Official Report: Tuesday 10 November 2026

Mr Speaker: Before we commence today's business I inform Members that a valid petition of concern was presented yesterday before the 4.00 pm deadline for the Final Stage of the Irish-medium Education (Workforce Plan) Bill. The debate will still proceed today, but the vote on the Final Stage will not be taken, as section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires that there must now be a 14-day consideration period.

Mr Sheehan: Tá Gaeilge24, lá gníomhaíochta náisiúnta eagraithe ag Conradh na Gaeilge, ar siúl inniu. Is é is aidhm le Gaeilge24 ná daoine óga a spreagadh le labhairt as Gaeilge amháin ar feadh an lae inniu, an Mháirt, an 10 Samhain. Tá deis ar leith ar Ghaeilge a úsáid le linn Gaeilge24, ní hé amháin sa tseomra ranga ach sa ghnáthshaol fosta. Spreagann an feachtas daoine óga leis an Ghaeilge a úsáid i ngach gné den tsaol — i gclubanna spóirt, i ngníomhaíochtaí iarscoile, i ngrúpaí óige agus eile. Tá moladh tuillte ag eagraithe agus ceannairí na gclubanna Gaeilge taobh amuigh d’earnáil an oideachais as a gcuid iarrachtaí leanúnacha an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn mar ghnáththeanga bheo, agus ní mar ábhar scoile amháin.

Is é téama Gaeilge24 i mbliana, "Todhchaí na Gaeilge". Cé go bhfuiltear ag díriú go príomha ar dhaoine óga inniu, ba cheart dúinn, mar cheannairí polaitíochta agus mar eiseamláirí do dhaoine óga, an deis seo a thapú le haird a tharraingt ar ról na teanga sa tsochaí agus an ról sin a mhúnlú. Ní fearrde áit le déanamh amhlaidh ná sa tSeomra seo, i measc na ndaoine atá freagrach as todhchaí na teanga. Mar sin de, déan iarracht inniu an oiread Gaeilge agus is féidir a úsáid.

Mr Martin: There are few greater acts of service and sacrifice than putting oneself in mortal danger to protect others. Remembrance gives us the opportunity to honour those who answered the call of duty and defended our freedoms, some of whom made the ultimate sacrifice. It is about recognising the courage and commitment of men and women who served our country with great honour and distinction.

In Northern Ireland, remembrance carries a particularly profound meaning. We have a proud military heritage, with generations of men and women serving in the UK armed forces.

That extends from the battlefields of World War II to the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan. We particularly think of those who served here during the Troubles in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment who were murdered at the hands of cowardly terrorists. We also remember the families who received that devastating knock on the door that no family should ever have to receive. Military service is a sacrifice shared not only by those in uniform but by everyone who loves them. Finally, we must never forget our veterans. They deserve our lasting respect and gratitude, and I particularly welcome the work that our Veterans Commissioner, David Johnstone, does in Northern Ireland to support those men and women.

The freedom and democracy that we enjoy today in the Chamber did not come at zero cost; they were paid for by the sacrifice of many on our behalf. Therefore, when we wear a poppy or stand in silence, we should let it mean something. A Vietnam veteran once provided a simple analogy that I recently explained to my youngest son, Zach. Most people just want to live in peace and raise their family: they are the sheep. However, throughout history, there have been those who will threaten that, be they fascist dictators or home-grown terrorists: those are the wolves. Standing between the sheep and the wolves are sheepdogs: our armed forces, who will stand at post and say, "Not on my watch". At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.

Mr Dickson: Tomorrow, at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day, we mark Armistice Day at home and around the free world when we remember those who lost their lives in war and those who returned home bearing physical and emotional scars.

It is 108 years since the end of the First World War, a conflict that claimed millions of lives and left few families or communities untouched. Across Northern Ireland, thousands of men and women left home to serve. Many never returned. Behind every name on a war memorial was a person, a family and a life cut short. In my constituency of East Antrim, across our towns, villages and churches, our memorials remain a powerful reminder of that sacrifice. From my home, I see the County Antrim war memorial at Knockagh, which is a daily reminder standing high above Greenisland. It is a constant reminder of the generations who served and the consequences of war, which did not end when the fighting stopped.

