Official Report: Monday 02 November 2026

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform Members that the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill has received Royal Assent. The Administrative and Financial Provisions Act (Northern Ireland) 2026 became law on 26 October 2026 and is chapter 10.

Mr Speaker: I am sure that we are all deeply saddened to learn of Ciara Mageean's passing. She was a young woman who displayed a great passion for her sport, great determination, strength of spirit and resilience, and she was a fantastic role model. We are all deeply saddened to learn that she has lost her battle with cancer, which she fought in a very public and open way, and we thank her for that. Our sincerest sympathies are with her family at this time.

Nicola Brogan has been given leave to make a statement on the passing of Ciara that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. Other Members who wish to be called should indicate that in the usual manner.

Miss Brogan: It is with great regret and sadness that I pay tribute to the incredible and inspiring Ciara Mageean following her untimely passing at only 34 years of age yesterday morning. Ciara was, first and foremost, a wonderful wife, daughter, sister and friend, and I pass on my deepest condolences to Ciara's husband, Thomas, her parents, family and wide circle of friends at this very sad time.

Portaferry's Ciara Mageean was an exceptional athlete, and her achievements in athletics brought immense pride to her community and to people across Ireland. Despite being taken from her friends and family at such a young age, she achieved incredible success in international sport. Ciara was a former European champion and two-time Olympian. She represented Ireland at the 2016 and 2020 Olympic Games, and, in 2024, she claimed the gold medal in the 1,500 metres at the European Athletics Championships in Rome.

She set an Irish record for that race, beating the one set by the legendary Sonia O'Sullivan.

Ciara was an inspiration to so many. Her strength, dedication and determination throughout her sporting career inspired many young athletes throughout Ireland, especially young women. Her courage and determination continued when she faced a battle with bowel cancer. Even after being diagnosed with cancer, she continued to campaign for young women to take a greater role in sport, and, in June, rather than lamenting her condition, she declared how grateful she was to have been able to live the exceptional life that she did.

Ciara Mageean was a true Irish legend, and I hope that everyone in the House will join me in honouring her legacy and extending our heartfelt condolences to her family, friends and fellow athletes. I hope that Ciara's family can take some comfort from the outpouring of grief from across Ireland and beyond since her passing and know how deeply admired, respected and loved she was by so many. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a hanam dílis.

Mr McNulty: First and foremost, Ciara Mageean was a daughter, a sister and a wife loved by her family and friends, and my thoughts and prayers are with them.

Ciara was an extraordinary athlete. We were so inspired by her determination, her work ethic and her tenacity as a competitor on the track. There are moments in sport that make your hair stand up on the back of your neck, and Ciara's gold medal-winning performance at the 2024 European Athletics Championships in Rome was one of those moments.

Growing up, Ciara was a "GAA girl", and she said that she cut her teeth as a camogie player for Portaferry. She described how that was where she learned her love of sport. Ciara's comments after breaking through on the final straight to win that gold medal struck a chord that resonated with all of us in the GAA when she said:

Everyone in the GAA family felt immense pride in what Ciara achieved.

Only recently, Ciara married Thomas in a joyous and uniquely special occasion in Darver Castle in County Louth. Just a few short months ago, she spoke at an event in Newry on a panel with uachtarán Chumann Lúthchleas Gael

Jarlath Burns. She was in a new battle, and she spoke about her diagnosis openly and bravely. Remarkably, Ciara said:

She was thinking of others before herself. I was profoundly moved by her energy, her determination and her joie de vivre. The warmth of her hug is something that I shall never forget.

Ciara was a shining star of County Down and of Ireland. Her career as an athlete and her cancer battle showed us her heroism. She is a huge loss to Ireland. Everyone in the world of athletics knows that they have lost someone incredibly special. Ciara was a leader, a trailblazer and a gentle warrior. I measc na naomh go raibh sí.

Mr O'Toole: Like others, I will speak in remembrance and tribute to the extraordinary human being that Ciara Mageean was. She was a truly inspirational person not just because of her achievements on the track — Members have mentioned her extraordinary success, with her European gold medal and the medals that she won elsewhere at European championships and Commonwealth Games, and her participation in two Olympic Games — but because of the human achievement of inspiring and encouraging people not just to get involved in sport but to think positively about the contribution that they can make.

Ciara's loss is felt particularly deeply because of her age. She was a young woman of just 34. She had only recently got married, and many of us will have seen the images of the joy and celebration at Ciara's wedding just a couple of weeks ago with her long-time partner, Thomas. Those of us who did not know her but were inspired by her will have seen those images and again felt inspired by her courage and tenacity in response to her devastating bowel cancer diagnosis just a short time ago as well as feeling joy that she was able to experience that moment of happiness and togetherness. I do not think that many of us expected that, so soon after that day, she would be taken away by cancer. In one sense, it is a reminder — an important reminder — to us all of the fragility of life.

In the Chamber, we talk loudly at one another about important issues, but the most important thing of all is the mark that we leave on our families and our communities. Ciara had a loving family, whom we think of today. She also came from a community that shaped her and was profoundly proud of her. As my colleague Justin McNulty mentioned, she was a Portaferry woman to her fingertips and a camogie player who famously talked about the camogie skills that had stood her in good stead when she won her title. She was shaped profoundly by that beautiful community at the tip of the Ards peninsula. It is an extraordinarily scenic place but also an extraordinarily loving and warm community. The whole community will be mourning intensely today, but it will wrap her family and friends in love and good wishes as they face the difficult period ahead, because, while Ciara was a public figure who inspired and touched so many of us, particularly, as Nicola Brogan said, young women, she was also a wife, a sister, a daughter and a close friend to so many people in that part of the world. While we all express our public grief today, as well as our thanks for her extraordinary life and the extraordinary contribution that she made in her 34 short years, let us also say that our first thoughts go to her family and the community grieving her today. May she rest in peace.

Miss McIlveen: It is with incredible sadness that I pay tribute to a remarkable young woman, a sporting champion and a proud daughter of Portaferry, Ciara Mageean, who has sadly passed away at just 34 years of age following her battle with cancer.

I first became aware of Ciara in 2008, when I was part of a panel from the then Ards Borough Council that awarded her the title of Young Woman of Achievement. Even back then, we could see that she was destined for greatness. For the people of Portaferry, the wider Strangford constituency and the rest of Northern Ireland, this is an incredibly sad day. Ciara brought enormous pride to her home town and inspired people far and wide. Who can forget how the town was festooned with posters, Olympic flags and bunting for her heading off to Paris? She was an extraordinary and gutsy athlete whose achievements will rightly be remembered in our sporting history. She competed at two Olympic Games: Rio in 2016 and Tokyo in 2021. She won European championship bronze in 2016 and silver in 2022 and Commonwealth Games silver in 2022, before achieving the crowning moment of her career with gold in the 1,500 metres at the European championships in Rome in 2024, bursting her way through to win.

Behind those medals was a remarkable person. Ciara was a competitor with tremendous determination, courage and an ability to dig deep when it mattered most. She was immensely proud to be a Portaferry girl, remaining deeply connected to her family, friends and community, and Portaferry was immensely proud of her. Her courage was also evident following her diagnosis. She faced her illness with honesty, dignity and determination, speaking openly about her experiences and helping others facing their own difficult journey. Ciara should never be defined by her illness, however. She was so much more than her cancer diagnosis. She was a daughter, sister, wife, Olympian and European champion, with so much more life to live.

It is particularly heartbreaking that her passing comes so soon after her marriage to Thomas. On behalf of the people of Strangford, I extend my deepest condolences to Thomas, her parents, her family, her friends and all who loved her. Ciara's legacy goes beyond medals, records and trophies. She showed us what determination looks like, what it means to represent your community with pride and how to face life's greatest challenges with courage and grace. Portaferry has lost one of its brightest stars. Northern Ireland has lost a remarkable ambassador. All of us have lost a truly special young woman.

Ms K Armstrong: As someone from the area, it is with great sadness that I rise to speak today. My brother-in-law is a Mageean, so we feel the loss of Ciara Mageean in the family. I send my sympathies to Tommy, her husband; Chris and Catherine, her mummy and daddy; her siblings; and her wider family — all the Masons and Mageeans.

Portaferry will be still tomorrow during Ciara's funeral. I imagine that not only the chapel but the whole area around the chapel will be completely full of people to see Ciara off. Portaferry is one of those places where you are related to everybody, where everybody knows who you are, where everybody has something to say and where everybody celebrates when somebody like Ciara Mageean has such victories. Ciara was growing and blossoming into a fantastic athlete. At the European Athletics Championships, she went from bronze in 2016 to silver in 2022 to, of course, gold in Rome in 2024. She was a two-time Olympian. She competed at the Commonwealth Games. She was a player for the Portaferry camogie team. I was once a player for the Portaferry camogie team, and I have to say that Ciara was a lot faster than I ever was. Upper Ards is in mourning today. In fact, it has been in mourning since the word came out yesterday. As others have mentioned, the town has, over the years, been festooned with posters of Ciara and bunting for her. Portaferry's love for Ciara and the love that Ciara had for Portaferry will now go to her family. We all think about them at this very sad time.

I have said before in the House that I hate cancer with a passion. It takes people from us, and it took Ciara far, far too young. When I lost my mother — another woman who lost her life very young to cancer — some lovely words of care and support came from Ciara's granny, Kate Mason, a woman who would terrify any of us who stood beside her. She was a matriarch — a matriarch of Portaferry, not just the Mason family. I hope that the family can take some comfort in knowing that Ciara's successes were not the only thing about her. Her infectious smile, her wonderful personality, her Goal Mile on Christmas morning: all those things show the type of person that Ciara was. I feel for you, Tommy. Rest in peace, Ciara.

Mr Nesbitt: I put on record my party's sorrow at the passing of Ciara Mageean and offer our condolences to her husband, Thomas; her family and friends; and her many, many admirers around the world, because she was a global figure. I found the news of Ciara's passing on her Facebook page on social media. It read:

I never had the honour of meeting Ciara, so I missed out on the pleasure. By all accounts, we must never remember her solely as a fine athlete. She was also one of the best of us as a human being. One Facebook post struck me, and, as I cannot better it, I will quote it:

As someone who was active in local athletics a long time ago, I have maintained an interest in following our best. I had the pleasure of being in Edinburgh in 1986, when Philip Beattie won our first pure Commonwealth track gold medal in the 400 metres hurdles. Ciara, as has been recorded, managed a silver in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games of 2022 and eclipsed that feat in 2024 with the European Athletics Championships 1,500 metres gold medal.

It was athletics that brought Ciara to our attention, but those who knew her discovered that she did not excel just on the track. Social media alerted me to Ciara's hen party. She called it "Camp Ciara", and it was clearly a defiant refusal to allow cancer to control her. That was in the last weekend of September, and, by the first weekend in November, she was gone, aged 34. Only the good die young.

Mr Gaston: There is no MLA in the Chamber who does not have a family member or friend who has been impacted by cancer. Every diagnosis of cancer is tragic and reminds us of the limited time that we will spend on this earth before we enter eternity. The sad death of Ciara Mageean, aged just 34, is a particularly tragic example of the brevity of mortal existence.

In her young life, Ciara rose to the pinnacle of athletics, winning gold at European level and silver at Commonwealth level and taking part in the Olympics twice. Yet, in spite of proving that she was one of the fittest athletes on earth, she, like so many others, has been cut down in her prime by cancer. My thoughts are with her entire family, her friends and her colleagues in the sporting world. It is my prayer that they will find some consolation in the many remarkable achievements that she packed into her short life, for she achieved so much in such a short time, and in the esteem in which she was held, which was evident throughout her battle with cancer and which we can see in her sad passing. I trust that Ciara's passing will focus our minds on the fact that our time on this earth is short and that it is only through faith in Christ that we are ready to pass from this earth into eternity to meet our Maker.

My thoughts are with her family at this sad time. I am 38, and the fact that a young lady of 34 has been cut down in the prime of her life does not bear thinking about. I cannot contemplate how her family will process that, but I trust that they will take some comfort in the outpouring of love for Ciara and the prayers offered by her local community at this time.

Mr Kingston: I add my tribute to the wonderful, world-class middle-distance runner who was Ciara Mageean. It was shocking to hear yesterday morning that Ciara, aged just 34, had passed away, even though we knew that her cancer was at an advanced stage. It was especially sad, as it came just three weeks after her marriage to her long-term partner, Thomas Moran, and I join all Members in expressing deepest sympathy to Thomas and to Ciara's family and her many friends and associates.

I met Ciara only once, but it was clear that she was a class act. I met her at a charity run in the grounds of Stormont in October 2022 in aid of the Children's Cancer Unit Charity. That summer, Ciara had won silver medals at the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham, where she represented Northern Ireland, and the European Athletics Championships in Munich, where she represented Ireland. She was also a two-time Olympian. For all that exceptional success, Ciara was very approachable and agreed to lots of requests for photographs. She even recorded a short video to wish me and some friends well for forthcoming marathons, and I treasure that short video. Ciara went on to win gold at the next European Athletics Championships, which were held in 2024 in Rome, and it is shocking to think that she has been taken from us by cancer little more than two years later.

Ciara was truly a 'Star of the County Down', of Northern Ireland and of all of Ireland. She will rightly be remembered as an inspirational woman not just for what she achieved in middle-distance running and the 1,500 metres but for the way in which she fought her battle with cancer and was such a wonderful ambassador for Portaferry, the Ards peninsula, Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. It was our pleasure to follow Ciara as she advanced her running career and achieved great things. She leaves a strong legacy and will be much loved and remembered.

Mr Mathison: I echo Mr Kingston's remarks. It is hard to believe that, just over two years ago, many of us stood in the Chamber to congratulate Ciara on the phenomenal achievement of winning the gold in the European championships. It is also hard to believe that, in such a short space of time, her life would be so tragically cut short by that cruel disease. It really is hard to take in. I cannot imagine what her family, particularly her mum, Catherine, her dad, Chris, and her husband, Thomas, must be feeling today. My thoughts are firmly with them and with all those who knew and loved Ciara.

Ciara was a fantastic ambassador for the whole island of Ireland — the place that she so passionately competed for in her sport. As Kellie and others have said, however, she was an even more fantastic ambassador for Portaferry, her home town and home community. I know that everyone in that community feels her loss keenly today, and my thoughts are with them. Despite all her sporting success and fame, of which much will be said in the days to come, Ciara remained deeply connected to her home and her community in Portaferry. She remained, to the last, incredibly proud of those roots, so a whole community mourns her loss today and will do so in the days ahead. My thoughts extend to everyone feeling that grief in Portaferry, on the Ards peninsula, in the wider Strangford constituency and across the whole island of Ireland.

I have no doubt that Ciara's career would have brought her much more success and more medals, but today is less about her sporting achievements and more about remembering the person she was: warm, gracious and thoroughly down to earth. I again extend my sympathies to her family, her friends and the wider community, who are feeling the loss of that wonderful person so painfully at this time.

Mr Harvey: I join the tributes today and offer my deepest sympathy in memory of the life of Ciara Mageean, an outstanding Olympian and European athletics champion from Portaferry who sadly passed away yesterday. Ciara's passing is an immense loss, especially to her family and friends but also to the people of Portaferry, the wider Strangford constituency and the entire sporting community across Northern Ireland. Born and raised in Portaferry, Ciara was a tremendous ambassador for her home community. She went on to achieve international success, representing Ireland at the Rio 2016 and Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games and making history when she won the European 1,500-metre gold in Rome in 2024.

Ciara Mageean's achievements on the track were remarkable, but it was the personality behind those achievements that made her so special. Her determination, humility, warmth and infectious enthusiasm inspired people of all ages. She demonstrated what can be achieved through dedication, hard work and an unwavering belief in oneself. Throughout her illness, Ciara showed extraordinary courage and spoke openly about her journey, touching the lives of countless people. Her strength and determination in the face of such adversity were an inspiration to so many. It is particularly heartbreaking that her life has been cut so short, especially having recently celebrated her marriage. Our thoughts and prayers are with her husband, Thomas, her parents, Christopher and Catherine, her sisters and brother, the extended family and her friends at this incredibly difficult time.

For a small community such as Portaferry, producing someone who achieved so much on the international stage is something of which it can be immensely proud. Ciara's legacy will live on not just through her medals and records but through the generations of young people whom she has inspired to take up sport and pursue their dreams. Ciara may have left us far too soon, but she will never be forgotten.

Mr McMurray: I thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for allowing the Matter of the Day to be heard, and I thank Nicola Brogan for securing it. Ultimately, there are no words that can epitomise the sadness that must be felt by Ciara Mageean's husband, family, training partners and coaches and by the townspeople of Portaferry. I am so sorry for their loss.

Likewise, there are no words that can put into context Ciara's achievements on the world stage in athletics, which are also difficult to comprehend. In our house, we are athletics fans. We take a passing interest in other sports, but, for us, it is athletics. My wife is a runner, my daughter is a runner, and I have a pair of spikes somewhere about the place, believe it or not. I was a big Ciara fan. I got the chance to meet her and have a conversation about her running, my running and my wife's running — she just loved running. In fact, on the front of 'The Irish Times' today, there is quite a good anecdote about how much she loved running despite being sick.

Ciara was a two-time Olympian, won a silver medal at the Commonwealth Games and competed at the World Athletics Championships. She had so much talent, but that gold medal at the Europeans — boxed in, elbows out — was pure class. We loved watching Ciara. It brought so much joy to us, as athletics fans, that a woman from the Ards peninsula in County Down could mix it up with the world's best. It was just brilliant. Athletics is an honest sport. Yes, talent comes into it, but results are earned through hard training, and Ciara put so much effort into her running. It is about resilience. Ciara suffered injuries in her early career, but those only made her come back stronger. Indeed, I referenced joy earlier, but our joy was only a fraction of the joy that Ciara took from running. You could see that in her smile. I was looking at tributes and photographs on social media, and it struck me that, even when grimacing as she kicked down the home straight, that grimace often looked like a grin.

Ciara's achievements are in the record books, but I will read them into the record. She is the Irish record holder at 800 metres in one minute and 58 seconds; at 1 kilometre in two minutes and 31 seconds; at 1,500 metres in three minutes and 55 seconds; and at 1 mile in four minutes and 14 seconds. She won national titles against senior athletes when she was just 15.

Yesterday, there was an athletics event just down the road from here as part of the Northern Ireland and Ulster Cross Country Championships. Given the news, it will have been a hard day for many in attendance at that event. However, underage athletics, especially female athletics, is incredibly popular. I have no doubt that Ciara's influence and legacy will bear out amongst the many young females who toe the start line. Ciara wanted to give back to athletics, and her legacy will give back as well. Run fast, run free, Ciara.

Mr Honeyford: I also wish to express my sadness at the death of Ciara. I chair the all-party group on sports and physical recreation, and we have seen the outpouring from sporting organisations over the past 24 hours. I pay tribute to someone who represents the very best of all of us. Ciara was a wonderful ambassador for Ireland but also for Northern Ireland, and she was someone whom we should all be — we have seen it across the Chamber — incredibly proud of. It shows that sport has the ability to bring us together in a way that nothing else really can. It inspires us and breaks down the barriers. We need way more ambassadors like Ciara to show what is possible and to bring out the very best in all of us. At this very sad time, my thoughts and deepest sympathies are with Ciara's family, friends and everyone who knew her.

Ms O'Neill: Like many other Members of the House, I was deeply saddened to hear of the passing of Ciara Mageean, and I extend my heartfelt condolences to her husband, Tommy, her mummy and daddy, her siblings, her friends and everyone who loved her. Ciara's achievements in athletics brought immense pride to her, to her community and to people across Ireland. She was so courageous in her battle against cancer. I only hope, as we all do, that her family can take some comfort from the outpouring of admiration, respect and love for Ciara. She really was a champion of champions. May she for ever be the star of County Down.

The DUP's decision to disrupt and block the operation of the Executive Office is undemocratic, arrogant and supremacist. At the core of it all is the DUP's inability to comprehend a nationalist First Minister. In 2024, as an Irish republican and nationalist, I took the office of First Minister. It was a historic moment and a moment of hope, opportunity and enormous change. I have worked every single day to deliver positive change for everyone in our community. Unfortunately, throughout that time, the DUP has spent the past two years desperately trying to turn back the clock and undermine democracy. It tried to relive the dark days of supremacy on the Garvaghy Road. I was proud to have stood with the Garvaghy Road community.

I have a message for those sitting opposite me: the days of domination are over, the days of treating others as second-class citizens are over, and the days of telling nationalists to know their place are over and are not coming back. I stand here today every bit as much the First Minister as I was this time last week, and as I was when I took up this office on that historic day. You can play every petty political game and perform every stunt that you wish to, but you cannot and will not thwart the democratic will of the people. I have a very clear and very strong mandate from the people, which I will fulfil every day.

As First Minister, I have been working tirelessly to secure fair funding in order to deliver fair pay for our nurses, healthcare workers and public-sector staff, and to invest in our public services. I will continue to stand up for people, to fight for good public services, and to deliver for everyone right across our community. That is my focus, and I will not be distracted by anyone or anyone's games.

Mr Frew: The First Minister should own her decisions and actions. She should know that, when you break the law, there are consequences for us all in Northern Ireland.

Rasharkin Chosen Few Orange lodge operates from the Orange hall that is the most attacked in Northern Ireland, with 51 incidents in 30 years. Where is the peace that was promised to that community? Where is the tolerance? Why does it experience so much evil? I have met that lodge and other groups that wish to use that facility more but cannot. How can they, when they are being intimidated? The attacks range from graffiti being sprayed in the dead of night, highlighting and supporting terrorist groups that have murdered and maimed people in the community, to the building's being set on fire. It now has steel doors and no windows, with members unable to park their cars outside for fear of attack. There is a high perimeter fence around the hall, which makes it look more like a maximum security facility than a community hub where young people can learn instruments and historical marching band music, where people can have a sense of belonging or pride, or where organisations can raise much-needed funding for good causes. That criminal activity is orchestrated and designed to intimidate and create an intense level of fear. We thank the decent people of the community who offer support. We know that it is a small number of people who target the hall and intimidate not only the Orange community but the whole community of Rasharkin. It is totally and utterly unacceptable.

When it comes to law and order and the protection of people, we look to the PSNI. It is fair to say that the members of the lodge and all associated organisations and families feel isolated and vulnerable. They feel let down by the PSNI, which should do more to investigate those crimes and have a greater and more effective presence in Rasharkin. I condemn the attacks on all Orange halls and all facilities that the community uses, and I wish that they would end now.

Ms Bradshaw: The events surrounding the Garvaghy Road and Drumcree demonstrated how quickly community tensions can become a political crisis here. My concern today is not simply about the events of recent weeks but about what happens next and the consequences of last week's announcement by the DUP for the work of the Executive Office. I do not want to rehearse what happened, but I highlight how concerned my party colleagues and I are about the price that the public will be asked to pay because of the political situation.

The DUP's decision to withdraw from joint engagements and to prevent the First Minister from attending official engagements alone has immediate and practical consequences. We have already seen Northern Ireland lose the opportunity to be represented at a major economic forum involving the Prime Minister and leaders of the other devolved Administrations, and a planned engagement with the president of Ireland has apparently also been affected. Those are not merely diary arrangements or photo opportunities but opportunities to make the case for Northern Ireland, to secure investment, to press for fair funding and to build the relationships that are needed across these islands in order to deliver for our people. At a time when Departments are operating without an agreed Budget for this financial year, when public-sector workers are rightly seeking fair pay and when our public services are under immense pressure, we cannot afford to allow political relations to deteriorate further. I have raised the issue at the Executive Office Committee. We have all seen what happened previously when there was political stalemate and we did not have an Executive or an Assembly for protracted periods.

In just under five months, the Assembly will be dissolved. Those are five months in which the Executive need to be upping their game, ensuring that our Departments have certainty about their funding, that we address public-sector pay, as I mentioned, and that tangible progress is demonstrated on the priorities that matter most to the people of Northern Ireland, as laid down in the Programme for Government. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister have a particular responsibility in that regard. Their office is not simply a vehicle for representing their respective parties but a joint Department with responsibilities to every person in Northern Ireland, regardless of political affiliation, religious background, ethnicity or constitutional aspiration. They have a responsibility — a joint responsibility — to ensure that all parts of government here are performing as effectively and responsively as possible.

The people of Northern Ireland did not elect us to spend time in the Chamber in some sort of stand-off. We in the Alliance Party will continue to press at the Executive table for constructive engagement and practical solutions, and the priority for us all now is to restore effective working relationships, to protect the functioning of the Executive and to ensure that the remaining months of this mandate are used to deliver for the people who depend on us.

Mr Burrows: The events over the weekend emphasise the need for a comprehensive and urgent change to our fireworks laws. The endless bangs at random times throughout the Halloween period have inflicted terror and trauma on our pets and on our livestock. This is a country that loves its animals. About 250,000 people own cats, and about one in every two households owns a dog. Half the dogs in Northern Ireland are adversely affected by fireworks. My own dog Nancy, a little Border collie, was petrified all weekend and had to be sedated by the vet. Some other pet owners were not so lucky. I have been following the plight of Natasha from Scarva, whose fox red Labrador bolted after a firework. She has still not found her dog. Other pets are missing across Northern Ireland. Enough is enough.

We have called before for comprehensive change. It did not get support from the DUP, the Alliance Party or Sinn Féin when we asked for urgent changes to our fireworks legislation. I will lay out three simple changes that we in the Ulster Unionist Party believe in. First, there should be only public displays of fireworks, not private displays. Those public displays should move to being silent ones, based on light. Secondly, we should ban outright fireworks being in private hands, which is the policy that we used to have in Northern Ireland. Thirdly, we need tougher penalties for those who supply fireworks illegally and those who use fireworks illegally.

Fireworks are a blight on our society. There is simply no need, just for young people and adults' enjoyment, to have bangs from fireworks, as they cause so much trauma in our community. I therefore ask for cross-community support for tougher laws on fireworks, for the banning of private purchase, even with a fireworks licence and for the limiting, as far as is possible, of public fireworks displays to silent displays. We are a nation that loves animals, but they go through hell every Halloween, and they do not need to go through that hell for our enjoyment. I ask for cross-party support to save our pets from the trauma of fireworks every year.

Mr O'Toole: On returning to Stormont this morning after the short mid-term break, we will have noticed that the weather has turned cooler and there is a bite in the air as we approach the winter. My thoughts and those of all of us who were elected to represent people and govern this place should be focused on the fact that we approach winter facing another huge inflationary spike. The costs of home heating oil and of filling up our cars have reached extraordinary, painful and eye-watering levels for ordinary people, including ordinary public-sector workers, domiciliary care workers, nurses, teachers and junior civil servants — all of the people who keep this society running. It is now highly likely, if not certain, that those people will not get the pay rise that they are owed in time for Christmas. That rise would have helped them not just with Christmas costs — we know that those add up — but with the basic costs of heating their home, filling their oil tank or filling their car. Why? It is because the Executive cannot or will not set a Budget, meaning that even the small amount of support that comes from the British Government cannot be spent here. As I say every time I talk about this, we agree that the Executive need to get more money from the British Government. We support that call, but ordinary people here on low wages — those who keep this society and our public services running and who look after our people — are being failed by the Executive.

What is the thing that everyone is talking about? What, we are told, is the big political story that we all have to care about? It is what Carla said on Facebook, what Jonny says on a certain radio outlet or what Jamie, Timothy or Jim might say on Twitter. Here is what I think, and it is not about what I think: the ordinary people who are struggling to fill their car or heat their home do not care about that, and nor do I. This place is in utter disrepute, but we are told that what matters is random infighting between parts of the DUP. That is a disgrace — a disgrace. It should shame Members that we are seven months into the financial year without a Budget or any way of paying ordinary people. Yet, people think that it is acceptable to engage in ridiculous commentary about DUP infighting.

This week, once again, the SDLP will publish proposals on how to fundamentally change our politics, because we know that this place is not working, with people talking once again about collapsing government here. However, we will also engage in a conversation that is becoming more urgent: a conversation about a new Ireland. I say this to people in the DUP: my colleagues and I have held this Government and the Executive — the DUP and Sinn Féin — to account for their failures, but, if you want to accelerate the conversation about a new Ireland, keep going.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr O'Toole: Keep going.

Dr Archibald: First, I associate myself with the condolences for Ciara Mageean's family and friends. She was an absolute star and leaves a huge legacy.

Not content with blocking the First Minister's and, bizarrely, her own attendance at last Friday's economic council meeting in Glasgow, the deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, blocked my attendance as Economy Minister, ensuring that the Executive and the North had no political representation. That was a disgraceful failure that robbed us of the opportunity to promote our economy. The North continues to outperform Britain in economic growth and export growth, not least because of our dual market access, which the DUP, of course, opposed and try to talk down. We are leading the way in sectors such as advanced manufacturing, life and health sciences, cyber and software. Instead of seizing the opportunity to promote our strengths and why it makes sense to invest in and collaborate with businesses and institutions here, the DUP, in an act of economic vandalism, put its narrow party interests ahead of our economy, punishing everyone else as a result.

It is not the first time that the DUP has put its self-interest and internal wrangling ahead of people and businesses here. Most notably, the DUP backed Brexit, which, everyone knew, would cause economic harm. The DUP also opposed all reasonable attempts to mitigate the disastrous impact of Brexit, including those that gave the North a competitive advantage. Party figures, including its now incarcerated former leader, said that they could live with tens of thousands of job losses. The economic incoherence of the DUP's position was further underscored by the deputy First Minister's now deleted late-night Twittering. We were all bemused to learn that the deputy First Minister, who has made much of her showing up in the past, sees engagements with the British Prime Minister as meaningless set pieces. In reality, it was an important opportunity for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to have face-to-face engagement with the British Prime Minister.

