the fishing industry. They include fuel costs, labour availability and access to fishing grounds. Engagement with industry stakeholders is central to developing policies that support a resilient, sustainable and prosperous fishing and seafood sector while meeting our environmental and climate action obligations. I remain committed to working closely with the industry and to providing ongoing financial support through the marine environment and fisheries fund.

I met industry representatives in Kilkeel on 30 July and committed to working with them to co-design options to help secure the sector's long-term future. That commitment is being taken forward through a number of key initiatives, including the review of the fishing and seafood development programme (FSDP), which will prioritise investment in port infrastructure, operational safety and climate change mitigation and adaptation. That will be complemented by the development of my Department's climate action plan and fisheries sectoral plan, both of which will be informed by ongoing engagement with industry. Work has also commenced on a scoping exercise to consider how a fisheries resilience framework could strengthen the sector's ability to respond to future economic and environmental pressures. We are committed to doing that. As the Member knows, we have resource pressures, but the framework is something that we want to progress.

Alongside that, my Department continues to advocate fishing opportunities for the Northern Ireland fleet while ensuring that stocks are managed sustainably. Progress is being made on a number of fisheries management plans, including three that are being led by my Department, and responses to the consultation on marine protected areas are being analysed to inform future policy development.

Miss McIlveen: It is disappointing that the Minister has not given a commitment to having a bespoke Northern Ireland strategy for fishing. The Northern Ireland fishing fleet needs support, full stop, be that help with crews, help with fuel costs or limiting rather than gold-plating regulation. Anything that can be done should be done to help the fleet. How does the Minister plan to protect the local fishing industry's critical food production from the cumulative pressures of spatial squeeze?

Mr Muir: As I set out in my response, I met industry representatives in Kilkeel in July and committed to working with them to co-design options to secure the sector's long-term future. It is about setting out a long-term vision and strategy. I get the concerns about the pressures in the fishing industry, and they are raised with me regularly. Regulations are essential in order to allow us to be able to trade and to ensure that the fishing industry has a sustainable future. It is important that the UK Government step up and provide support on fuel and that the assistance that they provided earlier this year continues beyond the Budget next Wednesday. The Member will be aware that pressures with crew availability arise largely from changes to immigration policy effected by the UK Government — changes that your party welcomed in its response to the White Paper.

Mr Donnelly: The Minister will be aware that my constituency of East Antrim has a world-famous coastline, and many of the coastal areas there are protected under various regulatory schemes. How will better management of marine protected areas benefit the environment and the fishing industry?

Mr Muir: I recognise that concerns extend beyond the quota availability to include access to fishing grounds, displacement and operating costs. I remain committed to working with the industry to balance environmental objectives with the long-term viability of our fishing communities. Fisheries management is devolved under the Fisheries Act 2020, and my Department has a legal obligation to implement measures that support the conservation objectives of each protected area in the Northern Ireland marine environment. The three marine protected areas are South Rigg marine conservation zone, Queenie Corner and Pisces Reef.

Complex special areas of conservation represent about 20% of Northern Ireland's offshore region. Seven out of the nine protected features are currently assessed as being in an unfavourable condition. The proposed measures are not expected to have a significant impact on quota. Only 1·35% of the Irish Sea quota by weight and 1·71% by value is currently taken from those areas. Any quota taken from within those sites would remain available elsewhere in the wider International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) VIIa area. Those measures are intended to support the recovery of marine habitats and species, helping those sites meet their conservation objectives while delivering wider benefits for marine ecosystems and sustainable fish stocks.

Mr McGrath: Minister, you referenced the fishing and seafood development programme, and I understand that, next month, you are to make an announcement on that. Will that announcement include a budget? Whilst you do not necessarily need to tell us exactly how much, because the sector is so desperate for it, hopefully, it will at least be a substantial budget.

Mr Muir: I recognise the need for investment in ports, despite inflationary pressures significantly increasing the cost of proposals in the 2021 fishing and seafood development programme. I have met industry representatives to discuss how the fishing and seafood development programme can be progressed to best address their priority needs at this time. Officials have reviewed the original FSDP, and I am currently assessing the paper on what future investment best meets the current priorities of the sector. I will make the announcement in the next month or so.

Mr Muir: My Department’s sustainable agriculture programme (SAP) is delivering approximately £330 million annually in farm support and is being developed in conjunction with the agricultural policy stakeholder group, which includes farming representatives, industry and environmental groups. A key priority is ensuring that all farm businesses, including smaller farms, can access and benefit from SAP schemes. A programme of communications is in place to ensure that all farm businesses are aware of the support and application timelines.

When developing the new farm sustainability payment scheme, which was launched this year, I retained the minimum claim size at 3 hectares, to help smaller farms continue to access that important resilience payment. Approximately £245 million has been paid to farm businesses since September. Smaller farms can also access the Farming with Nature package, which provides an additional income stream to support productive, environmentally sustainable farming.

The sustainable farming investment scheme offers all farmers grant aid of up to £25,000 for on-farm investment to improve environmental performance and business efficiency. The Farming for Sustainability knowledge transfer scheme offers farm support via information, training and peer-to-peer learning groups. In addition, the Farming for Sustainability innovation scheme equips and supports all farmers to explore new ideas and innovations essential for building a thriving, resilient and environmentally sustainable sector.

Mr McAleer: Thank you, Minister, for your response. During the evidence-gathering session with witnesses at the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on the Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill, which I sponsor, many witnesses have said that small farmers, particularly in areas of natural constraint (ANC), find it challenging to access agri-environment schemes because of the financial outlay to begin with. Furthermore, the quality of the land and the stocking density mean that they cannot make the most of, for example, the protein crop or beef carbon schemes that they pay for out of their single farm payment. Do you agree that small farms, particularly those in ANC areas, are in some ways falling through the gaps in the sustainable agriculture policy and are in need of additional support?

Mr Muir: You are leading me to say that I endorse your Bill. I thank you, Declan, for meeting officials in relation to your private Member's Bill. They valued that engagement, and I know that the Committee is continuing its scrutiny of the Bill. As Minister, I would value an opportunity to meet you to discuss the Bill as we, hopefully, bring it back to the House for Consideration Stage.

I have set out to you the range of measures that we are providing in the sustainable agriculture programme to support farms of different sizes. I will take some of your feedback in relation to the agri-environment schemes and reflect that back to my officials. I know that there has been quite a significant uptake of the Farming with Nature transition scheme, which is really positive. As Minister, I am committed to supporting farms of all sizes.

Mr T Buchanan: Following on in the vein of Mr McAleer, the AERA Committee has been taking evidence on the Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill and has heard at first hand the challenges that farmers are facing across all sectors. In light of that, what efforts have you been making during the Budget discussions to increase the amount of money that will be available to your Department, thereby enlarging the pot for payments to all farmers?

Mr Muir: The decision to ring-fence the earmarked fund for agriculture, agri-environment, fisheries and rural development for the previous year and future years was a significant achievement. That is not the case when you look at the wider picture in England and Scotland. You asked me about the budgetary position; as you are probably aware, we do not have a Budget in Northern Ireland. We continue to engage with the UK Government in order to ensure that we will have a fair funding settlement. In those engagements, our priority has been to meet our statutory obligations. It is important that l continue to focus on that, but I am also conscious of the wider pressures on other Departments as well.

Ms Mulholland: You mentioned the Farming with Nature scheme. What has been delivered so far, and what will be delivered under the scheme during the remainder of this mandate?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Sian. The Farming with Nature package is one of the most ambitious agri-environment programmes ever delivered by the Department. I have committed more than £96 million to the package over the next five years, with further investment proposed. This year alone, there were 1,705 applications to the Farming with Nature transition scheme, with a total value of £12·4 million. The scale of ambition is remarkable: the applications that have been received this year include commitments to establish more than 535 kilometres of new hedgerows, plant 70 hectares of farmland trees and establish 210 kilometres of riparian buffer strips. Those measures will create vital habitats. Farmers have also committed to planting more than 1,000 hectares of herbal leys and over 5,300 hectares of arable environmental actions.

The Farming with Nature Higher scheme, which opened in 2026, provides targeted support for farm businesses that manage designated sites and priority habitats. I was also pleased to launch the Farming with Nature Landscape Projects scheme, which was recently backed with £12 million over five years. I am immensely proud of the progress that has been made. Through the Farming with Nature project and packages, we are investing in a more resilient agriculture sector, a richer natural environment and a stronger future for rural communities in Northern Ireland. I am committed to making that investment, not just in the earmarked fund but beyond it. The members of the AERA Committee are aware of the investments that we are making in the agriculture sector.

Mr McNulty: It is brilliant to hear about the Minister's Farming with Nature proposals and ambitions and the supports for farmers who are endeavouring to do that. What has the Department done to explore cooperation between smaller farms so that they can potentially share costs and secure the benefits of working at a larger scale?

Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his positive feedback. As he will be aware, schemes have been set up through the sustainable agriculture programme to bring farmers together for peer-to-peer learning and an exchange of knowledge. That is, perhaps, the most effective way for us to be able to build that resilient future for farming. I am happy to write to the Member to set out the different schemes, and I hope that he will promote them for farmers to show interest in.

Mr Muir: The development of blue-green algal blooms has been a persistent issue since 2024 and is confined to not only Lough Neagh with blooms confirmed in several bodies of water across Northern Ireland. Confirmed reports by my Department this year include Lower Bann, Lough Melvin, Lower Lough Erne, Castlewellan lake, Craigavon lakes and Camlough lake.

I have more listed here, but I will stop so that the Member can, hopefully, ask me a supplementary question.

Mr Nesbitt: Is there any consideration given to international solutions?

Mr Muir: There is, and that is why my Department has been investing in science and research, particularly in relation to the small business research initiative. That science and research is essential, but it is important that we translate it into action. I will set out to the Member in writing the initiatives that we are carrying out.

Mr Speaker: Topical question 1 has been withdrawn.

Mr Muir: I do not have that information to hand. An enforcement notice was issued recently for one of the sites, and I will set that out to the Member in writing. The Member will probably be aware that, because of ongoing regulatory action, I am limited in what I can say. However, I want to reassure him and other Members that I take environmental compliance seriously. The Department has initiated a review of its approach to enforcement. I have asked for the approach to change and for the balance to switch from working to bring the operator into compliance to enforcement action, and for that review to come to me by the end of the month.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister, for that and I look forward to that further communication. Concerns have, I am sure, been raised with you and the Department by people who live in the area and are affected by the site as well as by environmental campaigners. Are you willing to meet them with me to explore solutions and hear those concerns directly?

Mr Muir: I am happy to do that. You will understand that I cannot talk about specific incidents, but I am happy to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss those concerns. I am aware of the odour concerns and recognise people's worries about the matter.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Connie. Animal welfare is a priority for me and my Department. We are moving from ambition to delivery, with a substantial package of reforms that will strengthen protections for animals. Legislation that mandates the use of CCTV in slaughterhouses is now in place. I secured Executive approval to bring forward Lucy's law, which will prohibit third-party sales of puppies and kittens, and I will soon lay legislation in the House to introduce those vital protections. We have delivered a campaign on responsible dog ownership, and we will continue the implementation of the animal welfare pathway.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. What further animal welfare reforms do you plan to introduce during the remainder of the mandate?

Mr Muir: The independent review of regulations on dog breeding establishments has been published. A public consultation on phase 1 of the proposals for implementation will be launched in the coming months. I will be bringing forward legislation that will ban specific aversive training devices such as electric shock collars. It is important that I get swift Executive approval for that so that I can bring the legislation to the Assembly. I will bring that to the Executive very soon. Other interventions are planned, such as enhancements to micro-chipping requirements.

My Department participated in UK-wide consultations on the phasing out of cages for laying hens and on improving lamb castration and tail-docking practices. I have agreed that Northern Ireland should join a forthcoming UK-wide consultation on phasing out over three years the CO2 stunning of pigs.

.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Mike. I did enjoy a previous engagement with that forum. The Northern Ireland coastal forum was established to bring together relevant Departments, councils and other interested parties to seek to develop a more strategic approach to addressing coastal erosion. The key issue is that no Department is responsible for coastal erosion risk management. Therefore, no Department has authority to use public money to undertake activities such a coastal erosion vulnerability mapping or develop coastal erosion risk management plans.

A report jointly commissioned by my Department and the Department for Infrastructure in 2018 highlighted severe data deficiencies and recommended as a priority:

Through partnership working, major milestones have been achieved in baseline data collection, and the Northern Ireland Coastal Observatory greatly enhances data availability. My Department has made a significant contribution to the evidence gathering through its coastal monitoring programmes. It has now mapped the entirety of Northern Ireland's coast and nearshore areas.

As a result of the Coastal Forum, Northern Ireland is in a much stronger position to develop future policy and legislation for coastal management. The Coastal Forum will meet again on 18 November, when it will consider recommendations for a new work programme for 2026 to 2031. That will include preparing a paper for the Executive to consider on how to respond to the Climate Change Committee's recommendation that the Executive designate to a Department responsibility for overseeing coastal management and bringing forward policy and legislation on managing coastal change. We hope to bring the paper to the Executive by the end of November, and I urge my Executive colleagues to urgently consider it, because the matter is an important one that we need to progress.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Minister for his fulsome response. The Ards group would like to see a refresh of coastal policy, which is known as the "Bateman formula" after a civil servant of that name who issued a memo in 1967.

Mr Muir: Under the existing policy and legislative framework, my Department is not responsible for providing support to communities affected by coastal erosion. While it is recognised that the Bateman formula is no longer fit for purpose, support cannot be provided by any Department until the introduction of a new policy and legislative framework with a legal mechanism for the provision of such support. Under the Bateman formula of 1967 — long before I was born — Departments protect their own assets and take responsibility for dealing with the impacts and potential impacts of coastal erosion, as those impinge on statutory responsibilities. Where private individuals or organisations are affected by coastal erosion, responsibility and liability rest with the owner of the property concerned.

I hope that that outline is useful, and I am happy to meet the group and have the Department correspond with and update it on the issues.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Michelle. The sustainable farming investment scheme closed to applications on 3 September. Almost 4,000 businesses from all farming sectors applied. There was strong interest in the scheme. On 8 October, 1,415 letters of offer to the value of just over £15 million were issued. Recipients have 28 days to accept their offer on the scheme portal.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for his response. What capital support has been provided to farmers over the past five years?

Mr Muir: Thank you, Michelle. As I have just outlined, there was a lot of interest in the sustainable farming investment scheme. Our ambition is stunted only by our budget, frankly, and I thank farmers for their interest in the scheme. From 2021 to 2026, my Department paid farmers £40·9 million in capital grants under the farm business improvement scheme. A minimum of £4 million in such grants was paid in each of those years.

Mr Muir: The management of annual bonfires is a challenging and complex issue that requires a range of agreed, multi-agency preventative and, where appropriate, enforcement activities. While the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) has an enforcement role to play in controlled waste, it does not have a lead role on bonfires. Where sufficient evidence is available, the NIEA may conduct criminal investigations in pursuit of offenders responsible for the depositing of illegal waste at bonfire sites. If the offenders responsible cannot be identified, it is the legal responsibility of the landowner to remove any waste deposited.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, it is clear that it is not just about the approach of one Department; indeed, when it comes to the bonfires that cause environmental issues, there is also an onus on political leaders. What is your message to those political leaders in our communities?

Mr Muir: That is an important issue. As Minister, I have consistently stated that bonfires must be safe, lawful and respectful. With many bonfires operating without the permission of the landowner, they are very likely not lawful. The many safety issues and the depictions intended to perpetrate hate that are placed on some bonfires, such as the one in Moygashel, are deeply concerning. It is therefore incumbent on political leaders to provide leadership in their communities to ensure that cultural celebrations such as bonfires are planned and delivered in a way that is safe, respectful and lawful. There has been a dearth of leadership on the issue in political unionism, and it is time that it stepped up to the plate.

Mrs Erskine: At the outset, I condemn the abuse that has been directed at the Minister and his officials. I have seen recent media reports and the shameful nature of some of that abuse. I condemn that wholeheartedly and offer my support.

Mr Muir: Thank you, Deborah, for your kind remarks, which I and, I am sure, my departmental officials appreciate.

On the issues at Fivemiletown, as you know, I commissioned that independent external review. Dr Blake is continuing that work. We hope to get that work completed and to publish both the report and the departmental response to it in the next number of weeks. I know that a significant number of people have contacted Dr Blake and that he has engaged with a number of people. It is important that he does the work thoroughly and that we publish the report and the departmental response in the next number of weeks. I am committed to doing that.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Minister for that. I fed into the review, and I know that constituents of mine did too, which I appreciate. Will the Minister have sight of the report first before it goes to the Committee and then the Assembly for full scrutiny? If there are any outcomes regarding the review of the cattle cull incident, will those be fully implemented?

Mr Muir: I have been consistent in saying that full openness and transparency are the default here, subject to, as you will understand, legal requirements under data protection legislation and the like. I want to ensure that the report is published. I have made it clear that I will share that with the Committee and lay it in the Assembly Library. Alongside that, I will publish a departmental response to any recommendations that may be made. I have been clear that, if there are lessons to be learnt, it is important that they are learnt and that we implement the recommendations arising from that.

Mr Muir: We as a Department take a range of actions to look after our rivers, lakes and loughs. There is a four-pillar approach: education, incentivisation, regulation and enforcement. On agricultural pollution, as the Member will be aware, a lot of effort is made on education and incentivisation. The sustainable farming investment scheme and Farming with Nature are examples of the support that we provide, and £49 million from the Shared Island Fund will be used to provide education on the ground to farmers in the catchment areas.

Alongside that, it is important that we take action on regulation and enforcement. I set out during Question Time that we are looking to update our enforcement policy to make sure that we have the right balance. On the regulatory regime, there is a separate arrangement for Northern Ireland Water that is known as the "statement of regulatory principles and intent" (SORPI), which essentially means that it gets a bye ball when it comes to enforcement in a number of instances. That is not right. It is not lawful, and it is not fair to farmers. It has been sitting with the Executive for months. Sinn Féin is happy to progress it. All I ask is this: can we not just progress that at tomorrow's meeting and ensure that everyone is put on a fair footing?