We know that remembrance can mean different things to different people here. Our history is complicated. However, those differences should not prevent us from recognising the suffering of others or respecting their right to remember those whom they have lost. Remembrance is deeply personal and should be treated with sensitivity and dignity. Armistice Day is also an opportunity to recognise those who continue to serve in our armed forces and civilian organisations and the veterans and families who live with the consequences of that service. Our gratitude to them should not be confined to one day of the year.

Sadly, daily events across the world show us the terrible consequences of war. Families are losing loved ones, and communities are being destroyed. Peace must never be taken for granted. Here at home, we know the damage that conflict can do and how difficult it is to rebuild relationships afterwards, but we know that progress is possible. As we mark Armistice Day tomorrow, let us remember those who gave their lives, recognise the suffering of those left behind and reflect on what we can do to prevent future generations from experiencing the same loss. We cannot change the past, but we must learn from it.

Mr Durkan: I rise today with a heavy heart but with a profound sense of gratitude to pay tribute to a giant of Derry and a giant of justice. On Saturday, Derry lost one of its finest sons: Bloody Sunday justice campaigner John Kelly, who was laid to rest yesterday. For more than five decades, John was a pillar of quiet dignity, immense courage and unwavering resolve.

John's campaign began on that darkest of afternoons in January 1972 when his 17-year-old brother Michael was murdered on Bloody Sunday. John was there and carried his younger brother's body to the ambulance. From that agonising moment on, John dedicated his life to a single monumental cause: ensuring that the truth would never be buried by the might of the British state. As founder and chair of the Bloody Sunday justice campaign, John became a global symbol of what ordinary people can achieve when fuelled by a righteous cause. The Bloody Sunday justice campaign continues to inspire victims of injustice right across the world. We will never forget the image of John on 15 June 2010, his fist raised high outside the Guildhall, having successfully torn up the Widgery report and vindicated the innocence of his brother and every single victim of Bloody Sunday. Last night, Guildhall Square was again packed with people, this time to welcome home Derry City Football Club with the FAI Cup. There was a poignant moment of applause in gratitude to John and in solidarity with his family.

On behalf of the people of Derry, I extend my deepest heartfelt sympathies to John's sons, his grandchildren, the wider Kelly family, the Bloody Sunday families and everyone affected by his loss. Rest in peace and in power, John. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.

Mrs Mason: Today is the 40th anniversary of the public launch of Ulster Resistance at the Ulster Hall in 1986. Today, in St Comgall's, families of victims are coming together to mark the anniversary and to reaffirm their right to truth and justice.

Nearly four decades later, questions remain about Ulster Resistance and its links to senior DUP figures. Senior DUP figures were present at the launch. Ian Paisley publicly expressed support for the organisation, and Peter Robinson was associated with its formation. Sammy Wilson and Nigel Dodds of the DUP, the former North Belfast MP Cecil Walker and Fraser Agnew of the UUP attended the launch at the Ulster Hall. Rev Ivan Foster, himself a DUP Assembly Member and Free Presbyterian minister at the time, subsequently described Ulster Resistance as, "a DUP-sponsored — parented — movement."

Within a short period, Ulster Resistance was involved in procuring and importing a substantial consignment of weapons from South Africa. Those weapons later entered the hands of loyalist paramilitary organisations, including elements of the UDA and UVF, in a strategic effort to mount a murderous campaign against the Catholic community in opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That murderous campaign tore my community of Loughinisland apart. The weapons used in the Loughinisland massacre did not appear out of thin air. The weapon that was used to murder six innocent men in the Heights Bar was linked to the late 1980s loyalist arms shipment associated with Ulster Resistance. More than 30 years later, many of those weapons remain unaccounted for, while families are still denied the full truth about how they came to be used against their loved ones.