That significant meeting was recklessly and senselessly blocked by the DUP because, as a party, you are in utter disarray and looking over your shoulder at the TUV after your recent failed attempts to drag society here backwards. The DUP is doing an amazing job of highlighting the dysfunctional nature of the Six-County state, adding to the incontrovertible arguments for constitutional change. In the interim, however, and despite the severe limitations, both fiscal and institutional, First Minister Michelle O'Neill and my colleagues and I will show up every day to work on behalf of all our communities and do our best for workers, families and businesses here.

Mrs Middleton: The discovery of a viable device at a hotel on the Ebrington site is deeply disturbing and deserves the strongest possible condemnation. Let me be clear: in Northern Ireland, there was never a place for violence. There is no place for it now, and it remains completely unwelcome in the future. It was not simply an attack on a building but an attack that put the lives of hotel staff, guests, local workers and members of the public at risk. Disgustingly, families and our precious children were enjoying a funfair mere metres away from where the device was delivered. In a week when the city planned to welcome tens of thousands of visitors to bring much-needed revenue, the planned disruption and vile actions were nothing less than abhorrent and disgraceful. The consequences could have been devastating. It is clear that the person or group yet to be identified cares nothing for our safety, the peace that we so desire or our lives. It is disgusting. Frankly, it is absurd to think that human life could mean so little to others. I thank the PSNI officers and army ammunition technical officers who worked tirelessly and put their own lives at risk to protect the public.

There have been suggestions from the PSNI that the device could be the work of dissident republicans. It is not for me to speculate, but, understandably, questions have been asked about whether the incident could be connected to the poor actions of some politicians regarding their disdain for a British Army and RAF presence at a careers and jobs fair at the hotel. It is important to stress that the police investigation is ongoing. However, if the attack was motivated by opposition to the presence of the armed forces at a legitimate careers event, that raises extremely serious questions. We cannot allow intimidation, blatant discrimination or threats of violence to dictate who can participate in careers events in Foyle. People have every right to choose whom they want to work for, and the armed forces, like any other legitimate employer, should be entitled to engage with the public and promote careers opportunities without fear of attack.

People in Londonderry have the right to disagree, express their views and challenge decisions through democratic means, but there can never be justification for using violence or explosives to silence others. Those who believe that they can drag our city backwards through fear or intimidation do not speak for the overwhelming majority of people.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Middleton: My city deserves better.

Mrs Guy: A powerful survey commissioned by Caleb's Cause and published last week details the experiences of the families of children with complex needs interacting with our health trusts. It captured the experiences of 567 parents and carers of children and young people across five health and social care trusts.

At its heart, the survey asked a simple but vital question: who is holding the plan for children with complex needs? Six in 10 respondents reported significant difficulties when dealing with health and social care services. Only one in five said that they had been told clearly what would happen next. Nearly a third received conflicting information from professionals. Families spoke about delays, lost referrals and being told that their child did not meet assessment thresholds despite clear evidence of need.

What I found particularly troubling was what families said about raising concerns. Four in 10 had made a complaint to or raised an issue with their trust. More than half said either that the matter was never resolved or that they had received no response. Some chose not to complain because they feared that doing so could negatively affect their child's care. I am sorry to say that the experience of constituents whom I have supported through my office validates that concern. I have dealt with constituents who raised concerns about the care that their young person was receiving in a trust facility and subsequently felt that they were being penalised. It is hard to argue that that was not the case, yet I have little confidence that this is something that the Minister is taking seriously. I wrote to him in August about a particularly troubling example in Lagan Valley: to date, despite follow-ups, that letter remains without a response.

The trauma of interacting with our system means that many families are in a constant state of fight or flight. The system should be sensitive to the impact of its failings. Families should never feel that they have to choose between not speaking up for their child and worrying about what doing so might mean for their access to their child. To be clear, this is not about the many dedicated professionals who work in our health and social care system, but we have to be honest: not every family has that experience. Families repeatedly describe having to chase referrals, coordinate services and repeat their child's story, because nobody appeared to be holding the whole plan. That is why Caleb's law matters.

Caleb's Cause is calling for a legal right to a lifelong joined-up care plan for people with complex needs, with a named person responsible for coordinating the plan and ensuring that it follows the person through their life. It is about making sure that someone knows the child, knows the plan, knows what happens next and is responsible for making sure that the child does not fall between the cracks.

I welcome the Health Minister's commitment in a response to a question for written answer to work with Executive colleagues and review what more can be done. Families need more than commitments, however: they need to see change. The family of every child and young person with complex needs deserve to know that someone is holding their plan, someone is holding the responsibility and they will not be left to navigate this alone.

Mr Kearney: Last week, in a welcome shift on constitutional change, an Taoiseach confirmed his willingness to join the discussion about preparing for Irish unity. His recognition that a comprehensive programme of work is required is a positive development, but that must now be matched by action. He has announced an intention to propose a new body that will examine Ireland's constitutional future, including the pathway to a united Ireland. The fact is that constitutional change is fixed on the political horizon. The discussion on Irish unity is growing in momentum, and that is happening across Ireland and throughout all sections of Irish society. It is not only a nationalist or republican discussion; the contribution of the many voices from the Protestant section of our community and from within unionism is a hugely important development.

The future of Ireland belongs to everyone. It makes sense that we plan for the future in a structured forum that considers all matters that are relevant to a transition towards reunification. That process must be fully inclusive, bringing together all strands of democratic opinion, be it republican, nationalist, unionist or other, in a single citizens' assembly to discuss how to plan for a united Ireland. It is essential that the Irish Government both facilitate and play a leading role in that process. People deserve clear information about what unity can mean for their health services, pensions, jobs, public services and rights. Deeper examination of the economic opportunities, transition costs and practical challenges is also required

Sinn Féin is absolutely clear that a new constitutional settlement must provide guarantees and protections relating to civil, religious and democratic rights and all cultural traditions and identities, and that extends to the Orange tradition. A new, progressive republic is the best future for all our people. It will create the opportunity to finally break with the past and to shape a shared, prosperous and reconciled society for us all.

Mr Buckley: The staggering arrogance of Michelle O'Neill in coming to the Chamber to lecture Members of the House about their responsibilities is breathtaking in the extreme. She, alongside her Sinn Féin Ministers, wants to lecture other Members about how they behave in public life. Michelle O'Neill seems to be suffering from a case of political amnesia. It was her actions and those of her Sinn Féin colleagues — they chose to act in a reckless, lawless manner on the Garvaghy Road — that have caused deep political unease in Northern Ireland today.

I had to sit and listen to Michelle O'Neill tell the House how she has been a "First Minister for all" and how she, in her words, continues to work for everyone. Her words on her first day as First Minister are as hollow today as when they were first spoken. Tell that to veterans or those in the armed forces, given that Michelle O'Neill continues to block the implementation of the military covenant. Tell that to the victims, when Michelle O'Neill said that there was "no alternative" to the actions that took their loved ones. Tell that to those who are concerned about Sinn Féin's open-border approach to illegal immigration. Tell that to the women who are concerned about the woke nonsense that is being pushed on them day and daily by Sinn Féin, a party that, to this day, cannot even tell you what a woman is. Its policies stand exposed.

The House is meant to be a Chamber that reflects democratic opinion across Northern Ireland. If we are being honest, however, we know that unionism has a choice. Unionism must pull together. I say that in the face of open hostility from the First Minister and Sinn Féin and in the spirit of genuine cooperation. We need to work together. Unionist division is Sinn Féin's greatest friend — you can smirk all you want — and the general public know it. They want to see us work together, and I will do everything that I can to make sure that that happens.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. I call Doug Beattie. You have two minutes, Mr Beattie.

Mr Beattie: On Saturday, I attended a reunion at the regimental headquarters of the Royal Irish Regiment in Belfast. It was a reunion of a small group of people who served in Operation HERRICK 4 in Afghanistan in 2006. Those veterans served in places such as Musa Qala, Sangin, Kajaki, the Upper Gereshk Valley and Garmsir. I stood with them, extremely proud of what they did 20 years ago. Their tour ended 20 years ago this month.

I had a chance to go for a walk around the small museum there, and I walked into what is called the "Helmand Room". I was taken aback when I saw a small display that included a thing called a range card. A range card is filled out by soldiers who are on the ground overlooking the area where the enemy is so that they can pinpoint different positions. I knew about that range card because it was I who recovered it from Afghanistan, framed it and presented it to the corporals' mess of 1 Royal Irish Regiment, and it is now at the regimental headquarters. That is important because the author of the range card was Lance Corporal Luke McCulloch, who filled it out in late August 2006. On 6 September 2006, Luke McCulloch, who was from South Africa, was killed in action in Sangin. When he was killed, others were killed also: Lance Corporal Paul Muirhead, who was from Warwickshire, and Ranger Anare Draiva, who was from Fiji. Of course, Captain David Patton from County Londonderry, who was not serving with the Royal Irish Regiment at the time, was killed in Sangin as well. You could see how unique the regiment was, given the people who lost their lives in Afghanistan in that first deployment in 2006 and where they came from. They were all part of the Royal Irish Regiment: a unit in the British Army that is fiercely British but also uniquely Irish, historically and culturally.

I was proud to stand with those men at that small reunion and recount what they went through. Twenty years on, it is important for us to take time to remember their sacrifice and what they did, regardless of whether you agree with it politically. They were brave, professional men who stood up when they were asked to, and they suffer the consequences even today, 20 years later.

Mr Buckley (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I beg to move

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

Mr Buckley: As Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure, I welcome the opportunity to set out the position and reasoning for seeking an extension of the Committee Stage of the Tree Protection Bill until 29 January 2027.

At the outset, I place on record the Committee's appreciation to the Bill sponsor, Mr Peter McReynolds MLA, for introducing the legislation. The Committee recognises the considerable time and effort that has gone into the development of the Bill and welcomes the constructive and collaborative approach adopted by Peter. The Committee looks forward to that continuing in the same vein as the scrutiny progresses. Peter is not only the Bill sponsor but a valued member of the Committee for Infrastructure, and I am confident that the unique perspective that he can bring will prove hugely beneficial in informing the Committee's work as the Bill progresses.

As Members will already be aware, the Bill seeks to strengthen protections for important trees and woodlands, improve enforcement arrangements, enhance replacement planting requirements and introduce new measures that relate to ancient trees and ancient and long-established woodland. The Committee supports the objective of ensuring that Northern Ireland's trees and woodlands are appropriately protected. In a region with relatively low levels of tree cover compared with many other parts of Europe, there is understandable public interest in ensuring that the legislative framework is robust, effective and fit for purpose. However, while the Bill's objective is straightforward, the Committee's initial consideration has demonstrated that the legislation itself raises a number of potentially complex operational, financial and policy issues that require careful and detailed examination.

The Committee launched its call for evidence over the summer and received a strong response from stakeholders and members of the public. On behalf of the Committee, I express thanks to everyone who took the time to respond and to those who will engage with the Committee over the coming weeks to support its scrutiny. The level of engagement reflects the importance of the subject matter and the significant interest in the Bill. The Committee is already well advanced in its evidence-gathering programme, having heard from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe), departmental officials and an environmental stakeholder panel prior to recess. In the coming weeks, members expect to hear from a wide range of additional witnesses, including representatives from the construction sector, landowners, councils, the Youth Assembly and the Bill sponsor, who will have an opportunity to respond to the issues raised during the evidence sessions before the Committee begins its deliberations.

In the course of its scrutiny thus far, the Committee has identified a number of issues that will require detailed examination. Those include the practical operation of key definitions in the Bill, the proposed concept of ecosystem services, the requirement that relates to replacement planting and the specification of heavy standard trees, the resource implications of the proposed tree protection map, the operation and impact of the proposed 15-metre buffer zone around ancient and long-established woodland, and the practical implications for planning decisions and infrastructure delivery. Members are also keen to understand in greater detail the wider resource implications and costs to the public purse arising from the Bill, including the potential need for additional arboricultural experts in councils, the costs associated with monitoring, enforcement, replacement, planting and mapping requirements and the financial impacts on landowners and others who may be affected by the provisions of the legislation, should it be enacted.

The Committee also considers it important to scrutinise how the proposals interact with existing planning legislation, development needs, infrastructure delivery and property rights. Those are significant matters that deserve careful, considered deliberation at the Committee if the Assembly is to be satisfied that the Bill is proportionate, affordable, workable and capable of delivering its intended outcomes while also mitigating any unintended consequences. Should amendments prove necessary, adequate time will also be required to develop, draft and consider properly any changes arising from the evidence received.

The Committee is mindful of the time remaining in the current mandate, but I assure the House that it has carefully considered how best to balance the need for rigorous scrutiny while also being cognisant of the time remaining in the mandate for the Bill to progress through its remaining Assembly stages.

In considering an appropriate extension, the Committee agreed on 29 January 2027. The Committee is optimistic that that provides significant time in which to complete a thorough evidence programme, consider emerging issues, engage further with the Department, councils, other stakeholders and the Bill sponsor and, where necessary, develop and assess amendments. Additional meetings have already been scheduled, and Members are working through a substantial volume of evidence. The scrutiny is taking place alongside the Committee's examination of two other Bills, a significant programme of delegated legislation and the Committee's wider responsibilities.

The extension being sought reflects the Committee's commitment to ensuring that legislation with potentially far-reaching implications for planning authorities, councils, landowners, developers, public authorities and environmental protections is scrutinised thoroughly and properly before moving forward. The Committee looks forward to continuing positive engagement with the Bill sponsor and other stakeholder groups to facilitate its detailed scrutiny. In conclusion, I encourage the House to support the motion to afford the Committee the additional time that is needed in order to complete its rigorous, balanced and effective scrutiny.

That concludes my remarks as Committee Chair. I will make some short remarks in my role as DUP infrastructure spokesperson. The Bill, in principle, has unanimous support for what it is trying to achieve. The issue will be whether some of the affordability and practicality issues that departmental officials have flagged can be resolved. I intend to work closely with everyone on the Committee to ensure that we put in place legislation that delivers on its principles but is workable, is deliverable and does not hold back wider infrastructure development and proposals. In that spirit, I approach the Bill with goodwill to see whether we can have legislation that strikes those fine balances. I will be open and honest throughout, regardless of whether that balance can be struck.

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

Mr Buckley (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I beg to move

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

Mr Buckley: I have moved seats, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, because my remarks may require more deliberation.

As Members will be aware, the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill was formally referred to the Committee for Infrastructure for its scrutiny on 23 September 2026. The Committee heard from the Bill sponsor on 1 July, and, in anticipation of the Bill's passing Second Stage, a call for evidence was issued over the summer recess, closing on 16 September.

Four written responses were received and 999 online responses were received via the Citizen Space portal.

The Bill provides for the removal of flags or emblems in the public interest; the definition of a "sensitive place" relating to the removal of a flag or emblem; a procedure for notification of, or giving views on, flags or emblems; the issue of the code of practice on the display of flags and emblems; an offence of obstructing the Department in the removal of a flag or emblem; and discretion for the Department to request police assistance when removing a flag or emblem. The Bill places duties on the Department for Infrastructure regarding the assessment of whether a flag or emblem should be removed, the removal of a flag or emblem if it is judged to require removal, and the administration of the notification system for flags and emblems.

The Committee heard the Department's initial views on the Bill on 21 October, and will hear more from officials on Wednesday. In summary, officials stated that, while the Department is supportive of the principles of the Bill, the Bill places responsibilities on the Department that relate to policy areas for which it is not the lead Department.

It is fair to say that there has been much debate on the Bill. It was debated over three days at Second Stage. The receipt of over 1,000 responses to the call for evidence indicates the level of public interest in the subject. Those responses have been considered in detail by the Committee and the Assembly Research and Information Service (RaISe), which has provided valuable research briefings that have helped to shape our discussions. In my contribution as Committee Chair, I will not rehearse the many contending views that have been aired on the matter, suffice it to say that there is no consensus on the Bill. Indeed, there is no single view in the Committee on the Bill.

The Committee considered an extension date of 29 January in line with that of the Tree Protection Bill. That was debated at length. Ultimately, the Committee divided on the issue, with a majority agreeing with the date of 19 February to ensure that there is thorough scrutiny of the Bill and to hear more oral evidence to obtain views from stakeholders.

It should be acknowledged that bringing a Member's Bill to the House is no mean feat. The Bill sponsor should be commended for conducting it thus far. The Committee will give the Bill the thorough scrutiny that it deserves. Indeed, a range of stakeholders has been invited in the coming weeks to provide evidence to assist members in their deliberations. We also look forward to hearing from the Bill sponsor again later this month to answer queries that have arisen in the evidence so far. That concludes my remarks as Committee Chair.

I will now make some remarks as DUP spokesperson for infrastructure. At the Second Stage debate, I stated that the Bill would have significant and far-reaching unintended consequences. It is fair to say that, since the Committee started to undertake its deliberations and receive evidence from departmental officials, those views have been strengthened and enhanced. It was a lengthy session in which not all members were able to question officials, and I look forward to Mr McMurray's starting contribution on Wednesday.

Although I am speaking in a private capacity as DUP infrastructure spokesperson, I am determined to ensure, in my role as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, that we get to the very nub of the Bill, because I believe that it would have so many significant and far-reaching consequences. It is not like the Tree Protection Bill. The Tree Protection Bill has the Committee's general support in principle, while the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill does not. This Bill would have dangerous and far-reaching consequences. At every stage when a question is posed, more questions come up as a result. I know that Members listened to three long days of debate at Second Stage. However, every concern that was brought up then merits the Bill's having further, more detailed scrutiny than that proposed for the Tree Protection Bill. That is why, when Mr Stewart, my colleague in the Ulster Unionist Party, came forward with the suggestion of extending the Committee Stage, I thought that it merited support. He did not get his initial proposal through the Committee, but a compromise was reached and, ultimately, voted on and agreed, through Division, by a majority vote. That is a sensible approach.

There are far more questions on the Bill that need to be probed. I have gone through them in detail. I have talked about its being in the public interest to remove a flag or emblem:

All those notices place a statutory duty on the Department. We need to ask the questions, and we have not got the answers: who decides? Who, ultimately, decides what is offensive and what is not? Who, ultimately, will be responsible for those decisions? In everything that has been asked, I feel that we are not getting fulsome answers.

I asked a number of questions of departmental officials in our opening session with them on 21 October. When we tried to define the scope of the Bill, one comment really stood out to us all, and I put the official over it twice: how far-reaching is the legislation? How big an area does it cover? We can be fooled into thinking that the Bill covers only street lamp posts. I think that his comment at the Committee was that the Bill could cover everywhere from the street to Slieve Donard. That, essentially, is how far the reach of the Bill is.

It is fair to say that officials have engaged in a genuine spirit about how to debate the issues involved in the Bill and how to ensure that, if the Bill is enacted, the statutory duty that is placed on the Department is achievable, affordable and does not place the staff at risk. We talked about who would make the decision. We talked about what grade of official might make it and what potential risk would be placed on civil servants. When some of those decisions are so political that Members in the House cannot even agree, we will be placing a duty on our Department for Infrastructure to make deeply political decisions about everything from a flag to a billboard and perhaps a mural or an emblem. We have no definition of what some of those terms mean. Those are all important elements of the scrutiny process.

We talked about whether DFI contractors would be sent into someone else's property, because the Bill also goes way beyond the remit of DFI. The Minister did not get a chance to outline in full her position at Second Stage because, at that stage, the debate had been cut short by an Alliance motion to censor the debate. That was unfortunate. It closed down further scrutiny. I believe that the Minister would have been able to talk to some key, important points. We have since received a written briefing from the Department that probably points to one of the key concerns for the Minister and her Department. It is not for me to speak on her behalf, but the issue around the Bill's extending to street furniture way beyond the Department's remit is certainly a concern for me and, indeed, for many other Members.

I also talked about the cost to the public purse. I make no apology for saying it: I want DFI's primary purpose and responsibility to be fixing roads and street lights, to be engaged in major infrastructure projects and pushing forward our road network. We are probably facing another winter of chaos when it comes to our roads and the network's built infrastructure. Instead of debating that, we will spend endless days and hours debating legislation that, ultimately, will direct resource away from core duties of the Department to this —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Jonathan. I am listening to what you are saying. The purpose of the motion is to talk about why the Committee is asking for an extension. Even in your remarks as the DUP spokesperson on infrastructure, the purpose is not to reopen the Second Stage debate. Thank you.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I probably omitted to draw a bit of context back to that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Fair enough.

Mr Buckley: I talk about spend and time. That is essentially why the Committee has asked for a further extension. The Bill is so far-ranging. I will not go into it all, because I did so at Second Stage, but my concern is that Members of the House might feel that it is unfair in some way for the Committee to ask for a further extension in respect of this particular private Member's Bill. I want to leave everyone in the House assured that it is essential, given some of the Bill's far-reaching aspects: cost to the public purse; who has responsibility; what property it is on or not on; who decides what is offensive and what is not; how the public engage through an online forum; how can that not be easily manipulated; how a code of practice would actually work; and how it is accountable to those who put things up and those who take them down. The list is endless.

I do not know whether anyone else will speak on this particular extension, but, if so, I will probably be given the opportunity to wind on the debate, and I will pick up on any remarks at that stage. I implore Members to see that this is about appropriate scrutiny and a Committee that is taking its duty seriously. We will endeavour to do the best that we can, but I ask Members to respect the need for thorough democratic scrutiny of this private Member's Bill.

Ms Bradshaw: I oppose the motion to extend the Committee Stage to the week commencing 15 February 2027. I am aware that other Committees have been clear that the reports on Bills that have been referred to them for scrutiny have to be agreed and produced by the week beginning 8 February to allow for Consideration Stage to take place in the week beginning 15 February, Further Consideration Stage in the week beginning 3 March, and Final Stage on 15 March, just before the dissolution of the Assembly on 23 March.

For example, in setting the timescale for Claire Sugden's Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill, the Committee for the Executive Office has said that members have to agree and complete their report before the meeting on 10 February. I find it rather peculiar that, despite having my Bill since the end of June, the Committee is trying to extend its Committee Stage until way beyond the point of what is practical, yet we, as the Committee for the Executive Office, which received the Age Discrimination Bill only on 14 October, can manage to get through the scrutiny stage of that Bill's 50 clauses and two schedules, compared with my nine clauses. Those who are advocating this date know exactly what they are doing.

My Bill was presented to the Committee before the summer recess. Members will be aware that there was an immediate attempt to delay proceedings by not allowing the Committee consultation to proceed over the summer months. Thankfully, that original decision was rescinded, and my Bill was consulted on. We then had a second attempt by unionists to drag out the Second Stage debate by making the same points over and over again. Principal Deputy Speaker, you said that the debate was to be on the general principles of the Bill, not a clause-by-clause review. As the Committee Chair said, we pushed for a "closure of debate" motion, because, quite frankly, the same points were being made over and over again, and I was fearful that that would push the Bill's passage through Second Stage into another week, thereby depriving the Committee of another week of scrutiny. Needless to say, the Second Stage was completed by mid-September.

I have made it clear that I am willing to attend any Committee meetings as required. I have also offered to meet members individually or as a party group on many occasions since 7 July, most recently at the start of the Halloween recess, but, in the vast majority of instances, not one person has come back to say that they will sit down and talk about the potential impact of the clauses. This attempt to push the Committee Stage beyond the date at which the Bill could reasonably reach its Final Stage before dissolution is yet another example of an attempt to block, frustrate and delay my Bill.

It is accompanied by attempts to fill time by endlessly asking the same questions over and over again. The Bill is so important that it requires endless repetition of the same points in plenary and in Committee but not important enough to take time to discuss it directly with me, the Bill sponsor. It is clear that the Committee motion is a blatant attempt to run down the clock. We have seen it many times. Any Member who votes for an extension on this scale will be voting to kill my Bill during the mandate. Let me repeat that: any Member who votes to support the Committee's extension motion today will be voting to kill my flags Bill. I urge Members from all parties, all of whom will be familiar with the tactic, not to enable it.

Some Members may be concerned that, if the Assembly agrees to the extension, Committee Stage will be restricted to 10 November. Well, it was the DUP's Education Minister who refused extra time to the Education Committee to discuss the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill on the basis that, in his opinion, the Committee's approach was "inefficient" and that members of the Committee needed to "work harder" and:

Perhaps he had a point. To be clear, however, we have no issue with the Committee returning to the Assembly with a reasonable extension date designed to enable the scrutiny that the Chair has outlined rather than to disable it before Committee Stage ends.

Before I come on to some proposed amendments on which I have been liaising with departmental officials, off the back of commentary that they received from the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), I will read into the record that the Committee received 999 responses via Citizen Space on the Northern Ireland Assembly website. Of those, 82·58% agreed with the fundamental purpose of clause 1, which is the duty on the Department for Infrastructure to remove, in the public interest, flags and emblems under the various circumstances and categories laid out. I will round up the following percentages for your benefit, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, but they are on the public record. Approximately 84% agreed that the Department should consider the sensitivity of the location of flags and emblems; between 75% and 78% agreed with the proposal for a notification procedure, and I will come on to what I propose by way of amendment on that issue; 79% agreed with the proposal for a code of practice to provide clarity and consistency in approach; 70% agreed with the inclusion of an offence for those obstructing the Department's removal of a flag or emblem, and views varied on why people were nervous about or outright opposed to that; 84% agreed with the proposal that the Department can request assistance from the PSNI; and 75% supported the clause on interpretation, which, again, I will come to.

With your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, before Members are asked to vote on the Committee extension motion, I will outline some of the proposed amendments. Notably, they include clarity that the Bill will apply only to public street furniture that is maintained, controlled or owned by the Department for Infrastructure; I will seek to remove a number of specific items, such as trees or billboards. Notably, the notification —.

Mr Stewart: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am interested to hear from the Bill sponsor about the amendments, as, no doubt, we will at some stage in Committee, but I thought that we were debating the rationale for the extension of Committee Stage, not a rehash of amendments that might be proposed. I look forward to hearing about them, but I am not entirely sure that this is the debate for that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have a point, John, but I am giving Paula, as the Bill sponsor, a bit of latitude. If it becomes another Second Stage debate, as it did with the Committee Chair, I will bring it back.

Ms Bradshaw: I will come to more substantive examples of proposed amendments in a minute, but I am trying to give comfort to Members, particularly members of the Infrastructure Committee, that I have listened. I listened throughout the Second Stage debate. I have watched all the Committee sessions. Since the Bill was introduced, I have engaged on three occasions with departmental officials on their concerns, and I am seeking to bring forward proposals to address them specifically. It is about tightening up a lot of the areas that the Chair and others have spoken about not just today but on previous occasions.

With your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will continue. I am proposing an amendment for regulations for Committee scrutiny and to be approved by way of draft affirmative procedure in the Chamber to set out exactly how the Department would deal with any instances of flags where complaints have been notified. I will also propose an amendment by way of regulations in the same matter in relation to the code of practice. Again, that would mean that it would have to go to community consultation and to be approved by the Infrastructure Committee and the Chamber by way of draft affirmative procedure. I propose to remove the term "offensive" — for example, I took on board people's concerns that we should not have to legislate for not being offended — and I am seeking to amend the time frames to give the Department more time to establish the relevant mechanisms. That is not an exhaustive list, but I wanted to read out those highlights because I want to assure people that I have listened to what they are saying, most notably the Department's officials. I repeat my invitation to meet any individual MLA or party, if they want to go through the issues in greater detail before I come before the Committee.

I emphasise that the Alliance Party would still be happy with an extension until 29 January, as was the recommendation from the Committee Clerk. We submitted an amendment to that effect, but the Speaker did not accept it. There is no good reason for my Bill not to get through Committee Stage well before the end of January, let alone the middle of February. If that requires the Committee, me and my support staff to be more efficient, to work harder and to focus on the job that people expect us to do, that is what we are here for.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Jonathan Buckley, Chair of the Committee for Infrastructure, to conclude the debate.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I have never had to make a winding-up speech as a Committee Chair before, so I will get the formalities over first. As the Chair of the Committee for Infrastructure, I thank the Member for her contribution. Her points are now on the record, and I am sure that the Committee will be able to deliberate on those in full in the future.

Speaking as the DUP infrastructure spokesperson, I find the Member's contribution particularly disturbing. I want to set out clearly to Members the process by which the Committee agreed the extension. There was concern from the Committee about the scope and content of the Bill. The Ulster Unionist member of the Committee, John Stewart, proposed an extension beyond 29 January, which was the extension given to the Tree Protection Bill. For obvious reasons, his proposal at the time was to extend it until 26 February. That did not have agreement. Following deliberations back and forward across the Committee, Mr Stewart put forward a proposal for 19 February. That Ulster Unionist proposal was voted for by the DUP members, the Ulster Unionist member and the SDLP member on the Committee. Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party voted against it and respectfully put their views on the record, but they also understood the huge pressure as a result of the questions proposed by the Bill. Let nobody be mistaken about why that time frame is as it is.

It is absolutely ridiculous for a Member to threaten Members and repeatedly say, "This is to kill my Bill". As Committee Chair, I simply will not let that happen. We are here to scrutinise and to take the content of the Bill seriously, and to have the Member come to the House today to talk about a range of amendments is, frankly, despicable behaviour when it comes to democratic scrutiny.