I have set out the work that has been done on the nutrients action programme. I thank the stakeholder group for its work on that. I hope to meet it soon so that we can finalise the way forward.

Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his answer. I expect that the agricultural aspect is less of a problem in East Belfast. I think particularly of the Connswater river and others like it. What work has the Department done, perhaps alongside community organisations? In areas where there has been work on greenways, we often see shopping trolleys, car batteries and other items dumped into the river, and they can remain there for a long time. What is the Department doing alongside others to combat that problem?

Mr Muir: Part of that is fly-tipping, and we work with councils on that. The other aspect is making sure that people report incidents promptly. We have an awareness-raising campaign to ensure that people report pollution incidents promptly to allow for investigation. The information on that is available on our social media channels, and I encourage elected representatives to share it.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank Claire Sugden for introducing the Bill. It was no mean feat, I am sure, particularly given the hoops that she had to jump through. The Committee discussed the Bill last Wednesday, and I looked through it over the weekend. I appreciate that this is Second Stage, so I will not get into any specifics. We welcome the Bill, and we look forward to its coming to the Committee. I will say that up front.

I heard what the Bill sponsor had to say, and we have all had discussions with some of our older constituents. I declare an interest, because I am now an older constituent. People have had difficulties accessing goods, facilities and services, particularly from private institutions that provide mortgages and insurance and all the rest.

I am deeply uncomfortable with clause 9, however. I understand the logic that the Member provided, because of what there was before, but all the obstacles to introducing equality legislation have mainly been put up by unionists. A Bill was blocked in 2011. The recommendations from the Ad Hoc Committee on a Bill of Rights were blocked. Even the Executive Office Committee's inquiry into the gaps in equality legislation was left unresolved. Many things could have been shaved off this Bill had those other things happened, but I am still convinced that the Bill would have been needed. At the minute, the problem is attitudinal, which is backed up by a belief that this is the way things are. That makes people feel that it is a legislative issue. It is a political and financial decision to prevent access to goods and services for people who have reached the age of 60 or 65 and over, and we have all encountered that.

I look forward to seeing the Bill progress and particularly to the clause-by-clause scrutiny. We will look attentively at clause 9. Clause 2, which is titled "Discrimination on the ground of age", is very clear, but, when you go to clause 9, you see that it states:

That is not the intention, but it jars. We will need to be creative and find a way around that.

The Bill is a massive piece of work, and the sponsor has every right to be proud. We are talking in generalities at Second Stage, so, by way of example, we looked at fertility services under the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) agreement. Women face discrimination when they reach a certain age and their ability to become pregnant diminishes. Access to fertility services was therefore raised as an issue. I and others raised it all those years ago. We tried to help women move up the line, and families were quoted as saying, "You're discriminating against people who've been in the system for longer".

However, by the time they get around to those women, the clock has stopped, and their chance to start a family has passed. I do not know whether something like that will be dealt with by the Bill, but it has unintended consequences for many families.

Issues were raised earlier about young people being placed in inappropriate accommodation, particularly in health and social care settings. You have experienced that yourself — I think that we all have. The situation regarding our budget has been going on for decades, and it is great that most of us recognise that the British Government have underfunded this place in relation to need. That impacts on children and young people's access to acute mental health services. Once they hit the age of 14, they are seen as being adults in an ED, even though we know that that is not appropriate for a 14-year-old in that setting. The former Health Minister Mike Nesbitt asked, "Are we expected to create specific services?". Well, maybe. That is what this is about. Maybe we should create separate services or different services, particularly in Health and Social Care, to allow people to access them on the basis of what is appropriate for their age.

A lot of older people are languishing in hospitals. They are fit to be discharged, and they want to go home to their own beds and be in their own surroundings, but they cannot do so because of the lack of domiciliary care. When you look at the levels in health and social care, you can see the difference between public and private. Most domiciliary care services have been privatised, which is shameful and means that people who provide domiciliary care through Health and Social Care have better working conditions than those who do so in the private sector. Most of those people are women, and they face untold discrimination, particularly when you look at the increasing cost of living, particularly with fuel costs and things like that. Again, I do not know whether that will be addressed in the Bill.

Ms Sugden: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Certainly.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate the Member raising that point. I had an example of what she is describing in my constituency. I raised the issue of osteoporosis care and the level of service that is provided in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust. I put it to the former Health Minister that, potentially, we were discriminating on the basis of sex and age. However, the only opportunity for redress was on the basis of sex rather than age. The indirect discrimination in that circumstance will be covered in the Bill, because osteoporosis tends to affect older women in particular. That even links to the conversations that I have had on the women's health strategy: some of the contraceptive health methods that we recommend to 16-year-old girls could have an impact on their health when they are in their 60s because they deteriorate the bones, which is, obviously, what osteoporosis is.

There is an opportunity, through the Bill, to look at policy more widely and how we approach it, recognising people's age. I appreciate the Member mentioning that, because it is entirely relevant. I hope that the Bill will be able to capture that.

Ms Ní Chuilín: Those are the things that people do not normally think about when they consider legislation. That is where the lived experience of constituents, through their elected reps, enriches us all and results in better legislation. There are existing laws that would result in a drop in the levels of discrimination and inequality if they were applied properly. If section 75 duties were being fully implemented, we would not have such a big Bill: we would have a Bill of sorts but it would not be so big. That is not your fault: it is down to how the system here works.

Equally, some pieces of legislation affecting older people and children have been blocked. Access to human rights legislation was blocked. Access to equality legislation through a bill of rights was also blocked. People are not only disheartened, but —. While we are here to make legislation, hopefully we are in a space where we can try to work through reasonable and reasoned amendments, because we need to get something in place.

I am in my 60s. My friends and I know that if you are trying to get home insurance or extend or shorten your mortgage, your age will be the first barrier. Your financial management or savings do not matter. It does not even matter whether you are supporting family: your age seems to be the biggest blockage. That is a problem, especially when the British Government are telling us all that we are going to have to work longer. You are expected to work longer and pay taxes, which is appropriate, but you are not allowed access to services due to your age, regardless of how long you have worked or how much you have paid.

There is something else that I am particularly concerned about when it comes to unintended consequences of previous work. You mentioned young girls getting access to contraception and health and social care, and menopause and perimenopause are issues that have been talked about. When I grew up, we did not even talk about cancer, let alone women's health issues. We certainly did not talk about suicide or mental health. Those were things that other people spoke about. There is legislation coming through that will hopefully support women who are finding things difficult. Equally, there has been recognition of baby loss. There have been some improvements. Those are good things to have, particularly when you look at getting access to goods, facilities and services. However, the need for access to health and social care must be recognised in the workplace. For example, workers are still reluctant to ask for time off to go to a fertility clinic, an antenatal clinic, a menopause clinic or whatever it is. If time off is required due to osteoporosis, muscular problems, a need for occupational therapy, there is more of an acceptance. That is an attitudinal issue more than a legislative one. However, when legislation such as this comes through, it makes it easier for the people who are coming behind us. Effectively, that is what this is all about. Hopefully, none of us are about pulling the ladder up behind us. That is not what we are about.

Certainly, one of the issues for me concerns safeguards and protections. There is a lot in the Bill about "age-based distinctions". The devil will be in the detail. For example, we know that younger people pay more for car insurance. Some insurance companies are working in such a way that, even when young people are saying things like, "I will put the black box in my car and take all the restrictions to show that I am a good and safe driver", they are still paying well above the odds. That may be outside the scope of the Bill, but the premiums that we are paying here compared with elsewhere are disgraceful.

Ms Sugden: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes, certainly.

Ms Sugden: That is where the Bill differentiates a little bit from the Equality Act 2010, insofar as it does not create the blanket exemption that you see across in GB. There could be opportunities to address that issue. However, it is important to point out that that would be on the basis of asking insurance companies that are charging higher premiums to provide actuarial evidence for doing so. That is, to an extent, why we have a clause for that in that part of the Bill. We will look at that. There could be very good reasons as to why premiums are higher in Northern Ireland than they are elsewhere, but, equally, if insurers are not substantiating that, they will find themselves in difficulties.

Ms Ní Chuilín: I did not want to get into the clause-by-clause stuff, but I raised that issue because there are differences here, and there have been for some time. Equally, as you and Paula have mentioned, nobody wants to put young people against older people or older people against young people. That is not what we are about.

Given that we have had difficulties in trying to get, for example, a bill of rights forward, potentially leaving an age group of 16 and below out just does not sit, so I look forward to seeing what else we can do and work around it.

I finish on this. I was particularly delighted to hear about the draft affirmative approach, because it means that it all has to come back to the Assembly. We all know and understand that there is legislation sitting in TEO and that the First Minister is happy for it to go out, but it has been blocked. It has been blocked because it is racial equality strategies. It is forward-thinking on equality and access, but that is why it has been blocked. Draft affirmative will make sure that it comes back to the Assembly so that we all have a say. I would favour draft affirmative legislation regulations anyway; we did it for the mother-and-baby Bill.

I apologise in advance for having to leave to make a few urgent phone calls. I do not want to appear bad-mannered or rude. Well done, again. It is a massive Bill with a lot of work put into it, and I look forward to scrutinising it in the Executive Office Committee. Thank you.

Mrs Erskine: First, Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you, to the Bill sponsor and to the House: I had to leave for some of the debate. I was speaking at the British Heart Foundation's "Hearts Need More" policy launch. I hope that everybody will understand that that cause is close to my heart, pardon the pun. That is why I was not in the Chamber. Obviously, I will read Hansard.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill and to set out the DUP's position on that important legislation. I thank the Bill's sponsor, because it takes a huge amount of work to get to this stage. It is a big Bill that will have an awful lot of implications that I will probably touch on during my contributions.

Nobody should be unfairly discriminated against when accessing goods, facilities or services because of their age. Be it a young person taking their first steps towards independence, a working-age adult or an older person who has contributed a lifetime of services to their family, community and society, they should be treated with dignity, fairness and respect; we can all agree on that. Age should not in itself be a barrier to accessing services that are available to them in the public. My party, the DUP, recognises that principle, one that is consistent with commitments that we have made.

In our 2022 Assembly manifesto, the DUP pledged that our MLAs would:

Therefore, I welcome the fact that Ms Sugden has introduced the Bill, which allows us, in a sense, to look at the legislation. Furthermore, in our submission to the Executive Office Committee's inquiry into gaps in equality provision, the DUP acknowledged that arguments for reform in that area had merit and warranted further examination. We specifically recognised concerns about the absence of provision for age- and disability-related discrimination claims in respect of access to goods, facilities and services. Our position, therefore, is not one of opposition; it is one of ensuring that any legislation to be put in place is necessary, obviously, proportionate, workable and fair to all those affected.

The Bill seeks to address a gap in Northern Ireland's equality legislation by prohibiting:

As has been discussed, the Bill establishes age as a protected characteristic, defines prohibited forms of discrimination and extends protection across a wide range of everyday interactions, including access to accommodation, banking, insurance, education, transport, recreation, retail and services provided by public authorities. The provisions also address harassment and victimisation; impose responsibilities on service providers and employers; and include a framework for exceptions where:

may be justified.

Those significant proposals have implications not only for the individuals seeking to access services but for the businesses, charities, voluntary organisations and public bodies that provide them. We must recognise both sides of that equation. For an older person who believes that they have been unfairly refused a service, effective legal protection will obviously be important. Equally, a small business owner, community organisation or public authority must be able to understand its responsibilities and make legitimate decisions without being exposed to unnecessary uncertainty or disproportionate legal risk. Our responsibility as legislators is to ensure that legislation achieves its intended purpose without creating avoidable difficulties elsewhere.

I will turn to some clauses for which further scrutiny is necessary. First, there is the question of implementation. I am jumping to clause 49, which is near the end and provides for the substantive provisions of the Bill to:

with the Equality Commission provisions and the commencement clause coming into effect earlier. My question is whether that 12-month period will be sufficient, given that, as I highlighted in my intervention, there will be a lot of work for Departments to do in looking at how their legislation interacts with the Bill. Furthermore, businesses and organisations will need time to understand the legislation, review their policies, train staff, assess existing practices and make the necessary changes to how they deliver services. Larger organisations may have dedicated legal and compliance teams, but smaller businesses, including those that operate in hospitality, retail and tourism, may not have that capacity. We must ensure that organisations are given a realistic opportunity to prepare. A new legal duty will be effective only if those who are expected to comply with it understand what is required of them.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Member for allowing me an intervention. That is a valid point. It will be up to the Committee at the Bill's next stage to decide whether the 12-month period is sufficient. As the Member rightly notes, the commencement date for the Equality Commission provisions is much sooner. Essentially, that is because it will be empowered to create the list of guidelines that will, hopefully, translate the legislation for small businesses right up to much larger ones. That is important.

The other area in which that point is important relates to potential regulations and exceptions. There is a year — it may or may not be enough time — for the Department to develop appropriate regulations if it feels that some areas have to be excluded for justifiable reasons. For me, when it came to the commencement provisions, six months did not feel long enough. A 12-month period is fairly standard, but 18 months or maybe even two years —. I am not 100% sure of this, but the Equality Act was passed in 2010 and did not commence until, I think, two years later. It might be worth considering extending the period to that.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Bill sponsor for that intervention. It will be important to get clarity on how implementation will be supported and whether the proposed commencement period is sufficient as we scrutinise the Bill in Committee, given that, as we know, it takes time to implement things in full.

Secondly, we need to consider the proposed guidance. Clause 44 requires the Department to issue guidance before the substantive provisions come into operation. Again, that guidance will be particularly important in explaining the prohibition of discrimination, the objective justification defence and the circumstances in which exceptions may apply. Under clause 2, differential treatment may be lawful where it can be shown:

That is an important principle, but it can be difficult to apply in practice. How will a small business determine whether an age-based distinction is proportionate? What evidence will a public authority need to demonstrate that a policy is justified? How will an organisation distinguish between an unlawful blanket restriction and a legitimate decision based on safeguarding, welfare, risk or the needs of a particular service user? Guidance must do more than just restate the law; it should provide clear, practical examples of lawful and unlawful conduct; explain the evidence that may be required to justify the differential treatment; and help organisations to make informed decisions before disputes arise. I also ask whether guidance alone will provide sufficient clarity or whether further regulations and sector-specific advice will be needed.

A third issue concerns the scope of the protected characteristic itself. Clause 1 provides that age is a protected characteristic and expressly includes "assumed age". Clause 9 limits the application of the relevant provisions to those who have attained the age of 16. Both provisions deserve careful consideration. Why has the Bill adopted a lower age threshold of 16, and what evidence supports that approach? How does it compare with the legal framework in England, particularly the approach taken under the Equality Act 2010? We have started to discuss some of those issues in the Executive Office Committee.

Ms Sugden: I thank the Member for giving way. I discussed the protections for 16- and 17-year-olds earlier. The provision departs from what exists in GB and even in the Republic of Ireland, where age protections begin from 18 years. I did not come up with it: when the proposals were developed by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister under Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson, that was the proposal that was originally agreed. To some extent, therefore, there has been thinking on it. The age of 16 or 17 suggests a transitional period in someone's life, insofar as that is when children and young people may start further or higher education. Their rights in relation to their healthcare also change then.

I respect the fact that we need to give the issue further consideration. I suppose that, in some respects, I am saying, "I am inventing nothing new here", and, in another breath, I am saying, "Let's take the opportunity to introduce the protection at 16 and 17". It is a proportionate change in that there is a justification for it given other legal frameworks around those ages, but we need to have that conversation, in the same way as we need to have the conversation about what Ms Ní Chuilín said around whether the provision should be extended to all ages. I fully expect that conversation to happen in Committee.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Bill sponsor for that, because we have started to have some of those discussions in Committee. As she knows, I have asked questions about "assumed age", which raises practical questions. It is understandable that a person should not be able to escape responsibility simply because they have made an incorrect assumption about somebody's age. However, the legislation must also recognise the practical circumstances in which service providers make decisions, including where age verification is required or statutory obligations apply. We need clarity on how the provisions will operate in those everyday situations and how they will interact with other legal requirements.

I recognise, as I said when I intervened during the Bill sponsor's speech, that the Equality Commission will play a vital role under Part 5. However, it will take significant work to ensure that the legislation interacts well with other policies and legislation in that regard.

As I say, there is that wider question about young people aged 16 and 17. How will the proposed protections interact with existing arrangements for the likes of parental consent, safeguarding and access to particular services? Have the relevant Departments, including the Department of Health and the Department of Education, assessed the implications for their services and responsibilities?

Those questions should not be interpreted as opposition to protecting anybody. Rather, they reflect the need to ensure that the new equality protections operate coherently alongside existing legislation and established safeguarding arrangements. It will therefore be important for the Committee to seek that evidence from the relevant Departments, service providers and organisations that represent young people before it reaches its conclusions.

Fourthly, we must consider the potential consequences for the public sector. Public authorities routinely make decisions based on legislation, policy objectives, eligibility criteria, safeguarding responsibility and allocation of limited resources. The Bill provides an "objective justification" defence, as well as an exemption for a statutory authority under clause 13. Those provisions are important, but, again, their practical operation needs to be understood. What will public bodies need to demonstrate when defending a decision that has been challenged as being discriminatory? Will the guidance adequately explain the evidence and reasoning required? Has any assessment been undertaken of the potential additional litigation cost and administrative burdens that could fall on Departments and potentially arm's-length bodies (ALBs)? We should not assume that every claim will be successful, nor should we exaggerate the risk of litigation. It is, however, reasonable to ask whether the implications have been properly assessed and whether public bodies will have the clarity and support required to comply. Every pound spent dealing with unavoidable disputes is a pound that cannot be directed towards our front-line services. Ensuring that the law is clear from the outset is therefore in the interests of service users and providers alike.

I will speak about the implications for tourism and the hospitality sector, which is prevalent in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, as beautiful as it is. Members should come to visit. Hotels, guest houses, holiday providers and other businesses in the sector operate under commercial models that may include age-related services, packages or restrictions. For example, adults-only accommodation and holidays are established offerings in parts of the market. The question is whether, and in what circumstances, those arrangements could be affected by the legislation. Has the Bill sponsor engaged sufficiently with tourism and hospitality representatives to understand the Bill's potential consequences? Have businesses been given an opportunity to explain how age-related offerings operate and why they may be commercially or practically justified? That is an area in which detail matters, because it can affect businesses and our economy. Many guest houses will be small, family-run businesses, and they may be affected. We therefore must distinguish between arbitrary exclusion and arrangements that serve a legitimate purpose. Any final framework should provide clarity about how such distinctions will be assessed, rather than businesses being left relying on guesswork.