From Loughinisland to Bellaghy and from the Ormeau Road to Greysteel, families have encountered the same grim reality: collusion, concealment, the protection of agents and institutions and a pattern of denying families the truth. Fundamental questions need to be answered if families are to get the truth. What did senior DUP figures know about Ulster Resistance, and when? What does Peter Robinson know? What does Sammy Wilson know? What does Nigel Dodds know? When will they disclose that to the PSNI? What did they know about the procurement and distribution of those weapons? What information remains that could assist victims, families and the authorities in establishing the truth? If weapons from the South African shipment were not recovered or decommissioned, there is another question that the PSNI and leading members of Ulster Resistance need to answer: where are those weapons now?

Families are entitled to ask —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mrs Mason: — whether information exists about their —

Mr Speaker: I call Diane Forsythe.

Mrs Mason: — whereabouts. No protected history.

Ms Forsythe: The Sinn Féin Member for South Down has plenty to say about some things but is completely silent on the sectarian attack on the Royal British Legion parade in Downpatrick on Sunday. An absolutely disgraceful, foul-mouthed attack occurred in Downpatrick as the Royal British Legion parade returned to the cenotaph, with many children in uniformed organisations on parade. It was an absolute disgrace, and I call on all South Down representatives to condemn that behaviour.

As my colleague said in a previous Member's statement, Remembrance Sunday is a solemn occasion when many people from all backgrounds come together to honour those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. For someone to be hanging out of the upstairs of the Fire and Rescue Service building and hurling sectarian abuse while people are out marking that occasion of remembrance is absolutely disgraceful and is what we should condemn.

I commend the police on their swift action in getting that person out of the building. I acknowledge that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service has said that the person was a contractor, but I call for a full investigation of that hate crime. It was outrageous, disrespectful and not what we should expect to see as we come together to mark remembrance. Respect for one another is the minimum that we should expect in our society: respect for our very existence, never mind at such a solemn time of remembrance. The terror on the faces of some of the children as that happened in the street in Downpatrick was awful to see, as was the tone that it set, especially as it came from a Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service building, because there was initial confusion about whether it was associated with the Fire and Rescue Service. I welcome the acknowledgement that it was not, but there is a lot to be done by the Fire and Rescue Service to investigate how that happened in its building.

I repeat what I have said previously in the Chamber: remembrance should not be taken lightly. I remember condemning attacks on poppy sellers in our community around this time last year. In South Down and in Newry and Armagh, where unionists are in the minority, we see such abuse and attacks time and again, and I will always call out such behaviour. It is unacceptable, and it happens year after year.

In recent weeks, I have said that we have seen the death of Sinn Féin and the SDLP's new Ireland project. We all see clearly how unionists would be treated in their supposed new Ireland. We cannot even come out to mark remembrance with uniformed organisations and our veterans community in peace. That is absolutely unacceptable. The vision for a new Ireland is dead in the water, and it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

I will end my statement as I started it: the Sinn Féin Member for South Down could not condemn the attack in Downpatrick but could launch into a tirade on other things. I call on all representatives for South Down to call out the sectarian attack in Downpatrick.

Mr Honeyford: Heating oil is the biggest issue that families outside this Building are dealing with. Energy costs and the cost of living are some of the biggest issues. Rather than Members poking one another in the eye, we need to deal with the issues that people who are sitting at home are worried about. This is about people. It is about families, pensioners, working families, those on low incomes and those who struggle to heat their home. That is not a luxury, and the cost is hurting people — hurting families. We need to act.

There will be a statement on the matter today. I welcome anything that comes forward on that, but the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has raised important concerns about transparency, consumer protection and oversight. We need to see those concerns addressed for people in their houses, outside this Building.

The Consumer Council does an excellent job. It monitors the price of heating oil and everything. Its support for consumers is invaluable, but it is not a regulator. The Utility Regulator has highlighted to the Economy Committee the importance of governance and oversight. It already has powers relating to gas and water. The Utility Regulator has experience and expertise in energy markets for consumer protection. Surely, that expertise should be part of the solution, yet it has had no engagement from the Department on what is coming today. I am concerned about that, and I am concerned that expertise is not being listened to.