Her approach is completely different from that of her party colleague Eóin Tennyson MLA. Although he also introduced a controversial private Member's Bill, he had the courtesy to allow the House to have a full and comprehensive debate on it, including allowing a response from the Minister. Ms Bradshaw chose to censor the debate in the House. She did not want the House to hear at Second Stage what potential scope there was for amendment. She did not even want to hear the Minister's response. Members were thus denied the opportunity to place on record their concerns about the Bill. Why? It was because Ms Bradshaw did not want democratic scrutiny of her Bill. Why? It is because it falls apart at the very first point of scrutiny. Excuse the infrastructure pun, but when the rubber hits the road, the Bill falls into a pothole. For the Member to accuse Members of trying to kill her Bill is a disastrous way in which to approach scrutiny. Members are trying to scrutinise it. She compared her Bill to the Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill, which has 50 clauses. I care not for the clauses but for the content, and the content in Ms Bradshaw's private Member's Bill is consequential and far-reaching.

The Member may meekly pass over clause 1, which is titled "Removal of flags or emblems in the public interest". The clause merits serious consideration, however. The language is subjective. It potentially places staff in harm's way. The Committee therefore needs adequate time not to kill the Member's Bill but to protect staff.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he recognise that the Bill's Second Stage took much longer than any of the other recent Second Stage debates? The Bill sponsor articulated how points were being made ad nauseam. It seems as though the Member is gaslighting us by saying that it was an attempt to sideline scrutiny. Members made points repeatedly. From our perspective, it is very clear what the intention is on your side.

Mr Dickson: Read Hansard.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for her intervention. It was respectful as always, and, respectfully, I disagree. [Interruption.]

Mr Buckley: Mr Dickson may snort, but I take scrutiny seriously. I say to Ms Nicholl that democratic scrutiny is important. I have been a Member of the House for coming close to 10 years now. I have seen the consequences of poorly scrutinised legislation from Departments, never mind from private Members. When a private Member brings a Bill to the House that they know would insert itself into particularly sensitive matters and have deep and long-lasting consequences, they should be prepared for scrutiny and for Members to talk about its content. I cannot dictate what the Member says in response to the Bill in her contribution, in the same way as I cannot dictate to any Member, but Members are entitled to their views.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will indeed.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member agree that, at Second Stage, the Bill sponsor's response, when there was one, was often that the issue in question could be dealt with at Committee Stage? Given how many holes there are in the legislation, it should be unsurprising to the Bill sponsor that, at Committee Stage, the Committee is going to need a lot of time to do that work.

Mr Buckley: The Member makes a very valid point. That is what Committee Stage is for. In Committee, the extension was voted for by the UUP, the SDLP and the DUP. That is a fact. Look at the public record of the Division at the Committee. The extension is therefore to ensure that we get to the bottom of the Bill. Had Members taken the time to listen, they would know that what the DFI officials were not able to say to the Committee about the Bill was absolutely eye-watering and that what they were able to say was very telling.

If the Member really were interested in ensuring proper scrutiny, her party would not have moved the censor motion on the Second Stage debate. Here we are again: the Committee is getting into the weeds of the Bill, and the moment that the Member detects that the wheels are starting to fall off the Bill, she goes straight to the accusation that Members are trying to kill her Bill. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Scrutiny is what matters, and scrutiny is what the Committee will do. I will not be intimidated by that type of language.

The Department for Infrastructure official talked about the wide scope of places that clause 2 could capture. We did not even get to bottoming out forensically the scope of "Sensitive places". Clause 2(3)(d) refers to:

That could be anywhere. This Bill has landed before the Department for Infrastructure and the Infrastructure Committee, but it would affect every Department in Northern Ireland. It would affect every person in Northern Ireland, and there would be a cost to the public purse. There is one key point that shows why the Bill needs thorough scrutiny. A departmental official was asked how the Department would pay for this, and they said that the money would have to come from the existing DFI budget. We have had plenty of debates in this place about potholes, road infrastructure, the A5 and other issues. Tell me where the money would come from to pay for the flag police, which, as identified, would be in the Department for Infrastructure, and an open portal that could be manipulated for certain ends, with departmental officials expected to adjudicate on sensitive flags when the Member herself cannot even identify those flags. That is why the Committee proposes an extension.

We will work hard as a Committee to explore every clause in the Bill: make no mistake about that. We will work diligently. We will schedule additional sessions. We cannot get it wrong. We cannot fathom passing a poor private Member's Bill. Perhaps the Member's intentions are well-meaning, and I say that sincerely. However, I say clearly that I will not put my hand to anything in respect of which debate and scrutiny have been restricted and Committee members who vote for an extension are accused of killing the Bill. The Committee will do its work based on the content of the Bill.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He will know, and so should the House, that the extension date is a deadline not a target. If the Committee were to do its work quickly and efficiently, it could come to the end of its deliberations much sooner. It would be wrong to disable the Committee in its scrutiny work, and the House should say so.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. That is a very important point. It is probably one of the most undemocratic ways of conducting business on a private Member's Bill. If Departments can get legislation wrong, how on earth are we meant to believe that a private Member could not get it wrong? Should we not take seriously the views of officials? Should we not take seriously the considerable concern of Members from multiple parties? That is important. That is what the Committee will do.

Mr Boggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will indeed.

Mr Boggs: It is astounding to listen to DUP Members talk about disabling action or things being undemocratic. I believe that the Member brought the draft legislation in good spirit. The Bill deals with very tricky issues. She has brought it in the absence of any agreement from Members opposite to deal with those issues. Had the Members opposite gone along with the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) and made some progress on that, the Member may not have had to introduce such a wide-ranging Bill.

A Member: That is different.

Mr Boggs: It is not different. You do not want to make progress through FICT. You forced a private Member to introduce draft legislation to try to deal with the issue, and then you complain about that draft legislation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. We are all starting to stray into the Second Stage debate. I ask Members to return to the subject of the motion, which is the extension of Committee Stage.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for his intervention. His points are not new; to be fair, he has reiterated them at the Committee, and I respect his right to do so. I will say this: there was no agreement on the FICT report. The Member chose to take forward a private Member's Bill. I say to the Member opposite that the Bill will fall into his party's lap. Why was there no Bill from the Minister in this regard, if his party is so serious about the matter?

I return to the extension of the Bill's Committee Stage. We have to ensure that we get this right. I can point to issues that I have with every clause in the Bill. It is refreshing to learn that I am not the only one. Members from other political parties also have issues with it. The DFI clearly has issues with the Bill. We are going to debate it, and we are going to ensure that we get it right.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

Ms Bradshaw: I did not want to go through each proposed amendment, but did you hear me when I said that I had been working with departmental officials and that I will be bringing forward substantive potential amendments around the concerns that you have outlined? You seem to have ignored that point. A lot of that will be laid out when I come before the Committee.

Mr Buckley: We look forward to having the Member before the Committee because there are significant questions to be answered.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. That is one more reason for extending the deadline further. If the Member is going to table substantial amendments to her own Bill, the Committee will need time to scrutinise them.

Mr Buckley: Mr Frew makes a very valid point.

Ms Forsythe: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment. I mean no offence to those who drafted it, but we need to fix what is, in my view and that of other Members, a very poorly drafted Bill. My criticism is directed towards those who support its purpose and content. Mr Frew is absolutely right. Make no mistake; if you prepare a private Member's Bill and come to the House when we are about to agree a Committee extension that has SDLP, UUP and DUP backing for democratic scrutiny purposes to tell us that you propose to table significant amendments, that surely proves that further extension of the Committee Stage is required.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: Not at this point. I will give way to Ms Forsythe.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to build on that point. In her earlier contribution, the Bill sponsor said that she wants this cut short and that she is more than happy to come to the Committee in order to give it comfort on those points. Does the Member agree that it is not for her to decide what gives the Committee comfort? It is for the Committee to scrutinise the Bill, especially when a range of potential amendments are to be put forward.

Mr Buckley: The Member is absolutely right. As I stated last week when the DFI officials were giving evidence, I will give each member of the Committee as much time and space as they need to understand the intent and consequences of the Bill and to ensure that it is right.

We have seen Departments struggle with such comprehensive legislation before. I was struck in particular by clause 7 in the Bill, which concerns its interpretation. I referenced that when I spoke about the need for a Committee extension.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment. Clause 7(1) states:

What is meant by a "similar medium of display"? That is not outlined in the Bill. In fact, the interpretation clause raises even more questions. That is a very basic aspect of the Bill, never mind its more complex elements. Clause 7 defines a "public place", but how extensive is that definition? What prominence should "public place" be given? Those are big things.

I asked the officials whether the trade unions had had any engagement with Department staff who, ultimately, will be placed on the front line when it comes to decision-making on those issues. They had had no such engagement. Yet, we are told, "Cut your Committee Stage short. Do not worry about thorough scrutiny. Get on with it". It may be a bad Bill, but that does not matter —.

Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: Not just yet. I am going to go to the Member behind you, Mr McMurray.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, but before you do that, I am going to suspend this item of business.

Mr Buckley: I can finish now if you want.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has not concluded his winding-up speech. If you want to finish, go ahead.

Mr Buckley: I will have plenty of time to debate with Mr McMurray at the Committee. I propose the Committee Stage extension as in the Order Paper. Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Jonathan. I was not rushing you.

Mr Buckley: No, no.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I could have taken this after Question Time, just to put that on the record.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK, Members, it is clear that there will be a Division, so the vote will take place after Question Time. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until Question Time at 2.00 pm.

Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I fully recognise the financial pressures that can arise following a bereavement and understand concerns about the rising cost of funerals in recent years. As the House will be aware, Northern Ireland maintains parity with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on eligibility for and the amount of the funeral expenses payment. My Department regularly engages with DWP on the support available to claimants. My officials recently raised the issue of the level of support provided under the scheme, but the Department for Work and Pensions confirmed that it has no plans to increase the amount payable.

I am aware of independent research that indicates that Northern Ireland continues to have the lowest average funeral costs of any UK region. The average cost of a funeral here is £3,105; the national average is £3,828.

For the Member's information, the number of funeral expenses payment awards has remained relatively stable in recent years, at around 2,200 each year, with an average award of approximately £1,500. It is important to note that the funeral expenses payment was never intended to meet the full cost of a funeral; rather, the scheme is designed to provide a contribution to essential funeral expenses for people on the lowest incomes.

Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for his answer, which was very factual. As the Minister well knows, the funeral expenses payment scheme is retrospective, and many grieving low-income families sign up for a funeral before being guaranteed that they will get the payment, leaving funeral directors to cover the cost and, in many cases, with a debt that is never repaid. Is there anything that can be done to reduce the time that it takes for an award to be made from the scheme or to otherwise move it forward, given the short time within which funerals take place in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: I recognise and understand the concerns that the Member expresses, particularly about the upfront costs for many people. Although the scheme makes a welcome contribution, I know that it can leave families in the difficult position of awaiting an award. I am more than happy to raise the matter with DWP officials to see what can be done to ensure either that the process is sped up or that part of the award can be made at an earlier stage in order for costs to be recovered.

Mr Wilson: Minister, you will be aware that the loss of a child is devastating for any family. What steps have you taken to assist families with funeral costs for children?

Mr Lyons: Such assistance is provided separately from the funeral expenses payment, on which we maintain parity with the Department for Work and Pensions. The child funeral fund is a Northern Ireland scheme funded and administered by my Department. In recognition of the challenges faced by parents who lose a child, I approved, through regulations amended in 2025, an increase in the child funeral fund payment. The payment was increased from £3,056 to £3,441 for funerals taking place on or after 1 December 2025. I hope that that goes some way towards helping with the burden that, unfortunately, many families face. The cost of the funeral should not be on their minds at such a terrible time.

Mr Lyons: I welcome the very strong response to the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund. My ambition is to build on the pilot by establishing a regular, longer-term programme. It may be of interest to the House to hear that the pilot attracted 835 expressions of interest seeking £28·3 million in total. To respond to that demand, additional funding from my Department, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the local growth fund has increased the pilot budget from £4·3 million to over £10 million. That gives the pilot the capacity to offer support to 311 projects that met the required standard, subject to the normal checks and grant conditions. I am grateful to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and his officials for their support in that collaborative approach, which demonstrates what can be achieved.

Work on a longer-term programme is well advanced, and I look forward to making an announcement on that in the very near future.

Mr Harvey: Thank you for that answer. Minister, it was great to see so many churches and faith-based organisations benefit from that funding. Does the Minister agree that faith-based organisations contribute immensely to our community and voluntary sector? Does he also agree that there should be a presumption in favour of their inclusion in government funding schemes in the future?

Mr Lyons: Yes, I agree. I want to ensure that the funding that is available to groups in the voluntary and community sector is available to all such groups. The faith-based and Church sector probably offers the majority of services in the voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland. Churches and other faith-based organisations in every part of Northern Ireland do incredible work, especially among children and young people, but it extends beyond that to include food banks, older people's activities, social support, advice services and the provision of facilities that can be used by local community groups. Such organisations also contribute to community cohesion. They bring people together, support volunteering and provide trusted local spaces. The pilot has demonstrated the importance of that contribution. I have certainly seen first-hand many of the projects and the work that those organisations can now continue or build on. Around one in five of the successful applicants was a church. The programme should recognise that wider community role moving forward.

I am proud to have played my part in ensuring that faith-based organisations were included. I assure the Member that it is my intention that all organisations will be treated on the same basis, because, in the past, many churches were discriminated against, and that was wrong.

Mr Durkan: I welcome the apparent success of the community infrastructure fund. It appears to have been availed of by a wide range of clubs and organisations. It is probably a wider range than I initially anticipated benefiting from it. While the capital assistance to clubs and organisations in the community and voluntary sector is welcome, organisations in the sector are struggling to keep the lights on. Will the Minister therefore tell us what impact the current Budget impasse is having on the community and voluntary sector?

Mr Lyons: I welcome the Member's words. I think that he is being sincere, so I appreciate the fact that he has recognised that the scheme is helping people in all communities — to borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister — in all postcodes across Northern Ireland. He will be pleased to hear that, in his council area, 20 organisations have benefited to the tune of £702,000. That will improve community facilities for people from different backgrounds who do all sorts of excellent work. Those organisations obviously scored highly in order to get through. That is to be welcomed, and it is something that I want to build on.

I am talking about capital funding. The Member is referring to resource. I am well aware of and understand the challenges that many in the voluntary and community sector face, particularly as a result of longer-term uncertainty and the uncertainty in the shorter term because of the Budget difficulties. My desire is to make sure that those organisations can continue their work. I have provided the short-term assurance of funding that is coming. Ultimately, however, we need a Budget that meets the needs of people in Northern Ireland. We need to make sure that we have a Budget that does not devastate the community and voluntary sector, because that will only put pressure on other government services further down the line. That is why I am determined to do my best to get a fair funding settlement.

Mr Lyons: My Department works with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to implement severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP) arrangements over the autumn and winter period. There is ongoing engagement with a range of providers to ensure availability of accommodation to meet statutory duties, as outlined in the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, and non-statutory duties such as the SWEP. When implementing those arrangements, the Housing Executive will utilise a range of options to seek to provide additional emergency capacity that can be utilised during the period in which a SWEP is called. In the absence of a confirmed Budget, the Housing Executive will fund the services that require additional payments that are at risk.

The Housing Executive supports partners in the homelessness sector such as the Welcome Organisation to deliver street outreach alongside that organisation's support hub in Belfast to assist rough sleepers. In 2025-26, I introduced the first ever ring-fenced allocation for homelessness prevention. Although departmental budgets remain to be agreed, I intend to maintain the ring-fenced allocation for strategic homelessness prevention in 2026-27.

Miss Hargey: Thanks very much, Minister. I was out walking through the town at 6.30 am and saw at least five people sleeping on the streets and in doorways. In September, you announced plans to establish a homelessness commission to look at the issues in their entirety. Will you provide an update on that? Has anything gone to the Executive yet? What practical steps have been taken since September? What is going to happen in the time ahead?

Mr Lyons: It is an incredibly important issue. I have been out with organisations at night to see some of the challenges that exist. Perhaps one of the most heartbreaking aspects is that many of those who find themselves sleeping rough have tenancies. They have somewhere to go, but it is not just a housing issue. It is also about addiction, mental health and other challenges that people face. That is why it is so important that we get this right. This morning, I had a meeting about the homelessness commission, which is well progressed. The chair is in place, and there are updated terms of reference. I am pleased with the progress that has been made, and I look forward to seeing that work continue.

I want to get Executive approval for the homelessness commission. I have put a paper to the Executive, but it has not got on to the agenda. I hope that it can, because I want the issues to be taken seriously by the Executive, and, up to this point, I do not feel that they have been. In fact, in another paper with the Executive, I have asked for support not just for the homelessness commission but for the allocation of two critical budgets to my Department that would mean that we could deal with homelessness. That issue has not been on the agenda yet either. I hope that the Member will be able to use her influence within her party to make sure that we can get the support that we require for the homelessness commission and for those critical budgets so that we can deal with the issues. We need to invest in early intervention and prevention, and that is what I am committed to doing.

Ms Hunter: Last year, Minister, in the mouth of Christmas, many families were told at the eleventh hour that they had to be removed from emergency accommodation. I thank you and your team in the Department for helping me with one of the saddest cases on which I have ever worked. I saw at first hand how having nowhere to stay on Christmas Day can affect children. We are now a year on and coming up to Christmas again. What is your Department doing? What concrete examples can you provide to assure us that what happened last year will not happen again to families in Northern Ireland?

Mr Lyons: I am not in a position to be able to give guarantees about what will never happen again, because we operate in an environment in which we are constrained by many factors that are outside of our control. That is one of the reasons that I have established the homelessness commission. I have done so to make sure that we deal with the issue in two ways: first, to take the actions that we can take now; and, secondly, to put in place the required legislation. Establishing the commission has support from across the sector. It will have expertise and experience and will be able to make a real difference. It will make sure that we are dealing with the problem in the round and not just firefighting, as we have been doing for far too long.

The commission can be transformational, and we do not often get an opportunity to be so. I am impatient for change.

I hope that the Member can recognise some of the steps that we have taken to improve emergency and temporary accommodation and the efforts that I have made to deal with the issue more widely by ensuring that we have more social housing and housing across all tenures and through the affordable rent programme. I want to be in a position where we can say that none of this will ever happen again: I do not think that any Minister will ever be in that position, but I want to make sure that we do everything we can, and there is a body of work that demonstrates that we are doing so.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the update on the 600 homes to be purchased by the Housing Executive for temporary accommodation, which you announced last year. Minister, one of the quickest ways to prevent a large number of people from becoming homeless is a no-fault eviction ban: will you commit to implementing a no-fault eviction ban before the end of the mandate or before this place collapses? Otherwise, it will be like putting water in a bucket full of holes.

Mr Lyons: I am pleased that we have made good progress on the 600 homes. A number of associated issues and concerns came up, including how the Treasury would view the purchase of those homes. Significant work has been done, and we will be able to move forward on that imminently, which will help.

I have no issue in principle with a no-fault eviction ban. However, from looking at experiences elsewhere, we are aware that a ban would require some exemptions. There are, I think, 14 exemptions to the ban in Scotland. I am happy to look into a no-fault eviction ban, but I hope that the Member will appreciate that that would not deal with the fundamental issue that many people face, which is the overall lack of homes. We need to increase our supply. The big problem with housing in Northern Ireland has been that we do not have enough homes in the first place, and that is what my focus is on. As the Member will have seen from the other measures that we have taken, we will certainly take other actions where we can.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, there were issues with SWEP last year. It was not about the money; it was about the communication. Will there be better communication when SWEP is activated this year so that, in an emergency, we make the most effective use of the temporary accommodation?

Mr Lyons: The Member will appreciate that SWEP is an emergency service delivered in emergency conditions. It is demand-led, which means that it can be challenging. The Housing Executive's officers and voluntary partners deal with unpredictable demand often in difficult circumstances and with a client group that, as I have said before, faces complex issues. On rare occasions, SWEP providers can face capacity and logistical challenges. However, everyone who remains in contact will be offered accommodation, following a thorough assessment of all the relevant circumstances. We had a problem on 4 January this year because of those capacity and logistical challenges.

I assure the Member that the staff who are in place always do their best. It does not always work out as we would like, but I have confidence in the people who provide the service and in their determination to make sure that the service is provided properly. The protocol was activated on 10 occasions last winter, and most of those who required help got help. I want to make sure that nobody falls through the cracks, but sometimes it is just not possible to avoid that.

Mr Lyons: I did not receive an invite from Homeless Connect to attend the Northern Ireland homelessness conference. Officials got an invite, but they were not able to attend on the day.

Mr Boggs: I thank the Minister for his answer. Obviously, it is disappointing that the officials were not able to attend the conference. I am sure that you will know that the homelessness sector and Homeless Connect in particular have been talking about the homelessness commission that you are bringing forward. They have been critical at times, but it is welcome that it is working with your Department. Miss Hargey has already asked a question on this, but can you give us a specific update on your engagement with the sector across the North and with the sector in the Twenty-six Counties, given that, obviously, homelessness is a cross-border issue that we need to tackle on an all-island basis?

Mr Lyons: I had a meeting this morning on the issue, and the Member will be pleased to hear that Homeless Connect was represented. That will continue, because I genuinely believe that, if we want to deal with the issue, we need to have everybody on board. We also need to have its expertise and experience, which is why I am so keen that it is included. Therefore, I assure the Member that it will continue and that all best endeavours will be put into ensuring that everybody is on the same page and working collectively to deal with the issue.

In relation to engagement with partners in the Republic of Ireland, if there is something there that can be done and if there is useful learning and coordination, I am more than happy to make sure that that happens. However, ultimately, it is a problem that we face when dealing with our citizens here and ensuring that support is in place. I will work with the sector and with those in Northern Ireland to ensure that we deal with the issue because the situation right now is unacceptable.

Mr Kingston: I commend the Minister for initiating the homelessness commission. It is an important initiative, and it is disappointing to hear Sinn Féin being negative towards it. Can the Minister advise us on how the commission is progressing?

Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. The Member will be aware of the two elements to the homelessness commission. The implementation panel is expected to commence its work later this month. The first meetings will take place by the end of November, and, reflecting the broader scope and longer time frame, the implementation panel will begin work ahead of the legislative reform panel, which is expected to convene in January. My officials are taking forward the practical arrangements necessary to establish both panels, including the appointment of members and the finalisation of governance arrangements. That will ensure that both panels are in a position to begin their work within the planned timescale.

It would be useful for us to have Executive support for that. I have the paper with the Executive. I am not sure why they have not proposed a date to discuss and agree it, but I hope that we will be in that position soon. I hope that it is not the same as it is for the other papers that I am waiting for. One is funding for the social housing development programme, and the other is a critical paper in relation to the Department's allocation for money for homelessness. I hope that the parties will agree to that so that progress can be made.

Mr Lyons: I will take the opportunity to pass on my condolences and thoughts and prayers to Ciara's family, whom we remember today in this place. Ciara had incredible success on the track. I know that it has been said many times already, but she was a genuine inspiration to many people in Northern Ireland and beyond. I hope that she will continue to inspire the next generation to get involved and follow in her footsteps. That will be a lasting legacy.

I was pleased to recently announce £200,000 of funding for the Mary Peters Trust, in partnership with Sport NI, aimed at helping talented local athletes to access the support that they need to progress towards future Commonwealth, Olympic and Paralympic Games. Support for Northern Ireland athletes preparing for 2028 is provided through Sport NI. Its athlete award programme provides a mechanism to support athletes tracking towards the games who do not receive athlete funding from either Sport Ireland or UK Sport, with the ability to consider exceptional circumstances where appropriate.

The chief executive of Sport NI has advised that its main performance investment will place an increased emphasis on supporting athletes further down the performance pathway, helping to develop those with the potential to progress towards senior international performance. Where there is an evidenced gap in support at senior national level, Sport NI may also consider support where appropriate. The Sport NI Sports Institute focuses on improving sport performance through the provision of science, medicine and programme support to national governing bodies.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much. I follow the Minister's remarks about Ciara.

I will declare an interest. As the Minister well knows, my interest is swimming; that will not come as a surprise to you. One question that we have is about Sport NI's movement towards aspiring athletes rather than athletes who are already in the performance network. How can we ensure that the athletes who need that support to get to Los Angeles, in particular — I am talking specifically about some of our absolutely brilliant swimmers — get the support that they need, bearing in mind that they fall between the stools of funding from Swim Ireland, which is not necessarily focused towards swimmers from Northern Ireland, and the GB Olympics team, which obviously does not come within that realm?

Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for his question and for highlighting that. I know about his interest: I have met him down at Larne Swimming Club. I do not think that he is a swimmer himself: is he thinking of Olympic glory in a few years' time?

Dr Aiken: I spent 32 years in the Royal Navy, Minister. I have done a lot of swimming.

Mr Lyons: He has done a lot of swimming. I do not know whether that is something that someone in the Royal Navy should be doing. Something has gone terribly wrong if you are in the Royal Navy and you need to swim a lot. I will leave him to explain that another time.

I hope that I have outlined the support that is available for those who fall between those stools. As I said, where there are exceptional circumstances and Sport NI can step in and help, we want to ensure that that can happen for those who are on that elite pathway. It is important, however, that, if we are looking towards the future and want to ensure that we have those athletes of the future, we invest in grassroots sport now. Where else will our future athletes come from? That is why I launched the Olympic legacy fund, with £2 million being allocated for 2026-27. It was launched at Larne Rugby Club. It will continue to support grassroots clubs. It is great to see the uptake of that funding across Northern Ireland. The crowdfunding element, in particular, has been a fantastic success. You see communities coming together to raise that extra bit of funding.

Of course, the Member will be aware of the investment of almost £30,000 to buy new equipment for Larne Swimming Club in my constituency. I hope that that gives him some encouragement.

Mr Honeyford: I share the thoughts that the Minister expressed about Ciara and the impact of her loss on our sporting world and our society as a whole.

Sporting bodies tell us all the time that they have been let down when it comes to funding. You talked about Sport NI's priorities: can you confirm how much of your Department's funding, excluding National Lottery funding, has been allocated to preparation for the Los Angeles games in 2028?

Mr Lyons: I do not have exact figures for that, but I am happy to see whether I can get them for the Member if he would like to request them. I suppose that there will be different pots and different elements to that and different ways in which we can provide that support. Some of that money will not be able to be broken down in that way, but we will see whether we can find that information for him. I hope that he sees my commitment to sport more widely, not just through the Olympic legacy fund, which I have already mentioned, but through the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund, which many sporting clubs have been able to benefit from as well.

Mr Robinson: Can the Minister detail for the House how many clubs were successful in the 2025-26 Olympic legacy funding programme and whether any steps are being taken to ensure that that fund will be available on a yearly basis?

Mr Lyons: Yes. Through that £2·136 million investment, 81 clubs across Northern Ireland, representing a broad range of sports, benefited from support under the programme last year. As I have said, the crowdfunding model has proven highly effective, generating more than £1 million in community contributions and leveraging the overall value of those projects to in excess of £3 million. It has been a huge success for many sporting organisations that too often fall through the cracks when it comes to government support. I will work to ensure that a longer-term programme is in place so that we not only celebrate the legacy of our sporting successes but ensure that we prepare for the successes of the future.

Mr Lyons: The new arts policy is being developed within the wider heritage, culture and creativity programme. The public consultation to inform the arts policy is expected to launch in the week commencing 16 November 2026. As the Member will be aware, the programme also includes a new public library policy, a new museums policy and a new historic environment policy. I am pleased with the progress to date, and it remains my expectation that all four new policies that form part of the programme will be published in the early part of 2027.

Mr Speaker: We will move on to topical questions, and it is Mr Durkan to go first. Mr Durkan, you were looking better on Saturday than you are today, I have to say.

Mr Durkan: Well, at least I can take my mask off, Mr Speaker.

Mr Lyons: I certainly concur with Mr Durkan. I am more than happy to look at that and to explore the ways in which we can honour her and ensure that she has a lasting legacy. However, Ciara has already provided her own legacy in the way in which she conducted herself on and off the track and inspired so many people. I doubt that we will be able to match that in any way, but I am more than happy to work with others in due course to find a way to ensure that that legacy and her life can be honoured.

Mr Durkan: Ciara was a trailblazer on the track, cruelly cut down in her prime. She leaves a legacy that will not be forgotten. That much is true. However, given her unique impact, would the Minister consider the establishment of a dedicated Ciara Mageean legacy fund aimed at upgrading infrastructure and supporting, in particular, young female athletes? Perhaps, at the same time, he could explore how we can use sports clubs as hubs to promote the vital cancer message that she spent her last months so bravely promoting.

Mr Lyons: I concur with everything that the Member has said. Despite some of the differences that we might have, I hope that he has seen the commitment that I have to sport and to grassroots sport in particular. I hope that he understands that that is why I have brought forward the Olympic legacy fund and the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund and have pushed funds that have lain dormant for some time. I am happy to meet him if he would like to further discuss an appropriate way to honour Ciara's legacy.

Mr Lyons: Not at this time. We are keen to make sure that we get a proper understanding of that. Unfortunately, it is the case that that information is normally relayed to the Department of Finance. It is then for the Minister of Finance and the Executive to agree Budget allocations after that. I am often disappointed at the way in which some of that funding works out or does not work out. The Department for Communities is a major loser when it comes to Barnett consequentials. Sometimes, that is in the area of culture; sometimes, in sport; and, sometimes, in how we deal with issues such as benefit fraud. A number of questions have been raised as a result of the Budget. We continue to work with colleagues in the Department of Finance and Whitehall to see what that means for Northern Ireland.