Is the Bill sponsor looking to come in?

Ms Sugden: I appreciate the Member's raising that point. That will be covered under clause 12, which is titled "Positive Action". The Member, however, raised a point that I had not considered — perhaps it is worth exploring at Committee — about an almost promotional-type arrangement for a particular age group. The Bill is more about demonstrating a need where a particular age group is perhaps disadvantaged. The Member therefore suggested something that the Bill does not consider. That is useful, and we may need to discuss it further in Committee.

Mrs Erskine: I welcome the fact that that will be considered by the Bill sponsor. I see that with packages and offers in my constituency, particularly at certain times of the year.

A related issue is financial services and insurance. As has been discussed, insurance premiums and eligibility decisions can involve age-related risk assessments, actuarial evidence and commercial considerations. The Bill includes provision for regulations covering financial services and insurance. Clause 15 addresses matters that are relevant to financial services. After the Bill passes, I hope, its Second Stage today and enters its Committee Stage, it will be important that we establish how those provisions would work together and protect access to appropriate financial products while allowing legitimate evidence-based risk assessments to take place. It raises a couple of questions. Has there been sufficient engagement with insurers and other financial service providers? Have the potential effects on the Northern Ireland market been assessed? There are some Northern Ireland-specific issues relating to the likes of car insurance. It is also important that access to financial services for people of all ages be maintained. We should not pre-empt the answers to those questions; we should ensure that the legislation is informed by that evidence and that its consequences are fully understood before it is brought into operation.

The proposed exemptions also warrant careful examination. Clause 14 would give the Department the power to make regulations specifying circumstances in which differential treatment on the grounds of age would not contravene the legislation. Clause 14(2) clarifies that the areas identified include:

and other appropriate matters. Clause 14(3) would require the relevant treatment to be:

The regulations would also be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and consultation requirements. Again, safeguards are important. The Committee will need to examine whether the proposed regulation-making powers are sufficiently clear and whether the necessary regulations would be developed in good time, particularly given the requirement for Executive Office sign-off and all of those things.

We need to understand how legitimate age-related distinctions would be protected without creating loopholes that undermine the purpose of the Bill. The exemption for statutory authorities in clause 13 is another area in which practical clarity is essential. If a retailer that must comply with a statutory age restriction makes an incorrect assumption about a customer's age, how would the provisions interact? What protection would be available to a service provider acting in good faith to comply with the law? The precise answer would depend on the circumstances and the applicable statutory requirements. That is exactly why clear guidance and careful legal scrutiny are necessary on the Bill. The same principle would apply to safeguarding, health and social care, and services involving young people. We must ensure that equality protections would not inadvertently conflict with other legitimate legal duties. Those important provisions deserve attention.

Clause 12 would allow for positive action to address disadvantage, different needs or under-representation associated with age. That may provide a means of addressing genuine barriers faced by particular age groups. Clauses 16 and 17 provide exemptions relating to small dwellings and care in the home. Clause 19 would extend the provisions to qualifying associations and private members' clubs. Each of those areas raises questions about the balance between individual protection and legitimate private, domestic or organisational arrangements. It will be important for us to hear from the people and organisations that are affected directly and ensure that the legislation is sufficiently comprehensive and appropriately targeted.

I note the role for the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland proposed in clause 20. The commission will have responsibilities relating to the elimination of age discrimination, equality of access and the monitoring of the operation of the legislation. Those functions will be important to effective implementation. It will be important to seek clarity on the resources, expertise and practical arrangements that will be required for the Equality Commission to discharge its functions under the Bill.

Finally, clause 45 requires that the Department review the operation of the legislation within three years of the substantive provisions coming into operation and:

I think that we all can agree that that review must be meaningful, if and when this comes into effect. It should examine whether the legislation is improving access to goods, facilities and services; how the objective justification defence is operating; whether exemptions are working as intended; and whether the law generates any unintended consequences. Where evidence identifies problems, there must be a willingness to consider appropriate changes. The DUP is already committed to examining what protection is available for older people in respect of accessing goods and services. We have acknowledged that there is a case for the further examination of gaps in equality law, and we recognise the importance of ensuring that people are not unfairly excluded because of their age. We also recognise that legislation of this nature can have far-reaching consequences for businesses, public services and the wider economy, which I have tried to outline. It is a big Bill. We need to get clarity for people on some of those points.

As the Bill proceeds through the Assembly, we will look for comprehensive answers to the questions that I have outlined. We want to see meaningful engagement with the affected sectors, robust consideration of the financial and operational implications, clear guidance and appropriate safeguards. We must ensure that the protections afforded to individuals are effective and that the exemptions provided in the Bill are properly defined and workable. There is an opportunity to examine the detail carefully and establish whether the proposed framework will deliver the intended protections in a way that is fair to individuals and those who provide services. I welcome the opportunity to have that further rigorous scrutiny at Committee Stage. The DUP will approach the process constructively and with a focus on the evidence, the practical consequences and the need to ensure and secure a fair and balanced outcome for all in Northern Ireland. We will support the Bill's going to Committee Stage.

Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for introducing this private Member's Bill. I am speaking on behalf of Sinéad McLaughlin, essentially, who is on British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly (BIPA) duty in England. She will shadow the Bill through Committee Stage. Every single day, we all get a day older. That, of course, means that we get a day closer to needing some of the protections in the Bill. I have the distinct pleasure of becoming a year older in the next 24 hours, so I am getting even closer to needing some of the protections that may come from this Bill.

I will speak about the general principles of the Bill, not give a clause-by-clause résumé, because there will be an opportunity to do that in the Committee. The Bill is welcome, because it addresses that significant gap in equality legislation, ensuring that people of different ages have protection against unfair treatment when accessing goods and services.

The Bill comes at a particularly important time. Recent NISRA projections, as referenced by the Bill sponsor in the earlier part of her speech, suggest that, as soon as next year, there will be more people aged 65 and over in Northern Ireland than children aged nought to 15. That shift in demographics is definitely going to speak to a need for a shift in the provision that we have within policy and legislation. People are living longer. Of course, that is something that we welcome, but it means that we need to think seriously about how our public services respond to the fact that we have an ageing population. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that the Executive are doing that; thus the need for the Bill.

The Commissioner for Older People, Siobhan Casey, recently warned that we have:

That speaks to many of the things that the Executive are not preparing for as they drift towards their end, next year. She described how the approach that is being taken by Departments is piecemeal, when what we need is a joined-up response across government. She is probably putting that politely. When we look at the scale of the challenge facing us, we see that the response from the Executive has been inadequate. We have not seen that joined-up approach between Departments; we have not seen policy initiatives being laid out; and we have not seen strategies, and the funding to go alongside them, being developed.

As the population ages, growing pressures in health and social care raise serious questions about how older people are treated when accessing that element of public services. From my experience in the Health Committee, I see how our health services are under increased demand by older people, but the service provision is not there for them. It is not a truly positive thing to say that, as a society, we look at our older people and let them languish on waiting lists, leave them at home in pain or leave them needing parts of their body to be changed and replaced, but, rather than doing so, subject them to all the problems that go with their situation. Our Programme for Government contains just one reference to an ageing population. That tells us a great deal about the priority that is given, and has been given, to older people.

While our ageing population brings these issues into sharper focus, age discrimination is not something that affects only older people. I was a young person once, and I know what it was like to be subjected to certain discriminations. People of all ages can face unfair treatment. We need to ensure that everyone has the same basic protections when accessing the services that they need.

We have seen concerns about age discrimination in health services, including through reports of older people being denied access to certain cancer treatments because of their age. Nobody is suggesting that age should never be taken into account when making medical decisions — there will be circumstances in which that is clinically relevant — but those decisions should be based on the patient, their health and their needs rather than on assumptions about what treatment somebody should receive because they have reached a certain age.

Concerns have also been raised about mental health services. We see increasing incidences of isolation and loneliness, and other issues that can impact on older people. There are issues and concerns. The equality impact assessment of the mental health strategy highlighted concerns about the age threshold of 65 and the fact that people can find themselves moving into a different system of care because they reach a particular age. We have to ask ourselves why that is the case. If someone is receiving mental health support at age 64, why should they not have the same type of service on their 65th birthday? Why do they have to change or move? Their need should determine the care that they receive.

I have also heard anecdotal accounts of older people who are waiting for hip surgery being asked to undergo cognitive assessments beforehand. There may be legitimate clinical reasons for some of those assessments, but we need to be confident that they are necessary for the patient rather than something that is based on an assumption about their age. Those examples demonstrate why the legislation matters. People should be treated according to their individual circumstances, not the numbers on their birth certificate. Northern Ireland remains the only jurisdiction across Britain and Ireland without equivalent legal protection against age discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services. Whilst healthcare is perhaps the most obvious example, the issue extends much further. Whether it is a young person trying to access housing or financial services or an older person seeking insurance or healthcare, they should not face unfair treatment because of their age. We really welcome the fact that the Bill tries to address that.

We accept that there will be circumstances where age-based distinctions are justified, and the Bill recognises that. It is good to see that that will embed the practice of accepting that a distinction needs to and can be made in some places. The Bill sets out to address where that happens randomly or where companies do it for financial reasons. Sometimes, I think that companies like to add a zero when providing certain services, thinking that they can do so with older people, for example. I know that I am always lurching towards the older person in talking about the Bill, but I am thinking of areas such as travel insurance. Whilst I appreciate that it is based on risk, having tried to secure travel insurance for my mother, I know that the price that has to be paid is sometimes more expensive than the holiday. When I think about the benefit that people get from a holiday — the exercise, stimulation and freedom that they get from being able to travel a bit — their having to pay a massive amount from their savings just for insurance seems particularly cruel. Where people are treated differently, there should be a legitimate and proportionate reason for doing so.

I welcome the general principles of the Bill, and I hope that it prompts a wider conversation about how seriously the Executive are prepared to make those changes and to keep supporting those changes as our population continues to grow and age. We cannot continue with Departments working in isolation without a clear plan for what is coming or, indeed, what is there. We cannot accept people being denied access to services or treatment because of assumptions about their age. I hope that the Bill will allow Departments to coalesce in support of the work that its sponsor is doing. As Sinéad said about her Bill and its development, when it gets to Committee Stage, an almost excessive amount of work will be done to drill down into it, get the detail and perfect it before it comes back to the House. The SDLP supports the principles of the Bill, and we look forward to working constructively with the Member as it progresses.

Ms Ferguson: I welcome today's debate and the opportunity to discuss this private Member's Bill and its intent to improve equality and prevent age-based discrimination against people accessing goods, services and facilities. I thank and commend Ms Claire Sugden for taking on such a substantial Bill. I know that she has been very dedicated, particularly on the all-party group on ageing and older people, in the work that she has been doing. Well done.

Section 75 and other existing equality legislation already provide for protection from discrimination based on factors such as religion, race and sexual orientation. The Bill builds on that. While I would prefer to see such legislation delivered through a more comprehensive bill of rights, this is an important step forward. If enacted, the legislation can bring us up to speed with entitlements in the rest of Ireland, which already has legislation to protect people from discrimination based on age when accessing goods, services and facilities. It also brings us closer to fulfilling a United Nations convention that pertains to older people alongside that on the rights of the child. Article 23 of the revised European Social Charter encourages European member states to introduce measures to enable older people to remain full members of society without age-related ostracism and discrimination. The accompanying Council of Europe fact sheet also emphasises that its interpretation has significantly evolved through the work of the European Committee of Social Rights. That includes obligations to adopt comprehensive legislation to combat age discrimination beyond an employment context, including in access to goods, facilities and services alongside healthcare, education, insurance and banking services.

The demographic shift across Ireland is also significant in the context of the debate. We are all getting older, and we have an ageing population across Ireland. In the North, the over-65 population is projected to overtake the number of children by next year. That changing age profile will, undoubtedly, inform longer-term planning and investment in public services. Regardless of the ongoing development of international protections or the shift in the shape of society at large, however, we have an obligation to act with urgency to address ageism and discrimination and to ensure that people of all ages can participate fully in society.

It was disheartening to read Age NI's Lived Experience survey of 2023 and to discover that people continue to report that they feel sidelined, forgotten about, dismissed and no longer important. Likewise, a recent research report by the Commissioner for Older People found that 49% of older people surveyed — one in two older people — had experienced ageism. Participants gave examples of being subjected to ageist attitudes and behaviour across a range of sectors.

We know that older people make a huge contribution to our society, in particular in the level of unpaid work that they often undertake for the well-being of families and communities, including caring, volunteering and preserving local heritage and knowledge. We also know that age discrimination issues relate to younger people in our society, and, undoubtedly, progress on lowering the voting age is one fundamental example of that. If people can work, pay taxes, donate blood and do so much else, there is no doubt that they should be granted political decision-making rights.

None of those issues is abstract. The challenges that younger and older people face are very real, and today's debate gives us all an opportunity to reflect on those challenges and how legislation can help to address them. As I said at the outset, non-discrimination protections, including in relation to age discrimination, should be placed in a unified, single and comprehensive piece of legislation rather than by way of piecemeal amendments. Unfortunately, however, despite all the evidence and the engagement, regressive parties continue to block and oppose the delivery of a comprehensive bill of rights in our society. It is important that any legislation that is developed ultimately protects people of all ages from unfair treatment, reflects international human rights and best practice and encourages positive action to support age groups.

While we are broadly supportive of the Bill, we have some concerns, which were previously outlined by my colleague, and we feel that the Bill will need to be improved and strengthened. For example, clause 9 stipulates that there will be a cut-off at the age of 16 in respect of protections. Sinn Féin supports the Bill in principle at Second Stage, and the Bill sponsor has indicated that she is open to looking at that cut-off stipulation. We believe that we should return to that at Committee Stage and look at how that cut-off could potentially be amended or removed in order to ensure that children and young people under the age of 16 are not discriminated against or excluded from protections that would reasonably apply to them.

Mr Dickson: Like other Members who have spoken in the debate, I congratulate Claire for the incredible work that she has done, together with her researcher and those who have been supporting her, in the preparation of the Bill.

The reality is that Northern Ireland has, for a considerable time, been falling behind when it comes to equality legislation. We have protections against age discrimination in employment, yet, when it comes to accessing goods, facilities and services, there is a very large gap in existing legislation. That is not for the want of trying, however, because, as many Members have referenced, in the past, the Assembly attempted to deal with the issue. Sadly, though, it has been left to an individual Member — I congratulate her again — to tackle it. I very strongly believe that the issue should have been tackled by the relevant Department, which, in this case, is the Executive Office. It has an overarching responsibility for equality legislation in Northern Ireland. Yet, here we are, all those years later, still debating whether people should have the same basic protections when accessing services as they do in the workplace.

We can all agree that discrimination on the grounds of age is wrong. Recognising the principle is one thing, but ensuring that it works fairly and reasonably in practice is another. That is where the Committee will have an important role to play by scrutinising the legislation. We will take the opportunity to go through it thematically and clause by clause. We will group the clauses into themes and then seek the opinions and views of those in the wider community who will want to come forward when we are taking evidence.

The Bill proposes that its main protections should apply from the age of 16. There is a reasonable argument for that. At 16, a young person can enter employment, pay tax and take on other responsibilities that we should start to consider as being associated with adulthood. There are, however, other areas of life in which we continue to draw a distinction between 16-year-olds and, for example, 18-year-olds. If a group of 16-year-olds wanted to book hotel rooms, should the hotel be able to refuse them simply because of their age? There may be a perfectly legitimate reason for having that restriction, particularly when it comes to safeguarding and the responsibilities of the business. Equally, however, we need to be careful about presuming that every age restriction is justified simply because it is convenient or is a business's policy.

Equality does not necessarily mean treating everyone identically regardless of the circumstances. It means ensuring that, where people are treated differently, there has to be an appropriate, defensible reason for it. We make distinctions based on age in all sorts of areas of public life. Take our concessionary travel scheme. It provides for people from the age of 60, and it is legitimate to offer that support. Why 60, however? Why not 55 or 65? Decisions will therefore have to be made, and there will often be good reasons for making them. The point to make is that treating people differently because of their age is not automatically unlawful discrimination. What does matter is whether there is a reasonable justification for doing so. That takes me back to the argument about whether there is reasonable justification for setting the age at 16 in the legislation. What we want to do is to prevent unfair discrimination without undermining the legitimate reasons for having age restrictions in the first place.

There are consequences from how the new protections would interact with existing legislation. As Members indicated, including the Bill sponsor, this is complex legislation, and I really do appreciate the work that Claire has done. We will need a great deal of support from the Bill Office, as well as expert advice and guidance from the Executive Office, which should have brought the legislation to the House. There are complex areas and issues that interact with the Bill on which the Committee will require a great deal of evidence. It should be noted that, when she introduced the legislation, Claire had to wait for the Secretary of State's approval. That adds a further level of complexity to the Bill, because a lot of it interacts not just with existing legislation in Northern Ireland on age discrimination but with age discrimination legislation in a raft of areas for which the Assembly does not even have responsibility.

As I said, we all want to prevent unfair age discrimination without undermining the legitimate reasons for having age restrictions. There are therefore questions to be asked about how the new protections will integrate with the other legislation. The equality framework in Northern Ireland is already fragmented. We do not have what we should have, namely a single equality Bill with different protections applying to different characteristics in different circumstances. It is therefore not always straightforward for individuals to understand their rights or for businesses or service providers to understand their obligations. Deborah Erskine mentioned that. The outworking of the Bill will be complex and difficult, particularly for small businesses.

I have long believed that we need a more coherent approach to equality legislation, and, while the Bill will address important gaps, we should be mindful of how it fits into the wider picture.

I would like to see further consideration being given to the proposed exceptions, particularly in areas such as insurance and financial services. Colin referred to how age can be relevant in assessing risk, for example, but does that necessarily mean that every distinction based on age is justified?