The focus should be on the people outside this Building, not on the politics within it. It needs to be about the protection of people and the wholesale prices, so that people have confidence in what they are paying for. Vulnerable households must be at the centre. We need better information. We need transparency. We need to understand, when the price rockets up and then feathers down, how people can get the best value for money. We cannot control the world price of oil, but we can control the percentages that people pay on top of that.

There was an opportunity in the Utility Regulator (Support for Decarbonisation Preparation) Bill. Why was it so limited? Why did it exclude protections for local families? It is disappointing that that happened. I welcome any steps to strengthen home heating oil protections for households, but the test is simple: will families see greater fairness, greater transparency and real protection when it comes to the price of the oil that they pay for to go into their tanks and heat their homes?

Mr Delargy: John Kelly dedicated his life to challenging injustice and to standing up for what was right, showing remarkable dignity, courage and resilience. I had the privilege of knowing John in many capacities. I first knew him as an educator who introduced many of my generation to the lived experiences of the families of Bloody Sunday through his work in the Museum of Free Derry and on the Bloody Sunday Trust. So many of my peers reached out last weekend to share the profound influence that John had on them and how they understood the history of our city. Secondly, I knew John as a volunteer in the Museum of Free Derry, and his pioneering role in developing the museum from literally rubble to being named as one of the top-10 visitor attractions in the North serves as a permanent legacy. Lastly and most importantly, I knew John as a campaigner, someone who led from the front and who was there every step of the way to remember and vindicate the memory of his brother Michael and all those murdered and injured on Bloody Sunday.

What I have realised from all those experiences is that, if anyone wants to truly understand the spirit of Derry, they need look no further than John Kelly. His indomitable spirit was the spirit of resistance and the spirit of a risen people. John Kelly led a working-class movement that took on the might of the British state and won. Through some of the most difficult times in his life, he had a smile on his face. Why? Because they could not break him. Despite the lies and cover-up of the British Government, the British Army and the British state media, John knew that he was right. He knew, as we know, that his brother Michael and all those murdered and injured on Bloody Sunday were innocent.

John was defiant. He was a rebel with a cause. He inspired campaigns across Ireland and across the world. That is John's legacy, a legacy rooted in truth and in fulfilling the aims of his brother Michael and all those who marched on Bloody Sunday to create a better future for my generation to ensure that the suppression, the repression and the injustice that they had faced would never be faced again.

John's life offers us inspiration, but it also presents us with a challenge to continue the struggle for truth and justice and to ensure that no community will ever again be treated as second-class citizens. Rest easy, a chara

.

Mr Harvey: This Saturday is World Diabetes Day, which presents an opportunity to shine a light on the needs of those across the world who live with that health condition. This morning, I will briefly draw the House's attention to the condition of diabetes and the health-related issues that diabetics and their families in Northern Ireland face.

Diabetes represents a significant and growing public health challenge across the country, with increasing implications for individuals, communities and health and social care services. The latest available figures, for the reporting year 2025-26, show that approximately 119,955 people aged 17 and over are registered as having diabetes, which is equivalent to 7·2% of the adult population of Northern Ireland. That represents an increase of around 36% since 2016, demonstrating the growing scale of the issue.

It is estimated that some one in nine adults worldwide lives with the condition. Approximately 90% of diagnosed cases are of type 2 diabetes, which is associated with risk factors including obesity, poor diet, physical inactivity, age and family history. Alongside that, a further 88,579 people are recorded as having non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, often known as prediabetes, which represents a significant opportunity for early intervention and prevention. The prevalence of diabetes varies geographically across Northern Ireland, highlighting inequalities in health outcomes and the importance of targeted local interventions.

The impact of the condition is particularly acute among young people. It can often result in the development of secondary conditions, particularly poor mental health and mental health-related illness, especially where support services are unable to meet demand. The consequences of diabetes can also result in the increased risk of cardiovascular disease, kidney failure, sight loss and lower-limb complications. Those complications create additional pressures on health and social care services and contribute to significant healthcare costs.