Dr Aiken: Thank you for your reply, Minister. It is clear that there is a big push to build more social and affordable housing across the United Kingdom. As an integral part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland should be very much part of that. The Minister will be aware that, when it comes to doing that, one of the most fundamental issues is the water and sewerage infrastructure. We understand that the Department of Finance has not been very forthcoming, but will the Minister outline any conversations that he has had with the Department for Infrastructure about what it is doing to fix that problem?

Mr Lyons: Yes, there is regular engagement. I regularly impress on the Minister for Infrastructure and her officials the importance of dealing with waste water issues, because they are a barrier to the growth that we want to see in housebuilding in Northern Ireland. We need to make sure that, first, we have the funding in place in order to build homes. That is why I am disappointed that, although the Executive agreed a target for building social homes, the funding for that has not been forthcoming. I understand the difficult financial situation in which we find ourselves, but, if the Government are providing more finance for housebuilding in England, that should also come through to Northern Ireland.

I have not, however, just waited for more money to come. We are taking action now to make it easier to build homes. That is why we are looking at the design guide for social homes to see what is not necessary, what does not add value to homes and what adds costs. It is also why I have looked at the housing association grant to see how we can stretch the amount of money that we give to housing associations further and ask them to do a little bit more. Yes, we need more funding, but we also need to look at other ways to make the money that we have go further. That is the work with which I have been involved, but, at the same time, I will not give up on getting that extra cash.

Mr Lyons: I am happy to use all tools that are available to me to make sure that we get the right outcome, whatever the issue is. The Member introduced a Bill that will put pressure on the Department of Education, because no additional funding will go to that Department to pay for it. Those issues should be looked at more widely as part of the wider anti-poverty work that we are doing. I want us to look at that to see what is the most effective thing that we can do in a time of constrained finance. Is that Bill a good tool? Is it the best way to support families, or does that intervention simply put more pressure on school budgets? As a party, we will use any and all means that are at our disposal to make sure that we get the best outcomes.

Mr Baker: As the Minister who is responsible for poverty policy in all communities across the North in respect of all children, 90,000 of whom the Bill will support, you are saying that you will use all tools. That includes a veto being used not by the majority in the House but by unionists to stop support for those children, because you have thrown your toys out of the pram. Are you seriously going to do that as the Minister for Communities? Is that what you are standing there and telling people today?

Mr Lyons: The Member takes a very different approach to those issues than I do. The Member has not engaged with the wider anti-poverty work. I take a different approach. Tackling poverty in Northern Ireland is not just about giving people more money but about ensuring that we help them. I want to put the funding that we have into longer-term measures that will actually make a difference by helping people to earn and save more. The Member has been told repeatedly about what the Bill will do and about its cost implications. He has not sought to work with others. He has tried to ram the legislation through without a proper consideration of all the issues. I wish that he had taken a different approach.

Mr Lyons: I want to help everybody in Northern Ireland access careers that work for them. It is an absolute shame and disgrace that the council took that decision. At its heart is prejudice towards and intolerance of people with whom the council disagrees. I understand that a job in the armed forces may not be for everybody, but why should people be able to decide that they will not allow others to hear about the opportunities that exist? It does not make sense. It is discriminatory. As I said, a deep-seated intolerance is at the heart of it all. We hear so much about equality, equality of opportunity and the ability for everybody to be respected. How often have we heard that in the House, especially from those on the Benches opposite? When it comes to it, however, and when the real test is there, they fail. As I said, that is because of intolerance and bigotry, which was at the heart of that council's decision.

Mrs Middleton: Minister, I welcome your confirmation that the Department will not bow to such intolerance. Do you see the sickening irony that, less than 24 hours before nationalist councillors voted to ban our military from such events, British Army bomb disposal experts put their lives on the line to defuse a viable terrorist device at a local hotel? Is it not time that we stood up for our servicemen instead of accommodating those who seek to censor them?

Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right. I could not agree with her more. All the Members opposite are looking down. They should be ashamed of the decision that their colleagues took. The Member is absolutely right to highlight the fact that the British Army was protecting the people of the north-west and the people of Northern Ireland through the actions that it took, and she is right to point out that, less than 24 hours later, councillors said, "It is OK for the army to protect us, but it is not OK for people to hear about the opportunities that exist", and that —

Mr Gildernew: Bloody Sunday.

Mr Lyons: — is a shame and a disgrace.

The Committee Chair is hectoring from a sedentary position. All that I will say is this: bigotry, intolerance and prejudice are at the heart of his party's decision.

Mr McGuigan: Minister, you are glossing over the British Army's record in Derry.

Mr Lyons: We have ensured that help is available from all the jobs and benefits offices across Northern Ireland so that those who do not feel comfortable applying online will get the support that they need. Jobs and benefits offices will be happy to help at any stage of the process.

Mr McGuigan: Yes, Minister, I understand that help will be provided by jobs and benefits offices, but providing help with applying addresses only part of the problem. The Department's guidance states that activating the voucher requires an email address and a mobile number. Will you therefore explain precisely how someone with neither can activate or spend their voucher?

Mr Lyons: As I said, we have ensured that that help will be available to such households. If people go to their local jobs and benefits office, help can be provided. If the Member has additional issues or queries, we are here to help. I do not want to prevent anybody from getting their card. We fought hard to put the system in place, and it took a very long time to put everything in place. I said at the time that it was not the most simple or straightforward way in which to do things. It would have been far easier if the Government had provided direct relief to those affected by cutting fuel duty and ensuring that the support was available. We have, however, put the system in place, and I do not want to stop anybody from getting the support that they need. If there are particular issues with which the Member is unable to help his constituents, I ask him to take them directly to the Department. I am happy to provide any and all help that we can.

Mr Lyons: That is right. The working-age population benefits bill has gone from around £57 billion 10 years ago to over £127 billion today. That is simply not sustainable, and we need to tackle it. It is one of the biggest issues that we face as a society. It is not just bad for the economy, for government finances or for all the people who go out and work hard every single day and are paying for the system; it is actually bad for those who are in receipt of such benefits. It is not good for people to be out of work or to not have the opportunities and hope that comes from employment. I am working with Alan Milburn on the work and well-being commission so that we can tackle that issue properly and help to lift people out of poverty.

Mrs Dodds: The Chancellor also talked about a crackdown on benefit fraud. What is happening in Northern Ireland in that regard, and is there a potential gain and clawback for Northern Ireland if we can identify benefit fraud?

Mr Lyons: The Chancellor announced a package of anti-fraud measures, including the recruitment of more than 2,000 specialist anti-fraud staff for DWP. A direct read-across to Northern Ireland would mean over 60 members of staff. That would help us to save millions and millions of pounds every single year. I hope that we will get the Barnett consequentials for that and that money is put towards that important work. Unfortunately, Sinn Féin has blocked cracking down on fraud, both through the parity Bill that is being brought in at Westminster and through a paper that would help us to tackle the issue. We need to tackle the welfare bill overall, but surely we can all agree on tackling fraud and tackling those who are not entitled to benefits but are cheating the system to get them.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Further education colleges are operating within a contingency planning allocation equivalent to 94% of last year’s allocation. Colleges have statutory responsibilities towards learners with special educational needs or disabilities, including the requirement to make reasonable adjustments. Those statutory protections remain in place and provide an important safeguard for disabled learners. My Department continues to provide support for the colleges through the additional support fund, which helps colleges meet the additional costs associated with supporting students with learning difficulties and disabilities and is managed by the colleges within their overall funding allocation. I fully recognise the pressures that our colleges face and the importance of protecting support for learners, and I continue to press for a fair and sustainable funding settlement that properly supports our colleges and their learners.

Following my statement last June announcing proposals to improve the opportunities and support for school leavers with special educational needs, significant groundwork has been done. That has included the completion of an Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) review of SEN provision in further education; development of new careers guidance and resources; and improvements to data sharing between Departments, including enhancing the service-level agreement between the Education Authority and Careers Service to support smoother transitions for learners with additional needs.

Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for her response. Minister, in June 2025, you made a ministerial statement that outlined your ambition to ensure more provision of support and courses in our FE colleges for those with special educational needs and disabilities. Following that, the ETI produced two reports with recommendations. However, given the cuts that our FE colleges now face, can you be specific about the impact of those cuts on those with SEND?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As I outlined in my main answer, the colleges are operating within contingency allocations but still have responsibilities to their learners with SEN. The Member spoke about the ETI reports that were published in August. The reports showed that colleges provide inclusive and supportive learning environments, but they also highlighted a number of areas for improvement. The findings are consistent with the direction of travel that was proposed in the statement of June 2025. We have a dedicated post-school SEN transformation further education team in the Department, and we are taking forward a programme of work arising from those evaluations and the wider review of post-school provision. The initial activity of that group has focused on identifying key work strands and commencing the development of a work plan to prioritise future activity. I know that the Member will appreciate and understand that multi-year investment will be needed to deliver the scale of reforms required, which is one of the reasons why we, as an Executive, are continuing to make the case for a sustainable and fair funding settlement that ensures that we can invest in our public services where they need it, and in particular to support our young people with SEN.

Mr Delargy: Minister, you have touched on quite a bit of this already, but will you go into a bit more detail on what you have done since your ministerial statement in June 2025 to improve post-school opportunities and support for young people with SEND?

Dr Archibald: As I said, since the statement, progress has been made across a number of areas to improve post-school opportunities and outcomes for young people with SEN, including strengthening career support and information for young people and their families, progressing inclusive apprenticeship pilots, improving the mapping of post-school provision, and strengthening our evidence base through ETI evaluations. My Department has also led cross-departmental work to improve SEN data sharing and transition planning. A collaborative bid has been made to the public-sector transformation fund to pilot new approaches to supporting school leavers with SEN. The bid has been recommended as fundable, with confirmation subject to the Budget process.

That work is intended to support a more coordinated approach to transitions to adulthood. As I said to Mrs Guy, delivering the required scale of reform and improvement will require substantial and sustained investment. While work is under way to progress those measures within the existing budgets, the availability of the additional investment, including through the transformation fund, will be critical to the pace and scale with which we intend to deliver the wider reform.

Ms Forsythe: The cuts to further education hit much more than the core education estate, including apprenticeships, as the Minister outlined. I welcome her comments about the shared bid and the move to data sharing. I sat on the Public Accounts Committee through the skills report, and I know that that was a key recommendation.

I want to ask the Minister for a little bit more detail about the transformation bid that she mentioned. Is it from the Department of Education and the Department for the Economy, or does it also include Health? One theme that came through our deliberations was that, in the interests of the young people coming through, a whole-of-government approach is needed to break down siloed working.

Dr Archibald: We are collaborating with the Department of Education and others, including Health and Communities. I think that Infrastructure is part of it as well, because transport is a key element of support for young people with SEN. If the Member wants to write to me, I would be happy to share a bit more detail about that.

As I said, the bid to the transformation fund has been recommended for funding. Obviously that will be subject to the budget coming along to support it, but I view this as absolutely vital work for supporting our young people with SEN and ensuring that they get the opportunities that they deserve.

Mr Nesbitt: Has the Minister given the colleges any direction with regard to groups of students or categories of skills that she would like to see protected from any potential cuts?

Dr Archibald: The colleges are continuing to work to deliver against the strategic priorities of the Department and the further education sector's dual mandate, which is to support economic growth and to support the promotion of social inclusion. It is important that our further education colleges be inclusive in supporting learners through their various supports. I have not directed the colleges to protect any particular category of skills or group of students, but the colleges have to continue to meet their statutory obligations, which include supporting our young people with SEN. They have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for students with special educational needs or disabilities.

I have been assured by the colleges that they continue to support young people with SEN, and I recognise the uncertainty that has been created by the British Government's underfunding of the Executive. We continue to make the case for a fair and sustainable funding settlement. I also see the need for us to invest in skills delivery. That is crucial for our economy and for giving people opportunities.

Mr Durkan: I acknowledge the work that the Minister has done on this issue, but it appears that her ambition has perhaps been diluted by the current budgetary reality. What consideration has she given to introducing a statutory post-19 special educational needs support framework?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Probably every Minister in the Executive would say that their ambition is being stymied by the budgetary situation, which is, obviously, very challenging across the board. We intend to introduce a statutory transition framework so that young people are better supported when they are coming out of school. We see that as best aligning with the statementing process in the Department of Education so that we are not duplicating work. If a young person already has a statement of needs, that should be able to be carried across. That is not the case at the moment, so that is the approach that we want.

Mr Gaston: Caleb's Cause has led the campaign for post-19 education provision for special educational needs children throughout Northern Ireland. Following on from the previous question, Minister, is your Department ready to bring the necessary legislation, along with the Health and Education Departments, on day one of the new mandate to extend the school age for SEN kids to 25?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Responsibility for the legislation to which he refers would sit with the Department of Health. I am not here to pass the buck; I am more than willing to work with my ministerial colleagues. I worked with Minister Nesbitt when he was in post, and Minister Butler has written to me and we are going to meet in the very near future to look at how we can take that work forward. I think that everybody in this Chamber understands the need to ensure that our young people are properly supported. We all recognise the challenges that will come at us in respect of funding that, but we need to make sure that people have the opportunities that they deserve.

Dr Archibald: My Department continues to progress work on the key areas that inform the business case for a local equivalent to the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme. That includes work on eligibility, delivery arrangements, state aid requirements and the supporting legal framework. An estimated time frame is to have an application window ready for local manufacturers later in 2027, subject to the required approvals being secured. I recognise the importance of ensuring that our manufacturing sector is supported to remain competitive in the region. My Department will continue to engage with industry representatives as this work progresses to ensure that the scheme takes account of the needs of our local industry.

Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she provide an update on progress towards developing a support scheme for biomethane production in the North?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I know that she has a constituency interest in that issue. My Department recently published a consultation on a draft biomethane strategy and policy framework, which seeks views on a range of important issues for developing a sustainable biomethane sector. The draft framework proposes using the remaining renewable heat incentive annually managed expenditure (AME) funding to support biomethane production, subject to approval of a business case by the Treasury. My officials are working to develop a business case for the scheme, with the intention of having the draft business case ready to present for approval by the end of the current financial year.

Mr Kingston: I go back to the subject of the substantive question — the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme. It will take some time to develop such a scheme in Northern Ireland. When it is in place, will it apply retrospectively so that no business in Northern Ireland is disadvantaged compared with businesses in mainland GB?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Unfortunately, when the British Government designed their scheme, they did not take into consideration the needs of our local energy sector and industry. We therefore have to put in place our own scheme, and it always take a little bit of time to get the necessary approvals and make sure that it meets the needs of local businesses. The British Chancellor, however, in his statement last week, referred to applying support retrospectively for businesses there. If that support is available to businesses in Britain, we should be entitled to the same funding arrangements, which will come by way of AME funding to businesses in Britain. I hope that we will be in a position to ensure that our businesses get that retrospective payment, and that is what I will propose.

Mr Speaker: Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Dr Archibald: I share the frustration experienced by citizens across the North who are impacted by geoblocking. That unfair practice should end as soon as possible, and, with that in mind, I asked Ofcom to review the matter. After extensive engagement with key stakeholders, Ofcom provided a report that indicates two related constraints: territorial content rights and limitations on identifying audiences in the North with IP addresses. That report has been published on my Department’s web page.

I met the chair of Ofcom recently to discuss the report's findings. He gave me a commitment on Ofcom's continued support in trying to find a solution. Ultimately, any solution will require cooperation between the Irish and British Governments. I have written to both Governments, shared the Ofcom report with them and proposed a refresh of their 2010 memorandum of understanding on digital television services. I will continue to engage with both Governments until a way forward is identified and implemented.

Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for her response. Has she received an assessment on whether the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill in the South will have any impact on ending the geoblocking of RTÉ programmes in the North?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The Member alluded to the fact that party colleagues in the Dáil are also trying to tackle the issue and have introduced a Bill to end geoblocking for viewers here. That Bill is currently at Second Stage in the Dáil. When one of our party colleagues asked Minister O'Donovan about the issue recently, he outlined the huge frustration that it causes and mentioned his efforts to engage with the British Government on how geoblocking impacts on people, particularly in border areas. I welcome Minister O'Donovan's commitment to engage with the British Government on the issue, and I look forward to further engagement with the Irish Government to try to find a way forward.

Mr K Buchanan: As the Minister said, Ofcom stated in its report that it has no power to require a rights holder to license content on an all-Ireland basis. Does she believe that regulating decisions of companies in another jurisdiction, including RTÉ, should be a priority for her Department?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. He is aware, I am sure, that I do not have the powers that would be required to do that. The action that I have taken on the issue is that I have been engaging with the British and Irish Governments. I am sure that he will reflect on the fact that many of his constituents are hugely frustrated by the situation. I am more than happy to assist in trying to improve it.

Mr McNulty: It is good to see that, at last, you and your party have recognised that the issue is about territorial content rights and IP addresses. Have you had direct communications with the British Government? The Irish Government cannot produce a unique IP address for the North. I am sure that you recognise that that is a British Government reality. Further to that, have you had any direct communication with the International Olympic Committee (IOC), the Football Association of Ireland (FAI), the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU) or any of the other big sporting organisations that own the rights for sporting contests and, ultimately, decide whether those are shared on an island-of-Ireland basis, a Northern basis or a UK-wide basis? Those can be shown only by using a unique IP address, which can be delivered only through London.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question and for his interest in the issue. The idea of a unique IP address has been considered and could form part of the solution. However, the Ofcom report was clear that there is no single solution to this particular issue. It is feasible for some telecoms providers to ring-fence IP addresses for customers in the North, but that could also pose challenges. Although a unique IP address might resolve the technical aspect, as the Member, I think, alluded to in his question, it does not necessarily address the territorial content rights issue and the fact that we need to see that addressed before any proposed solution can be implemented. We continue to engage with both Governments to find a way forward, because it will require collaboration across different agencies.

Dr Aiken: I make a declaration of interest for my previous role as the chief executive of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce, when I was trying to get the rights across the whole of Ireland and, indeed, across the whole of the United Kingdom, but those are commercial rights. Minister, have you had any indication of the cost of compensation that would likely go to the commercial operators because that will be a commercial decision? It has nothing to do with IP. It is a commercial decision.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I have not had an estimation of costs. As the Ofcom report alluded, a number of issues need to be resolved. Commercial rights will be one of them, but there are other technical issues also, and that is why we are trying to convene the different parties to find a way forward to address the issue.

Dr Archibald: Invest NI is progressing its regional strategy by strengthening the capacity, capability and leadership of its regional office network. That supports my ambition for greater regional balance and will help Invest NI to become more embedded locally and more accessible to businesses across the North. Additional staff have been recruited across all its regional teams, including five new heads of regional business, providing stronger local leadership and ensuring that regional priorities and opportunities are represented within Invest NI and my Department.

Strengthening Invest NI's regional network is an important element of the subregional economic plan. Following the appointment of a new head of regional business for the north-west, I was delighted to announce last week that Invest NI's new north-west office will be located at Ebrington Plaza. That will increase Invest NI's visibility and accessibility and provide a strong base for engagement with local businesses and inward investors. That enhanced regional presence is supported by new approaches such as "Ambition to Grow", the business innovation grant, and "Groundwork for Growth", which are helping more businesses to pursue growth, innovation and new markets.

Invest NI's regional offices are working closely with councils and partners through local economic partnerships (LEPs), providing expertise and support to maximise the impact of the £45 million regional economy fund and ensure that investment reflects local priorities.

Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Minister. It is very much welcome that we now have a head of regional business and offices in Derry, which recognises the strong focus on addressing regional imbalance by you and your Department. Magee is also critical to that. Will the Minister provide an update on the number of student placements at Magee?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Student numbers at the Magee campus are expected to increase again in this academic year. The vice chancellor or one of the senior team mentioned a figure of 6,750 in 2026-27. That would represent an increase of around 27% since the return of the Executive and the highest ever number of students in Derry, with final enrolment numbers to be confirmed by Ulster University in December.

The progress at Magee has not happened by accident. Since the restoration of the Executive, expanding Magee has been a clear priority for me, and my Department has backed that ambition through investment in additional student places and measures to widen participation and support sustainable growth. That is important progress, but there is clearly more to do. The expansion of Magee remains a top priority for me, and my commitment to the long-standing ambition to grow the campus to 10,000 students remains unchanged.

Mr Martin: Minister, with regard to the wider work of Invest Northern Ireland, will you outline the reasons why my North Down constituency has one of the lowest number of Invest NI-supported jobs across Northern Ireland, and will you instruct senior Invest Northern Ireland officials to meet me and business representative in North Down to discuss that very concerning issue?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. One of the most important ways in which we can support businesses is through the local economic partnerships, which identify local priorities and support businesses to achieve their objectives. Invest NI in the Member's constituency will be represented on the area's LEP.

I do not have to instruct Invest NI to engage with the Member — I am sure that it would be more than happy to do so — but I am happy to facilitate his request.

Ms McLaughlin: The latest Invest NI figures show that Belfast secured 58% of supported new jobs — in the region of 2,700 — and that, by comparison, Derry secured 6·5% of those new jobs: totalling about 240. Minister, are you disappointed by that, given your commitment to regional balance? Is it fair? What will you do to ensure that next year's figures do not reflect the figures for last year and this year?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I know that she is committed to regional balance. I am sure that she would agree that jobs are not the only measure of progress in achieving greater regional balance, albeit they are an important one. Invest NI is making progress in that regard, but it will take time. Nobody in the Chamber or in the business world underestimates the significant challenges that we face across the economy. Most of them are beyond our control, so we need to ensure that we control what we can control, and that is why it is important that we have prioritised regional balance and backed that up with the subregional economic plan and the regional economy fund.

I fully expect the figures to tick upwards in the coming years. My emphasis on the priority of regional balance is reflected in Invest NI's business plan, and I expect to see results against that plan.

Dr Archibald: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 6 and 7 together.

I welcome the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) report, which recognises the distinct characteristics of the home heating oil market here, including our greater reliance on home heating oil compared with that in Britain, and sets out recommendations to strengthen consumer protections in the market. I am supportive of the CMA's recommendations, and further work will be undertaken to determine what an appropriate and proportionate regulatory framework should look like in practice. It will address, for example, how protections can be strengthened while ensuring that any measures reflect the characteristics of the local market, support effective competition and provide value for customers.

I met CMA officials on 15 October to discuss the report's findings and recommendations and to set out my proposed way forward. The meeting provided a valuable opportunity to explore the practical considerations associated with taking the recommendations forward and developing an appropriate approach here. I intend to set out my proposed approach to the CMA's recommendations in greater detail through a statement to the Assembly. I will continue to engage with relevant stakeholders as the work develops.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for her answer. She has given us some hope that protection may be on the way for consumers. Given that those consumers represent two thirds of households here and rely on the home heating oil market, which does not have the oversight that is provided for the gas and electricity markets, is she minded to extend the Utility Regulator's remit to cover home heating oil? If that is not possible, will she explain why those consumers should go without protection?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. To be clear, the CMA did not recommend price regulation or economic regulation of home heating oil; it recommended an appropriate regulatory framework to support better consumer protection and redress. We are looking at the most appropriate way to ensure that that happens. Part of my discussion with the CMA related to the role of the Consumer Council and Trading Standards Service and to making sure that the framework that we put in place does not burden consumers with additional costs but ensures that they have the necessary protections. I am working to make sure that that is the case and continue to engage with the CMA.

Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for her answer. How will people here benefit as a result of the £100 payment that is being made to help households in England with their energy costs?

Dr Archibald: That measure was announced in the British Government's autumn Budget last week. I want to see that payment made to households here as quickly as possible. Obviously, any decision on how Barnett consequentials arising from the Budget are allocated is a matter for the Executive, and the funding can only be made available once we have a Budget agreed. Subject to those Executive decisions and the necessary funding being made available, my preference, as I say, is to get that support out to households as quickly as possible. Many families face significant cost-of-living pressures. My Department has a scheme in place that could be a potential mechanism to help deliver that support. That tried-and-tested mechanism was recently used to deliver the household electricity discount scheme, which provided much-needed support to households with their electricity costs. Obviously, decisions about how to use and target the funding are a matter for the Executive, and it will be for us to discuss that in the time ahead.

Mr Harvey: What steps has the Economy Minister taken to identify the number of homes in Northern Ireland that rely on home heating oil and to get a constituency breakdown to highlight the areas in which homes and businesses face a specific risk?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. One of the things that were reflected in the CMA's report was the level of detail in what we know about households that rely on home heating oil and the potential for a register of those households. We are looking at that. We have to be realistic about how effective that could be, because there are constant changes, with people moving to different heating sources. We want to make sure that we have something in place that protects the most vulnerable households in particular. That is our focus in the first instance.

Mr Speaker: We must move on to topical questions.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. From her membership of the Economy Committee, she will be aware that the universities are working on the basis of contingency allocations. That puts everybody in a difficult place, and the Budget uncertainty is certainly not helpful in trying to plan the way forward or trying to put our universities on a more sustainable footing, which is where I very much want us to get to. I assure the Member that I will do everything possible to ensure that that is the case. It is why I, along with Executive colleagues, continue to make the case for a fair and sustainable funding settlement for the Executive. Our universities and colleges are a crucial in underpinning our economic performance. It is really important that we continue to ensure that we protect investment in skills and in people. That is the case that I am making around the Executive table.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister. Doing "everything possible" means agreeing a Budget. That should be the number-one priority for the Executive. This is not an isolated issue. We have hundreds of jobs at risk at Ulster University. The expansion of Magee remains uncertain, given its financial envelope. As we heard earlier, thousands of student places in further education have been lost. It is a complete and utter mess.

Minister, how can you claim to be building a stronger economy when the very institutions that drive economic growth are being undermined so significantly by the lack of a Budget and the lack of concentration on what should be priorities for the Government?

Dr Archibald: As I have indicated, it remains my priority, as it does, I think, for everybody around the Executive table, to get a Budget, but it has to be a Budget that works. We have successfully negotiated additional funding for the Executive for our public services. From my perspective, it is still not enough, but we have to try to find a way forward. The Executive will meet tomorrow to discuss the issue. The top priority for all of us has to be getting a Budget in place.

As I have said, I fully recognise the important role of our universities and colleges. What we see is the result of a decade of underfunding of our public services and not being funded to our level of need, and we have been successful in making that case. We have had the British Government recognise that on two occasions. They need to follow through and ensure that the Executive are properly funded. We are not asking for something special; we are asking to be treated fairly and in the way that Scotland and Wales are treated. If we had what Wales has, we would have an additional £1 billion in our Budget, and, if we had what Scotland has, we would have an additional £3 billion in our Budget. We ask only for fair treatment. It is incumbent on us as Ministers to continue to make the case on behalf of the people whom we represent and the public services that we are trying to deliver.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I have had numerous conversations with my British ministerial counterparts about energy costs and, particularly, the fact that some of the schemes that they take forward that are designed to support businesses do not easily translate across to here. From my perspective, it is vital that our businesses remain competitive and are not undermined by support mechanisms that cannot be delivered here. I discussed that earlier with regard to the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme. I continue to make that case, and we are working to deliver that. Later this week, I will meet the single electricity market (SEM) committee. The cost of energy to people across the island and the structure of the energy market that contributes to that will be among the top issues that we will discuss. We all recognise the current pressures on consumers and businesses, and we need to take steps to address those.

Miss McIlveen: I appreciate the response, but, as the Minister will know, a recent House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report highlighted that Northern Ireland businesses faced the highest energy costs in the United Kingdom and cannot access certain reliefs and exemptions that are available in GB. One plant was identified as paying 40% more in energy costs. I appreciate what she has said, but will she give a little more detail and outline what measures she has secured to address the disadvantage and when businesses are likely to see the benefit of those?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member, and I appreciate that she has recognised the challenges in translating some of those support schemes across. We are delivering the energy-intensive industries support; we are working towards putting in place the equivalent of the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme; and recently, in response to demand from industry and to utilise local resources, we published the biomethane consultation and are seeking to utilise the renewable heat incentive (RHI) annually managed expenditure (AME) to support the development of a biomethane support scheme. All of those measures are to try to respond to the needs of local businesses in a way that best fits. However, I certainly recognise that there are structural challenges in the energy market that we must try to address. We need to work with the British and Irish Governments in that regard.

One of the things that happened as a result of Brexit was the decoupling of the electricity market east and west. That has added costs to consumers here. Ongoing negotiations between the British Government and the EU will, hopefully, see progress on that issue. However, considerable work is required to address the costs.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question, and I am sorry to hear about his constituent. If he would like to correspond with my office, we will look at the issue.

To be clear, we did not cut the funding for our colleges. They are working to contingency allocations, and that is a direct result of not having a Budget in place. It is deeply regrettable, but so is a Budget that does not meet the needs of our public services and the people whom we represent, which is why the Executive have continued to make the case to the British Government. We have been successful in getting additional funding, albeit it still does not put us where we need to be. However, we will continue to pursue that, and the Executive will try to get to the best place that we can.

Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the Budget situation and the need for more money. I get that, but it is about the need for prioritisation in the Department. Can we look at the people who are doing a course and have had their funding removed so that they are not stuck in the middle of a course, losing the opportunity? If a person has already started a course, can we look at a way of allowing them to complete the course, get back into employment and make a contribution to our economy?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Again, to be clear, it is not a case of prioritisation by the Department: we do not currently have a Budget to make decisions on the basis of priorities. The colleges are working simply to the contingency allocations that they have. Certainly, I hope that we will have a Budget in the near future and that we are in a position to look at the priorities. It is where I would like us to be.