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. He makes an important point on the exemptions. A slight concern of mine is that secondary legislation will probably be needed for some of the things in the Bill. As I mentioned in my contribution, the time frame for that would leave businesses in uncertainty, because, if the Bill passes, there will be a grey area. Does the Member agree?

Mr Dickson: I would not disagree. A lot of clarification and not only secondary legislation but also regulation will be needed. Unlike employment law, where there is a clear background of employment tribunal and, indeed, court decisions to draw on, this will involve civil litigation, and we will therefore have to rely on the range of available decisions. I have been looking into it. Few cases have come forward in the rest of the United Kingdom, so there is little case law. It will be interesting to see how it might develop in Northern Ireland, given our different demographics and, in particular, as the Member said, the fact that we have a lot of small businesses.

Who knew, for example, that someone who is under the age of 16 is not allowed to purchase, pump or serve petrol? There are all sorts of interesting rules and areas in which we will have to have a lot of detailed discussions. There is a wider question about the age threshold. Why should the protections begin at 16? I recognise that that reflects earlier proposals, but the fact that a particular age was considered appropriate more than a decade ago does not mean that we should accept that without further examination. Children under the age of 16 can experience discrimination, and indeed we should be prepared to consider whether the Bill goes far enough to protect them.

None of those questions should prevent the legislation from progressing. Indeed, as I have outlined, the detailed work that is required is why we have the Committee Stage. We will have an opportunity to hear the evidence, to examine the practical implications and, where necessary, to improve the legislation. I very much welcome the fact that Claire said that the Bill is improvable and that there are changes that she would welcome us making as we work our way through it.

The complexities in equality law should not be an excuse for failing to address discrimination. If we had waited until every possible difficulty was resolved before introducing legislation, the House would have made little progress. The principle is straightforward: people should not be denied opportunities or services simply because of assumptions based on their age. Where distinctions are necessary, they should be reasonable, proportionate and capable of being justified.

I welcome the Bill and support its progress to Committee Stage, and I look forward to the detailed scrutiny of it at that stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Claire Sugden to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I had prepared to speak for another half an hour, but you will be delighted to hear that I will not take that time. I really appreciate the contributions of all Members who have taken part in the debate and given their thoughts on areas of the Bill that we need to investigate further, substantiate or, potentially, amend. I will speak to the themes that have arisen from the contributions and give my perspective on some of the comments that have been made. I will work backwards from Stewart and acknowledge other Members where they have made similar comments. Forgive me if I do not acknowledge you, but I have been listening intently.

I will start with the 16-plus threshold. In principle, I have no difficulty with an age discrimination Bill extending to all ages, because I recognise that, by its definition, it raises the question of whether, by introducing the threshold, we are discriminating against people under the age of 16. However, I have to put that into the balance of the conversation that we need to have at Committee — I alluded to this in my opening speech — about what is practical and possible. The decision for me came during the drafting process. I was asked whether I wanted to introduce this for all ages, those aged 16-plus or those aged 18-plus. The conversation around the Bill applying all ages very much suggested that that would significantly extend the scope of Bill and that the Bill would have to read across to a whole other area of legislation in a way that it would not have to do if it applied only to those aged 16-plus. If we did that, we would essentially be creating a new vehicle that has not been seen in England, Wales, Scotland or the Republic of Ireland. I ask Members to consider that this vehicle is a private Member's Bill and that we would be creating something substantially different by extending this to all ages. That is not to say that we as a House cannot do that. However, I do not think that it would be as easy as streamlining it, and I do not think that it would be as easy as just taking the clause out, bearing in mind that the Bill was designed and crafted on the basis that the threshold is 16-plus. All the legislative provisions that the Bill has drawn from have, therefore, been drawn on that basis. If we were to extend it to all ages, we would be looking at a whole other legislative framework. I know that the Committee will look into that. In fairness, it may be possible. It may be within the gift of the Committee to do that, as opposed to me, as an individual Member, doing it. It is something that we have to be conscious of.
I am very conscious that there is limited time left until dissolution, and by adding that to the Bill we would essentially be giving ourselves more work. Again, it is up to the House to choose whether to do that. For me, there is an opportunity here to extend to Northern Ireland a provision that exists in other parts of these islands. I am not necessarily trying to create the new thing that other Members have suggested. I am trying to bridge a gap, and I appeal to Members to consider the Bill on that basis. I appreciate the principle and I appreciate Members' comments about equality. However, this is about what is possible, and politics is the art of the possible, not least in this place. It is about asking, "What can we achieve within the realities of, to be fair, political opinion on the issue?" There is history to this. There is a reason why some Members do not want it to be extended to all ages. I do not think that that has changed much in the10 years since it was originally discussed. There is a reality to that. Let us therefore try to ensure that we work towards a practical outcome. That might be all ages, or it might be what is in the Bill as drafted. Bear in mind the work that goes into that. I genuinely do not believe that it would be as easy as taking out the clause, as has been suggested by some stakeholders. You have to look at it and see whether it reads across the legislative framework. Any Member who develops a private Member's Bill will get a lesson on how to look at their Bill in a legislative context to see whether it fits within existing frameworks. Certainly, for a private Member's Bill, that is more critical than anything else. Extending the provision to those aged 16 and 17 warrants particular scrutiny because, essentially, we will be creating something new. However, again, the existing legislative framework gives a precedent for that. What is being suggested in terms of all ages is something quite different, however.

A number of Members, not least Stewart, referred to the fact that the interaction with existing legislation is important. The Bill provides for that interaction so that we are not necessarily overriding existing legislation. For example, the law already states that products in an off-licence cannot be sold to someone under the age of 18. The Bill does not intend to override that legislation. Deborah, I think, talked about the fact that, in an off-licence or a supermarket, it is a case of whether you look under the age of 25. Do we need to consider that as part of this, because it is that group? Again, I think that the Bill provides that there is a justifiable reason for doing that. We will, however, have to interrogate what that means in practice, because it is all very well my saying that.

I will draw on some of the comments. Paula Bradshaw as Committee Chair, Stewart Dickson and Carál Ní Chuilín talked about the need for a single equality Bill.

From my practical assessment of what exists, I agree with that. However, we will not get political support for that, certainly not in this mandate. The opportunity to do something now to bridge the gap as it exists is important.

Building on the comments I mentioned about the legislative framework, the Bill is essentially drawn from established legislation in the UK, the Equal Status Acts in the Republic of Ireland and some of the legislation that exists in Northern Ireland, such as the age discrimination in our employment law; I cannot remember the Order off the top of my head. There is equality legislation here, and we have to pull that all together in the absence of something much more elegant. The Bill is a patchwork, and it is a general lesson for the House on our equality laws moving forward. I found the process of how we bring those things together and consider them interesting.

The Executive’s approach comes back to the conversation about why it was 16-plus 10 years ago. I appreciate that what was appropriate or possible 10 years ago is not necessarily possible now. Ten years in politics may seem like a long time to a lot of people outside this Building, but things move glacially in this place, and I am not sure that the position has moved on. Certainly, in this case, it has not moved on, but that is a matter for individual Members and their party policies on the issue. I encourage Members to remember that politics is the art of what is possible, so what is the compromise that we can reach?

I am not sure whether Members considered the review period during my contribution to the debate. Deborah Erskine also mentioned it. There is a provision in the Bill for a review period in three years. It does not specifically mention extending the protection to all ages, but perhaps the Committee could consider that for the amending stages, because it would oblige the Department to consider all the ages in three years, rather than just hoping that an individual independent Member will decide to do it in five years' time. That is a strength because, if there is not a practical opportunity to get an all-ages Bill on the statute book, let us at least write it into the Bill that the Department has to consider it. It might be the compromise that we need to move past the issue that has followed the Bill for the last decade.

Ciara Ferguson put the Bill into the context of section 75, and, when we think of equality law in Northern Ireland, we think about section 75. Again, my learning from the process has been that section 75 does not really give practical opportunities for redress; it exists only insofar as it places a duty on public bodies and functions to have "due regard". From what I understand, they can simply acknowledge it, and that would be as far as it goes. This legislation would give a practical opportunity for redress, if you like. Even under section 75, age discrimination is included as part of the protected group, but the difference is that there is no redress opportunity, and that is important. It is absurd that section 75 recognises age discrimination but does not give anyone the tools to do anything about it should they find themselves in that situation.

Colin McGrath has a birthday in the next 24 hours — happy birthday. He will be pleased to know that the legislation is not directed towards a particular age. It looks at age as a group, and that is deliberate because, while most Members have talked about the legislation in the context of older people, age discrimination happens across all ages. Typically, it will be older people, but it can happen to younger people. It can happen to people in middle age. Carál Ní Chuilín talked about fertility, and women aged 42, I think, will be cut off from IVF opportunities. The Bill could look at whether that is a justifiable reason, but, ultimately, if a woman’s body allows her to have a baby, is her age a justifiable reason? There is a lot more to it than my inelegant description. Discrimination can affect all ages, so clause 1, which is on the perspective of groups, is important.

Most Members talked about the Bill in health and social care terms — the comments that I have just made build on that — which is where the legislation is critical. I expect that the Commissioner for Older People will present to the Committee and that there will be some sobering conversations about how older people were dealt with during the COVID-19 pandemic. Decisions that were made or could have been made affected or could have affected their lives, and that was entirely down to an arbitrary age being applied. It will be up to the commission to make those comments, but I understand that it nearly had to bluff that my proposed legislation was already in place so that older people's lives were not affected. That is the most serious reason for wanting to pursue the legislation.

Colin McGrath talked about travel insurance. The one consistent issue that older people talk to me about relates to how they are being disadvantaged by financial services. There should not be an arbitrary age unless there is a justification for it: for example, as you get older, are you more likely to need travel insurance? If travel companies cannot justify that, effectively that is a form of age discrimination, and it would be covered under the Bill. Therefore, it is important that we take it forward.

Deborah Erskine, Carál Ní Chuilín and others talked about financial services. That is where there is a departure from what exists in the Equality Act 2010, insofar as it has a blanket exception in relation to some services. That is not what I propose here. I am not proposing a blanket exception: I propose that any exceptions that the financial sector wants must be justified, which is where the opportunity for regulations comes in.

Deborah Erskine made a really important point on commencement and the development of the regulations. It demonstrates the need for the House to remain available. If the Bill gets Royal Assent next year, commencement will be 12 months from then. However, if the Assembly were not sitting, there would be no opportunity to make those regulations, and the financial sector would find itself in basically the same situation as every other service. It would not enjoy the exceptions provided for in the Bill. There is a connection there, and we may need to think about the ability of the House to remain standing for long enough to do the practical work that we should do.

Mrs Erskine: I thank the Member for giving way. The point that I was making was not around the institutions still being here; it was the fact that it will take substantial work within Departments and their arm's-length bodies to see how it all interacts. That was my point, rather than the institutions still being here. I take the Member's point. We have to be optimistic and positive but also realistic. It will be a large amount of work for Departments. I have just come from the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and we were discussing cross-Executive strategies and how they interact. That is key.

Ms Sugden: I fully appreciate that the Member was not directly making that point. I, however, will make that point. I have been around here for 12 years, and I do not have much confidence that we will necessarily be up and running for the appropriate amount of time. I would love to be positive, and I would love to ensure that this place is here to do the job that we are all elected to do. Sadly, as we have seen in recent weeks, there has been a lot of conversation. I appreciate that I am digressing, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is an important consideration, given that the Bill could have implications for the financial sector. I would never want the Bill to have unintended consequences. I would not like certain financial services or products not to be available in Northern Ireland because the companies providing them felt that they could not operate under the Bill.

Others have also suggested that we need to have important engagement with the various sectors. The Association of British Insurers provided a response to my consultation. I spoke with it yesterday, and it intends to bring something forward. It has also suggested other financial organisations whose engagement would be useful to the Committee. That is important.

That brings me to the guidance and the regulations. I agree 100% with Deborah Erskine and others about how important that guidance will be. Similar guidance exists with the Equality Act 2010. There is a developed and comprehensive body of guidance, and I imagine that what we do would take from that. It would, however, be up to the Equality Commission to develop that guidance. I agree that it is a substantial piece of work. The Equality Commission would have to be given the time and resource to do it. I have deliberately allowed the commencement of the Equality Commission provisions before the commencement date for everything else to allow it that time. Again, if 12 months is not long enough, it may be prudent to look at extending that to 18 months or two years.

On the "assumed age" piece, I get it. I draw Members' attention to how it is written in the Bill compared with how it is written in the 2010 provision. Forgive me: off the top of my head, I cannot quite remember what the difference is, but there is a slight difference there. As a Committee, we will need to look at that and understand why that is. As with the "assumed age" provision, generally, for most elements of the Bill, a lot of what has been written has been taken from established law. How it plays out in the precedent that it enjoys because that precedent has been around for a number of years will, similarly, be how we interpret it. I appreciate that Members will want to see how those things will work in practice. That is absolutely understandable and something that we need to do. However, bear in mind that I am not inventing something new; it is not without precedent. It has a legal basis on which, I suppose, we can be confident that it already operates across other legal frameworks.

I really enjoyed Carál's contribution on how the Bill cuts across other equality interests, particularly women's health. As a side job, I talk a lot about women's health. I brought that debate to the Assembly. I also brought the debate about the ageing population to the Assembly. Those issues cut across each other. Typically, that tends to affect women. There is a real opportunity with the Bill to address those issues. However, as I have mentioned with regard to a single equality Act, the Assembly has a responsibility to look at that more widely. It would be my preference to have a single equality Act. Interestingly enough, I say that as a unionist and as a unionist who is bringing forward this Bill. That has nothing to do with age discrimination; I say it really in response to comments from Members across the House about where the obstruction came from. I suppose that it is an interesting conversation. It very much tells me that our current legislative framework is patchy. If we want to do something appropriate and right, maybe we need to genuinely consider that in the next mandate.

Carál and others mentioned the draft affirmative approach. That was an entirely deliberate drafting decision, because I agree that the Assembly needs to be able to represent the views of our constituents and the organisations in our constituencies. In providing that mechanism, there will be consultation. It will not just be up to the Executive Office to draft the regulations without that appropriate scrutiny. That is an important part of the Bill as well.

I feel as though I have spoken a lot today and that we have covered ground. I thank Members for engaging with the Bill. I appreciate that Members are content to see it move forward to Committee Stage, where we will hopefully look at it in more depth. I recognise that it is not a perfect Bill. To an extent, the cards have been in front of me when it comes to how we pull this together. I hope that Members see it in that respect. There is a real opportunity here. We have limited time to pass the Bill into law between now and when this place dissolves. I look forward to working with Members and the Department.

I am really disappointed that the Executive Office has not provided representation here for whatever reason. I intend to follow that up. That contribution would have been valuable. The Department's input on the Bill, even at official level, is significant and important. I certainly hope that it responds to the Committee when it seeks that input. The work that has been done, not just by me but by all those who have advocated for the Bill, deserves to have the attention of the Department that will eventually implement the Bill if it becomes law.

I will end on a positive note by saying that this is an area in which I have been really interested and have worked on since the day that I became an MLA. It is not about me. Ultimately, it is about the people whom I represent and the views that they have expressed over the years. That that gap continues to exist makes no sense, so I ask the House to support the motion that the Second Stage of the Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill be agreed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the Second Stage of the Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for the Executive Office.

All that remains for me to do is to add to the birthday wishes to Colin McGrath, who is just on his way out of the Chamber, and to ask Members to take their ease before we move on to the next item in the Order Paper.

Mr Gildernew: 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 in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Colm, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Beidh mé ag caint i mBéarla agus as Gaeilge le linn an rúin seo.

In recent years, geoblocking has prevented Irish citizens in the North from accessing programmes on our national broadcasting channels on a fair and equal basis to citizens elsewhere across the island. Is minic a chuireann an cleachtas céanna bac ar shaoránaigh ón Tuaisceart a bheith ag amharc ar thuairisciú RTÉ ar mhórimeachtaí domhanda spóirt, amhail an Corn Domhanda, na Cluichí Oilimpeacha chomh maith lenár spórt náisiúnta féin, na cluichí Gaelacha.

Many people were particularly angry about the latest decision, which was to block the broadcast of the recent Katie Taylor fight, her last ever as a professional. Unfortunately, many citizens were prevented from experiencing that moment, as RTÉ had disgracefully decided that the event would be geoblocked.

RTÉ's consistent practice of geoblocking flies directly in the face of its mission statement and reveals a partitionist mindset that is embedded deep within our national broadcaster. It also flies in the face of the Good Friday Agreement, under "Economic, Social and Cultural Issues", paragraph 4, which specifically refers to taking:

It states therein that the British Government should:

the North.

Tá an spórt agus an saol cultúrtha fite fuaite inár bpobail ar fud an oileáin seo. Bíodh muid ag tacú lenár lúthchleasaithe Éireannacha, ag baint sult as dráma dúchasach nó ag amharc ar imeacht cultúrtha, ba chóir dúinn uilig bheith ábalta na rudaí sin a dhéanamh.

An end to geoblocking will also help to bring the Irish language into more homes, enhancing its visibility and accessibility, and enable it to act as an important educational tool for those who wish to learn Irish. Tá Sinn Féin i mbun feachtas ar an cheist sin le fada an lá, agus gabhaim buíochas ar leith le Dáire Hughes, Feisire, as an cheist a thógáil go leanúnach le RTÉ agus le Rialtas na hÉireann.

Gabhaim buíochas le Caoimhe Archibald, Aire Geilleagair, as bheith ag stocaireacht ar leibhéil na nAirí le Rialtas na hÉireann leis an athrú sin a dhéanamh.

Gabhaim buíochas le mo chomhghleacaithe sa Dáil, agus go háirithe le hAengus Ó Snodaigh. Thug Rialtas na hÉireann gealltanas dáiríre ar na maillibh go dtabharfaidh siad aird mar is ceart ar an cheist seo agus a bhuíochas sin ar an bhrú a choinneáil an Snodach leo.

I will give some practical examples of the impacts. I have been contacted about this motion by a range of people who are very exercised and frustrated by the practical outworkings of all this — more so than I have been contacted about many other things. Putting the commercial reality aside, people have pointed out to me that there are sports matches and games that are not shown in Britain, such as those involving the Irish women's soccer team, that are sometimes geoblocked here. That same issue applies to under-21 matches for men and women, as they are not shown. There is no commercial interest, but they are blocked here. 'The Sunday Game' cannot be watched in the North on the RTÉ Player, and, while you can watch live GAA games, you are blocked from watching the clips. It is really inconsistent. As for athletics, RTÉ posts clips of athletes who represent Ireland, including many from here, that we cannot watch in the North. We need to take a serious look at that.