Prevention, early diagnosis and effective ongoing management are therefore essential. Investment in healthier lifestyles, community-based support, education and targeted interventions could help to reduce the future burden of diabetes and improve long-term health outcomes across Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Harvey: Heightened cross-departmental awareness of the condition is therefore required.

Mr McGrath: As we mark Lung Cancer Awareness Month, it is right that we remember everyone who has been affected by lung cancer. Every diagnosis changes a life, and every death leaves a family grieving. That is why we must do everything that we can not only to improve diagnosis and treatment but to prevent cancer happening in the first place.

Lung cancer is Northern Ireland's greatest cause of cancer death, and the simple truth is that smoking is the reason for that. The harm caused by tobacco, however, does not stop there. Smoking causes at least 15 types of cancer and is a major cause of heart disease, stroke, COPD and other serious illnesses. In short, tobacco is the only legal consumer product that, when used as intended, kills two thirds of its users. That means that preventing smoking and helping people to quit is one of the most powerful actions that we can take to improve public health and reduce health inequalities.

Smoking rates remain much higher in our most deprived communities, meaning that those who already face the greatest challenges are more likely to develop cancer and die prematurely. The SDLP supports an ambitious smoke-free target of fewer than 5% of people smoking by 2035 and the creation of a smoke-free generation so that today's children do not become tomorrow's smokers. While smoking rates have fallen, around 3,800 young people in Northern Ireland aged 18 to 25 start smoking every year. We cannot accept another generation becoming addicted to a product that causes so much harm.

The Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 is therefore welcome, but passing a law is only the first step. The 2026 Act must be fully implemented and properly enforced. Local councils will need sufficient resources to ensure that retailers and manufacturers comply with the law. We must also make it easier for people, particularly those in rural and remote communities, to stop smoking. We must invest in mass-media campaigns that encourage quitting and raise awareness of the harms that are caused by tobacco.

Of course, prevention is not the whole answer. Cancer Research UK has said that 71% of lung cancers in Northern Ireland are diagnosed at a late stage. Therefore, targeted lung screening also has an important role to play. However, if we are serious about reducing cancer, improving public health and tackling inequality, we must be serious about prevention.

Ms Sugden: I welcome yesterday's announcement by the Minister of Health of a new GP contract, including an additional £40 million investment over two years and a commitment to improve access to general practice. General practice has been under enormous pressure for some time. GPs need proper resources to do their jobs, and patients must be able to access appointments when they need them.

I want to raise an issue that has been overlooked in the conversation about GP services, and that is menopause care. While the GP contract makes provision for a range of services, menopause is not recognised in the same way. That does not mean that GPs are not treating women who are experiencing menopause. Of course they are, and many provide excellent care, often going above and beyond what they are commissioned and resourced to deliver. That is the problem, however. We are relying on individual practitioners and their willingness, knowledge and capacity to provide care for something that affects half the population, and we need to ask why.

Women contact my office about menopause and perimenopause. Some have struggled for months or even years with symptoms that affect their physical health, mental well-being, relationships and ability to work, and, for some, it is debilitating. While public awareness of menopause has improved considerably, awareness alone does not provide diagnosis, treatment or support. Women should not have to become experts on their own healthcare simply to get access to the services that they need nor should the quality of care depend on which GP they attend or whether an individual clinician has an interest in women's health.

The new GP contract is focused on improving access, and that is necessary and welcome — but access to what? Getting an appointment is only the first step. We must ensure that the services that women need are properly recognised, adequately resourced and consistently available. Menopause is not a niche issue or an optional extra in women's healthcare. It is a normal stage of life that can have significant health consequences, and it deserves an appropriate clinical response. Not providing that is indirect discrimination. I have called repeatedly for a comprehensive women's health strategy for Northern Ireland that considers a woman's health needs throughout her life rather than treating individual conditions in isolation, and primary care must be central to that approach.