As I said, I am happy for the Member to correspond with me, and we will look at the particular issue that he identified.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Yes, absolutely: it is my belief that workers here should have the same opportunity to benefit from a modern statutory employment rights framework, including trade union access, but it needs to be tailored to our local economy. The new arrangements in Britain are similar to the approach that I proposed in the 'good jobs' Bill. They are an important step forward for workers' voices and representation, giving qualifying trade unions a statutory right to seek physical or digital access to workplaces. Our proposed model builds on that approach and, in many respects, improves on it, with a phased introduction to give smaller employers more time to prepare and a stronger emphasis on standards of conduct through the process. A key part of our proposal was a requirement for all involved to comply with a code of practice for constructive workplace relationships that would have been co-designed with businesses and trade unions.

Frankly, it is a matter of deep regret that the DUP continues to block the 'good jobs' Bill, ostensibly on the basis of rights that are now available in Britain. Of course, last Thursday, Gavin Robinson publicly said that the DUP’s strategy in the Executive for months has been to politically sabotage and frustrate anything to do with rights and equality.

Miss Hargey: Building on the area of workers' rights, can the Minister give an update on safe leave for victims of domestic abuse?

Dr Archibald: Last Friday, 23 October, I published the policy response to the domestic abuse safe leave consultation, which set out how that important new employment right will operate in practice. It will provide vital time and security for those experiencing domestic abuse when they need it most. Eligible employees and workers, whether full-time or part-time, will be entitled to 10 days of safe leave in each leave year that will be paid at their normal rate of pay. The entitlement will apply from the first day of employment and may be taken flexibly, including in half days. I remain committed to putting the safe leave regulations in place before the end of the mandate, and the regulations will, of course, be subject to Committee scrutiny and Assembly processes.

I intend to write to the Committee shortly to engage in the scrutiny process. Subject to that, I intend that the new right will come into operation in April 2027.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her warm welcome for the new office, which will, we hope, open in January. It will provide an important base for Invest NI and political representatives to engage with local businesses, including potential investors.

As for the opportunity for particular sectors, the north-west has seen significant growth in recent years in advanced manufacturing, fintech and financial services in particular. We will seek to build on the strengths in the local area and, of course, to look at opportunities that are available through the growth deals.

I hope that the new office will support the East Derry constituency as well as the Foyle constituency. We have huge opportunities to work across the north-west, and there are already strong partnerships across our two chambers and with Letterkenny chamber. We have a really strong proposition that we can build on and maximise the potential.

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

Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As we enter the period of reflection for the sacrifice and service given by our armed forces, I am genuinely shocked that, throughout Parliament Buildings, there is not one poppy box collecting for the Royal British Legion. Why is the Assembly not collecting this year? Was that decision taken by the Assembly Commission? I trust that you, as chair of the Assembly Commission, will take whatever steps you need to take to ensure that poppies will be on sale from tomorrow onwards.

Mr Speaker: No such decision was taken by the Assembly Commission, so I will investigate it.

I ask Members to take their ease while we move to the next item of business.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I put the Question prior to Question Time, but, as the result was unclear, I will put it again.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, take your ease until we move on to the next item of business. Thank you.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I beg to move

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

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will speak first in my capacity as the Chairperson of the Education Committee to propose the motion. The inquiry into RSE arose from the Committee reception in February 2024 of delegated legislation on mandatory curriculum content on abortion and contraception and the circumstances for parental withdrawal from that teaching. A range of views and evidence was heard in relation to that matter at that time, and, rather than vote down the delegated legislation, the Committee agreed, in May 2024, to carry out a flexible mini-inquiry to make recommendations on RSE provision in Northern Ireland. We heard considerably more evidence than first anticipated and the inquiry became slightly less mini, but it was felt that it was important to hear the evidence that reflected the level of stakeholder interest in the subject. I record my thanks to everyone who gave evidence to the Committee.

The inquiry examined RSE provision in Northern Ireland schools, the recent legislative developments and whether reforms were needed. Evidence was gathered from a range of stakeholders, including, crucially, a substantial number of young people, teachers, schools and academics, community organisations and a wide range of other bodies. In its evidence taking, the Committee found that there was broad consensus across the board that RSE was deemed to be important for children's well-being, safeguarding and healthy relationships, as well as for protection from exploitation and abuse, but that there was significant inconsistency in the provision of RSE across schools in Northern Ireland.

Feedback from pupils in particular was that they received very different experiences depending on the school that they happened to attend. Many of them reported that they had left school feeling that the RSE provision that they had received was inadequate. Young people were keen to see more consistent and comprehensive teaching with greater focus on topics including consent, healthy relationships, online safety and sexual health. They were also clear, as were other witnesses who gave evidence, that there was a desire to see RSE clearly timetabled as a discrete subject rather than dispersed across different areas of the curriculum.

The inquiry identified a number of weaknesses in monitoring and accountability in relation to RSE delivery, the quality of provision and rates of withdrawal. Witnesses also highlighted the need for RSE to be more inclusive and more reflective of the experiences of all young people in our education system, including LGBTQIA+ pupils and those with disabilities. The Committee considered children's rights to information and safeguarding alongside parental interests in the area and the role of school ethos in delivering RSE.

The Committee reached a number of conclusions and brought forward a range of recommendations, all of which are available in the Committee report, so I will not go through them one by one. In essence, the overview is that RSE provision was found to be inconsistent; that there is a need to improve teacher training and confidence in the subject area; that young people's voices should play a much greater role in shaping policy and practice; that future provision should be child-centred, age-appropriate, evidence-based and inclusive; and that the overarching aim of RSE should be to ensure that every child has access to high-quality RSE that helps them stay safe, build healthy relationships and make informed decisions throughout their life.

I note that this debate takes place in the context of a draft curriculum framework having come forward from the Department as part of the curriculum review and that much of the material that falls into this space has been placed in the personal, social, civic and careers (PSCC) subject area that has recently been out for consultation. We still do not have a discrete subject area in which to house RSE-related material, and there is a risk that crucial material about protecting children and young people could be squeezed out in favour of other areas, often due to timetabling pressures but also due to issues of teacher confidence. It would be good to hear from the Minister about how those risks will be avoided.

I note that there was not unanimous agreement on the report. Two Committee members, David Brooks and Julie Middleton, did not fully endorse it. There were a number of areas, which they can speak to in their remarks, that they were not content to endorse from a party perspective. However, there was unanimous agreement in the Committee, and I hope that all members will agree, that RSE was critical to providing safeguarding education for our children and protecting them from abuse and exploitation. If nothing else, the fact that that was so clearly noted and agreed by everyone is a positive, and I hope that today's debate can reflect the level of consensus that we reached in Committee.

I do not want to get into huge detail about some of the issues because I am conscious that victims and survivors of abuse may be watching the debate. We should all be mindful of that in our remarks today. There was a debate in Committee over a number of months about whether we wanted to table a motion for the House to debate, but, given some high-profile cases and the increased awareness of how abusers operate and the risks that our children are exposed to, we agreed that it was important to table the motion from the point of view of ensuring that our children and young people can be protected.

The Committee report presents in a balanced way all the views and evidence that we heard, and I commend the Committee's constructive position and recommendations to the House.

I will now say a few words in my capacity as Alliance spokesperson for education. I am conscious that I am up against it for time, so I will do my best to get through the material that I have.

At the outset, I will focus on the Committee's engagement with children and young people. We heard extensively from children and young people in the evidence that we took, and, for me, it is simply not acceptable that young people should be consistently telling us that the RSE that they received at the point when they were leaving school was, in many cases, not fit for purpose. We heard examples of really good practice, but we need to be honest that our children and young people deserve better. Children grow up in a world completely different to that which most of us in this Chamber experienced in terms of the range and risks of harms, particularly in the online space, that they are exposed to. Those are risks and challenges that I did not face growing up, and it is vital that, as policymakers, we do not bury our heads in the sand. We are not designing an approach to RSE based on the world as we may like it to exist, but rather the world as it is, with all that complexity and all that risk. We must be about equipping children and young people with evidence-based information to make informed choices in this area. That is not something to be feared. It is something that we should all be able to support.

I will focus on some of the specific recommendations of the report, and two in particular. The report was clear:

I just want to reference that. On anything that we are doing on policy development around children and young people, they must be placed at the heart of that development, so a child-centred approach to RSE is absolutely essential. However, there is also the element that relates to parents, and there were two recommendations that were clear that policies in relation to RSE:

and that there should be

To be clear, as I have had some feedback from the teaching profession, we are not about picking out individual teachers to say, "This teacher will be delivering the material". This is about third parties coming into schools. Parents should be made aware of that, and that material should be shared, because the evidence that we heard was really clear: when parents are engaged and on board with this, the delivery of RSE is far more effective. That is a really important recommendation.

I come very briefly to the issue of the right to withdraw from RSE. The Committee report tried to recognise that there is real parental concern around some of this and a strong desire from parents to be involved in RSE delivery, so we were clear that we would like to see that right of withdrawal being phased out over time as the RSE curriculum moves towards a more fit-for-purpose iteration that is genuinely age-appropriate, evidence-based and comprehensive. However, we were very clear that, when it comes to material in relation to safeguarding and protection of children from abuse, harm and sexual exploitation, there should be no right of withdrawal.

We must all be clear about that, because, when I was growing up, the material that I was given at school was often about avoiding stranger danger — the idea that some stranger would come into the community, take you away from your school and your family, and expose you to harm. Thankfully, those incidences are very rare. We should be vigilant in that space, but all of us in the Chamber know that, sadly, the main threat of abuse to most of our children and young people comes from people whom they know and trust. Therefore, they must receive material that adequately protects them from that threat of harm, and we must allow them to access material in school in an age-appropriate way that gives them the right language to speak about their own bodies and to understand boundaries, consent and what a healthy relationship is like. If there is anyone in the Chamber who feels that that is not appropriate business for schools to be educating our children on, I am deeply concerned by that. I hope that we can all get behind this today to support that element of the report. I have no interest in withdrawing parents' involvement in their child's education. I am a parent myself.

There are many more aspects to this that I will not have time to cover. I had expected more time.

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

Mr Mathison: I hope that the motion will receive support today in the House.

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

Mrs Mason: I am really glad that, despite objections, we are here today to discuss the findings of this really important report.

I too genuinely struggle to understand why anyone would oppose children and young people's being taught about healthy relationships. Why would we not want our children to understand what a healthy, respectful relationship looks like? Why would we not want them to recognise abuse, understand consent, know their boundaries and have the confidence to speak up and ask for help? Surely those are the very things that every parent wants for their child, yet here we are, still debating whether children should have access to that vital education.

Throughout our engagement on the issue, we heard from so many children and young people, and, honestly, their message could not have been clearer. Every single young person from whom we heard wanted access to the information. They were not asking for anything unreasonable; they simply wanted to be informed, prepared and equipped to navigate relationships safely. It is about time that we started listening to them.

The reality is that too many of our children are being failed. RSE is not simply about sex or sexuality, although that is what some people want you to believe; it is about respect, boundaries, equality and recognising harmful behaviour. Of course, it must be age-appropriate. Nobody is suggesting that a primary 7 child should receive the same education as a 16-year-old. However, let us be very clear: age-appropriate education should never become an excuse for withholding information that children need to keep themselves safe. If we are genuinely serious about tackling violence against women and girls, we have to be serious about the role that education plays in preventing it. We cannot condemn violence, coercive control and misogyny while failing to equip the next generation with the knowledge to recognise and challenge those very behaviours. We cannot wait until harmful attitudes are deeply embedded before we start addressing them. Prevention should not start when someone becomes a victim; it should begin in our classrooms.

The education must be inclusive. LGBTQ+ young people must not be left feeling invisible or excluded because the education that they receive fails to reflect their lives. At present, what a young person learns can depend entirely on which school they attend. Some receive comprehensive education, but others receive very little.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for giving way. She mentioned inclusivity. The report, under "Stakeholder Engagement and Inclusivity", states:

Will you expand on what sort of schools are limiting RSE when it comes to ethos?

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

Mrs Mason: Peter, you were there during the RSE inquiry. You heard all of the evidence that we heard. It was very clear that this education is completely dependent on which school you attend, which teacher is teaching it and whether there is time left in the curriculum to give out that information. That is not good enough. I do not want that for my children.

I have to make it very clear that this is not a criticism of teachers. Teachers told us that they feel unsupported and ill-equipped to deliver that education. They need clear guidance, proper training and a consistent curriculum. Instead, schools can pick and choose what they deliver, leaving children to deal with the consequences. When we fail to provide that education, young people do not simply stop asking those questions; they turn to social media — we heard time and again about how dangerous that can be — the internet and their peers, where misinformation and harmful attitudes can flourish. Why on earth would we leave our children to navigate those issues alone when we have the responsibility to give them the information that they need? We need a consistent, evidence-based approach to RSE. That should not be controversial; it should be the absolute minimum that we expect from an education system that claims to put our children first.

The message from the report to the Education Minister is very simple: for once, listen to our young people and teachers, and stop allowing our children to be failed by a system that is not meeting their needs. We cannot keep talking about protecting children while denying them the very knowledge that could help to protect them. These are essential life skills. Our young people have told us exactly what they need. It is time that we stopped talking over them and started listening to them. Our children deserve nothing less.

Mr Brooks: As the Chair alluded to, although we agree on some elements of the report, my party and I are not able to endorse it in its entirety.

The time devoted to the RSE mini-inquiry during this mandate was excessive and disproportionate when viewed against many of the other pressing challenges faced in our education system. I recognise that the Chair approached the inquiry with a genuine intent to find areas of agreement; however, given the fundamentally different views, as he has said, that became difficult. To a degree, that was foreseen from the start.

Let me clear, however, that there are areas where we do share common ground. We all want children to be safeguarded; we all want young people to understand how to report abuse; and we all support efforts to reduce violence against women and girls and to promote healthy and respectful relationships. However, this report goes further than that. In our view, it risks undermining parental rights, weakening school ethos and narrowing rather than broadening the discussion about relationships, family life and personal responsibility.

For us, the principle that parents are the primary educators of their children is fundamental: it is recognised in law and is deeply rooted in our education system. Even amongst those who advocate different approaches, there is broad recognition that parental engagement and understanding is essential. That is why we oppose recommendations that seek to directly or indirectly remove parental withdrawal rights from RSE. Those rights are not widely exercised and are not typically used to obstruct education. They exist as an important safeguard that recognises the responsibilities that parents hold for the welfare and upbringing of their children. Different families hold different convictions, faith perspectives and values.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. I hope that the Member will note that, in my remarks, I highlighted my view that the essential aspect of delivering RSE is ensuring that parents are engaged and understand the material that is being taught and presented to their children to be able to continue those conversations at home in a constructive and positive way. Given that, will the Member agree that we have to be honest that many children are, unfortunately, victims of sexual abuse and exploitation by trusted adults in their lives, including, at times, their parents? Will he agree that saying that parents can have a blanket right of withdrawal from this material potentially places children at risk and that we need to be alive to that risk and do something proactive about it?

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

Mr Brooks: I thank the Committee Chair for his intervention. My very next paragraph says that there are age-appropriate safeguarding elements that every child should receive. I have consistently said at the Committee that education relating to abuse and ability to report must reach all children, but that is very different from insisting that parents have no meaningful say when it comes to wider questions of sexual ethics or elements such as gender ideology. Parents, not government, should remain the primary decision makers in the upbringing of children.

We are equally concerned about recommendations that would diminish the ability of schools to reflect their distinctive ethos. Boards of governors currently have a statutory duty to ensure that school policies reflect the values and characters of the communities that they serve. This report points towards a far more centralised and prescriptive approach. In particular, it seeks to impose approaches to highly contested subjects, including questions around gender ideology or abortion, while giving less regard to the individual ethos of schools.

Mr Martin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr Brooks: I cannot at the moment. I am trying to make progress. Thanks, Peter.

We should be honest about this. These are not settled matters. They are the subject of significant public debate, both in the Chamber and far beyond it. Good education should expose young people to differing viewpoints, encourage respectful discussion, develop critical thinking and not present contested ideas as though they are beyond question or debate. Many parents and teachers have genuine concerns about how those topics are taught. Those voices deserve respect and engagement, not dismissal.

One of the most striking features of the report is what it leaves out. In a report focused on relationships, well-being and child welfare, marriage receives little meaningful attention. Likewise, it is insufficient in its recognition of the benefits that stable family life can provide for children. Surely we can acknowledge the simple truth that strong and committed family relationships offer children security, support and stability. If we are serious about promoting healthy relationships, those realities deserve greater recognition.

There are also serious concerns about how abortion is addressed. Whatever one's personal view, abortion remains one of the most profound and contested moral issues of our time, yet the report largely approaches it through the lens of rights, with insufficient recognition of the ethical questions involved, the reality of fetal development or the alternatives such as adoption and support for women facing difficult circumstances. On issues of such significance, education should be balanced, thoughtful, pluralistic and reflective of the fact that deeply held views exist on all sides of the debate.

Finally, the report gives too little consideration to the rights and freedoms of teachers. The Committee heard evidence relating to conscience and religious freedom, yet the report's recommendations offer no meaningful protection for educators who may hold sincere religious convictions. If we are serious about inclusion and diversity, that principle must extend to teachers as well as pupils. We all want children to be safe and to be equipped to navigate modern challenges. We all want effective teaching on safeguarding, healthy relationships, online harms and violence against women and girls, but safeguarding need not be the enemy of parental rights. Promoting respect does not require us to marginalise faith perspectives, and providing high-quality RSE does not require schools to abandon their faith ethos.

I am coming to the end of my allotted time, so I hope that colleagues will raise other points.

Mr Burrows: There are some things in the report that are admirable. There is broad consensus that people want age-appropriate, factual and accurate guidance and teaching on relationships and sexuality education. I know the dangers that young people face. My RE and sexual education teacher, Dr Brown, was a paedophile who abused many of my friends, so I do know the risks. There is abuse in homes across the land, where, sadly, the greatest danger to young people comes not from strangers but from family and friend connections.

There are some things in the report that I cannot endorse, however. Some of the issues that we talk about are, in fact, highly contested. Gender ideology, for example, is a highly contested space. I have always been on record as saying that we should be respectful to everyone and that nobody should be discriminated against, harassed, made fun of or bullied because of their particular gender ideology. It is, however, perfectly legitimate to hold the view that there are only two biological sexes: male and female. For example, in the interests of fairness and safety, it would be unfair for biological men ever to take part in sport against women. A biological man should never be housed in a women's prison. That is a contested issue. We cannot simply say that there is a correct answer, because there are differing views. It is therefore important that ideology is not brought into the classroom when discussing such matters.

That brings me on to recommendation 7 in the report, which is about withdrawing the rights of parents to take their children out of RSE. That is not acceptable, and it flies in the face of the movement of many of the same people who want parents to have the right to withdraw their children from religious education or collective worship but not from RSE. I distinguish that very clearly from, I think, recommendation 18, which is that no child should be withdrawn from any safeguarding lessons about child exploitation or abuse. It is vital that we make that compulsory. It would be wrong to hand agency to a parent or guardian to take their child out of education on how to protect themselves when they could theoretically be the perpetrator, so I support that recommendation.

For me, however, one of the things that flies in the face of rationality is that much of the poison that our young people are getting, particularly if it is causing extreme misogyny, comes from their devices and screens. Often, those who are the biggest proponents of RSE and the contents of this report are the least supportive of any attempts to take away or supervise devices that are in the hands of our young people.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: In a moment, Mr Baker. They are also the least supportive of any attempts to take tough action against those pupils who engage in misogynistic behaviour towards teachers. I have listened to teachers who have told me that they get called all the misogynistic names of the day and that there is a lack of support when it comes to disciplining or excluding pupils. In fact, many on the Benches opposite wanted to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility, which would have allowed the indecent assault of a teacher by anyone up to the age of 14. That is where there is irrationality and illogicality in all of this.

In summary, I support high-quality, clear, accurate and factual relationships and sexuality education that equips young people and gives them facts instead of myths.

However, I cannot support restricting the rights of parents to decide what their children hear. I cannot support gender ideology being forced on children in what is a very contested space, but I do support no child being allowed to be withdrawn from education on their risk of exploitation. The whole issue of violence against women and girls should be taught at a very early stage, as should respect for women, which is waning in society generally. For the reasons that I have outlined, however, I cannot support the motion in its entirety.

Ms Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to support the motion. I thank our Committee Chairperson for moving the motion and every witness who gave evidence to the mini-inquiry. Above all, I thank the children and young people who informed us of the dire need for this education. As can be seen from the debate, the Committee certainly did not agree on everything, but, regardless of our differences, there was common ground, which I feel is still there today, on safeguarding, consent and ending violence against women and girls. I would like to speak to that common ground, because the motion rightly recognises the role of RSE in helping young people to recognise sexual abuse, safeguarding needs and exploitation, and that is how we can change the lives of young people.

I will list a number of statistics because they are relevant and there is a lot of power in data. Domestic abuse incidents are up by 6%. There were over 31,000 domestic abuse incidents in the 12 months up to March 2026. On average, police in Northern Ireland respond to a domestic abuse incident every 17 minutes. Oftentimes, abuse occurs up to 35 times before the victims report it to police. Those statistics relate to RSE, because RSE is a strong preventative measure. When Ulster University surveyed women for the Executive Office, 98% of respondents said that they had experienced violence or abuse, and half of that 98% said that they experienced abuse before the age of 11. Put that in the context of this debate: that is a P7 or first-year pupil. It is shocking, but, for many, it is the norm, because they do not know any different, and that is where the power of relationships and sexuality education comes in. Further, Queen's University found that 73% of girls aged 12-17 had experienced violence. That starts not in adulthood but in childhood, and, therefore, so must our response with age-appropriate RSE.

Healthy relationships education is key. We have made strides in Northern Ireland when it comes to legislation on coercive control, but we need to get in early to educate and inform young people about what abuse looks and sounds like and how to express the fact that they are experiencing it. The motion notes concerns raised:

Those concerns are well-founded. The Education Committee was informed that, when 1,000 young people were asked whether RSE was adequate, only 35% said yes. The Committee heard from staff that they do not feel supported when talking about what are uncomfortable and awkward issues, regardless of age. For young people, receipt of that education is essentially a postcode lottery: that is not right and not fair. The age at which a child in Northern Ireland learns about consent depends entirely on which school gate they walk through, and that is not right.

The motion refers to helping young people to recognise abuse, and that recognition is truly everything. Years ago, in my capacity as an SDLP MLA, I set up a stall in Queen's University students' union to ask students about consent education and what they learned in school. Regardless of who they were or where they came from, their situation was the same: nobody felt that they had been given adequate information. They were learning it for the first time in adulthood, and that is just not right. Young people cannot report what they cannot recognise, and they cannot recognise what they have never been taught by name. That is the power of RSE.

Rightly, the motion recognises the online challenges and risks of the modern day. The concept of grooming has changed entirely with the growth and advancement of technology. Almost one in five of young men surveyed thought that posting sexual jokes or nasty comments about women online was acceptable, while four in 10 knew someone who had shared intimate images of a girl without her agreement. As other Members rightly said, if we do not teach our young people about respect, boundaries and the power of consent, the internet will get there first. Sadly, that is happening, and that is why the manosphere is going from strength to strength.

I urge Members to endorse the Committee's recommendations on putting the topics of consent and healthy relationships into every one of our classrooms. Children in Northern Ireland deserve to know how their bodies work, the dangers of coercion, the signs of abuse and how to be safe as they grow into adulthood and experience different relationships.

Violence against women and girls is so prevalent on this island. It is, sadly, something that is learned, but what is learned can be unlearned or, better still, never learned. Give our children the knowledge, give them the words and give them the confidence to recognise abuse and call it out. The SDLP strongly supports the motion.

Mr Baker: I know that the Minister and the DUP thought that the Education Committee was wasting its time on its inquiry, but nothing could be further from the truth, because it is clear that politicians across the Chamber are not listening to our young people. They should read the NI Youth Forum's report 'Your Voice, Our Future'. The number-one priority is ending violence against women and girls. What young people are telling us is that RSE is not good enough and that young men in particular turn to the internet and more dangerous places.

The round-table event that we held as part of our inquiry was one of the best that we have done because it allowed young people to open up about their experiences. They said that they were being exposed to language such as, "Women are less than men" and, "If you are ever rejected by a woman, it's her fault. It's her failings". That is what they are hearing. They want RSE in safe places such as schools and youth clubs from people they trust. They need that knowledge.

There has been a lot of talk about parental rights and a lot of talking down to young people. I hear people say, "We'll tell you what you should know", but that means leaving young people to the big, bad, dangerous world that lurks online. We should remind ourselves that Jeffrey Donaldson, now a convicted paedophile, previously delivered sex education lessons to teenagers through a church Sunday school. He also chaired a parliamentary group that lectured others on relationships, sexuality education, safeguarding and protecting children. The sheer hypocrisy is staggering: a man who presented himself as a protector of children was sexually abusing them. If ever there were a stark reminder of why children need comprehensive, age-appropriate relationships and sexuality education, that is it. Children must be equipped to recognise abuse, understand consent, challenge inappropriate behaviour and know where to turn for help.

I will quote Donaldson. He said that the British Government's approach of making RSE mandatory:

I wonder whether the DUP still supports the comments of its former leader. We cannot simply assume that every adult in a position of trust has a child's best interests at heart. Knowledge is protection, and denying children that knowledge leaves them more vulnerable to those who would exploit their innocence and trust.

Mrs Middleton: As a member of the Education Committee, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today's debate. Whilst we may have fundamental differences of belief, I believe, above all, that — I know that my party agrees — the rights and welfare of children should always be at the forefront of our work.

It is important to acknowledge that the Committee heard from a wide range of contributors, as has been mentioned, and that there were areas in which it was clear that there was common ground. We all want children to be safe. We all want our young people to understand appropriate boundaries, consent and what healthy relationships look like. We want them to be protected from sexual exploitation, abuse, bullying and online harm. I have no difficulty with supporting those objectives, which present areas in which there is considerable agreement.

Every child deserves to be safe; every child deserves to be protected from abuse, exploitation, coercion and bullying. Young people should understand consent, respect and the importance of healthy relationships. Those are principles that we can all agree on, regardless of our political or religious backgrounds. However, as my party has previously stated at the Education Committee — it is important that I reiterate this — while there are elements of the report that we support, we cannot support the report in its entirety. One of the greatest concerns is the need to recognise and respect the role of parents. Parents have a fundamental responsibility for the upbringing, development and welfare of their children. While schools have an important role to play in supporting parents, that role should not undermine or displace the rights and responsibilities of families. Parents must have confidence in what is being taught to their children, how it is being taught and who is delivering that education. It is imperative that that be transparent. I do not take the issue of abuse lightly. Some children will, vary sadly, face abuse at the hands of trusted adults, including their parents, and that sort of abuse is deplorable and disgusting. It is therefore important to note that, as a party, we are not against age-appropriate safeguarding conversations. My party and many parents believe, however, that there should be no expectation that parents simply accept material without knowing what their children are being exposed to. Often, that is when a trusted adult will end up saying or doing something that they should not.

With that in mind, we are particularly concerned about the recommendation to gradually phase out the right of parental withdrawal from RSE. That is not acceptable. I do not believe that the rights of parents should be treated as an obstacle to be removed. Northern Ireland has a diverse education system, with schools operating within different religious and educational traditions. Those traditions matter to families and communities alike.

Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Middleton: Not today, thank you.

We must be careful not to create a situation where a standardised curriculum becomes a mechanism for removing the legitimate influence of parents or disregarding the ethos of individual schools. There is a distinction between ensuring that children receive vital safeguarding information and requiring every child to receive every aspect of sensitive RSE in exactly the same way, which I hope will never be the case.

Supporting parental rights does not mean opposing education. Children need age-appropriate information at age-appropriate stages of their development. Education must be factual, scientifically accurate and appropriate for the stage that the pupil is at. It must also avoid the introduction of contested ideological positions as though they are universally accepted scientific facts. In particular, we believe that the issues surrounding abortion and gender ideology require careful consideration. The DUP has a clear pro-life position, and I do not believe that the Assembly should lose sight of the deeply held convictions of many parents and families on those matters. There must be room for respectful discussion of differing beliefs without children being directed towards a particular moral or political position.

I believe that there is an opportunity for genuine consensus on the teaching of safeguarding. The evidence presented to the Committee —.

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

Mrs Middleton: Thank you. I was going to keep going.

Mrs Guy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. I echo the words of others in thanking those who contributed to the inquiry and the clerking team and the wider Committee team for the work that went into the inquiry.

The last time that RSE was debated in the Chamber was in April 2024. That was before I became an MLA, so, in preparation for today's debate, I spent some time reading the Hansard report of the previous debate. Given the changed context in which we considering the issue today, it is my hope that, as a collective, we can do better.

The context in which we are having this debate has changed. Following the conviction of Jeffrey Donaldson, it would be wrong for the Assembly not to reflect on the lessons that arise from the experiences of his victims, particularly in relation to children's understanding of relationships, boundaries, consent, abuse and where they can go for help. Let me be absolutely clear: those crimes were Jeffrey Donaldson's crimes, and he alone was responsible for them.

I am not seeking to cast any shadow over other members of the DUP by referring to their former leader, nor am I suggesting that RSE could have prevented those crimes, but good RSE is a vital part of a wider safeguarding framework. It gives children and young people the language to recognise behaviour that is wrong, to understand that it is not their fault and to know where they can turn for support. One victim spoke of their regret at not telling anyone, saying, "I didn't know the words. I knew it was wrong". That should give us all pause for thought.