Outside of sports, it has been pointed out to me that, last year, RTÉ broadcast a documentary by the broadcaster David McCullough on the life and impact of de Valera. It was shown in two episodes that were aired one week apart. The first episode was aired across the Thirty-two Counties, but the second episode was shown only in the Twenty-six Counties, and people here could not see its conclusion. That shows how irritating geoblocking can be.

It even impacts on children's education and enjoyment, as programmes that have been translated into Irish, such as 'Dora the Explorer' and 'Sesame Street', have been blocked from being shown here. Many children here are learning tríd an Ghaeilge

who would benefit hugely from being able to see those programmes.

I say this to the relevant stakeholders: work together to end geoblocking once and for all and ensure that all Irish citizens receive fair and equal access to public service broadcasting, no matter which part of the island they live on.

Ms Forsythe: With all that is going on across politics, the courts and the wider community, it feels somewhat disheartening to debate this motion. Sinn Féin should be honest with the public that it is nothing more than distraction politics. Rather than using Assembly time to deal with some of the more important issues that face our public services or to address the failure to advance key infrastructure projects, Sinn Féin chose to table the motion to play politics. If the Irish Government themselves have not implemented the Joint Committee's recommendation on geoblocking, why does Sinn Féin believe that agreeing a motion here will achieve something that the Government with responsibility for RTÉ have not yet agreed to do?

There is a difference between supporting greater access to public service broadcasting and claiming that people in different jurisdictions are automatically entitled to identical broadcasting services. We should be careful about creating a principle whereby a broadcaster funded and regulated in one jurisdiction is assumed to have an obligation to provide its entire service on identical terms in another jurisdiction.

Mr Gildernew: Will the Member give way?

Ms Forsythe: Yes.

Mr Gildernew: I pointed out that it is inherent in the Good Friday Agreement. That is why. Does the Member agree that the Good Friday Agreement should be implemented in all its parts?

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for his intervention, but I go back to the point that I am making, which is that, at this time, the motion is somewhat disingenuous to the people of Northern Ireland. I am concerned that what Sinn Féin is presenting here as a technical question about access to television is wrapped up in its wider political project about an all-island agenda. Viewers in Northern Ireland should not be used as a vehicle for that agenda. This should be about consumers, viewers and families, not about using RTÉ to advance a particular constitutional narrative.

If Sinn Féin thinks that a motion passed in the Assembly will change international broadcasting rights, it needs to think again. RTÉ has been clear for many years that the rights to significant sporting fixtures are obtained for its national audience: the people of the Irish Republic. The people of Northern Ireland are well served by their national broadcaster, the BBC. The BBC gives people living here the right to watch significant sporting fixtures for free, particularly the opportunity to watch our national Northern Ireland football team playing its World Cup qualifying matches.

While Sinn Féin scrambles to shore up its base by tabling the motion, the DUP will continue to get on and deliver on our people's priorities, be that childcare, home heating support, tackling benefit fraud or speaking on the many issues that matter to people. While Sinn Féin offers dither and delay, we in the DUP will continue to deliver.

Ms Nicholl: We will support the motion. David Honeyford, who is at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly (BIPA), told me that, for years, if you wanted to watch RTÉ, you just put the RTÉ aerial up and that was it. People watched the news, 'The Late Late Show', the match or whatever was on. I did not live here, and I am much younger than him, but I know that technology was meant to make things easier. Instead, in 2026, although we have smart TVs and phone streaming, we have somehow managed to put a digital border around things that people used to watch without thinking twice. One of my colleagues is a die-hard 'The Traitors' fan and finds it incredibly frustrating that people cannot watch 'The Traitors' in the South on RTÉ Player. Things come up as "Not available in your area". It is not just about sport, but sport is the thing that people think about most. Of course, wanting to watch Katie Taylor fight is normal, as is wanting to watch Patrick Kielty on 'The Late Late Show' or even wanting to enter one of the competitions. Why are those things out of reach for people here?

Today, a lot of the moments that people remember — again, they are not things that I know about — such as Packie Bonner's save, David O'Leary's penalty in Italia '90 and Robbie Keane's stoppage-time equaliser against Germany, are blocked here. Even if you can pay for another service, you might miss the commentary, and hearing some of the non-neutral commentary on what is happening is half the joy of it for people. It still happens: during the Paris Olympics, when Daniel Wiffen and Rhys McClenaghan won gold, RTÉ blocked its own news bulletins because they had Olympic footage in them.

The person whom I really want to mention is Ciara Mageean, who has given us so many of those moments. I am conscious that she is fighting an enormous battle at the moment. She got married this month. I have not had the opportunity to say this at any other time, but I wish her well in what she is going through. What an extraordinary athlete she is: someone whom everyone on this island should be able to watch.

It is not only about people in Northern Ireland missing out. It works both ways. When I talked to David about this, he mentioned his daughter Emma, who is in Dublin. She cannot just switch on BBC iPlayer or UTV to watch the news from home.

The BBC's motto is:

On this island, at the minute, we are barely speaking at all. Therefore, when we talk about reconciliation, we are talking about sharing the island that we call home, and that comes down to understanding each other better. People in Dublin should be able to see what is happening in Belfast and Dublin, and people here should be able to see what is going on in Cork and Galway. Watching each other's news, culture and sport has to be one of the best places to start.

That principle is already accepted. RTÉ One and RTÉ Two are on Freeview here. TG4 is here because of the Good Friday Agreement. RTÉ's legal remit talks about serving the whole island. Of course, there are rights deals, licensing in different jurisdictions and different regulators, and, of course, there is a cost, but shutting people out of the moments that bring us together comes at a cost, too. Those complications cannot keep being the reason why we do not have changes. The support is there across parties in the Oireachtas. I welcome the Economy Minister's work with both Governments. It is not an insurmountable problem. If RTÉ, TG4, BBC Northern Ireland, UTV, both Governments and regulators could be in a room and ask, "How do we fix this?", it could make —. It makes no sense that we are still putting barriers between people who live a few miles apart. We all call this island home, and we should all be able to share it. That includes on-screen.

Mr Nesbitt: I have absolutely no issue with anybody wanting to watch RTÉ or TG4 — that is not a problem — but I am a little confused, and I look to Mr Gildernew for the answer to this question. This morning, we supported the Sporting Events Bill, which offers some significant protections to event organisers and sport governing bodies. It was my understanding that geoblocking is a commercial decision when it comes to something like the Katie Taylor fight, so, notwithstanding the commitments of the Good Friday Agreement, which, for the avoidance of doubt, I support in full, is it not simply a commercial decision from the likes of RTÉ, event organisers and governing bodies?

Mr Gildernew: Yes, there is absolutely that commercial element, which is why I addressed that up front. I am saying that, under the Good Friday Agreement, people here have that additional right and that, therefore, the two Governments should get together to address the commercial aspects, in whatever way they want to do that. The point is that we are missing out on key events. The Katie Taylor fight and races involving Ciara Mageean are great examples of that and are relevant. Yes, there is a commercial element to it, but we should address that and do whatever it takes to ensure that we can all participate in those key events.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, but I will not be using it, Principal Deputy Speaker.

That commitment from the two Governments is there. As I say, I support it and have no difficulty with them exploring that, because, frankly, in recent years, Irish sport and Irish sportspeople are enjoying a golden period. It is a shame that some people are missing out.

Mr McNulty: Geoblocking may sound like a technical issue, but, for TV viewers, particularly sports fans here in the North, it has become a hugely frustrating barrier to watching sporting contests and television programmes broadcast from the Republic. We can all identify with the excitement of sitting down with a cup of tea and a wee biccie to watch the match and turning on the TV to be met with the message, "This programme is not available".

Any motion on the issue must identify all the bodies with the power to resolve that problem. It is not enough simply to call on RTÉ, both Governments and the relevant regulators to work together. The glaring omission is the rights holder. If UEFA, FIFA, the International Olympic Committee or a promoter decides that separate rights apply in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, there is very little that RTÉ, either Government or any regulator can do after the contract has been signed. That is why we should speak accurately about the geoblocking of RTÉ services rather than automatically describing it as "geoblocking by RTÉ". That distinction matters, because it recognises that broadcasters are implementing restrictions that are imposed upon them, not by them. However, that cannot become an excuse for inaction.

The practical reality is that an IP address can determine whether someone is allowed to watch a sporting event of enormous cultural and community importance.

Global sporting bodies may see only two broadcasting territories: one marked "UK" and the other marked "Ireland". They do not see the reality of life in places such as Castleblayney and Cullaville, or Middletown and Monaghan, where families, communities and sporting traditions cross the border in a way that a television signal cannot.

There is also an important question to be asked of public service broadcasting — [Interruption.]

Are you OK there, Andrew?

Mr McMurray: Sorry.

Mr McNulty: When the national league begins, if RTÉ broadcasts Armagh against Mayo, viewers across the North can watch it, but, if the BBC in the North broadcasts Antrim against Fermanagh on the BBC iPlayer, viewers in the Twenty-six Counties may have to pay to see it on GAA+. Which arrangement better fulfils the purpose of public service broadcasting? This is not an argument against RTÉ or the BBC, nor can one broadcaster solve the problem alone; it is an argument for reciprocal access, contractual foresight and political cooperation. Both Governments, broadcasters, regulators and sporting organisations should establish a permanent cross-border working group. More importantly, rights holders must be brought to the table. Future contracts should include specific all-island — island of Ireland — provision for events of shared cultural significance. Public broadcasters should pursue reciprocal access wherever legally possible. The goal should be simple: people should not be excluded from public service coverage of their sporting and cultural life merely because an IP address places them in the wrong broadcasting territory.

The issue is not only about sport; it also impacts on Irish language broadcasting, with some children's programmes, including Irish language cartoons, geoblocked. Geoblocking has gone as far as morphing into 'Bluey'-blocking. Again, I stress that it is not an issue for RTÉ. I have met with successive directors general of RTÉ, the head of sport for RTÉ and Ministers who have raised concerns about rights not being sold on an island-of-Ireland basis. That needs to be sorted out in the UK, folks. Get real.

The motion refers to the geoblocking of RTÉ, which is an admission that the geoblocking is not by RTÉ. It is small but notable progress that the proposers of the motion publicly accept that the issue is not of RTÉ's making. Why is nobody speaking about the solution? Although makeshift workarounds, such as aerials, terrestrial viewing and dodgy boxes, are available to some, the only real solution is to provide a unique IP address for the North of Ireland and get agreement for rights to be sold on an island-of-Ireland basis. Given the current constitutional arrangements — a border across this island — it must be noted that neither RTÉ nor the Irish Government can provide a unique IP address for the North. Cop on, lads. That must be driven from the UK side, so please stop bashing RTÉ and the Irish Government. Point the finger of blame for inaction where it needs to be pointed: at yourselves and the British Government.

Mr Delargy: How can I follow that?

The motion is about people across Ireland having equal access to cultural, sporting and other media. No one should be prevented from accessing such things because of their postcode, their eircode or an artificial border in our country. We share so much across Ireland, from our culture and language to our love of sport, yet people in the North can still find themselves locked out of programmes and major sporting events that others can watch without difficulty. Sport is a good example of why that matters. Katie Taylor has inspired people right across Ireland, with moments such as her farewell fight at Croke Park bringing so many people of all backgrounds and generations together. The same goes for Gaelic games. Whether it be a championship match or a provincial final, people want to watch their county and support their team. For supporters in Derry and across the North, it is frustrating and inexplicable when they find that coverage is not available to them.

As mentioned by many other Members here today, TV is changing. Many people now access TV on demand. It is not just the fact that live TV is unavailable; catch-up services are also unavailable in the North. Kate mentioned 'The Traitors Ireland'. I declare an interest: I am a massive fan of the programme. Colm mentioned 'The Sunday Game', which I sometimes try not to watch, given some of the performances of the teams that I support, but, yet again, it is a programme denied to people in the North simply because of an IP address. It is not just about sport. RTÉ provides news, current affairs, Irish language programmes and cultural content that people in the North have a real interest in and a right to engage with. They should not be shut out simply because they live in the Six Counties.

This is about opportunities and options. It is about people having the opportunity to celebrate and explore their identity. It is not a binary choice between RTÉ and the BBC or between Irish and British culture; this is about allowing people in the North to access whatever they want and ensuring that people can access both. Our Sinn Féin team has been working on that, across Ireland, in recognition of its national impact. It is encouraging to see that the Oireachtas Joint Committee has supported proposals to tackle the issue. There is growing support for change. The British and Dublin Governments need to get on with it and make that happen. I welcome the work of Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, in engaging with both Governments on greater all-Ireland cooperation. Broadcasting and licensing rights can be easily sorted when there is the political will to do so. The Dublin and British Governments must engage with the relevant regulators to find the solution. People in the North should have the same opportunity to enjoy the programmes and cultural and sporting events that connect us all. Where someone lives should not decide what they can watch. I urge Members to support the motion.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Harry Harvey.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I trust that Andy McMurray will not fall over again when I begin to speak. [Laughter.] [Inaudible.]

Mr Harvey: One could be forgiven for thinking, from reading the motion, that there had been a malfunction in the Sinn Féin system that allowed a motion that was destined for the Oireachtas to make its way to the House. Given that the Irish Government have responsibility for RTÉ and that the technical issue is within their power to amend, that seems like a realistic assumption. Whilst the impact of geoblocking is felt by those in this jurisdiction, one would assume that, as the only political party in the Chamber with representation in the Republic of Ireland, Sinn Féin would seek to influence the decision makers in Dublin as opposed to creating noise in places such as this that have no ability whatsoever to effect change on the issue. It would seem that noise and motions about all-island this and that is its goal, however, and not resolving the issue.

Given that the Irish Government are yet to even implement the Oireachtas Committee recommendation on geoblocking, one would think that Sinn Féin TDs would lobby and apply pressure on the Irish Government, as opposed to its MLAs requiring us all to spend time discussing an issue that we cannot resolve.

Mr Gildernew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Harvey: I will.

Mr Gildernew: Does the Member recognise that the partition of Ireland created that complexity and that the Good Friday Agreement put in place ways to deal with it? Sometimes it is unsatisfactory, and sometimes it is complicated. That is just the reality of it. Until such time as we undo the wrong of partition, we will have to have unique solutions. Does the Member recognise that?

Mr Harvey: Well, I will just thank the Member for his intervention.

RTÉ is a state broadcaster, funded and regulated in the Republic of Ireland, and it is its Government's prerogative whether they address the issue. This legislative body has no right to dictate to the Irish Government on how they conduct their business with regard to broadcasting.

Of course, the lifting of geoblocking would facilitate more choice in Northern Ireland, particularly in sports viewing. At the end of the day, however, it is for the Irish Government alone to decide. There is a clear difference between supporting greater access to public service broadcasting and claiming that people in different jurisdictions are automatically entitled to identical broadcasting services; they are not, and that is just the reality.

Mr Carroll: I remind the Member for Strangford that another party in the House has representatives in Dáil Éireann. It may not be as big as the party opposite, but we exist nonetheless.

Mr Harvey: Apologies.

Mr Carroll: That is OK. That was just for the record.

I thank the Members who tabled this important motion. Contrary to what the Member for South Down said, I do not think that this is distraction politics; as with the Members opposite, the issue of geoblocking is raised with me regularly.

It is raised by constituents who are trying to watch their favourite sports team or, as the Member for Newry and Armagh, who has now left the Chamber, said, access children's TV programmes that are readily available to people who live in Dublin, Kerry or Galway but not to those who live in Derry, Belfast or Newry.

Most right-thinking people will think it absurd that we can watch 'EastEnders' on BBC or RTÉ — make your choice between the two channels — but that, when it comes to sports or children's television programmes, we are placed at a disadvantage. A block comes into play, simply because of where we live. If someone wants to watch their GAA county team, local GAA team or favourite soccer club in the Champions League or other European competitions, it should not be the case that they are unable to do so unless they can fork out for it. I have not checked the prices for Amazon or TNT subscriptions recently, but I imagine that they probably cost around £30 or £40 a month for sports. People may be able to watch their sports team of choice, but they are being placed at a disadvantage because of where they live, and they cannot watch those competitions on RTÉ or TG4. Why should people be forced to pay hundreds of pounds extra because of where they live? People are therefore being disadvantaged.

It is also imperative to point out, because it is tied to the motion, how destructive and damaging the latest proposals from the BBC to gut the Irish language unit will be to those who watch programmes through the prism of Irish and to those who work at the BBC and in the sector more generally. It will be devastating. It is important to emphasise that, per head of population, there are more Irish speakers here than there are Scots Gaelic speakers in Scotland, yet BBC Alba invests far more than the BBC invests in Irish language services through its Irish language unit. Some 60% of the staff are being cut. Those experiences and skills will be missed. There is also talk of 'Blas Ceoil' being cut completely. It is an essential programme. By way of comparison, there are two bespoke Welsh language radio stations on BBC Sounds: BBC Radio Cymru and BBC Radio Cymru 2, or whatever "two" is in Welsh.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. I concur wholeheartedly with his criticism of BBC Northern Ireland's desire to dismantle its Irish language output. Given some of what he said earlier about the availability of children's programmes on RTÉ, particularly those as Gaeilge

, does he think that this might present an opportunity for closer collaboration between BBC and RTÉ and authorities on both sides of the border to enhance the product available to Gaeilgeoirí

or anyone else with an interest in the Irish language?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the Member's point. Hopefully, that will be the case, but I would be concerned at its being done at the expense of jobs. I am sure that the Member would agree with that.

I will return to the point that I was making. There are 200 hours a week of broadcasting on the two Welsh language radio stations combined. There are 90 hours a week on Radio nan Gàidheal, if I have pronounced it correctly in Scots Gaelic. There are five hours a week on Radio Ulster. We are already operating on a completely different level, yet the BBC is planning to cut output further.

Members have talked about kids' TV shows being blocked. Given the age of my kids, I am interested in and aggrieved about the issue. There is an unlimited supply of high-quality programmes in Irish available for children who live in Cork or Dublin, but that number dwindles quickly for children who live in Belfast, Newry or Derry. Take Julia Donaldson, for example. Members will know her. I can remember her titles only in Irish now, but I am talking about 'The Gruffalo' and other shows. They exist in Irish and are available, but they are available only temporarily if one lives in the North. They show up on the TG4 app but then disappear without any explanation. That is annoying for me and for most parents, but it puts children who are being raised in Irish at a disadvantage. That is a key point that is not being emphasised enough. Today's debate is not a distraction. Rather, it is a debate on an issue that needs to be dealt with.

To be clear, people across the island should have the right to access the national broadcaster. Given the efforts of the Gaeltacht Civil Rights Movement and the work of Irish speakers, North and South, who campaigned for the establishment of TG4, that is particularly important.

Is é sin a rá, tugann an rún seo le fios go bhfuil Sinn Féin ag troid an dea-throid in éadan Rialtas na hÉireann, Rialtas na Breatainne an DUP, nuair nach bhfuil siad ag déanamhfaic na chun difir a dhéanamh i saol na ndaoine atá thíos leis an chríochdheighilt agus cinntí an Rialtas seo.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Nicola Brogan to conclude and wind up the debate. You have 10 minutes.

Miss Brogan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank everyone for contributing to the debate. First, I will give a quick overview of what Members said. Colm Gildernew opened the debate, explaining how geoblocking and the banning of the viewing of events to people in the North goes against the Good Friday Agreement. He talked about how the Irish language can be promoted through the use of those channels, and he gave examples of how geoblocking has affected people who want to watch Irish soccer, including ladies' soccer, and GAA on 'The Sunday Game' through the RTÉ Player in particular.

Diane Forsythe described the motion as "distraction politics". I remind Diane that it is our right and duty to represent our constituents and that many, many constituents get in touch with us to raise the issue. I am sure that there are many constituents in South Down who face the issue, and she should be representing them as well.

Kate Nicholl outlined a number of programmes and big sporting events that we have not been able to watch. She also mentioned Ciara Mageean and her amazing achievements. I wish Ciara well in her ongoing battle as she goes into recovery. Mike Nesbitt, thankfully, supported the motion and acknowledged the growth of Irish sport throughout Ireland. Justin McNulty was very passionate about the motion, and, as we know, he is very passionate about sport throughout the entire country. He also mentioned the benefit of children's cartoons to the Irish language. Pádraig gave us more examples of huge sporting events that people cannot access in the North because they are geoblocked, especially through the RTÉ Player, and he welcomed the ongoing work on the issue by the Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, with the Government in the South and the Government in Westminster.

Harry Harvey does not believe that the debate belongs in the Assembly, but I kindly remind him, too, that we have constituents who care about this, and we are here to represent them.

Finally, Gerry Carroll supports the motion and said that the issue is often raised with him. He, too, gave examples of sporting events and children's TV programmes that have been blocked. He also raised the issue of BBC cuts to Irish language output in the North, and I fully agree with his point.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I sped through that point. Will she agree that, given that people can watch the programmes daily in Kerry, Dublin and Galway while people in the North — in Newry or Belfast or Derry — do not have the same access to TV programmes that do exist, people who are trying to raise their kids through Irish are placed at a disadvantage?

Miss Brogan: Yes, absolutely. If you are trying to raise your children through the medium of Irish, it can be difficult enough to get access to such resources. Where the programmes are already there and have been made, we should be able to get access to them. It seems to be a pretty sensible solution to me, so, yes, I agree, Gerry. Thank you.

I want to make a few remarks as Sinn Féin spokesperson on arts and culture. First, I thank my Sinn Féin colleagues for tabling the motion, and I thank my Sinn Féin colleague Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD for all his hard work in raising awareness of this issue in the Dáil. Aengus brought his own legislation to the Dáil in 2025 to bring an end to geoblocking of audiences in the North, and, in September 2026, Sinn Féin brought proposals to the Government's Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill to end the partitioning of Ireland's airwaves. The Minister for Culture, Communications and Sport, Patrick O'Donovan TD, acknowledged that geoblocking is a huge cause of frustration and committed to escalate the matter politically and to work to end the geoblocking of Northern audiences. That is very welcome. I am pleased that there is cross-party consensus on the issue.

If you open the RTÉ website, you can find the broadcaster's mission statement, where it proudly declares that its goal is:

For those of us living in the North, it seems to have taken the pledge to challenge viewers a little too literally. It can indeed be a challenge to watch RTÉ, often during pivotal moments of national interest. A few weeks ago, I made a Member's statement to congratulate Katie Taylor on her retirement, following an incredible fight in front of over 80,000 people in Croke Park, and to acknowledge her as one of our all-time greatest athletes. However, she was more than just an athlete; she was a history-maker. In 2001, Katie competed in the first-ever officially sanctioned female boxing match in Ireland. Her opponent in that fight was Belfast's Alanna Audley, who helped to kick-start a women's revolution in Irish sport with Katie, but would not have been able to watch that incredible moment in Croke Park from her native Belfast.

During the 2024 Olympic Games, half of Ireland's gold medals were won by athletes from the North. While RTÉ lauded the incredible efforts of Daniel Wiffen and Rhys McClenaghan, it also ensured that supporters in their native County Down could not watch them represent the nation on the national broadcaster. RTÉ will point to rights issues and legal restrictions as the culprit, but this did not start yesterday. The geoblocking of certain broadcasts in the North has been an issue since the RTÉ Player was launched in 2009. It has had over a decade and a half to work with the Governments and other broadcasters to address the issues. Had Daniel Wiffen swum as slowly as RTÉ has acted, he would never have got the gold medal in the race that RTÉ refused to show.

In 2024, RTÉ shamefully attempted to geoblock certain aspects of Armagh's victory in the All-Ireland final. A concerted public campaign got the broadcaster to reverse that decision, so there are actions that it can take when properly motivated. However, I find it shocking that, had there not been a public outcry, it would have blocked the people of Armagh from seeing their team lift the Sam Maguire Cup. Another example that was mentioned in the debate was 'The Traitors Ireland', which is a very popular RTÉ programme. Again, it is currently blocked in the North. It is hosted by Siobhán McSweeney, who, as many will know, is probably best known for appearing in 'Derry Girls'. It is a shame that the people of Derry cannot watch 'The Traitors Ireland' on the RTÉ Player.

The national broadcaster is well aware that it has a duty to broadcast to the nation. The Broadcasting Act 2009 clearly sets out RTÉ's broadcasting requirements. One of the guiding principles enshrined in the 2009 Act is universality, declaring that RTÉ must be for everyone and available to everyone. We are not asking RTÉ to do anything extraordinary, only to live up to its own standards.

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

Mr Frew: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. The Business Committee has agreed to allocate up to one hour and 30 minutes to the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Mr Frew, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr Frew: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to present the motion to the House because the rule of law is incredibly important. It is there to set standards and, more importantly, to protect our people. We are so blessed that we live in a democracy and that this legislature, and the House of Commons, can create, scrutinise and, where they see fit, amend law. With that, however, there is an extra special onus on those who are privileged to make and scrutinise law. There are many types of democracy and democratic frameworks but the most important aspect of democracy is that when the people give power to others — political parties, Prime Ministers, First Ministers or anyone else for that matter — the rule of law will protect people from that power. That is the essence of democracy. It is not just about giving people power or giving us power to represent our people; it is about protecting our people from us, from the political parties and from the very powerful in the Chamber and the Executive who make law. That is vital in a democracy. It is about protecting the people, and that is why the people need safeguards in law and in the framework of democracy to ensure that they are safeguarded.

That is why it is intolerable that someone in that privileged position would not only blatantly breach a law but encourage others to do so. That is intolerable. That says to our people that if Sinn Féin, or any other party for that matter, was to get unbridled power through the vestiges of office, the frameworks of democracy or even sovereign power in the UK Parliament or Republic of Ireland Parliament, the law would not be there to protect those people. That is what people now realise because if a political party does not respect the law, it will use the law against the people. That is exactly what we saw with the Nazi Party in 1930s Germany, when it used the law against the people after violence had occurred on the streets. That is why we have to make sure that we lay down markers when people in this House and in our Executive not only breach the law but encourage others to breach the law. It is straight out of the Nazi Party's 1930s playbook, which is why it is so dangerous.

Sinn Féin has a propaganda wing that would make Joseph Goebbels blush. I have absolutely no doubt about that. There have been times in my career, however, when I have seen Sinn Féin spooked. I have been here since 2010 — nearly 17 years — which is longer than I care to remember. Sinn Féin was spooked was when People Before Profit got a seat in both of its heartlands: West Belfast and Foyle. Sinn Féin was also spooked when the SDLP went into opposition the first time around. That is why Sinn Féin pulled this place down: it was spooked. It could not tolerate a party to the left of it being in its heartlands, and it really could not stick its opposition — the SDLP — being in opposition and holding it to account. That is why this place fell the first time around.

I see that Sinn Féin is spooked now because it has delivered nothing in this mandate. Ministers in other parties have delivered much, but Sinn Féin has delivered nothing. That is, ultimately, why it wants to bring this place down, but it does not want the blame for doing so. It will do everything in its power and use all that it has at its disposal, even breaching and breaking the law, to goad others, such as us, into bringing this place down.

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Frew: I will progress my argument.

That is why it is really important that we take time to consider everything that Sinn Féin has done — all its acts and all its breaches of the law — and allow the investigation to take its course. That is a job for the PSNI and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). We are legislators. We do not investigate under the law or enforce the law, but we expect the arms of government and the bodies that do so to do their job diligently and without fear or favour. That is also an important point, given that we have seen Sinn Féin, like the Nazi Party, bring thousands of people out on to the streets for the sham Bobby Storey funeral. It even held an oration in a graveyard where the man was not buried. It brought thousands upon thousands out on the street, thereby breaching COVID regulations. I had no real sympathy for those regulations, yet every law-abiding citizen in this state had to abide by them.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Those ordinary individuals, quite often, in abiding by the regulations, buried their loved ones with nobody at the funeral.

Mr Frew: Exactly. I thank the Member for his intervention. Those people had to adhere to COVID regulations that were barbaric. They should not have been in place, but they were. The party across the way was one of the biggest cheerleaders for those barbaric measures, yet it saw fit to slap in the face everyone who had been bereaved of a family member. Those people could not bury their loved ones and they could not have a wake for them, yet Sinn Féin rode roughshod over their feelings, their grief and their loss.

That is exactly what Sinn Féin has produced over the years and that is what it keeps producing. Its respect for the law is atrocious. Even though we might not agree with the law, all of us over here abide by it. Sinn Féin thinks that it is right and proper for it to put on a masquerade and, against the law, parade thousands of people through the streets of Belfast. That tells you everything that you need to know about how it feels about the ordinary citizens of this community and this country.

Action must be taken. We must see consequences. Deirdre Hargey's position on the Policing Board is untenable. The Policing Board exists to scrutinise the PSNI and promote public confidence in policing. A member who participates in and encourages an unlawful protest should not be able to take part in scrutiny of the police when she is under investigation by the police. To top it off, she has been able to ask questions about the scene and the activities around the protest in which she was involved. That is intolerable. I asked the Justice Minister to review the code of conduct for board members and to use the powers available to her to remove Deirdre Hargey if she is found guilty of having engaged in criminality. Deirdre Hargey should recuse herself from the board while that process takes place. That is only fair, and the public demand it. People who make the law and then break it —.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I have not heard any member of the public demanding that that happen, but that is for him to judge. Deirdre recusing herself from Policing Board meetings was looked at by the chair.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. Time is up for that speech and the intervention. Members should be watching the clock. I have no option to remind them, so the responsibility lies with them.

Ms Ennis: Over recent days, I have heard the DUP's approach to the current mess that it finds itself in described as having a certain "flat earth" feel to it. That is a very apt way of looking at it. Think about it: there is zero evidence of anything, but it is ready to believe the outlandish, because it suits its agenda. True to the DUP's creationist roots, the DUP and the TUV have sought to create and invent an air of moral and ethical superiority for themselves, conveniently oblivious to lawbreaking transgressions when they come from within the ranks of loyalism and unionism.

Let me bring a little critical thinking and honesty back to this conversation. Nobody on these Benches has been found guilty of any offence. Not one Sinn Féin MLA has been found guilty or convicted of any offence. There is a process ongoing to establish the facts, and political accusations are not a substitute for due process. If the DUP genuinely believes in the rule of law, it might begin by respecting that distinction, but, when you are taking your direction from Jamie Bryson's social media commentary and not from the courts, I suppose that that is an easy mistake for you lot to make.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ennis: I will not.

It will not be lost on the vast majority of the public that the self-proclaimed custodians of law and order have nothing to say about active loyalist paramilitary gangs such as the UDA and the UVF. In fact, instead of working to see their disbandment, unionism seems to have surrendered leadership to their spokespeople. Three or four weeks ago, there you all were — Diane Dodds, Jonny Buckley, Carla Lockhart and Diane Forsythe — on camera grinning and nodding behind the person who the BBC described as a spokesperson for the east Belfast UVF. DUP Ministers boast about their meetings with the Loyalist Communities Council (LCC), which, despite its benign name, represents the UDA, the UVF and the Red Hand Commando.

Where is the thunderous defence of law and order when it comes to illegal bonfires? There is none. In fact, if the bonfire builders cannot find a match to light their illegal hate fire, very helpfully, a DUP Minister will be on hand to light it for them. What have you to say about the hate crimes that festooned those illegal bonfires, such as the ones that we have seen in Moygashel? What have you to say? Nothing. What have you to say about the DUP Ministers and reps who attempted to legitimise last year's race riots and the rioters who went on to burn people out of their homes because of the colour of their skin? Nothing. What have you to say about your MP Carla Lockhart standing in Scarva with masked thugs? Nothing. Where was the devotion to absolute law and order throughout unionism's involvement with Ulster Resistance? Again, silence. The DUP may therefore want to pause before appointing itself judge and jury and the moral authority on the rule of law, because, quite frankly, guys, you do not have a leg to stand on.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Members who tabled the motion. In principle, I agree with some of it. Of course, the fundamental issue is that words are easy, but actions demonstrate how committed we really are to the rule of law. Certainly, the first section of the motion is fine. In fact, I would go further and add, "Commitment to the rule of law is a fundamental principle of commitment to democracy itself". If we cannot accept the law of the land, even when we disagree with it, are we truly democrats? As my colleagues and others pointed out, it is therefore correct to say that an unnotified protest is, under the Public Processions (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, an unlawful protest.

That having been said, we have seen plenty of them in recent years, not only on the Garvaghy Road. Just the other day, we saw one on the Shankill Road, while others took place during the race riots, as the Member who spoke previously mentioned, where, unfortunately, participants also committed offences that were much worse than attending an unnotified protest.

Some of us remember well the white-line protests in Belfast after the flags dispute. Frankly, there is a tendency for unionists and nationalists to call out unnotified protests when it is convenient for them to do so rather than do so consistently. I also agree that it seems somewhat contradictory for the First Minister to pledge to stand against the law in certain circumstances. She may argue, as her colleagues did, that it is a matter of civil disobedience. Indeed, that exact line has been used by others, on occasions to which I referred. Arguably, civil disobedience is a fundamental aspect of the conditional loyalty to which many unionists pledge themselves. Many proudly speak of their heritage, including about those who stood against Parliament, and in opposition to the laws passed by that Parliament, where that was done peacefully. Arguably, that falls within the same tradition of civil disobedience that some Sinn Féin Members —.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: I need to finish this point. Arguably, it falls within the same tradition of civil disobedience to which some Sinn Féin Members referred in recent weeks. Frankly, those engaged in lawbreaking should be brought to justice, whether they are lawmakers or not, so, again, I share the stated view of the signatories to the motion on that point.

There is a challenge here for the police, but there are two aspects that may be less convenient for those who tabled the motion. First, under the principles of the rule of law, the application of the law is for the police and the courts, not for politicians. There has been a tendency for politicians to deem laws to have been broken without waiting for due process. It is for the police to determine whether laws may have been broken, and it is then for the legal system to determine independently whether they have been broken.

Moreover, there has been a tendency to be selective on that point. Many of the people who pronounced that laws were broken in this instance are the same people who, just a few weeks ago, stood up and said that we should not have legislation to regulate the flying of flags on street furniture. We know that doing that is illegal. It is an offence under section 87 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. Some people will argue that the flags should be left to fly, as they do not see it as being a breach of the law, yet they are now suddenly concerned about a potential breach of the law by others.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: I will give way.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for using that example. In it, you suggest that some Members on these Benches do not understand the law and say that it is up to the courts to make a decision. The same applies to your Bill. Surely it is not up to you to determine whether someone has broken the law. It is up to the law to determine that, not you.

Ms Bradshaw: That is exactly my point. It is why I want to put in place a fair, consistent and transparent legislative framework for decisions about the flying of flags on street furniture.

Mr Clarke: You just said that we were breaking the law.

Ms Bradshaw: Under existing legislation, which is section 87 of the Roads Order —.

Mr Clarke: It is the same with blocking the road.

Ms Bradshaw: I will continue.

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

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, that is another example of being selective. In fact, it is one of the reasons that we leave determinations to the police and the courts rather than to partisan politicians.

The appeals at the end of the motion are political interference in due process, which, under the very same rule of law that the signatories to the motion quoted, must be left to the police and the courts. Whether someone has broken the law, and the consequences for doing so, is a question of legal interpretation that is based on evidential standards, not one of political interpretation that is based on partisan convenience. In fact, politicians pronouncing guilt bypass the very safeguards that are central to the application of the rule of law.

Mr Chambers: My party and I support the motion because it goes to the very heart of what democratic government requires, which is respect for the rule of law. Whatever our views on parading and the events that unfolded at Drumcree, there can be no ambiguity about one fundamental principle: in a democracy, no individual is above the law, and that includes those of us entrusted with making it.

When those who make the law break the law, there is no law. The authority of our institutions depends on public confidence that the rules apply equally to all. If lawmakers can decide when the law should be obeyed and when it should be set aside, the principle of equality before the law is fatally weakened.