That is why I urge Members to approach the debate with sensitivity and seriousness and, above all, to keep the interests of children and young people at its centre. There will be disagreements today on certain aspects of RSE — we heard those differences during the Committee's inquiry — but I want to focus on two areas where progress is necessary and urgent: safeguarding children and tackling violence against women and girls. One of the findings of the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) review of the preventative curriculum was that some schools avoid or do not cover in sufficient depth sensitive issues such as child sexual abuse. In many cases, that is not because teachers are unwilling but because they lack the confidence, training or resources to do so effectively. The reality is that we cannot afford to leave gaps in that area. We continue to see unacceptable levels of violence against women and girls. Thirty-one women and girls were killed in Northern Ireland between 2020 and September 2026. We know that misogynistic attitudes are being amplified online and influencing young people. We know that many girls continue to face degrading, even abusive, behaviour in our school settings. In my constituency, young women have shared deeply concerning experiences with me. In one case, girls spoke about a list created by male pupils ranking them according to how likely they were to be raped. The existence of such attitudes should concern us all.

Of course, RSE alone will not solve those problems. Schools cannot do the work in isolation, but quality RSE can help to challenge harmful attitudes, promote healthy relationships and ensure that young people understand consent, respect and personal boundaries. That is why I believe that there are some areas that should form part of a minimum entitlement for every pupil, regardless of which school they attend. That should include recognising abuse, safeguarding, healthy relationships, consent and the prevention of violence against women and girls. The Committee also recommends that there should be no right of withdrawal from education directly concerned with protecting children from abuse and exploitation. That is a sensible recommendation.

We should strive to make those elements of the curriculum the very best that they can be. If we get it right, we give children and young people the knowledge and confidence to understand healthy relationships, recognise harmful behaviour and know where to turn for help. We cannot prevent every harm, but we can do more to make children safer, challenge harmful behaviours and give young people the tools that they need to protect themselves and others. I hope that those ambitions are ambitions on which the Assembly can come together and unite behind.

Ms Sheerin: I appreciate the opportunity to welcome the report. Members will know that I do not sit on the Education Committee and was not involved in the work that went into gathering the data that brought us the report. I am my party's justice spokesperson.

We all know the phrase, "Prevention is better than cure", and we know — other Members have referred to it — that we have a problem in the North of Ireland with violence against women and girls. It is an epidemic. We have one of the worst rates of femicide in Europe, and we can make clear links between misogynistic attitudes and abuse and the fact that we have so many women murdered; they are strong factors in it. As the Member who has just spoken said, 31 women have been murdered here since 2020. We know that most women who are murdered are murdered by people they knew, oftentimes a partner or ex-partner.

I was not surprised by the recommendations in the report — it all seems fairly sensible — but I am surprised by some of the regressive attitudes and objections that we have had presented here by a party that, in recent weeks, has talked endlessly about the importance of the rule of law. If you do not like a right that is enshrined in law, that does not remove people's right to access it. The idea that we should not inform people about access to services because it does not fit with somebody's moral compass or personal ethics takes us backwards into a dangerous space. We saw, in this country, what a lack of information did to women and girls predominantly. Women and girls were locked away because they did not understand the crimes that were projected on to their bodies. That has left us with a legacy of harm.

We are at a crossroads where we have an opportunity to do something positive and to prevent further harm. As others have said, knowledge is power. If people do not have the information about what is normal and healthy and what is wrong, they do not have the language to articulate it when they have suffered abuse or somebody has been inappropriate. This is not futuristic or even progressive; this should be the baseline.

Yes, two things can be true at the same time, but you cannot say that you respect trans people or that they should not suffer abuse and then say that they do not exist and that the very notion that trans people exist is a contested theory. Those two sentences —.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Of course I will.

Mr Burrows: I am not contesting the fact that trans people exist. A trans man is not a biological female and vice versa. Allowing a trans woman who is actually a biological man to compete against other women in sport would not be safe or fair. That is the point that I make. Does the Member agree with that?

Ms Sheerin: With respect, Mr Burrows —

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

Ms Sheerin: — that is a completely different conversation. In your contribution, you said that children should not be educated about it because there are people who do not agree with it. The practicalities of sport, prison reform and other considerations are a separate issue. In what you have said here today, you have dehumanised a section of society.

Mr Burrows: That is not true.

Ms Sheerin: It is true. If you listened to the people who are impacted on by transphobic hate, you would know that. That might not work for your wee TikTok clip or whatever, but that is the reality. We have to educate our young people in a way that is respectful and recognises that, whether or not it fits with your personal morality or ethics, there are people out there who have the right to exist free from intimidation and harassment. You cannot, in one breath, say that they have that right and then dehumanise them, because it makes you part of the problem.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Yes.

Mr Burrows: I am at a loss as to where I have dehumanised any trans person. I have said that they should not be bullied or discriminated against but it is a legitimate view to say that there are only two biological sexes. A biological sex cannot change, but someone might perceive themselves to be a different sex, and they should be treated with fairness and respect. That is my position.

Ms Sheerin: I urge you to go to the Assembly's website and watch the debate back, and maybe then you will hear where you have done it. You have now done it twice.

My point is that, regardless of whatever inadequate relationships and sexuality education you suffered through, we have a new generation coming through who deserve to be educated properly about all those things, and the recommendations of the report make way for that.

As somebody who sits on the Justice Committee and sees the raw end of the problem and the fact that there are so many instances of hate crime against a range of minorities across society, I think that education that is done in a respectful way and gives people the language that they need to identify abuse is an important part of the puzzle. It is something simple that we could do to address the problems that we have across society.

Mr Martin: I was not planning to speak on this one, but I think I might. I was on the Education Committee for quite a bit of the inquiry. If RSE was getting a mark in an exam, it might get the mark that I got a lot in school, which is "Must do better". That probably came out in the Committee evidence that I heard. Everything can be improved, but there is a bit of work to be done on RSE, and the Minister will reflect on that when he responds to the debate.

In the first instance, I associate myself with some comments that colleagues have made about safeguarding and the protection of children. I imagine that everyone in the Chamber would associate themselves with such comments. That is mission-critical for our society. It is not something to aspire to but something on which to deliver. During my time on the Education Committee, I agreed with those comments.

There is quite a bit in the report, as has been reflected today. My colleague who leads for us on the Education Committee reflected in his speech that there are chunky elements that are fairly innocuous in their content but important to deliver on. There are other bits that I struggle with, however. I asked the Member opposite for an answer to this, and perhaps the Committee Chair will take it on, as it is a genuine question. Under the evidence heading, "Stakeholder Engagement and Inclusivity", it is stated:

If we step back a bit and think about it, that is quite a statement. It got me thinking about which school ethos limits RSE. There are five sectors in Northern Ireland and five different ethoses, so is it the controlled sector, the Catholic maintained sector or the integrated sector that is limiting inclusive RSE? If I were a principal of a school, I would be asking whether that statement is targeting my school and in what way it is doing so.

To develop some of what the Member who spoke previously was saying, in the same section of the report, recommendation 18 states:

I do not want to rehearse the debate, but, in that recommendation, gender identity is not defined, and I am not going back to debating how many gender identities we have. I hope that all Members will at least accept that it is a contested space. Mr Burrows made the point that every Member in the Chamber will have a different view. Some 72% of people in Northern Ireland agreed with the Supreme Court ruling on sex, so 72% probably do not agree with recommendation 18 and may have clear views on why they do not. Similarly, to develop that point a bit, Members will have different views on abortion and the protection of unborn life. That is a contested area, and it is not for me to tell another Member that their view is wrong. This is a debating chamber, and we have the space to make those arguments here, but Members will have their own views, so just to assume that one view is right and another view is wrong is incorrect.

Finally, every Committee Chair and perhaps every Committee wants to bring an agreed —.

Mrs Mason: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: Yes, I will, because the Member gave way to me.

Mrs Mason: The Member was flippant at the start when he said that RSE "must do better". Will he agree that he must do better? He was on the Committee when it went through the evidence, but his obsession with boys wearing skirts and with the definition of a woman has clouded what he heard during all that evidence. Did he not hear the young people who came to us? It is not about giving views. That is the essence of it. It is about teaching children facts about women's healthcare, not about giving personal views on it.

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

Mr Martin: The Member brings up boys' skirts: I have not mentioned boys' skirts yet in the debate. I have, however, reflected the opinion of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, who have been very clear in their view of the Supreme Court ruling on gender. I have also reflected the fact that the Committee does not agree with that view but that its view runs counter to what the majority of people in Northern Ireland view gender to be. I will not get bogged down in that point, as I have only 40 seconds left.

It has been hard for the Committee Chair to get unanimity on the report. He probably would prefer to have produced something that everyone could agree with, but that was not the case. Maybe that is because some of those issues are in the report.

I suppose that that is just aspirational. Certainly, based on what I have seen, I do not support the report. That is a shame, because there are actually really important things in it, as the Member for Lagan Valley indicated. I would have loved to support a report that had just those items in it.

Mr Gaston: My central concerns with the report, and reasons for opposing it, relate mainly to recommendations 7 and 16. Recommendation 7 is:

Recommendation 24 is:

from content —

Those recommendations are not the same: one is about establishing a safeguarding limit, and the other is about phasing out withdrawal more broadly. The report does not say who decides when its conditions have been met. It sets out no timescale and gives no clear account of how parents could challenge a decision that a particular programme is sufficiently age appropriate or, indeed, balanced.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. It is no surprise to me that he does not support the recommendations on the phasing out of the parental right to withdrawal. Can he be clear on this: if the two recommendations were separated, would his party would support the removal of the right to withdrawal from safeguarding education to protect children from abuse and sexual exploitation, or does he think that parents should have the right to withdraw their children from that material?

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

Mr Gaston: I will come to that in my comments.

What we have seen in the report and heard in the Chamber today would be a significant expansion of the state's role in deciding what children must be taught and a reduction in parents' ability to act according to their convictions. The report's recommendations go beyond a narrow safeguarding curriculum. Recommendation 23 is age-appropriate teaching on child sexual exploitation and online safety, but also on pornography, toxic masculinity and the risk of criminalisation when indecent images are shared. Some of those subjects clearly require attention, but the labels and the teaching materials that are used to address them matter. They matter to me as a parent. Parents should be able to see what is being taught, by whom it is being taught and how different moral views are treated.

The report makes it clear that this is not simply a technical disagreement about lesson plans. It gives considerable space to organisations that openly advocate particular approaches to sexuality, gender identity and abortion. HERe NI and the Rainbow Project argued for LGBTQIA+ relationships and sexuality to be included across all content areas. The report also includes calls from HERe NI, the Rainbow Project, Women's Platform and Faith Voices for Reproductive Justice for schools to address changing gender stereotypes and transgenderism and to represent same-sex attraction and diverse families. Those organisations are entitled to submit evidence, but they are advocacy organisations with clear policy commitments. Their recommendations should not be treated as politically neutral simply because they appear in the report of a Committee's mini-inquiry. In fact, that whole world view is one with which I, as a parent, have profound problems.

I note that the Committee did not think that it was worth its time to even mention the fact that the Christian Institute engaged with the mini-inquiry. If you were not on the Committee, you would not even know from reading the report that the Christian Institute had engaged with the mini-inquiry. Important facts, such as those about the importance of marriage between a man and a woman and the stability that marriage brings, are airbrushed from the report. Abstinence from sex as an empowering choice that protects young people from sexual coercion, STIs and emotional trauma is simply ignored.

Frankly, I find it profoundly concerning that groups such as the Rainbow Project have been permitted to exercise such influence on the report.

In response to the report, the Christian Institute had this to say:

Frankly, the report before us this evening is about driving the ideology of the Alliance Party, Sinn Féin and the SDLP. I believe that it is out of touch with the views and feelings of many who vote for those parties. The Committee clearly thought that it was worthwhile to give space in the report to the Rainbow Project, but it chose to exclude the comments of the Christian Institute. As a Christian parent, I have a right to protect my children from the dangerous world views of others being forced upon them. That has been completely airbrushed and completely overlooked in this mini-inquiry. The Committee could not even bring itself to put down the fact that the Christian Institute took part in the inquiry.

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

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Committee's 'Report of Mini-Inquiry into Relationship and Sexuality Education'. First, I acknowledge those who contributed to the report, especially the children and young people, schools, parents and stakeholders who submitted their views or gave evidence on their experience. I wonder what they think about the contributions from Mr Baker and Mrs Michelle Guy and their weaponising the report to make political points.

Mrs Guy: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: Weaponising the report to make political points. I will give way to Michelle Guy.

Mrs Guy: I would be grateful if the Minister could show me where I weaponised the report. I think that I handled the Jeffrey Donaldson situation with great sensitivity, and deliberately so. I deliberately said that I would not cast any shadow over any member of the DUP based on the crimes of Jeffrey Donaldson, which were his crimes and his alone.

Mr Givan: The Chairman of the Committee said that we should be sensitive about the language that we use and aware of people who could be victims or who have been victims of sexual crime, yet I do not see anything that Mrs Michelle Guy just referenced in the report. Along with Mr Baker — an interesting alliance — she chose deliberately to politicise and weaponise the report. That reflects poorly on the Members, and it certainly goes against what Mr Mathison said. I will take the viewpoint of Máiría Cahill before I listen to Mr Baker on those issues. If you want to talk about abuse and paedophiles, talk about Liam Adams. Talk about his movement and the cover-up from your former president, his brother. If you want to talk about abuse, the paedophile-protecting former president of your party knows all about it. The difference between the DUP and Sinn Féin is that we put paedophiles out; you protect them. That is the difference between the DUP and Sinn Féin, yet that is the way in which Mr Baker and Mrs Michelle Guy took this discussion.

Let me turn to the report. One of its striking features is how its findings about curriculum design mirror those of Lucy Crehan's strategic review of the Northern Ireland curriculum, although the review of the curriculum took six months and dealt with every subject, unlike the two and a half years that it took the Committee to consider only one topic. Two and a half years for a micro inquiry. I would hate to see what a full inquiry by the Education Committee would look like if this is the manner in which it goes about a micro inquiry. [Interruption.]

It is inefficient and incoherent — [Inaudible.]

Mr Givan: — and they use it to weaponise for political points.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Baker, I need to hear the Minister and Members need to hear the Minister. Hopefully, you will comply with that.

Mr Givan: Mr Baker has anger management problems. That is self-evident from this debate. He should take a leaf out of his colleague Ms Sheerin's book — although she is not here — about the need to be respectful. She then, however, went on to say to Mr Burrows, who had talked in his contribution about the horrors that were perpetrated by a teacher at his school:

That is what Ms Sheerin said in response to Mr Burrows. We talk about respectful discussion, but we certainly do not get it from those Benches.

Let me go through the report. The Committee found that the lack of curriculum specificity creates real problems as key content is omitted, provision varies between schools and too many important decisions are left to individual teachers. It highlights the fact that the RSE curriculum fails to specify the key knowledge, concepts, skills and understanding that we expect children to learn. That means that provision is inconsistent, with pupils not securing the essential knowledge that they need. The Committee found that progression is weak, with one-off lessons, inconsistent sequencing and repetition of some content but gaps in other areas. It found that teacher confidence was undermined by insufficient professional development and a lack of high-quality resources. All those things are true of not only RSE but English, maths, science, geography, history, art and music, to name but a few. They are true of the current curriculum full stop. It is a pity that some Members cannot bring the same passion, urgency and enthusiasm that they show for sex education to literacy, numeracy or science. It seems that RSE must be prescribed to the last detail, yet reading can be left to chance. Sex education demands a clear framework, yet numeracy is to be left to schools. RSE requires progression, yet science is all but absent from the current primary curriculum.

The issues that were found in RSE are precisely the issues that TransformED and curriculum 2028 aim to address across all subjects. They seek to provide a clear entitlement for every child in every subject through greater curriculum specificity, stronger progression, better support for teachers, enhanced professional development and high-quality curriculum resources. After this debate, however, the Committee Chair will propose a motion to slow down TransformED. Members call for reform in RSE, yet, on the very same day, they call for curriculum reform to be slowed down. That is not a serious position. Members are happy to diagnose the problem but unwilling to support the cure. If Members genuinely believe that the problems identified in this report are real, they should support the reforms that address them. They should support greater clarity, coherence and consistency across the curriculum. They should support the new curriculum framework. They should stop talking about change and start voting for it.

The report's findings raise legitimate concerns about the quality and consistency of RSE provision. I share many of those concerns. The reality is that our current curriculum is too vague. It sets out broad aspirations but too often fails to provide clear expectations. The issues identified in the report are not failures of our school — quite the opposite. Many schools have worked exceptionally hard to compensate for weaknesses in the curriculum. They have filled the gaps, developed resources and created programmes that work for their pupils. We should not, however, have a system that relies on schools to reinvent the wheel. We should have a curriculum that does its job. Curriculum 2028 is designed to address those shortcomings. While the Committee was examining the consequences of a weak curriculum, my Department was getting on with the job of replacing it. In the time that it took to complete this inquiry, we have reviewed the curriculum, consulted on reform and drafted a new framework.

Are Members interested in real reform? Through curriculum 2028, my Department has consulted on the introduction of personal, social, civic and careers (PSCC) education. That will be a new, distinct subject for every year group, providing for the first time a single coherent framework for learning. The proposed curriculum framework sets out the knowledge, skills and experiences that children and young people are entitled to learn throughout their education.

I will not support the imposition of contested ideological theories through the curriculum. That is not what parents, families or wider society want. There is, however, as my party colleagues who sit on the Committee recognised, significant common ground on many issues, including safeguarding, online safety, consent, bullying and tackling violence against women and girls. In all of those areas, the current statutory curriculum is silent. The new curriculum removes that uncertainty. In doing so, it ensures that the content is sequenced and structured to support progression and aid learning. For the first time, we will have a coherent and sequenced framework from Foundation Stage to Key Stage 3. Over coming months, that will extend to Key Stage 4 and post-16 provision.

At Foundation Stage, children will learn about themselves, their emotions, relationships, belonging, safety, trusted adults and the fact that families can be different. The foundations of healthy relationships, personal well-being and respect for others will be established from the earliest years. At Key Stage 1, learning develops further. Pupils will learn about friendships, personal boundaries, keeping safe, emotional well-being and their responsibilities towards others. At Key Stage 2, pupils will build a deeper understanding of healthy relationships, online safety, cyberbullying, consent, personal identity, decision-making and citizenship. Critically, they will learn about different forms of abuse, including domestic and online abuse and grooming, and how to recognise, avoid and report them. At Key Stage 3, pupils will engage with more sophisticated and age-appropriate learning about relationships, sexual health, consent, exploitation, substance misuse, safeguarding and online harm. That will include the emotional, social and legal implications of early sexual activity, including the meaning of and age of consent. They will learn how to recognise sexual pressure, exploitation or harmful behaviour in person and online and how to access support in school or in the community.

All those areas become explicit requirements in PSCC. Learning is deliberately sequenced, knowledge builds year by year, expectations become clearer and progression becomes stronger. Those are precisely the issues that the Committee identified in the current curriculum.

The Committee called for greater consistency of provision. PSCC provides that common entitlement for every young person. The Committee raised concerns about teacher confidence and inconsistency. A clearer framework, supported by curriculum resources and professional learning, will help to address those concerns. If Members believe the findings in their own report — not that many of them even referenced it — they should recognise that the proposed PSCC framework is the answer. In all sincerity, I ask them this: have you even read the framework? The Committee identified the symptoms; curriculum 2028 provides the treatment. The logical response is not to slow down reform but to get on and deliver it. Nor can Members call for more specificity, coherence and consistency in RSE while ignoring them in every other subject.

Let me turn to the report's recommendations on the new PSCC framework. The curriculum framework:

Done.

The curriculum framework:

Done.

The curriculum framework should include risks:

Done.

The curriculum framework:

Done.

The Committee also recommends that children and young people should be key stakeholders in the curriculum review. My officials have held bespoke consultation and engagement events with young people on all aspects of the new curriculum, including RSE. The proposed PSCC framework was welcomed by young people, who praised the focus on emotional well-being, relationships, financial education, careers education and preparation for life beyond school, but you will not hear that from Members who prefer to weaponise and politicise the issue.

The consultation report on curriculum 2028, including PSCC, will be published today. Members will note the positive findings on the content of the new framework. A substantial majority of respondents considered the vision statement and organising categories to be "adequate", "effective" or "very effective". A clear majority also considered the content to be "adequately", "mostly" or "very well" sequenced. I will take their endorsement ahead of the politically jaundiced position of Members who weaponise the issue in the Chamber.

There is one recommendation in the report that gives me real cause for concern. The Committee recommends that the parental right to withdraw children from aspects of relationships and sexuality education should be phased out. I cannot support that recommendation. The courts have made it clear that, where parental withdrawal rights exist, they must be real, meaningful and capable of being exercised in practice.

I appreciate that courts' decisions and applying them do not sit well with the Members opposite, nor does it sit well with Mr Mathison, who wants to phase that out. I have taken every possible step to ensure that those rights are respected in RE. Indeed, the Committee has repeatedly sought assurances regarding the operation of the withdrawal rights in RE, yet, when it comes to RSE, the recommendation is not to strengthen parental protections but to remove them. I struggle to understand that inconsistency. The same people who would deny an opt-out to parents and children on sensitive issues campaign to allow their children to sit out of a nativity play. I fully recognise that not everybody shares my religious beliefs and nor should they have to. In a pluralist society, the role of the state is not to decide which convictions deserve protection and which do not; it is to respect the rights of those who hold those convictions.

Elsewhere in the Committee report, it recommends that:

Well, a week really is a long time in politics. Article 2 of protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires the state to respect the rights of parents and to ensure that their rights are protected and that education is:

I will not have my children being indoctrinated by the woke LGBTQ+ transgender ideology of the Alliance Party or Sinn Féin. It will not happen on my watch, and we will stop it in the future.

The report has taken two and a half years to produce. I trust that, on the substantive part, Members will recognise that I have got on and delivered through the framework. While they have dithered, delayed and procrastinated, I have got on with the job, so let us all get on with implementing what will be the new curriculum. I commend that curriculum, but I will vote against the motion on the report brought forward by the Education Committee.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. I call Nick Mathison to conclude the debate on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Before the Minister got to his feet to give that barnstorming performance, I had planned to open my remarks with an acknowledgement that we had struck a very different tone during the debate.

Mr Givan: You supported Mr Baker's comments. That says a lot.

Mr Mathison: Are you seeking an intervention?

Mr Givan: Yes, if you will give it.

Mr Mathison: You did not give me the courtesy.

Mr Givan: You invite an intervention but will not give it.

Mr Mathison: I shall see how the debate continues.

Regrettably, the Minister decided to take the debate in a different direction. That is, unfortunately, in keeping with anything that seems to cross over into curriculum or interact with the TransformED agenda. It seems to cause such a reaction in the Minister that he becomes incredibly sensitive and incredibly prickly. I do not really understand why that is the case. It could have been a debate about the Committee report and about how, hopefully, we can do better when it comes to safeguarding and protecting children from abuse and online harm, but, instead, we were treated to a very impressive performance. I do not think that I have ever heard as much crammed into a 10-minute speech, so I will give the Minister credit for that. However, there was no interest in engaging in debate, and there was, largely, a mischaracterisation of the contributions that were made.

I reject the suggestion that my colleague Michelle Guy attempted to weaponise anything during her speech. She was reflecting the fact that the Committee had a debate back and forward about whether a motion on the Floor of the Chamber would be constructive and helpful, and, in the context of the live issues emerging from the cases that we are all familiar with — the Jeffrey Donaldson case needs to be referenced — the Committee decided that we owed it to victims and survivors to get the issues onto the Floor of the Assembly. That is not weaponising anything.

I will speak to the TransformED issues briefly. The Minister gets very excited about those issues, and he strayed very much into the TransformED territory, which we can have a debate about under the next motion. I want to be clear that I am not opposed to reform of the curriculum, and, when I speak in the next debate, I will be clear about that point. I am clear that we need to take the time to get it right. In relation to RSE, I agree that there is much to welcome in the new curriculum framework, and I am very happy to acknowledge that.

There is more that we could do, however. There are issues that young people have with perhaps too much content being put into that new subject area. Are we at risk of missing out on key areas of the new curriculum? I am not here to rubbish the recommendations in the draft curriculum framework. Much of the framework is positive, and, to settle the Minister's mind, I have read it.

I was really keen to secure an intervention from the Minister, because I wanted to ask him a question that I hoped could facilitate a little bit of constructive debate. It is clear from some of the contributions from other Members today that they do not agree with everything in the report. I do not expect everybody to. Some of the issues are controversial. They intersect with issues of morality, ethics, personal belief and faith perspective. I did not expect for a minute that everyone would agree with everything in it, although I did try, as Chair of the Committee — I know that the Minister has zero respect for the work of the Committee — to bring us to a consensus position. We were not able to achieve consensus, but members of the Committee engaged in the process in good faith. I pay tribute to the approach of Mr Brooks to the issues, including his genuine attempt to see whether consensus could be found.

I wanted to ask the Minister, had he given me the courtesy of an intervention — I am still happy to hear from him on this issue — about his consistent use of the phrase "minimum entitlements" when talking about the curriculum. I have absolutely no issue with the phrase. Across the board, there are things in our curriculum that children and young people should be entitled to learn about. We are preparing them for life, for the world of work and for the next step on their education journey. I am really clear that children and young people are fundamentally entitled to learn how to keep themselves safe and how to protect themselves from abusers. As I referenced in my earlier remarks, it would be highly unusual and unlikely that those abusers are strangers seeking to abduct them, but we should all remain vigilant. We should not say that we can never teach our children about stranger danger. It is, however, also about protecting children from family members and from adults in their life whom they trust who hold positions of authority. Children have an absolute and fundamental right and entitlement to receive that education.

I would therefore like to hear from the Minister about that. Some Members from his party skirted the issue. I asked Mr Gaston for the Traditional Unionist Voice perspective. Although he assured me that he would provide some clarity, he did not do so. If education is being delivered that protects our children and young people from abuse, sexual exploitation and harm, that gives them the language that they need to talk about their own bodies, that helps them understand consent, healthy relationships and appropriate boundaries and that gives them the language to disclose to an adult when something does not feel right or when they do not feel safe, are we all agreed that they have an entitlement to that education and that we should not pass it on to parents and say to them, "You have the final right of withdrawal when it comes to that issue"? It may —

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: — be the parent who is the abuser. That is a sad and regrettable fact. The vast majority of parents in Northern Ireland and across the world care about their children and have their very best interests at heart. I am not here to paint a bleak picture of a world in which all adults in positions of authority, including parents, are somehow lurking in the shadows — I will give way to the Deputy Chair in a moment — seeking to harm our children, but we need only follow any case that goes through our courts involving the sexual abuse of children to know that such risks are real. I therefore want to understand whether we all agree that that material is a fundamental entitlement and that we do not support the right of parents to say, "Well, in this case, not for me".

I am up for having the debate about all the other RSE issues, such as whether it should be phased and whether the right of parental withdrawal should be protected. I am happy to have that debate in a respectful manner, but I would like clarity on that specific point. I do not see anyone indicating that they will give me that clarity, so I will give way first to the Deputy Chair and then to the Minister.

Mr Sheehan: I thank the Chair for giving way. Does he agree that, in all likelihood, there are children currently being abused in family settings who consider what is happening to them to be normal behaviour and that, until they are educated about abuse, they have no way of articulating what is happening to them? We heard from witnesses who said that children often do not have the vocabulary to articulate what is happening to them. The issue is fundamentally about safeguarding children. I am sure that the Chair agrees.

Mr Mathison: I do agree, and that point was rehearsed over and over again as the Committee heard evidence on these issues. Michelle Guy and Cara Hunter also referenced it. No victim of abuse should ever need to say, "I didn't have the words" or, "I didn't understand it was wrong". We need to do better by our children and young people. I will give way to the Minister on that point.

Mr Givan: I thank the Committee Chairman for giving way. That goes without saying on safeguarding issues. That is why it is in the framework, and I have published the consultation responses. I say this to the public and to parents: do not be fearful of teaching on these issues because you hear the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin wanting RSE to be about trans issues. With respect, constituents of mine say that they hear those parties wanting children to have to hear about those issues, whereas, actually, I want them to hear about safeguarding. We need to protect the message of this debate. Safeguarding, online content and harm are the issues that all children should be able to learn about in our education setting, not the trans, woke agenda that has been put forward by Alliance and Sinn Féin. [Interruption.]

Mr Mathison: Time is against me. Deputy Speaker, I would appreciate it if I could be heard.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I do not have time to take an intervention.

I still did not get the assurance that we are all clear that parents should not have the right to withdraw their children from material that protects them from sexual exploitation and abuse. I hope that we can get that clarity, because I think that it is vital.

I could pick up on so much from the debate, but safeguarding is the issue that really matters. I will broaden it beyond safeguarding and say that I do not see RSE as being about imposing a values system on anybody; it is just about dealing with the reality of the world. It is OK to say that LGBT people exist — it is OK to say that. It is OK to say that abortion services exist. That should not conflict with anybody's moral, religious or ethical framework. We need to reassure parents on that point. I commend the report —

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

Mr Mathison: — and the motion to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, please take your ease until we move to the next item in the Order Paper. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

Mrs Guy: I beg to move

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

Please open the debate on the motion, Michelle.