Those who hold public office carry a greater responsibility than the citizens whom they represent. They are expected to set an example, not provide an excuse.

The issue before us today is not whether one supported or opposed the parade. Reasonable people can hold different views on that question. The issue before us is whether elected representatives should participate in, encourage or justify unlawful activity. If the answer to that question is anything other than no, we are placing politics above principle and preference above law. That is why the conduct of senior political figures in recent weeks is so troubling. We have heard defiance when there should have been responsible reflection. Those entrusted with overseeing policing by serving on the Policing Board must especially command public confidence and demonstrate respect for the rule of law. The public are entitled to ask how confidence can be maintained if individuals charged with holding the police to account are themselves alleged to have disregarded the law. Those are reasonable questions, and they deserve serious answers.

There is also a wider context that should not be ignored. Northern Ireland politics do not exist in isolation. Events here are watched closely across these islands and beyond. With Ireland holding the EU presidency, the world will be watching closely to see whether Sinn Féin wishes to present itself as a party of government or a party of chaos. Government is about responsibility.

Moreover, there is a profound contradiction at the centre of Sinn Féin's position. Its representatives are often quick to offer commentary on democracy, accountability and standards of conduct in other jurisdictions, yet credibility in politics depends on consistency. When Sinn Féin engages in lawbreaking, surely it forfeits the right to critique Governments across the world engaged in questionable behaviour. Those who seek to occupy the moral high ground must first be prepared to uphold the standards that they demand of others. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better. They are not interested in political theatre; they expect their elected representatives to focus on the daily challenges facing families, businesses and communities. They want stability, progress and respect for democratic institutions.

Ultimately, the debate is bigger than any one protest, any one party or any one dispute. It is about whether the rule of law applies equally to everyone. It is about whether those who hold high office are prepared to live by the standards that they expect others to follow, and it is about whether the Assembly is willing to defend the principles on which democratic government rests. For those reasons, my party and I support the motion wholeheartedly and commend it to the House.

Mr O'Toole: We will not support the motion. People probably will not be surprised to hear that. I will say briefly why.

Obviously, the decision made at 2.00 am to allow a parade to proceed down the Garvaghy Road, with just a few hours' notice, happened at a time when a notification of a protest had been initiated. That was then withdrawn. Then there was a frenzied and scary few hours for people that led to a peaceful, civil protest against, frankly, what was a bizarre initial decision by the Parades Commission.

My party has stood over its actions, and we will comply with any lawful consequences that follow. No determination has been made in relation to any elected representative's conduct on that day. Civil disobedience is part of any democracy, as is the rule of law, and upholding that also means acknowledging and accepting any processes that arise.

Having said all that, I now have only a few minutes to say that this is the last thing that we will debate before the Assembly breaks up for a recess. Hours upon hours of our time have been spent here, on the airwaves, online and in the courts talking about the parade. I appreciate that it matters a lot to a small number of Orangemen. I acknowledge that the Orange tradition is a significant part of culture on this island.

Mrs Dodds: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I have very little time, so I am afraid that I will not. I am normally a generous conceder of time, but, on this occasion, I cannot give way, because I have very little time and a lot to say.

Lots of our time has been spent on the issue in the Chamber in the past few weeks. Why is that, when we have no Budget? I know of no other part of the Western World where people would distract themselves with a relatively small, marginal issue like this, important as it is to the Portadown Orange Order. It has now been dealt with, thankfully for the people of the Garvaghy Road.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr O'Toole: I will not give way, I am afraid, because I do not have much time.

I want to see us debate a Budget in this place, because there are hundreds of thousands of public-sector workers whom we serve and are supposed to direct to deliver public services who do not know when they will get a pay rise. We also have umpteen other crises in our public services that should detain us here and that we should be debating, but we are not. We again have a motion that picks at the sore of Drumcree. Members are entitled to table it: I have never disputed that. There is a process around the rule of law, and my party has said consistently that we will comply with that. The rule of law means complying with lawful determinations that are made by courts and complying with investigations. That is fine.

A Member: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr O'Toole: No. I do not have time to take an intervention. I take interventions from the DUP enthusiastically, but, on this occasion, I will finish my remarks by saying that this place — [Interruption.]

Members from the DUP laugh. They laugh. This place is in disrepute — utter disrepute — because we come in here and throw accusations around while people struggle and no one's life gets better. We have heard Nazis mentioned. We have heard Ulster Resistance mentioned. Fine: those are all legitimate arguments that people can make, but we have people who are struggling to fill up their cars and heat their homes, and we have public-sector workers who do not know when they will get a pay rise. Constantly scratching at those itches does not help people. It does not fill their cars up or heat their homes. It does not improve our public services. It just distracts and divides people, and that is the whole point.

This content will go up online. People will see it on their phones and get angry. They will think, "That place is a joke. They cannot improve our services. They cannot deliver proper pay and support for people. They cannot even agree a Budget. Let's all just distract ourselves with these grubby fights". No. The reason why there is an official Opposition here is to stand against that and say, "The public deserve better".

The people of the Garvaghy Road did not ask for, want or deserve the issue to be reopened. It has now, thankfully, been put to bed. I acknowledge that some people do not like that, but many more people want governance, public services that work and politicians who actually do something for them, rather than enter the Chamber and simply throw around grubby accusations. That is true of some of what Sinn Féin members have said today, it has to be said, but the DUP has tabled the motion because it is intent on distraction and division. The official Opposition will not let that happen. The Executive need to set a Budget and focus on public services. We collectively need to focus on the public, who deserve much better than the spectacle that gets served up here every day.

Mrs Mason: The motion is not about upholding the rule of law; it is another political stunt. In fact, the motion just further exposes the utter hypocrisy of the DUP.

Here is one for you. Here is what one of the proposers of the motion, Diane Dodds, had to say on 27 May 2026:

That is what she had to say in response to a peaceful demonstration against Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people. In fact, her party colleague Carla Lockhart stood alongside masked men who had gathered to intimidate. Honestly, the hypocrisy reeks. The motion is not about the rule of law. It was never about upholding the rule of law. What is it about? It is about the DUP not getting its own way.

The people of the Garvaghy Road were forced back in time to a place of fear, pain and uncertainty that they thought they would never, ever face again. The unwanted march has rightly been stopped and the voices of the residents on the Garvaghy Road have finally been heard, but political unionism is now in such a tailspin: the hypocrisy, scandal and sleaze just keeps catching up with them. The hypocrisy of the Garvaghy Road is just another attempt at deflection and to demonise a community who stood peacefully against sectarian intimidation and harassment.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Mason: No. It is your motion. You have plenty of time to contribute.

When it comes to the rule of law, the DUP should look much closer to home. Its former leader is currently in Maghaberry Prison for child rape and sexual abuse. Jim Shannon is being investigated for common assault. The actions of Edwin Poots, Gordon Lyons and Paul Givan were found to be unlawful and in abject breach of their solemn pledge as Executive Ministers when they did not take part in the North/South Ministerial Council meetings. Gregory Campbell is being investigated in an expenses probe, while Sammy Wilson is under investigation by the Standards Commissioner. [Interruption.]

Former First Minister Ian Paisley was convicted of unlawful assembly and served time in prison. Former First Minister Peter Robinson pleaded guilty to unlawful assembly after the Clontibret incursion, so please, please, spare us that faux outrage. Everyone can see it for what it is: it is a deliberate attempt to distract the public from the raft of scandal and sleaze that your party is entrenched in.

Sinn Féin has stood in solidarity with the residents of the Garvaghy Road. I am deeply, deeply proud of the action that my party colleagues and thousands of people across this island took. We, on these Benches, will always stand on the side of right. The days of domination and supremacy are over. The days of the Orange state are over, and the days of the DUP lambasting and suppressing those who strive for fairness and equality are over. There is no going back.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before we go on, I remind the regulars over here that they should not persist in asking a Member about an intervention when the Member has made it perfectly clear that they will not take intervention. You might also want to consider that, when you seek an intervention, this is a timed debate, so your intervention and the outworkings of that might take a minute or two off some of your colleagues, as will my interruptions.

Mr K Buchanan: Before I start my comments, I want to say that I thought that it was strange for the Member opposite, the leader of the Opposition, to refer to the "marginal issue" of the rule of law. This place is here [Inaudible.]

Mr K Buchanan: You did say that. [Interruption.]

This place is here to make law, so what is the point in our being here or your being here if we cannot uphold it? [Inaudible.]

Mr K Buchanan: No, you are OK. No, you are OK, thanks. You were not that good when you had your time.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for giving way. Matthew O'Toole spoke about wasting time in the Chamber. Does the Member agree that the importance of these issues to our constituents has the right to be heard? Many would say that compared with some of the motions that come repeatedly from the Opposition, this might be a waste of time in their eyes, but we have the right to raise our issues.

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

Mr K Buchanan: I agree. I think that the Member referred to Orangemen only worrying about the rule of law. The rule of law is relevant to the 1·92 million people in Northern Ireland, not just a handful of Orangemen. Maybe he is a bit confused about that, but the law is for everyone. It does not matter who you are, the law is for absolutely everyone, so it is not right for the Member to play the Orange card all the time.

Today, we are debating whether that principle applies equally to everyone, including our Ministers. The answer must be yes. No one is above the law. No one is exempt from it. No political cause can justify breaking it. The rule of law is not an optional extra. It is a condition of this place, which some people do not believe. It is not a principle to embrace when it is politically convenient and to abandon when it is not. A few weeks ago, the law came down on the side of Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin adored it. It loved it. The A5 ruling was great. Its Members were out waving flags. It was great. When the law went the other way, however, it was not happy with it. You cannot have it both ways, guys. It is one or the other. Do you uphold the rule of law or not?

A few weeks back, the new Ireland that will embrace everyone was promoted through a showroom on the Garvaghy Road. Everybody on the Garvaghy Road — dissident republicans, terrorists and those from the SDLP and People Before Profit — was holding hands like 'Ring a Ring o' Rosie'. It was quite clear to the average person, Joe Public, in Northern Ireland where you are at now with your new Ireland. It is dead in the water. People have woken up and realised that it is dead in the water. We have all clearly seen that for ourselves. For anyone who thought that there would be space for my tradition in that new Ireland, the hand-holding on the Garvaghy Road made it very clear.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Not only those involved with the Orange tradition, if you like, and the Protestant people would be in jeopardy in a new Ireland were Sinn Féin to have power in the South; anybody who disagrees with Sinn Féin and its policies would be in jeopardy.

Mr K Buchanan: I agree with the Member. Thank you.

Without the rule of law, there can be no equality, justice, public confidence or effective government. The DUP will never accept a situation in which politicians make laws for everyone else but consider themselves exempt from them. There can be no special rules for Sinn Féin — absolutely not. There can be no immunity for its elected representatives — absolutely not. There can be no circumstances in which mob rule — yes, mob rule — is allowed to replace the law. Take a wee look on Google, and you will see that mob rule refers to a large, disorderly crowd that breaks the law. Whether or not some were playing the bodrán is irrelevant. Breaking the law with a crowd of people is mob rule. Have a wee Google when you get the opportunity. [Interruption.]

You can do so while I am speaking, because you will not get an intervention. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order.

Mr K Buchanan: Everyone must be equal before the law, regardless of their political party, background or the office that they hold. It must have that effect for everyone. That is why the events on the Garvaghy Road were so serious. It is not simply a disagreement about a parade. It has become a test of political leadership and respect for lawful authority. Sadly, the First Minister failed that test. She 100% failed. The ministerial code requires Ministers to support the rule of law in word and action, yet Michelle O'Neill, the self-proclaimed First Minister for all, refused to comply with police directions and, indeed, gave her own. The Bobby Storey funeral and now Garvaghy Road have shown that, if abiding by the law was a thing for Sinn Féin, it has now obviously gone.

What message does that send to the public? How can Ministers and MLAs ask their constituents to respect the rule of law while suggesting that there are occasions when it can simply be disregarded? Sinn Féin Ministers frequently speak about respect, rights and equality — gone. Those principles are important, but respect, rights and equality can exist only where there is respect for the rule of law. There cannot be one rule for ordinary people and another for those who hold high office.

The questions surrounding Deirdre Hargey's position on the Policing Board are equally serious. The board exists to uphold confidence in policing, and its members are required to demonstrate leadership and integrity. The board's code of conduct requires members who become the subject of a criminal investigation to:

Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr K Buchanan: No, you are OK. I am tight for time. Thank you.

Public confidence demands that those standards are adhered to and proper procedures followed. Public office carries responsibilities alongside privileges. Most political parties, when faced with wrongdoing by their representatives, understand that action must be taken, yet the perception has developed that some politicians believe that accountability applies only to others and that they are above the law, because it is not relevant to them. Democracy depends not only on elections but on accountability.

Finally, public confidence also requires transparency. Confidence is strengthened when the public can see that decisions are being taken fairly and consistently and that they are based on evidence. The Justice Minister must not ignore the serious issues that have arisen and must be prepared to use the powers that are available to her, should circumstances require it. This debate is about more than one protest and one political party; it is about whether we genuinely believe that nobody is above the law. Those who make our laws must obey them. Those who hold public office must lead by example.

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

Mr K Buchanan: Those who undermine public confidence must —

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

Mr K Buchanan: — be held to account.

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

Mr McReynolds: I will respond to the motion on behalf of the Alliance Party. I declare that I am a sitting member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board.

Before I read this week's Order Paper, I had hoped that the DUP would pick a motion that focused on some of the pressing issues facing families across Northern Ireland. Just two weeks ago, representatives of the Simon Community said on the steps of Stormont that 84,000 people could be homeless in Northern Ireland by 2032. Over half a million people are sitting on a health-related waiting list. Children are being told to wear extra clothing as energy costs rise in our schools, and 19% of children are living in poverty. Unfortunately, those issues were not chosen as the focus of the motion. Instead, we have a motion that does nothing to improve the lives of anyone in Northern Ireland. The Members who tabled the motion know that the powers provided to the Justice Minister to remove a person from office as a political member of the board can be invoked only in specific circumstances and that none of them has been met. It is laid out in the Police Act 2000, which states that the Justice Minister has to be satisfied that a member:

None of those factors applies. The appropriate process was under way. At the Policing Board meeting at the start of October, it was noted that the vice chair had initiated proceedings to investigate a breach of the code of conduct. Correspondence received by board members just last week showed that legal advice had confirmed that the proceedings should be paused pending the outcome of an active police investigation. Alliance is committed to the rule of law and to working with the PSNI. We are also committed to appropriate Policing Board structures. For us to uphold the rule of law, we must respect the institutions and processes responsible for it. While we are the lawmakers, we need to let the appropriate investigations and processes play out.

Public confidence in our institutions requires us to address the real concerns that people in our society have about health, education, poverty, the cost of living and so much else. This is about ensuring that proper processes are followed. That is what the Alliance Party has done and will always continue to do on behalf of everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mr Sheehan: Peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right. It has been a legitimate form of resistance across the world and throughout our history. I make absolutely no apology for standing shoulder to shoulder with the people of the Garvaghy Road in peaceful opposition to an unwanted, unnecessary and sectarian parade. I was proud to stand with that community, and I would do so again. For almost three decades, those residents have sought nothing more than the right to live in peace, free from sectarian intimidation and harassment. Twenty-eight years after the Good Friday Agreement, surely that is not too much to ask.

The motion talks about the "rule of law", but it goes much further than that. It demands that elected representatives "be brought to justice", calls for the removal of Deirdre Hargey from the Policing Board and seeks further legislation against elected representatives. There is an important distinction between defending the rule of law and demanding punishment before the legal process has concluded or, in this case, even started. Deirdre Hargey is an activist: someone who stands up for her community and any community that is being persecuted. She stood with the residents of the lower Ormeau Road, who were facing unwanted marches, and she stood with the families of the Sean Graham bookies massacre, who continue to be targeted. She stands on the side of right, and I am proud to stand with her. It is for the courts to adjudicate on such issues, not political opponents seeking to deliver their own verdict in the Chamber.

I have to question the timing of the motion. In recent days, the DUP's former leader Jeffrey Donaldson, the paedophile, was sentenced to 15 years in prison for the rape and sexual abuse of children. There were 18 offences and two victims. Appalling crimes were committed over many years. Those are the facts established by a court of law. We are entitled to question the motives behind the motion. We are told that it is about respect for the law. Respecting the law also means respecting due process, the presumption of innocence and the independence of the justice system. It does not mean using the Assembly to pronounce guilt or to demand the punishment of political opponents. It certainly does not mean that communities should be expected to remain silent when they believe that their rights and dignity are being disregarded. I have heard nothing from unionism about the wrath incurred by unnotified parades that have taken place over the past week.

The DUP stands for law and order, or so it says. We listen day after day to its Members' sanctimonious bleatings about what great Christians they are, and we remember that Jeffrey Donaldson also told us what a great Christian he was. He demonstrated it by wearing the little fish badge on his lapel. Of course, none of his colleagues happened to notice the double life that he was leading. Nobody knew anything about it. He lived with an invisible cloak around him.

No one on the Benches opposite wants to talk about Jim Shannon being kicked out of the British Army because of his links to extremist loyalists or the fact that he spent five days under interrogation at Castlereagh. They do not want to talk about Ulster Resistance. They do not want to talk about Ian Paisley placing a red beret on his head in the Ulster Hall and saying that Ulster Resistance had his undivided support and that he would provide any political cover that it needed. Other leading members of the DUP were involved in setting up Ulster Resistance: people such as Sammy Wilson, Nigel Dodds and Noel Little. Of course, Noel Little then went on to secure a shipment of weapons via the apartheid regime in South Africa that was used to kill dozens upon dozens of innocent Catholics. The DUP does not want to talk —.

Mr Clarke: What about the Provos?

Mr Sheehan: But you are the law and order party. [Interruption.]

You are the party of law and order. [Interruption.]

You are the party of law and order.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, Members.

Mr Sheehan: You are the party of law and order, so you keep telling us, and how sanctimonious you are when you are telling us. We listen to the bleating every day about law and order and your saying, "Oh my goodness, we are so good. We respect law and order", but you do not respect it at all. You do not respect law and order when it is your own people breaking the law, and that is the difficulty, because everyone sees your hypocrisy and your double standards. That is what we see. We see it when it comes to Jeffrey Donaldson, we see it when it comes to Jim Shannon, and we see it when it comes to Ulster Resistance. The hypocrisy is absolutely breathtaking.