Mrs Guy: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker: I am pleased to open the debate. Before turning to TransformED, I have to acknowledge the context in which we are having the debate. We are in an unprecedented situation following the withdrawal of departmental officials from the Education Committee. Whatever Members' views are on that decision, its clear consequence is the restriction of opportunities for proper democratic scrutiny of education policy and legislation, so this debate matters. It gives us an opportunity to put on record the real concerns being raised by school leaders, teachers, representative bodies, parents, young people and academics about the scale and pace of change represented by TransformED.

I hope that we can have a debate that is constructive in tone. I look to the Minister in particular because it is not at all unfair to say that he has displayed a high level of sensitivity to any critique of the programme. Written ministerial statements, fact-check documents and defensive media contributions have followed any attempt by anyone to legitimately question any part of TransformED. My message to the Minister is simple: listen. Listen with an open mind and respond with respect to the views of the professionals whom you ought to regard as your partners in the delivery of the reforms, because, in the case of teachers in particular, you cannot deliver it without them. However academically robust and rigorous the evidential basis for TransformED looks on paper, the documents are nothing more than words on a page without teachers to confidently deliver them in a classroom full of young minds. TransformED is not being implemented in isolation; that point is crucial. It comes at a time when schools continue to manage significant challenges associated with financial pressures, increasing workload demands, special educational needs (SEN) provision, school estate issues, problems with attendance, behavioural problems and the impact of technology on the classroom.

I want to state early in my remarks that I agree with much of the ambition of TransformED, and that is a view shared by many others. In feedback from Catholic maintained primary school leaders, they reported a strong and consistent message of support for the ambition underpinning reform. NASUWT has said that there is undoubtedly a need for meaningful reform of our education system. The Independent Autism Reviewer has also recognised the importance of education reform. The question is whether the system has the capacity to absorb the amount of change that is now being asked of it. The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) captured that concern well when it highlighted implementation capacity as the dominant issue raised by school leaders. NASUWT similarly warned that the pace and scale of the proposed changes were creating considerable anxiety and uncertainty among teachers. Ema Cubitt rightly points out that TransformED cannot be considered in isolation from SEN reform, with both programmes placing significant additional demands on schools. That point is at the heart of the motion. It is not about opposition to reform; it is about concern about implementation.

For my part — I say it again — I have no issue with pursuing reform of our education system; in fact, Alliance has been calling for major structural reforms for years. Who here today is going to say that they are against having higher ambitions for all students or ensuring that our teachers and school leaders are supported and given the opportunity for professional development? Who is going to argue against trying to improve levels of literacy and numeracy among children? Teachers, school leaders and educational experts recognise the need for reform, but they still share their concerns with me.

I turn to the pace of reform. I know that the Minister will dispute the suggestion that he is moving too quickly, but that is not really the question. The question is whether multiple major reforms can realistically be delivered simultaneously in the conditions that schools currently face. In one of the written ministerial statements issued in response to concerns about TransformED, the Minister referred to the McKinsey 'Spark & Sustain' report, which has an interesting section on building durable change in education. It states that education leaders should:

It also recommends choosing:

I suspect that many school leaders would struggle to recognise that principle in their day-to-day reality. Many barely get the chance to read anything about TransformED in depth because they are dealing with the immediate daily pressures in their school. The most obvious sign of that pressure is the ongoing industrial action due to workload concerns, and surely that matters. Even if a new curriculum ultimately reduces workload over time, as the Minister claims it will, there will inevitably be significant work required to get there. Teachers will have to understand it, plan for it, develop new approaches and adapt practice, and no one should pretend otherwise.

That brings me to meaningful engagement. The current curriculum has not been revised since 2007. There is no doubt that it needs an update. The independent review of education endorses that, while noting that the current curriculum is "generally well-regarded". It also notes that the curriculum should instil a love of learning that stays with children into later life. It calls out the false dichotomy between knowledge and skills. A good curriculum needs to provide both: the knowledge that children acquire and the ability to apply it. It emphasises the benefits of a curriculum that is flexible.

I am not a curriculum expert, so my priority has been listening to those who have expertise. The History Teachers' Association fears increased content, reduced professional autonomy, a return to old-fashioned history from the 1980s and rote learning. Foundation Stage teachers fear a complete overload of content that will mean less time for a play-based approach. Others have raised concerns around English, maths and implementation more generally. I am not suggesting that every concern is correct, but school leaders and teachers want meaningful engagement that does not simply offer an opportunity to submit their views but allows them to help shape the end product.

I know that the consultation responses have finally been published today, but the implementation plan for the new curriculum stated that phase 1 would begin in September 2026: how can schools properly understand and prepare for implementation when they were not even shown the Department's responses to the consultation? That is not an unreasonable question. It is exactly the kind of question that the Education Committee should be able to ask officials.

Beyond subject concerns, there are fundamental concerns about the curriculum approach. I know that the Department rejects any suggestion that TransformED is simply a copy of the reforms pursued in England under Michael Gove, but England is referenced consistently throughout the strategy, so it is entirely legitimate to ask what lessons we are taking from the English experience. England is slightly ahead in programme for international student assessment (PISA) results, but research from the Education Policy Institute (EPI) states that the disadvantage gap has widened again in England and is still bigger at every phase of school than it was before the pandemic. Disadvantaged pupils are, on average, 19 months behind their classmates from better-off backgrounds by the time they get to Key Stage 4.

A brilliant piece of local research from Stranmillis University College, for which leaders of high-performing schools in disadvantaged areas were interviewed, did not highlight the need to have a knowledge-rich curriculum to ensure success; instead, leaders placed strong emphasis on ensuring that a curriculum was dynamic and responsive and tailored to meet varied pupil needs. Those are the people delivering in our schools in Northern Ireland. We have to ask whether the Minister is genuinely listening to the breadth of professional opinion or whether too much weight is being placed on the views of a select group whose conclusions already align with the Minister's.

I will finish where I started: I support reform. I am ambitious for our children and young people, and I support a curriculum that gives them knowledge, skills and a love of learning. I support better professional development for teachers and school leaders. Scrutiny is not opposition, and questioning implementation is not opposition to reform. It is our job. It is the job of the Assembly. Effective implementation must recognise the reality on the ground. That is what teachers and school leaders say. They are saying, "Listen to us, work with us and give us a chance to make these reforms work". Doing that will ensure that TransformED delivers what every Member wants, which is better outcomes for every child and young person.

Mr Burrows: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.

Mr Burrows: I have said that, on education, I will always decide each case on its facts. I am happy to support the Minister when I think that he is right, to oppose him when I think that he is wrong and to take a hybrid approach when it is appropriate. There is much in TransformED to be admired and commended. Everyone agrees that there should be a real push on literacy and numeracy. There are alarming indications of a decline not just in the PISA statistics but in the evidence that we hear directly from teachers and teaching assistants about young people going through the early stages of school. Few would argue against the need for a curriculum that equips people for the challenges of a modern world. Few would argue against high-quality professional development for teachers, for a good level of consistency in the curriculum and for us to move forward and have continual reform. Having concerns about TransformED, its pace and the lack of autonomy that it gives teachers is not being against reform; it is merely sounding a warning about the particular direction of travel.

One of the healthiest things about the education system is that we can have a healthy debate and listen to teachers and teaching assistants. Something that I have noted as I have travelled around the country is the level of concern about TransformED, particularly over its pace and the discretion that, teachers feel, is being removed from them. That concern is shared across the community: among nationalist teachers, unionist teachers and teachers who would not subscribe to a particular constitutional view. It crosses the community.

One of the big things for me — it is why I tabled the amendment — relates to autonomy. We have the best teachers in the world. Those who graduate from Queen's, Stranmillis and St Mary's College are among the most highly trained and professional on these islands. They enter their profession because they care deeply about education. They also have a sound professional judgement that is developed and coached, and they are mentored. They feel, however, that, through TransformED, they are losing discretion and autonomy. They are also bewildered at the pace of the change that, they feel, is being inflicted on them. Many who agree with the substance of some of TransformED find the pace of change overwhelming. There is consultation after consultation. There is consultation fatigue. There is a real sense that, while schools are asked to release teachers to take part in focus groups, they cannot afford to release them. The expectation in many consultations is that they will take 10 working days, but many schools cannot afford to release a teacher for 10 working days.

Teachers and teaching assistants whom I hear from increasingly describe teaching as the art of the impossible. They are managing ever-increasing workloads and addressing behavioural challenges in the classroom that, from what I have been told in first-hand testimony, are increasing exponentially. That is not just among additional needs children but in the mainstream sector. There is physical and verbal abuse. There is an increasing number of children with complex additional needs who are behind on milestones. There is an increase in the number of children with SEN who are behind in normal development. There are rising expectations from government, school leaders and, at times, parents, who are not always willing partners in their children's education. Teachers feel bewildered and overloaded, and they cannot keep up with the pace of change.

Autonomy is so important. Those of us who have worked in a job before politics know that, as you go through the profession, you get what is called "professional judgement". It is not about a hunch or putting a finger in the air and making it up; it is sound professional judgement based on years of experience. It is passed on from teacher to teacher and built into a school's institutional knowledge. There is a real sense that a more prescriptive curriculum is taking autonomy away from teachers. We should ask this simple question: what is the purpose of training teachers to such a high standard and equipping them with professional judgement, subject expertise and classroom experience, if their role is reduced to performing according to a curriculum rather than exercising informed judgement? That removes the capacity for local context, for dealing with what you see in front of you and tailoring your teaching to the needs of your pupils. A curriculum, by its nature, should be a framework and not a script. There needs to be more room in the framework for professional judgement and for it to be less scripted, as seems to be the plan. Again, professional development should empower teachers and not constrain them. Reform should trust teachers and not simply direct them. Something has been lost.

I will say this to the Minister's credit: few Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive — perhaps very few in the history of the Northern Ireland Executive — have been accused of doing too much too soon. Often, it is the opposite: stagnation, delay and nothing being done.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way to Mr Baker.

Mr Baker: Can you point out what exactly he has done? I know that he has overwhelmed many school leaders with consultations, but look at his legislation: there is none. It is pathetic, to be honest with you.

Mr Burrows: The pace of change is one of the issues cited in the motion. I do not understand how you can say that he is doing nothing and then that he is overwhelming people with the pace of change.

We need to trust teachers. Teachers are not infallible, but they are professionals and they should be allowed to exercise their professional judgement. We should trust teachers to adapt the evidence to the circumstances; to reflect honestly on what is working and not working; to use the language of educational practice; and to be reflective practitioners. One of the teachers who emailed me about the motion said:

That principle applies in the classroom. In education, as in politics, progress depends on our willingness to listen to alternative perspectives.

Good scrutiny is not an obstacle to reform. It makes reform better. That is why I am concerned by reports about officials being withheld from attendance at the Education Committee. I think that the Education Minister has got it wrong. The Chair of the Education Committee should give an undertaking that we stay within remit when we ask questions, but it is not right that officials, particularly very highly paid ones, do not come in front of the Committee. Accountability is not to be feared.

I will sum up by saying this —

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will.

Mr Givan: I have heard the Member make that point before. I am always willing to go to the Education Committee, but it is not an unreasonable request. He made the appeal, and I make it in the House today. The Chairman of the Committee has ignored a letter for nearly a month. He has not even had the courtesy to acknowledge that correspondence, all he needs to do is indicate, as the Member has just outlined, that the Committee will stay within its statutory remit and that members, and Mr Sheehan in particular, will not be allowed to bully and harass officials who come to the Committee. Is that an unreasonable request? All he needs to do is make that assurance, and if he does so in the House today, we can make progress.

Mr Burrows: I cannot answer for the Chair of the Education Committee, but I have put my position very clearly. I think that there could be better chairing of the Committee. That assurance should be given, but I still think that officials should attend, and we should deal with that as we come forth.

In reality, if we were to go outside the political bubble, I wonder how many other professions across the country would still get their full salary if they did not come before a Committee and do part of their job. I do not think that it is correct.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member agree that, in those other jobs — his background will probably speak to this — people would not be subject to having their HR issues debated live on camera and broadcast to the rest of Northern Ireland?

Mr Burrows: I have already said that the conduct of the Member to whom we are referring was poor. It crossed a line. It was overbearing and unnecessary, but I think that the response has been disproportionate. That is my view, and I hold it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): And, on that subject, I call Pat Sheehan. You have five minutes.

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

I thought that the debate was about TransformED, and now I am finding out that it is about me. [Laughter.]

That is very good.

First of all, the job of the Education Committee is to scrutinise the Minister and his officials and any policies that are being brought forward, but the Minister seems to have an issue with difficult questions. There is an issue at the heart of the Department about governance. We have asked questions, and the last time that the Minister was at the Committee, he was asked a question that he could not answer. He told a barefaced, unvarnished lie in the Chamber when he was asked in March if he had ever

been

subject —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Sheehan.

Mr Sheehan: — to an allegation of bullying.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Sheehan, please take your seat. Ladies and gentlemen, we will continue the debate in a moderate manner. We do not, under any circumstances, accuse Members of being "economical with the actualité". You know that, Mr Sheehan. You have been around here for a long time. We should be debating the motion, so let us get back to that. Try to moderate the language. I know that you are an experienced person, and you know exactly what you are doing, but let us keep it on track. Back to you.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks for that advice, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

The fact is that the Minister was asked if he had ever been subject to an allegation of bullying, and he said no. Then, a couple of days later, he had to release a written ministerial statement to correct the record to say that he had been accused of bullying. He tried to bully a permanent secretary into promoting an official, and that is where the issue of governance arises. In any event, Mr Burrows was not even present for my exchange with the official to whom he referred.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: I will quickly give way.

Mr Burrows: Things are streamed, and you can log in and watch again. It was a faithful representation of what you said.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Sheehan, you have an extra minute.

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

I asked Mr Burrows what part of my exchange with the official was aggressive, and I have yet to hear an answer to that question.

Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, before I hear the point of order, I remind you that, as I have already said, we should keep to the motion. You will notice that I am sitting down. I am not going to stand up at this stage, but we will keep to the motion. We have had our back and forth and all the rest of it. Right now, let us keep to the motion and the amendment.

Mr Brooks, what is your point of order?

Mr Brooks: You have just dealt with it, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are two minutes into Pat's contribution without any mention of TransformED.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I cannot give you any extra time, Mr Sheehan, but carry on.

Mr Sheehan: Thank you, Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think that a brave few minutes have been spent on me in the debate, but that is another matter.

Education reform must be about giving our children the best possible opportunities. It should be about addressing underachievement and backing our teachers with the resources that they need to do their jobs. Instead, the Minister is pursuing a regressive shift towards a heavily prescribed, knowledge-rich curriculum that mirrors the reforms that have been pursued by successive English Governments. Knowledge matters, but education is about much more than memorising facts. We should be developing creative and critical thinkers, not narrowing the curriculum and undermining teachers' professional autonomy.

Then there is the deeply questionable process through which those reforms have been developed. Almost £150,000 of public money — that is what we know about currently — has been spent through sweetheart deals with external consultants. Those appointments were not made through an open, competitive process; consultants were hand-picked by the Department and gifted plum contracts worth tens of thousands of pounds. Several of those who were brought in are associated with the very educational philosophy that the Minister now seeks to impose. Meanwhile, CCEA, our own statutory curriculum and assessment body, with decades of local knowledge and expertise, has been left out in the cold. Why are we handing out lucrative contracts to external consultants while ignoring our own local experts who are employed specifically to deal with the curriculum? Who selected those consultants? What alternatives were considered? Was the direction of the reforms effectively decided before the consultation even began? I ask that because the Department published a new framework for initial teacher education, aligned with the TransformED agenda, in April, before the curriculum consultation had even opened. If the curriculum proposals were genuinely open to change, why was a framework for training our future teachers already being put in place? Consultation is supposed to shape decisions, not just rubber-stamp them. When respected educationalists raised concerns, the Minister issued a public statement challenging their criticism. Rather than listening, he appears only to be interested in defending predetermined outcomes.

Meanwhile, teachers are under enormous pressure. Workloads are unsustainable, schools are struggling financially, the school estate is crumbling and the crisis in special educational needs continues, yet the Minister presses ahead with major changes, placing further demands on the very workforce that is expected to deliver them. All of that is happening while academic selection, one of the biggest structural influences on teaching and learning in our primary schools, remains completely untouched. You cannot claim to be transforming education while ignoring the fundamental inequalities within the system.

My party is not opposed to reform, but we fundamentally disagree with the direction of these proposals and have serious concerns about the process behind them. The Minister needs to cool his jets, stop with all the distractions, listen to teachers, parents and educational experts, and demonstrate that he is genuinely prepared to go back to the drawing board. Sinn Féin will reserve its final judgement until we see the outcome of the consultation. If our concerns and the concerns of teachers and educational experts are ignored, we will have to consider our position when the necessary regulations come before the Assembly.

Our children deserve better than reform that is driven by such regressive ideology. Our teachers deserve better than being expected to deliver an agenda that they have had no influence in shaping. I support the motion.

Mr Brooks: Given Pat's dismissal of non-local experts, I can only imagine that his hitherto hero Lucy Crehan refused to sign his book.

This motion asks the Assembly to do something that, frankly, we cannot afford to do, which is put necessary reform on hold simply because change is difficult. All of us in the Chamber know that teachers face pressures and that schools are managing significant challenges, and we have serious concerns around special educational needs, educational disadvantage and school budgets. However, the conclusion that some Members draw from those challenges is that we should slow down reform, as has been mentioned. I cannot remember the last time that I heard such a critique in Northern Ireland politics.

The fact that our education system faces those challenges is precisely why reform is needed. Let us be honest: nearly three in 10 children leave primary school without reaching the expected standards in literacy and numeracy. How can anyone seriously argue that the current system is working well enough to be left untouched? The attainment gap persists year after year. Are we really saying that now is the wrong time to improve the curriculum, assessment and support for teachers? If not now, when?

The motion paints TransformED as some reckless experiment, but the reality is very different. The Minister and the Department did not pluck the proposals out of thin air. They follow years of independent reviews, evidence gathering, consultation, which has been mentioned, and professional engagement. We have heard about the independent review of education and the strategic review of the curriculum. All of those things pointed to the need for significant change. Members may disagree with aspects of the programme, but it is simply not credible to argue that reform itself lacks an evidence base. I cannot help but feel that some of those rallying against the reforms are far more driven by ideology than is the Minister whom they seek to paint in that way.

We have heard repeated claims that the reforms are being rushed. Again, that argument does not stand up to any scrutiny. The first teaching of the revised curriculum is not planned to happen until 2028, with new GCSEs in 2029 and further reforms through to 2031. That is not a headlong rush: it is a phased process over many years. In politics, as we have said, people often complain that Governments move too quickly or too slowly. It is difficult to be accused of rushing when implementation stretches across most of a decade. Reflecting on our mini inquiry, I am thankful that the Minister does not move at the pace of the Committee. I suggest to him that that is the last place that he should look for an example.

Having attended a number of the TransformEd-related events, I do not recognise the charge that teachers have somehow been pushed to the sidelines. Very many teachers participated in consultation exercises. Teachers, school leaders and subject specialists were directly involved in helping to shape the proposed curriculum framework. Their voices have been heard throughout the process, but that does not mean that every teacher or school leader agrees. It means that the claim that the profession has been ignored is simply not borne out by the facts. There is a concern about workload. We have all heard from those whom we represent in the schools around our constituencies. That concern is legitimate. It has been heard by not only members of the Committee, including me, but the Minister, who continues to work on that, yet one of the main criticisms of the current curriculum is that too much is left open to interpretation, forcing schools and teachers to spend enormous amounts of time creating material, duplicating effort and filling gaps themselves. The stated objective of the reforms is to bring greater clarity, greater consistency and better support so that teachers can spend more time teaching and less time reinventing resources that already exist elsewhere. Surely, that is a goal that we can all support and that every party should be able to get behind.

What concerns me most about the motion is that the choice being offered is false. It suggests that we can either tackle educational disadvantage, improve outcomes for children and support our teachers or we can pursue curriculum and assessment reform, but those are linked. TransformED is intended to improve outcomes, reduce inequality and strengthen support for our teachers. Those are not competing priorities; they are interconnected. Where are we if a child's chances in life are limited because we failed to address the weaknesses that everybody here knows exist? If we accept persistent underachievement because dealing with it is politically difficult —.

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

Mr Brooks: We must be willing to the difficult things.

Ms Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to talk about the motion today. My comments come from a good place, in that I have had lengthy engagements with stakeholders about TransformED and welcome the opportunity to share some of those perspectives today. I thank Michelle for proposing the motion. The tone in which we talk about the issue is really important, because we are here to scrutinise changes under TransformED, not the Minister directly.

Our school estate is crumbling. Accidents on school premises have resulted in the payment of well over £1 million in compensation in the past five years. Our school leaders have been advised to turn the heat down and teach with the lights off. That is absolutely unacceptable. Any time that you talk to any teacher whom you know, whether in the classroom or the pub, they will voice to you exactly how burned out they are. Retention remains a difficult issue, and it is a challenge to keep teachers in our country. Unions have voted overwhelmingly in favour of industrial action. All the while, we have a SEN crisis.

To be clear, our curriculum is in need of modernisation. I genuinely support in principle the Minister's efforts to reinvigorate teaching and learning. There is no doubt that our young people are worthy of a reformed curriculum that meets the needs of a rapidly changing world, but the direction, pace and transparency of those reforms concern so many of the stakeholders and specialists with whom I have spoken, due to, as other Members across the House have articulated, the demands that they are placing on the shoulders of our teachers while they are already burned out.

There have been a number of consultations. Consultations are key, and they give teachers the opportunity to provide feedback, but I have attended a number of schools recently where teachers said that they feel that they have no time to do that and that they are drowning in consultations on top of all the schoolwork that they already have, as well as building maintenance, staff needs and more. In the past weeks, I have spoken to academics, teachers, school principals, parents, teaching unions and multiple education interest groups across the North and the island, and I have been shocked by the level of concern that was raised. Teaching unions report that the ideological direction of TransformED is causing "considerable anxiety and uncertainty among teachers". They have also sharply criticised the pace at which reforms are being decided, because they feel that the quality of reform is more important than the pace at which it is delivered.

There is no shame in pausing the reforms or rethinking how quickly they are taking place. Given the magnitude of the proposed change, it is vital that we allow time for alternative voices to be heard, competing expertise and perspectives to be considered and, most importantly, adequate scrutiny of the process to be undertaken by all of us. I am particularly disappointed that officials are not allowed to appear before the Education Committee. That is so important. I am democratically elected to the House, and I have been placed on the Education Committee, in the same way as other Members from across the House have been, but we are not being given the opportunity to effectively scrutinise the Department and hold it to account. It is really unfair and undemocratic, because we are entitled to have a voice and to undertake scrutiny where possible. We want to work together, and we want the reforms to work, which is why I welcome Michelle's proposing of the motion.

TransformED has been pitched as a knowledge-rich curriculum that will help to deliver a world-class education to all our children, regardless of the school that they attend. Many teachers, however, have articulated that they feel that TransformED has been prescriptive to the point of being patronising, that it is narrow on the subject of choice and that it is so content heavy that it risks failing our most vulnerable learners. Of course, the Minister will have a retort in response to that, but it is important that I put that to the House and use this platform to put forward teachers' concerns. Whilst a knowledge-rich curriculum in itself sounds perfectly reasonable, it is clear that many view an education system that fails to consider the different ways in which children learn, explicitly teach skills and comprehensively promote creativity as one that lacks balance.

Whilst teachers from here were given some opportunities to participate in the subject working groups, many felt that the writing was already on the wall. Again, the Minister will be able to speak to that, but it is an important point, because many teachers and lecturers who want to articulate their views publicly fear a backlash. One person with whom I spoke said that it was the dark arts of DE. They feel uncomfortable about coming forward, and we do not want that kind of environment when we bring forward change in our curriculum. I ask that the Minister listen to us and consider our positions.

Mrs Mason: Teachers, parents and pupils are alarmed at the changes that are being pushed through under the Minister's TransformED project.

They say that the changes are too much, that they are happening too fast and that nobody is listening to them. In the previous debate, in which the Minister gave his bizarre performance, we heard him gloat about how his curriculum review was done in only six months. One teacher perfectly described the situation as being asked to run a marathon having trained only for a sprint. That sums it up.

Teachers are not against change — nobody is — and do not disagree that reform is needed. They are, however, being asked to deliver huge reforms, some of which they believe to be harmful, without the time, training or support that they need, all while workload issues remain unresolved and industrial action looms.

It is not just about the speed of the reforms but about their direction. There are serious warnings that the approach could widen the attainment gap and leave even more children behind. How can a Minister of Education be comfortable with that? Pupils are worried. They are concerned about losing AS levels and what that could mean for their applications to universities in the South. They are worried that less testing could mean more pressure from high-stakes exams. They are also worried about reduced coursework taking away opportunities to demonstrate their skills. Not every child shines in an exam hall. Not every child's ability can be measured by an exam paper. A Minister of Education should know that. Maybe the Minister knows but just does not care.

What makes me particularly angry is that, time and time again, the Minister is very quick to blame a lack of funding for the problems in education, but listen to this: £10·5 million was spent on TransformED in 2025-26 alone to pay for hand-picked English consultants, yet we still do not have a clear final cost for the project. Meanwhile, principals are begging to get basic repairs done, while others get brand-new pitches. Roofs are leaking, and rain is coming in through classroom windows. What is the answer? Put on a coat. It is disgusting. Teachers are stretched to breaking point. All of that is taking place against a backdrop of a SEN crisis. Families are fighting to get suitable places for their children with complex needs.

Tell me this: how many leaking roofs could £10·5 million repair? How many classrooms could that money make dry, safe and warm? How many boilers could it repair? How many children could get a one-to-one classroom assistant to help meet their needs? How many children with reading difficulties could get extra support? How many children could access proper mental health support? Let us call TransformED what it is: Minister Givan's vanity project. The reforms are copied and pasted from the controversial Conservative education agenda in England, where huge concerns have also been raised about children being left behind.

We still have two enormous elephants in the room: academic selection and early years education. How can the Minister claim to be tackling inequality while leaving academic selection untouched? It is not up for discussion. The expert whom he appointed, Lucy Crehan, admitted that it skews the primary-school curriculum but she was not allowed to touch it. How can we talk about transforming education without putting early years and early intervention at its heart? Minister, do our early years settings not matter?

Those are all fundamental questions, but what do we have? We have a Minister who is pressing ahead with his reform programme while serious problems facing our schools remain unsolved. Frankly, our children do not need a Minister who is focused solely on his own vanity and on securing his legacy; they need a Minister who cares about their future. Start listening, and, for once, please do the right thing. Wake up, and start tackling the real problems that our schools face.

Mrs Middleton: Northern Ireland needs a curriculum that prepares our young people for the challenges and opportunities of the future; in fact, current education outcomes indicate a need for reform. The TransformED programme is designed to tackle inequality. It is therefore imperative that we recognise the importance of the work being undertaken through the programme and the ambition to ensure that our education system is fit for purpose and capable of meeting the needs of children and young people in this changing world.

We need to ensure that our children are equipped with the knowledge, skills and confidence to succeed and that our teachers are supported to deliver the best education possible.

Education is one of the most important responsibilities that we have collectively as elected representatives. We all want to see our young people leave school equipped with the toolkit that they need to make the most of the opportunities available to them. However, we must recognise that the world that our children are growing up in is different from the one that many of us experienced. The demands of the workplace are changing, technology is advancing rapidly, and the skills required by employers continue to evolve. Our curriculum must therefore reflect those changes. We must ensure that the education that we provide prepares our young people for those changes, and that is why I believe that the principle of TransformED is important.

Our teachers, principals and wider education workforce are the people who understand the realities of the classroom, know the needs of their pupils and work tirelessly to give every child the best possible start in life. The experience and professional knowledge that they bring remains invaluable, and their involvement will be critical to the success of TransformED. Importantly, the concerns being raised by teachers or school leaders should not automatically be interpreted as opposition to change; indeed, many of those raising questions will share the ambition of the Minister to see an education system that delivers better outcomes for our children. It is important that we continue to have constructive dialogue, that concerns are heard and that the programme benefits from the experience and expertise of those working in our schools. We want teachers to feel confident and supported in delivering a new curriculum; we want principals to have the necessary information and resources to plan effectively; and we want parents to understand what the changes mean for their children's education. We should recognise that parents are important stakeholders in the process, and their views and experiences should help inform the ongoing development of the programme.

We need to look at TransformED through the wider lens of educational opportunity. One of the greatest responsibilities of our education system is to ensure that a child's background does not determine their future. TransformED is designed to make sure that it no longer does. The programme aims to ensure that every child, irrespective of background, has access to high-quality educational opportunities. We need a curriculum that recognises the different talents and abilities of our young people, that supports those who require additional help and that provides opportunities for pupils to develop academically, socially and personally. We must ensure that our young people are prepared for further education, apprenticeships, employment and the many different pathways available to them. Academic achievement remains hugely important, but so are practical skills, digital capability, communication, problem-solving and the ability to adapt in this ever-changing world. A modern curriculum must recognise that there is no single pathway to success and that every child should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential. I believe that Members across the House can support that ambition.

Teachers and school leaders should very much feel that they are partners in the process and that they can air their concerns. The success of any curriculum reform will ultimately depend on what happens in the classroom. It will rely on the expertise of our skilled teaching workforce. The Minister has acknowledged that teacher professional development is of the utmost importance when seeking to improve educational outcomes for our children and young people. There is much to be gained from listening to those who deliver education every day.