Mr Buckley: When it comes to the rule of law, Sinn Féin is bankrupt, and if today's debate highlights anything, it is just how weak its arguments are. You can tell that because not one single Member from Sinn Féin, the SDLP or the Alliance Party was prepared to accept an intervention. Why? Because they know that their arguments are bankrupt.

Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: No, I will not. [Laughter.]

I will give way later in the debate. I want to elaborate.

I will outline what I mean by saying that Sinn Féin is bankrupt. It is best to judge Sinn Féin by its own words. Cathy Mason came to the Chamber to give this side of the House a lecture on decency and the rule of law. She is propped up right now by two Members, one on either side of her, who were both convicted of planting bombs. Mr Sheehan, you may raise your fist in the air, but I think today of the countless lives that were lost at the hands of your organisation through planting bombs. We have listened in recent days to the harrowing accounts about Omagh, yet you have the audacity to shake your fist in this Chamber. You should hang your head in shame.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley, there is an acceptable volume in here, and I think that you have exceeded it. You do not need to shout in order for me or other Members to hear you. I need to hear who is speaking, and that applies across the Chamber. Members will be heard.

Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask the Speaker to make a ruling on a matter. When a reference is made in the House to the Member for West Belfast's convictions for planting a bomb, is it appropriate for him to raise his fist in a cheering manner?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That will be referred to the Speaker's Office to see whether it is a fair point of order.

Mr Buckley: The point that I was making is very clear: do not come to this Chamber to promote, with a clenched fist, bombings that took innocent lives.

Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for giving way. When I asked him to give way earlier, I was going to highlight the fact that the Alliance Party failed to give way. I am a member of the Policing Board as well, and, for the purposes of the record, the code of conduct is very clear. It states:

That has not happened.

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

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for his intervention. Indeed, it is an important point, and I will come on to it.

It is best to judge Sinn Féin and others by their own words. The mask has slipped. Let us judge Sinn Féin not by the words of the DUP — Sinn Féin is very keen to use those as a distraction — but by its own words. In 2021, Michelle O'Neill said:

In 2023, when Michelle O'Neill was talking about the rule of law, she used the word "unequivocal". The dictionary definition of "unequivocal" refers to being clear and unambiguous, leaving no room for doubt. However, in 2026, she said:

That is total hypocrisy from Sinn Féin. Those are not DUP words; they are words that came out of your own mouths. You come in here to throw mud. Mr Sheehan made many references to the actions of the now-convicted paedophile Jeffrey Donaldson, but has he read Máiría Cahill's accusations about his party on Twitter just this week? She claims that she spoke directly to your party colleagues about the abuse that she was subjected to. Did she talk to Mr Sheehan about those accusations? What about others? Do not use women who have been subjected to the most heinous crimes as a weapon to beat others around the head with.

The motion is about the rule of law. We know where Sinn Féin and the SDLP stand on the argument, but where does the Alliance Party stand on the issue? In 2016, Naomi Long and her party colleagues backed a motion of no confidence and exclusion against the then DUP leader Arlene Foster. Mrs Long said:

What about when it comes to exclusion motions against Sinn Féin Ministers? There was nothing from Mrs Long or her party colleagues in that regard. In fact, Mr Tennyson, the Alliance deputy leader, said:

That was not the case when you were signing motions against DUP Ministers, and yet you ask why unionists have lost all confidence in the Alliance Party's ability to be impartial. Time and again, your actions in the Chamber show that you are Sinn Féin's little helpers and are prepared to go to every extreme to cover for its wrongdoing and unlawfulness. Now, when you have the Justice Ministry and have the power to do something about it, as was outlined by Mr Clarke, you shake your head and will do nothing. That is a great telling of where the Alliance Party stands when it comes to law and order.

The final part of the motion refers to the Secretary of State. There must be a greater level of accountability for those who break the law in this place, regardless of the political party that they represent. It cannot be the case that, in 2026, lawmakers feel that they can be lawbreakers. That should be the firm focus of the Secretary of State. Be in no doubt: Sinn Féin is not blushing about its acts of unlawfulness, and nor is the SDLP. On the back of the motion, however, the focus will come —

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

Mr Buckley: — onto the Alliance Party. What will the Alliance Party do —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: — when it comes —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: — to the rule of law?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley, your time is up.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): That was always the [Inaudible.]

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, folks.

Mr Gaston: Events since the decision of the Parades Commission to dare to grant permission for the return Drumcree parade have shone a light into the dark corners of the peace process. Those corners must remain dark and cannot be talked about. If they were exposed to the light, they would show the sinking sand that the Executive are built on. In order for Stormont to survive, and to protect the hallowed peace process, those dark corners have grown increasingly murky because of revelations in the High Court today. The PSNI was challenged on what the intelligence references to "feelings of" — the Provisional — "IRA" actually meant. It confirmed that that reference was not about the lack of ability on the part of the IRA to control dissidents.

When asked by the judge what it meant, however, the PSNI refused to say. Why? What are the police hiding about the paramilitary wing of Sinn Féin? Is it that the IRA mobilised in a structured way to take to the Garvaghy Road? Was it because identifiable units of the IRA took the lead in blocking the Garvaghy Road, which had been surrendered to the chief constable and bomber, Breandán Mac Cionnaith?

On behalf of grassroots unionism and loyalism, I ask what the political consequences are of what we have seen. The DUP motion calls for the Justice Minister to remove Deirdre Hargey: good. That is great, and I agree. It calls for the Secretary of State to change the law: again, that is fantastic stuff. There is not one word from the DUP, however — not even a suggestion — about doing anything itself. The DUP calls for others to do something but never calls on itself.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member will acknowledge that the DUP signed his exclusion motions last week — that is point number 1. Does the Member disagree with any word in the motion? It is fair to put it on record that it is about what the Justice Minister now does about the Policing Board. Does the Member further agree that what grassroots unionism and loyalism now wants to see is unionist leaders and representatives pulling together?

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

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention. I will support the motion, but grassroots unionism and loyalism does not want to see TikTok videos and Facebook clips; it wants to see actions being taken. I support the honourable Member for Upper Bann, Carla Lockhart, who has rightly pointed out that the DUP has the ability at its disposal to remove Michelle O'Neill with the stroke of a pen. That is not in the motion signed by two of Ms Lockhart's constituency colleagues. The motion asks for the Justice Minister to do something and for the Secretary of State to do something, but it falls short of mentioning what the DUP itself is doing. Yes, you signed my exclusion motions, but you did not table them; I did.

Mr Buckley: Did I not sign them?

Mr Gaston: You did, but you did not initiate that, Mr Buckley. You have been found out. You are happy to prop up Sinn Féin —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Chair is here, Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: — and you are happy to accept mob rule without any political consequences for Sinn Féin. It is business as usual, with no intention to touch the Establishment. The Establishment must be protected at all costs. You have one lever at your disposal, and, to date, you have not pulled it.

When the Chief Constable made it clear that the stability of the Executive was a consideration that formed part of his request to ban the parade, he rightly came under criticism. He crossed the line from impartial policing into the political realm, and he should resign for having done so. Sadly, the Chief Constable knew all too well and could conclude that the rights of unionism could be trampled over and treated with contempt without any danger to the Executive. Imagine if David Trimble had been in the same position as Gavin Robinson and the DUP find themselves in today. Would the DUP have brought a motion to the Chamber suggesting that others do something about it and that he not pull the lever at his disposal? Of course not.

This motion is good for one thing: sound bites. There is no action attached to it. It simply asks that others do something that you are not prepared to do. It is the embodiment of why unionism has got into the position that it is in. It is a case study for why Establishment unionism needs to be replaced, and the electorate will get the opportunity to do that in May.

The First Minister for lawlessness has swanned about. Today, we have heard from her Benches time after time that they will do what they like — they will stand on the side of the Garvaghy Road residents and break the law — while, on this side of the House, you are not prepared to offer any political consequences by putting Michelle out of office, which is what needs to be done. Show your teeth; grow a backbone; stand with Carla Lockhart. It is time to evict Michelle O'Neill from office.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Justice to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assure Members that I will not take the 15 minutes.

I know that it is autumn and the television is full of 'The Traitors', 'Big Brother' and 'Strictly Come Dancing', but we seem to be caught in a doom loop where, every week, we come here to decide whom we will vote out next. To be honest, it is becoming beyond tedious. There are serious challenges facing our society. We could do with focusing on those and using the time that we have left in the mandate wisely to progress policy that would make a tangible difference to our constituents, rather than coming here with weekly motions to exclude and chasten Members that put the cart before the horse when it comes to due process.

I was not required to respond to the motion. It calls on a load of people to do a load of things, and there was no request for me to respond, but I welcome the opportunity to respond and clarify the position on the issue, because I think that some Members misunderstand my role.

Let me begin by being absolutely clear: I support the rule of law without qualification or equivocation, and I always have. The rule of law is fundamental to our democracy, public confidence in our institutions and the effective administration of justice. It must apply equally to everyone, regardless of political opinion, position or office. I recognise the seriousness of the events on the Garvaghy Road and at Drumcree and the strength of public concern that they have generated. However, there is an ongoing PSNI investigation, and it must take primacy. Where there are allegations that the law has been broken, those allegations must be investigated thoroughly and independently. It is important that neither I nor anyone in the House says or does anything that might prejudice or prejudge that investigation, any subsequent decision by the Public Prosecution Service or proceedings that may ultimately come before the courts. I will not draw conclusions about the criminal responsibility of any individual while that matter remains under investigation. That is not about them avoiding accountability; it is about respecting the proper legal processes.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for taking an intervention. Today, in the House, Members from the DUP and, I believe, the UUP have referred to the fact that the chairperson of the Policing Board needs to be notified if there is a complaint or allegation against any member of the board. The chairperson of the Policing Board was clear in the public session of the Policing Board meeting that he was aware of an allegation and complaint against a Policing Board member and that due process must take its course. Do you agree?

Mrs Long: I will come on to the Policing Board and its handling of the issue in due course, but it is correct to say that a process is under way in the Policing Board, although it has been paused while the police investigation continues. As you would expect, it will take primacy.

Respecting due process and the operational independence of the various arms of the justice system is a fundamental part of upholding the rule of law. I come in here week after week, and Members try to goad me into getting involved in operational policing, operational sentencing matters for the judiciary or operational decisions around the Public Prosecution Service. To do so is to goad me into disrupting the rule of law. Upholding the rule of law means respecting the independence of the system when it is operationalised.

The motion calls on me to exercise my powers under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to remove Deirdre Hargey from the Northern Ireland Policing Board with immediate effect. We have been here before. Such motions have been tabled before. I fully recognise the importance and significance of the powers that are conferred on me as Minister. The legislation provides me, as Minister of Justice, with statutory powers concerning membership of the Policing Board and sets out clearly the circumstances where I may remove a person from office as a political member. Again, those are legal powers, and they must be exercised lawfully on the basis of the relevant evidence and with appropriate regard for procedural fairness. They cannot be exercised simply because there is political pressure in the Chamber to do so, nor should I engage in any action that would prejudice matters that remain under investigation.

I am also aware that the Policing Board has been asked to consider complaints relating to Deirdre Hargey's involvement and actions in relation to the peaceful but unlawful protest on the Garvaghy Road under its members' code of conduct. I will be clear, and this is a direct answer to Paul Frew: the members' code of conduct is not a Department of Justice document. It is owned wholly and solely by the Policing Board, and, if the board wishes to review its document, it is, of course, at liberty to do so. I suggest that Mr Frew's colleague Trevor Clarke can, if he so wishes, raise that at the next Policing Board meeting, but it is not for me to review the board's code of conduct. I understand that the process is under way but has been paused because it is dependent on the outcome of a police investigation. I will therefore consider carefully the exercise of my statutory responsibilities and keep the position under review in light of any material developments.

I will summarise the key points. An active police investigation is taking place. I am aware that some MLAs have received letters asking them to attend for interview with the police, and those interviews need to take place. It is important that due process is allowed to happen. It is not an obstacle to the rule of law but an essential part of it. Tabling motions in the Assembly and acting as if the police investigation has been completed when it has not is foolhardy and performative. It is inappropriate that some Members are attempting week after week to turn the Chamber into a courtroom. The commentary that we have heard today may also be prejudicial, so Members should be more circumspect when commenting on matters that are under investigation.

I will finish where I began. Support for the rule of law is about more than demanding that other people obey it; it means that those of us entrusted with public powers exercise those powers properly, fairly and in accordance with the law. There should be no fear or favour in the administration of justice, and, equally, there should be no political interference with independent investigation and due process. That is how I have conducted myself throughout my time in office, and that is how I will continue to conduct myself. I urge others that we return the Chamber to the business of the House, which is to make law, rather than turning it into a courtroom where we reach judgements on others' conduct. If Members were to spend even half as much time on self-reflection as they do on finger-pointing, this would be a much more pleasant place to work.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Diane Dodds to and wind on the debate. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I have some points that I really want to make and that are important, but my response to the Justice Minister is that there is nothing performative about the absolute, fundamental nature of making sure that those who make the law do not break the law and justify it in the doing. Therefore, it is important that we are spared the lectures and that people watching the debate see that we are serious about the fundamental principle of upholding the rule of law.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Dodds: No, because I have lots to get through and I do not have extra minutes.

The Members opposite have taken the opportunity to re-traumatise two victims of a vile predator, Jeffrey Donaldson. The men — the men — who did that are dripping with misogyny. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You are from the party whose leader is charged with tackling violence against women and girls. This is the most dangerous place to be a woman in the whole of the United Kingdom, and you are making light of the victims of a predator. Shameful. Utterly, utterly shameful. [Interruption.]

You can shout all you like. You do not like what I am saying, and you know that it is the truth.

May I also say that I am really bewildered by the SDLP's attitude? I get it; I understand it. I talk to nurses, doctors and teachers in my constituency all the time, and I want us to deliver public-sector pay and good conditions for those who are going into A&Es in the winter; we received a report about that just today. However, adherence to the rule of law is fundamental to our society. That is not a waste of time, and I am really sad that the SDLP, which withstood so much of the violence of the IRA and stood against it, got up in the Chamber and said what it said today.

I turn to the one lawful determination that we have, which was for the Portadown district to complete its parade on 27 September. There were to be 35 Orangemen with no banners, flags or bands — only the Portadown district's banner. That determination was approved by the Parades Commission and was tested rigorously in court on 26 September. That lawful parade was blocked by an unauthorised and unlawful protest, which was led by the First Minister and other Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive. Incredibly, that protest was facilitated by the Police Service of Northern Ireland while, unbelievably, the lawful parade was not. People looking in will wonder why some people say that this place is dysfunctional: it is dysfunctional because we have Members on the opposite Benches who do not uphold the law.

This week's events in the courts also posed some very significant questions about law and order in Northern Ireland and, indeed, for elected representatives in the House. Why, when the Chief Constable had a lawful determination on 26 September, did he not take the necessary security measures that could have allowed a lawful parade to proceed? Over the course of Monday and Tuesday in the High Court in Belfast, we have heard some interesting accounts of the intelligence that underpinned the decisions that were taken. There were references to the feelings of the Provisional IRA. I know that the Members opposite do not care about that and are laughing and smirking. People are watching you, wondering what on earth you are about. The House should carefully consider that statement. The law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland deserve to know exactly what that means. What was the security assessment in relation to the Provisional IRA that underpinned the decisions that were taken? There are plenty of pictures of the Provos directing you on the Garvaghy Road.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. In light of the serious issues that she has raised, does she agree that it is deeply disappointing that the TUV has launched a tirade of personal attacks on her and me for tabling today's motion? The motion needs to be heard by the House. Does she also agree that, were it not for her and me co-signing last week's motions, they would not have been heard in the House?

Further to that, there has been mention of Carla Lockhart in the debate: neither the Member nor I are "Timmy come latelys" when it comes to support for Carla Lockhart. We have both been constituency colleagues of hers for many years. Does the Member agree that we have always supported and will continue to support our constituency colleague?

Mrs Dodds: Hear, hear. I will respond to that by saying that Carla Lockhart enjoys our support and friendship as colleagues. She is close to people on the ground in Portadown, and she is a hard-working constituency MP. The vile abuse of her that some in the House laugh at is utterly disgraceful. We saw that again at the beginning of this debate in relation to the victims of Jeffrey Donaldson. It was absolutely disgraceful.

I will return to that security assessment. We cannot tolerate a situation in Northern Ireland in which those who shout loudest, block roads and intimidate others are the people who have a veto over the rule of law in Northern Ireland. What confidence can Portadown Orangemen, or, indeed, the wider unionist community, have that their rights will be respected if the rule of the mob trumps the rule of law?

The court session made reference to other issues that I want to put on record. It referred to dissident republicans and the likelihood of arms being used against the police should they have tried to uphold the legal determination. We know that because those of us on the ground and who held meetings regularly on the Garvaghy Road in the recent past understand that Sinn Féin rediscovered the Garvaghy Road only recently and had to make use of the dissidents to allow it to go there.

The really important issue for the future of Northern Ireland, however, and we are talking about our children and grandchildren's future, is what the police did with the intelligence that they received that there was a likelihood that guns would be used against police officers had they tried to walk that parade down the Garvaghy Road. Have the police now conducted an operation to ensure that those guns are taken out of circulation? It is intolerable for us to live in a society in which the threat of guns and petrol bombs trumps the rule of law and in which Members opposite think that it is not important or else laugh and joke about it. Of course, they are also the people who planted bombs and supported those who burned people alive.

Mr Sheehan: What about Ulster Resistance, Diane?

Mrs Dodds: It is also important — [Interruption.]

You do not like it when you are hit. [Interruption.]

You do not like it.

The motion poses important questions for democracy and the future of Northern Ireland. I believe in Northern Ireland. I want it to work. I want our public-sector workers to get their pay rise. I want us to set a Budget, and I put that on record for the SDLP. I also, however, want a Northern Ireland where the rule of law is fundamental to how we operate. Otherwise, we have anarchy, and law-abiding citizens cannot be asked to respect the law while others —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up.

Mrs Dodds: — in positions of authority —

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

Mrs Dodds: — reject the law.