The debate around TransformED should not become one of change versus no change. TransformED provides an opportunity to take forward the work that we have discussed throughout the debate, and it gives us an opportunity to reform. Of course, there will be challenges. I welcome the Minister's focus on the future of education —

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

Mrs Middleton: — and his ambition.

Ms Nicholl: I used to be on the Education Committee; I cannot say that I miss it that much, having listened to some of the debate.

However, the issue of education is one of the most important that the House deals with. I liked David Brooks's line that we should not put much-needed reform on hold because change is difficult. I would like to get that printed on T-shirts for the whole Building. I do not think that anybody is arguing that we should not have reform. Of course we should. As my colleague Michelle Guy set out so well, as did others in the Chamber, it is about the extent of the reform, and ensuring that it is implemented at the right pace so that it is done properly. Reform of that scale will work only if teachers trust it and the Assembly can scrutinise it, and, right now, neither of those things is true.

I am speaking as a constituency MLA, and I declare an interest because many members of my family are teachers. What I hear in schools is that this agenda is coming along at a time when they are already dealing with so many other issues. One teacher in my constituency recently said to me that TransformED is at the bottom of the list of things that they are worried about. So much of their time is occupied by issues with SEN, issues relating to buildings, action short of strike and ensuring that the children receive the best possible education. One principal whom I talked to said that, in principle, they do not disagree with the concept of TransformED; the issue is the pace and extent of it and being able to implement it properly when they are already firefighting. I do not think that anyone here is against high standards. Knowledge really matters, but reform should not be rushed or forced through.

The three points that I will make have come up in conversations with teachers in my constituency. The first is workload, which has already been referenced. It is an issue that has gone unresolved for years. The Department will argue that new resources will reduce the load on teachers, but that almost brushes aside the lived experience of many teachers. A whole new curriculum means new content, new planning and new training, all of which is landing on people who already feel so stretched.

Interestingly, the issue has also been raised with me at the school gates. While dropping my son off, I was stopped by a parent who asked, "What's happening with this TransformED? What does it mean for my child's education?". There is a fear. Maybe something needs to be done about how the scale of the change is communicated to not only the people delivering it but parents.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Nicholl: Go ahead.

Mr Brooks: We will disagree — I am sure that the Minister will as well — with some of the points that have been made. Some of your criticisms are being made in a constructive way, but you said that you did not think that anyone in here should disagree. The nature of your critique is quite different from the critique that we hear from Members across the way. Some Members — Pat, Danny and so on — think that Michael Gove is hiding under their beds. There has been quite an ideological opposition to the reforms. That has not been made on the same basis as the criticisms that you are making. Rather, I suspect that some Members are pushing back on the entire reform agenda because it is being delivered well by a DUP Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. The Halloween thought of Michael Gove hiding under any bed is very scary.

Ms Nicholl: It is absolutely terrifying, Deputy Speaker.

Those views are also reflected by some teachers. What is interesting about TransformED is the range of views on it. What I am hearing across the board, however, is that it is so much so quickly, at a time when so much else is already happening.

Of course, you will defend your Minister, as is your right. Cara Hunter talked about "the dark arts of DE". I know that the Minister will take this very well because he does not get offended by things that I say, but he has a reputation for being a bit unpredictable sometimes. Some teachers have said to me that they are worried about airing concerns because their school is on a list for a new building or something, and they are not entirely sure how the Minister would react, but I am sure that he would say they have no reason to have such fears.

The second point is that teachers know the children in front of them. They adapt and use their judgement. One constituent who is a teacher said to me that they know that identikit lessons delivered by identikit teachers would not serve every child or keep good people in the profession. She also said that there is a real concern around process and accountability. That is my third point. The curriculum working groups have been mentioned. Mr Brooks said himself that there have been loads of events, so saying that teachers have not been listened to is a fallacy. You can have lots of events, but is what is being said actually being heard? They are worried that, although they are being told to adhere to a knowledge-rich framework, the direction was set before they had even sat down.

I think that it is really important to say that scrutiny is not sabotage. It is our job. I think that the officials have to go back to the Committee. It is wild that they are not attending. Our children only get one education, so we have to get this right.

Mr Baker: A good leader will bring everyone with him. Unfortunately, this Education Minister has been combative right from the very beginning towards the Education Committee. As you saw in the previous debate, he was really combative towards minorities and really insulting to children. He is meant to represent all children, but maybe that is the objective of the Lisburn mafia. He also thinks that I have anger issues. I think that he mistakes my passion for all children for anger.

TransformED is not a strategy that puts children first. It is a plan of managing a system. It will benefit schools and pupils that are already doing well academically, and it will leave behind those who need the most support. It has not been shaped by the voices of young people, teachers or communities. That is being said across the board, whether it is in the Education Committee, on the doorsteps or at the school gates. I get that all the time from school leaders, teachers and parents. Kate is right to say that it is way down the list, but it should not be, because this is a huge transformation. It is down the list because there is so much chaos in the system, and much of that chaos has been created by the Education Minister. Some people think that being busy is good. I am busy on a football pitch, but that does not mean that I am any good. That is exactly what we have here. You regurgitate it and say, "He is a busy Minister". Look at the legislation: it is not worth it. Look at what we had with the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. He would not listen to the Committee — 11 key amendments.

Mr Sheehan: Damp squib.

Mr Baker: Damp squib, yes.

He did not listen to the work of the Education Committee. We could have had a much better piece of legislation.

Then we get to the scrutiny in the Committee. There are other pieces of legislation, but I do not even know where they are at the minute. I think that the Minister has halted them because key amendments have been approved this time and he does not like it. Again, toys out of the pram. We see that with TransformED. We need the officials in the Committee every single week as we work towards the regulations coming forward, but they are not there. They are not there because they are being scrutinised. I cannot criticise the Chair of the Committee. I think that he has done a really good job. I think that our Committee has done a very good job in scrutinising all sorts of policies and all sorts of challenges that are coming through Education. We have not just carried out an RSE inquiry: we did a SEN inquiry, and we have also dealt with some serious issues. We can do both and we can multitask. We have had multiple meetings outside of the one that we are meant to have every week. We gave a commitment to work hard. I know that you think that we do not work hard; you told us to work harder. Maybe the reason why we do not have the officials in front of us is because we worked too hard and you did not like what was coming out the other end. The first chance that you got, you pulled your officials. I look at some of the other Committees and see the behaviour of other MLAs. Our Committee is way down when it comes to how its members ask questions.

Young people are concerned about the direction of travel. They fed that back into the consultation, and they were ignored. Cathy pointed out that the cost is already nearly £11 million. When we ask officials about that and try to scrutinise that, they say, "What are you talking about? It is only 0·003% of the budget. It is a pittance. It is nothing". However, when we talk about other policies or pieces of legislation, we are told, "Oh, we do not have any money for that, so it would be harmful to the educational future of our children". Where are we coming from with that? We need a Minister to start listening.

If you want this to deliver for all children — not just the children whom you deem to be fit — your officials need to come back to the Committee. You need to start listening and working with all of the other parties, as we have been doing. Let us deliver together. I do not think that you will do that. Again, I think that you will attack the Committee.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Baker: Certainly.

Mr Sheehan: If the Minister is so concerned about the way in which officials have been treated at the Committee, why does he not make a complaint to the Commissioner for Standards?

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

Mr Baker: That is a very good point.

I will finish with this point. We have talked about reform, and it has been well rehearsed today that, of course, there needs to be reform. However, let us have a real discussion about reform. Let us talk about academic selection, because it warps the whole system. You cannot have a curriculum —. The Minister is rolling his eyes thinking, "Look, there he is talking about his ideologies". Listen, you may think that Gove is under the bed, but you just copied and pasted the changes that took place in England. Those were failed changes, and they are having to be undone. You just parachuted those in with that regressive agenda. That is what I mean. If you do not listen, you ain't gonna go anywhere. You will finish this mandate with nothing. The School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Act has been a damp squib, and that is what you will finish with. Children's rights advocates came to the Committee and said that the Minister has wasted this mandate. They could not have said anything truer. That is what you will end up with: a wasted mandate in which you have delivered absolutely nothing. Well done to the DUP.

Mr Carroll: I declare an interest: I have several family members, including siblings, who work in education. My party supports the motion and the UUP amendment. TransformED is so bad that even Jon Burrows, who normally backs the Minister and the DUP, supports the motion. Fair play to him for seeing the light on this matter.

It is worth emphasising, as other Members have, that nobody is against reform. However, reform that is done to the education workforce rather than with it is nothing less than imposition. As has been said, teachers are on action short of strike over workloads that, as they have been telling the Minister for years, are unsustainable. I suggest that the Minister starts his reform by reforming the workloads of teachers and everybody in education.

The Minister's answer is to pile a curriculum overhaul on top of everything else. There is an extra TransformED closure day in every term over the year, which, for working parents, means another unpaid day off or another childcare bill with no financial support from the Minister or the Executive. All of that comes on top of an £800 million school repair bill and an SEN spend of over £700 million while the crisis deepens. The NASUWT, the largest teaching union here, said that consultation has become:

If nothing that I or any other party says can shift the Minister, that should force a U-turn, but I doubt it.

A school head of department wrote to me this week to say that the professional expertise of classroom teachers has not been sufficiently considered. People are screaming at the Minister, but he is not listening. The so-called knowledge-rich direction was written into the review's terms of reference before it even began. As others have said, the consultation was launched in June, which is the middle of the exam season and just before the summer break.

Contracts were directly awarded to consultants, with one organisation getting £384,000. I understand that the Minister found time to fly to Florida to meet Mr Eric Hirsch. I wonder whether he has met any teachers from west Belfast to talk about the damaging reforms that he is proposing through TransformED. I doubt it.

As others have indicated, the gap between pupils who receive free school meals and their better-off peers is stuck at 30 points at GCSE level and has not moved in over a decade. The strongest predictor of academic success here is still whether a child gets into a grammar school, yet the DUP Minister and his party defend academic selection to the hilt while telling us that the curriculum will be an "engine of equity". No reading list will fix poverty, academic selection or underfunding.

A narrow, prescriptive model rewards the schools that already have the most cultural and financial capital. Citizenship education is downgraded and regarded as being substandard, which is a surefire way to promote compliance in our young people, rather than critical thinking and democratic agency. I suspect that that is at the heart of why the Minister is so keen to push this through. Humanities and language teachers have real fears that the curriculum is being narrowed. Grief and bereavement are not included in the proposed curriculum at all, despite the fact that, every year, around 1,600 children here lose a parent, which is the equivalent of four a day.

Bereaved children are 60% more likely to have been excluded from school and 40% more likely to have a parent in financial crisis. Grief and hardship hit the same families.

It is proposed that, in primary school, the core history sequence stops at AD 1100: why is anybody's guess. People have contacted me about issues of an historical nature such as the Belfast blitz not being in the curriculum going forward. That is working-class history and the history of lots of things, and it should be kept rather than gutted for no apparent reason. Children should understand the history of their own streets and families as well.

The crux of the DUP's agenda is drill the facts and do not ask questions, just be quiet in the classroom. We should all want to have young working-class people who can think critically and question power, including the power in this Building. The Minister should pause this and listen to the workforce. Teachers, classroom assistants and school leaders know the children best. Build it with them or it will not last.

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

Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Mr Givan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. President George W Bush identified one of the greatest injustices in education: the soft bigotry of low expectations. It is the belief that some children cannot achieve as much as others and that we should, therefore, lower our expectations rather than raise their attainment. Every child, regardless of background, postcode or circumstance, deserves access to the very best education. That principle lies at the heart of TransformED, yet some in the Chamber would have us slow down, lower our ambitions and postpone change once again. Faced with challenges, their answer is not reform but delay; not action but hesitation. They appear to be searching for a mythical consensus; a day when every union, every ideological academic and every stakeholder agrees on every proposal. Their day will never come.

Drift is not a strategy. For years, the Assembly has been criticised for inertia and lacking the courage to confront long-standing societal problems. It is, therefore, deeply ironic that, having brought forward an ambitious programme of change, my Department is now accused of doing too much, too quickly. Let us be honest about what is being proposed today. The motion is not a plan for improvement. It identifies challenges but offers no solutions. It asks us to pause reform, settle for the status quo and tell another generation of children that their interests can wait until the adults agree. We will not do that, because children get only one chance at education, and it is always the most disadvantaged children who pay the price for delay.

Let us be clear about what those who oppose want to stop. Let us deal with the reality of TransformED, not the caricature that has been presented today. TransformED is the most ambitious programme of educational reform in Northern Ireland for over half a century, and it is already making a difference. To be clear, it is not something that I dreamt up overnight; I wish that I could have. It is based on international evidence and informed by world-leading experts. We have renewed an education policy framework, much of which was over 20 years old, and, for the first time in a generation, professional learning is not an afterthought; it is a priority.

We have made the largest investment in teacher professional learning in our history. That is over £10 million on expenditure for TransformED that Cathy Mason was critical of — £10 million straight to our teachers to develop their professional capacity. That is what the Member would not want to have spent money on: supporting our teachers. We have strengthened initial teacher education and induction for beginning teachers. We have invested in school leaders through leadership development programmes and a new professional qualification for headship. We have awarded more than 130 bursaries in STEM shortage subjects to recruit talented teachers where they are needed most. That includes Irish-medium teachers. TransformED is supporting Irish-medium education — that is what Sinn Féin wants to stop. We have funded over 100 research-informed conferences involving more than 400 schools.

We have supported postgraduate leadership study and brought in world-class professional learning from the Chartered College of Teaching to Northern Ireland. Teachers now have access to an unprecedented range of research-informed professional learning, including learning on the effective use of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. That is TransformED.

TransformED means embracing evidence, not ideology. I never realised that so many in the controlled sector, the Catholic maintained sector and the Irish-medium sector were English Tories pursuing an English Tory ideology, which is a slur on the principals from west Belfast who serve on the committees and on the principals and teachers from schools across Northern Ireland who authored the work. Sinn Féin casts that aside when it has an ideological political point to make.

TransformED means embracing evidence, not ideology. It means having the first reliable national assessment data in literacy and numeracy at the ages of 8, 11 and 14. It means having fewer exams and a new, modular A Level that is designed in Northern Ireland for Northern Ireland. That practical reform means fewer exams, about eight additional weeks of teaching and the opportunity for students to bank one third of their qualification in year 13. It means stronger school improvement led by 12 highly experienced local principals who understand the realities of school leadership.

What is the response from those who oppose? They say no: no to the hundreds of schools embracing the science of learning and leading the way with research-informed conferences; no to the 400 assessment coordinators who are about to receive world-class training from the Chartered Institute of Educational Assessors; no to a proper, 30-hour induction programme for beginner teachers; no to meaningful assessment data; no to stronger literacy; no to stronger numeracy; and no to a new curriculum. If you want to make enemies, Mr Deputy Speaker, try changing something. It is easy to oppose, to criticise and to vote against change. What is difficult is taking responsibility for improving a system that, everyone agrees, must do better. If reform requires the agreement of everyone with an interest in preserving the status quo, the status quo will always prevail.

Today, I published the report on the curriculum consultation, the outcome of which Mr Sheehan said he would await. I have the outcome. More than 4,000 stakeholders took the time to engage. The TransformED days that are criticised in the motion brought in over 2,500 consultation responses from education professionals across Northern Ireland. What did they tell us? A clear majority supported the proposed curriculum aim, objectives and capabilities. A majority agreed that the curriculum content is clear and understandable. Frameworks for science, mathematics, technology, geography, PE and many other subjects attracted strong support. The message from the profession is not that reform should stop but that it should continue while we revise, strengthen and improve specific areas. That is exactly what my officials will do. We will continue to engage with subject specialists in the profession to revise and improve the proposals, because the new curriculum is founded on the simple principle that entitlement is better than chance.

For too long, we have had a curriculum that was unclear about what children know and are able to do. The new curriculum changes that. It sets out clearly the knowledge, concepts and, to address Cara Hunter's point, skills that young people should learn and how that learning should logically build over time.

Mr Mathison: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: I want to make progress, because I have a lot to cover.

Make no mistake: this is not simply a curriculum debate but a social justice issue. Low expectations are not kindness. The greatest injustice is not that children arrive at school with different levels of knowledge but that we allow them to leave school with those differences intact because we have failed to specify, teach and assess what every child should know. This is where I disagree with Mr Burrows when he speaks about professional autonomy. It does not mean independence to teach what you want on any subject that you want how you want. We do not say to police officers, "Have your autonomy to decide". We set a framework, criteria and parameters, and we expect them to follow process and policy. Of course there should be professional judgement, but, if "autonomy" means doing what you want, I cannot support it.

There are four fundamental flaws in the argument that we have heard today: first, the claim that reform is unnecessary; secondly, the suggestion that TransformED is crowding out other priorities; thirdly, the claim that reform will inevitably increase workload; and, fourthly, the argument that reform is being rushed. Every one of those arguments is plainly wrong.

The opponents of TransformED would have us believe that reform is an unnecessary distraction, yet Northern Ireland's performance is declining internationally. Three in 10 children leave primary school without reaching the expected standard in literacy and numeracy. For children on free school meals, the figure is closer to one in two. Too many children leave primary school unable to read well enough, and that is simply not good enough. The only answer is better-evidenced and better-supported literacy teaching. The answer to educational underachievement is certainly not to ignore pedagogy, curriculum, assessment, professional learning and school improvement.

One of the strangest arguments advanced today is that, because our education system faces serious challenges — Kate Nicholl made the point — we should stop education reform: that makes no sense. The motion creates a false choice: it suggests that we must either focus on curriculum, assessment and school improvement or focus on the school estate, special educational needs, early years and the challenge of attendance. We are doing both. Frankly, it is beyond laughable to suggest that the answer to an ageing school estate that requires £800 million of investment that Sinn Féin does not support is to stop curriculum reform. The curriculum reform programme — this is important — has cost less than the price of two mobile classrooms.

One concern that is often raised when education reform is proposed is teacher workload, and that is a legitimate concern. Teachers across Northern Ireland already work incredibly hard, but the current system creates unnecessary workload. Members want to keep the status quo and delay the progress of change, but that is to consign our teachers to the unsustainable workload pressures that they are under. We have a plan to get out of those pressures: TransformED. For too long, teachers have been expected to make decisions about curriculum content, sequencing and progression that high-performing systems specify more clearly: no longer. I have removed workload-intensive Key Stage assessments based on teacher judgement, and we have replaced them with low-stakes tests that will be marked by CCEA. Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party say that they want to reduce workload, yet they oppose my plans to reduce controlled assessment, which are supported by the profession.

TransformED is about a clearer curriculum, lower workload assessment, stronger professional learning and a more coherent support system for teachers. Instead of every school having to reinvent the wheel, teachers will be able to draw on a clear, shared framework and high-quality resources. The goal is simple: less time on bureaucracy, more time on teaching.

The motion states that the "reforms are being rushed". Yes, I am delivering a lot: guilty as charged. Let us be clear, however: reform is not being imposed overnight. TransformED is a 10-year programme of consultation, piloting, professional learning and phased implementation. No fair-minded assessment could describe that as being "rushed". The first teaching of the new curriculum will not begin until 2028, and, even then, implementation will be phased over three years. To date, our focus has been on developing policy and investing in teacher professional learning. I appreciate that my Department is delivering more quickly in comparison with the glacial pace of other Departments, but here is the reality: every child gets only one chance at education, and, while you delay, children lose out — while you delay, another generation of children fails to learn to read.

Members, you have no plan, no policies, no vision and, importantly, no alternative to my plan. We demand better. You cannot claim to put children first while opposing the very inspections that identify when children are being failed. You cannot demand better SEN services while opposing every change needed to deliver them. You cannot claim to care about teacher workload while opposing the removal of controlled assessment. You cannot demand more engagement and preparation time while criticising the plan to have additional teacher development days. Those who oppose reform must answer this simple question: what is your alternative? The reality is that they have no alternative, just more reviews, more delay, more of the same failed approaches and more requests for money that simply does not exist — just ask John O'Dowd. Platitudes; warm words; nothing too difficult.

That will mean another generation of working-class children being failed by the Members who oppose TransformED. Is that the best that you can offer our children?

The greatest threat to our education system is not reform: it is complacency. It is accepting outcomes that we would never accept for our own children. The motion asks us to fear change. I fear standing still because every year that we delay another cohort of children passes through our schools and loses opportunities that they will never get back. The children in our classrooms today cannot wait for perfect consensus. They get one chance at education — only one — and it is always the most disadvantaged children who pay the highest price for delay, drift and low expectations.

Every education system is perfectly designed to get the results that it gets. You identify the problems, but, Members, there is no alternative beyond delay. If we want different results, we must be prepared to do things differently. This debate comes down to a simple choice: do we settle for drift, delay and more of the same, or do we act? I choose action, higher standards, ambition for every child and reform.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Jon Burrows to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Jon, you have up to five minutes.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will keep this brief, because it is a small amendment to a more substantive issue in the motion.

David Brooks spoke in defence of the Minister and TransformED. Cara Hunter expressed well details on the level of input from teachers, the value of their professional judgement and how important that is in a profession such as teaching. Cathy Mason made a similar point, as did Julie Middleton, in fairness. They emphasised the importance of professional judgement. I want to go back to what the Minister said. There is a difference between professional judgement that allows you to exercise the skills that you have within a framework, which is showing discretion, and simply flying your own kite. There is a difference, and the knowledge-rich curriculum and TransformED approach are too prescriptive. It should give more licence to teachers to exercise that professional judgement.

The highlight of the debate, for me, was Mr Carroll praising me for not supporting the Minister in the motion. It felt like that moment when Sir Humphrey told Jim Hacker that he had been very "courageous". For a moment, I was emboldened and felt proud, but then I got deeply worried that I was being endorsed by Mr Carroll, but we will move on.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way to Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: I just wish to correct the record. I did not endorse you. I said that you took the right position on this point. [Laughter.]

Mr Burrows: He got deeply worried about backing Jon Burrows, and he saw that seat in West Belfast go to Sinn Féin.

Mr Carroll: You do not understand what "endorse" means.

Mr Burrows: It works both ways, comrade.

In all seriousness, it has been a productive debate, and I know that we will get a productive winding-up speech from the Alliance Party. There was a general understanding that change is necessary and that TransformED has much going for it but that our teachers are overwhelmed by the pace of change and by the fact that their professional judgement, experience, expertise and wisdom should not be legislated away in a prescriptive curriculum. I encourage Members to support the amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Nick Mathison to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Nick, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will begin by making a brief reference to some of the comments that were made at the beginning of the debate around the appearance, or non-appearance, of officials at the Education Committee. I am not speaking in my capacity as Chair of the Committee, so I do not intend to rehearse any of those issues in detail, other than to say that it was a fairly unprecedented intervention from the Minister. It is appropriate that the Committee takes the time to arrive at the appropriate response to him on that. I am prepared to own up if I have dropped the ball. It was my understanding that the letter had been acknowledged. If it was not acknowledged, I apologise for that, and we hope to respond to you in due course.

For me, this debate is about policy, and it is not about personality. The Minister is clearly in good form today, and he delivered two incredibly energised and barnstorming speeches that rattled through a huge amount of material in his 15 minutes. No interventions were taken. Again, I would have liked the opportunity to pick up on a couple of the points. When the Minister throws around suggestions about what people's positions may or may not be on something, it is nice to get the chance to respond. I am glad that I have the opportunity to make a winding-up speech on that today.

In some respects, the Minister's speech reflects a little bit of how many people in the system feel about the approach taken by TransformED: it is completely, "Ears closed, I am not listening and I will not engage. I am right and you are wrong". For me, it is not an issue about who is right and who is wrong — that there is a brand of reform that is pure, unadulterated, effective policymaking that will deliver the change we need, and everybody else on the other side does not understand or care about children's outcomes and has just got it wrong. The Minister likes to characterise most issues on that basis. It is binary: "You are either for me or you are against me. I am right and you are wrong". That is not how I see the issue. A lot of the teachers who are watching the debate will have reacted quite viscerally to the Minister's speech. There were a lot of big claims about everything that he is doing — "I am doing this. I am doing that" — but the teachers who are on the front line are thinking, "Actually, we are doing a lot of the heavy lifting here. We are the ones in the crumbling buildings who are overwhelmed by the workload. We are the ones who are being asked to deliver, as Mr Burrows said, 'the art of the impossible' every single day". It is the same for the support staff in schools. They will not have responded well to the characterisation of the education system that it is the Minister leading the charge, and everybody else is following his lead. I want to take my lead from teachers and school leaders.

I know that the Minister likes to characterise it as though nobody else engages with these issues and that we are all holding back progress and are opposed to an agenda that will deliver change. I visit schools all the time, and I take the time to listen. I actually listen; I do not walk through those doors with an agenda — "Here is what I want to say about the Minister". I do not politicise my engagements with those schools; I listen to them, and teachers and school leaders are raising concerns. Whether the Minister likes it or not, they are raising concerns. I wanted to make an intervention because the consultation responses have just been released, and we have not had time to process any of that. The Education Committee is well used to that pattern: we will debate an issue while material lands in real time from the Department. We are not surprised by that approach. I will pick out one stat from the consultation. The consultees were asked to respond to the sequencing of the new material in the curriculum from Foundation Stage to Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3, which is really important and a huge chunk of a child's education. My reading of the consultation report is that 54% responded negatively. It is not for me to say that the whole thing is bad, terrible and wrong, but stats like that should give us a reason to pause. We need to listen and understand why those who responded to the consultation feel that the sequencing is not right. I could pull out other stats from Key Stage 1, from foreign languages or from history. It is not a unilateral "the Minister is right", but that is not how we make policy. It is not about one person being right and everyone else being wrong; it is a consultative exercise to come to a point where we can deliver reform that brings the system with us, and that is the point that I want to make.

I am not going to read my speech because, to be honest, most of it has been covered. There is a lot of noise going on, but if we get down to the brass tacks of TransformED, the things that are really key to me are teacher professional learning and curriculum reform. The Minister is at pains to say over and over again that the thing that will make the difference for our children is what is taught in the classroom. I do not disagree with that. The issue of academic selection was raised by Danny, and I completely agree with him. I cannot understand the idea that we do not touch that issue when we deal with educational reform. I do not understand that, and the Minister will characterise me as an ideologue on that basis. I like to listen to evidence, and all the international evidence tells us that you would never design a system that builds in academic selection. I find it baffling that the Department does not want to engage with that issue.

We have not said in the text of the motion that the curriculum does not need reform. In fact, we have acknowledged that it does. My colleague Michelle Guy opened her remarks by saying that nobody is saying that the curriculum is perfect and does not need reform. If, however, we are to make changes that will impact on and profoundly alter what our children learn in the classroom for decades to come, surely you want to take the time to get that right. I do not think that that is holding back progress or settling for inertia. It is about making sure that we bring the system with us.

As far as I understand from the evidence that we heard from officials at the Committee, the curriculum will come as a minimum content order and a single job lot. That was the evidence. The Minister is shaking his head. If I have that wrong, please come back to me, but the evidence given to us at Committee was that it will come as a minimum content order. It will be subject to negative resolution, so it will require an MLA to pray against that, and it will be a case of taking or approving the whole lot. Surely, when you set the bar that high when it comes to how we approve it, you want to get it right, and you want to bring the system with you. That is what I am pleading with the Minister to do. We have so much evidence coming through from academics, and the Minister wanted to characterise them as ideological academics, but this is all ideological. What you are putting forward is ideological, Minister. Everybody takes their position and defends it, relying on the evidence that they choose to put forward to back it up.

Minister, you have made a very strong defence of your proposals today, so I am not saying, "Throw out reform", but, if we are to have a wholesale review of the curriculum, let us get it right. We are hearing from subject experts, teachers and school leaders that they have concerns about aspects of what is being proposed in the curriculum, so I would rather take the time to pause, listen and engage. Let the school leaders and teachers see that what has come out on the other side of the consultation has engaged with what they have said, that some things have changed and that we do not just run with a predetermined outcome.

The review kicked off with, "We are going to look to a knowledge-rich approach", and that is what we ended up with. People were worried from the start that it was predetermined. Prove us wrong, and prove that you can listen. We are not on an electoral timetable. It does not have to be done by March. It does not have to go on an election leaflet. We have to think about what is good for the system. That is my plea for the curriculum.

I have not met a single teacher who has said that they are upset that you are investing in teacher professional learning — quite the opposite — but there are clearly financial pressures across the system. Therefore, if we are to invest in it, let us make sure that we get it right. I have heard teachers and school leaders say that they feel concerned that they are being pushed down a particular avenue of a particular type and a particular brand of teacher professional learning by a particular set of companies and a particular cohort of English experts. That is causing concern.

I will not mischaracterise this. Have schools been told that they can learn and deliver only one thing? Have tablets of stone saying that been presented to them? No. Many schools have said that they do not like some of the material that is being pushed and that they will do their own thing and continue to do so. I welcome that, but I hope that we can get to a point where the Department is listening to what school leaders are saying about what they really need in the teacher professional learning that is required.

I will draw my remarks to a close. I just wanted to make the point, and I have probably done so in quite a long-winded way, so I apologise. I do not think that the Minister's characterisation of the intent of the motion was accurate, and it was not what my colleague or I put forward here today. We think that it is just about taking the time to get it right.

I find it baffling that anybody would have an objection to or issue with that. Let us really listen to the evidence and to those in the profession and bring them with us so that, when we get that minimum content order, we are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater but have a system that is on the same page as the profession and ensures that teachers want to work with it.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Clear the Lobbies. The Question will be put in three minutes.

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