I ask the Minister of Health to clarify how menopause care will be addressed in the GP contract as it develops and whether there will be consideration of the resources, training and clinical pathways that are needed to ensure consistent provision across Northern Ireland. Yesterday's announcement is an opportunity to improve general practice. We should make sure that that improvement includes the healthcare needs of women. Women's healthcare should not be an afterthought in the design of the health service but fundamental to it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends Members' statements.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I welcome the opportunity to address the Assembly to announce the launch of a public consultation on family law reform and parental responsibility. The consultation will be rooted in a simple but important principle, namely that government has a responsibility to protect the welfare and well-being of children. Family law and criminal law play a vital role in delivering that protection and ensuring that where the most serious criminal offending has occurred within a family, the law must place the welfare and protection of children first.

Family relationships form the foundation of many aspects of a child's life. Families should provide care, stability, support and a sense of belonging. The law rightly recognises the importance of those relationships through the concept of parental responsibility. Parental responsibility means all the legal rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority that a parent has in relation to their child. It includes making important decisions about a child's upbringing, education, healthcare, welfare and day-to-day care, always with the child's best interests at the centre. That principle reflects the duties that parents owe to their children and the role that they play in making important decisions about their children's upbringing, welfare and future.

In the vast majority of cases, parental responsibility is exercised in a way that promotes and protects a child's best interests. However, we must be prepared to ask difficult questions when the most serious forms of harm occur within families.

Where an offence is serious enough to justify restricting an offender's parental responsibilities, should the law do more to protect children and their carers without their having to start court proceedings? On 30 April, I announced my intention to introduce, in the next Assembly mandate, legislative reform broadly equivalent to what has become known as Jade's law in England and Wales. The South has similar legislation, known as Valerie's law.

In recent years, a number of domestic homicide cases have left children facing unimaginable loss. Not only have children been deprived of a parent, but, in some cases, families have faced uncertainty about the continuing parental legal rights and responsibilities of the person responsible for the death of that parent. These are not isolated cases. Since 2020, 30 women have been killed in domestic homicides here, including 15 who were killed by a current or former partner. Of those 15 victims, 14 were mothers, and, in at least seven cases, the perpetrator was reported to be the father of the victim's children. These figures demonstrate that domestic homicide affects children directly, leaving them to cope with trauma, bereavement and uncertainty, and they also raise important questions about the ongoing exercise of parental responsibility by the offender. The burden of navigating legal processes has often fallen on bereaved grandparents, relatives, carers and guardians at a time of profound grief and trauma. Families and campaigners have rightly questioned whether it is appropriate that those caring for a child should bear the responsibility of seeking court orders to restrict the parental responsibilities of a person who has committed such a grave offence.

For many families, that burden comes at a time when they are already trying to support children through loss, trauma and major upheaval. They have asked whether the law should do more to support them, rather than expecting them to initiate complex legal proceedings in order to secure protections that many believe should already be available. Many have made the case that the law should provide greater protection from the outset, reducing the burden on families to initiate proceedings while continuing to ensure that appropriate judicial safeguards remain in place. I believe that those concerns deserve careful consideration.

The death of a parent as a result of violence has consequences that extend far beyond the criminal justice process. It alters a child's life forever. It will shape their relationships, their sense of security and their opportunities. While criminal law rightly holds offenders to account, family law must ensure that children and those caring for them have the protections that they need. Today's consultation represents the next stage of the review. This consultation is an opportunity to engage with families and all interested parties to consider the evidence and their experience and to ensure that any reforms are shaped by those whose lives would be most affected by them. In developing the consultation, I have decided that it would not be appropriate to consider a single category of offending in isolation; instead, I am seeking views on a broader range of serious offences and circumstances in which restrictions on parental responsibility may need to be considered.

When any conduct is so serious that it fundamentally conflicts with the responsibilities of parenthood, should the law provide for restrictions on parental responsibility without requiring a surviving parent, family member or carer to initiate court proceedings? That question goes to the heart of this consultation, which asks whether there are circumstances in which the law should intervene more directly to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility by those offenders whose actions have not only resulted in death but caused grave and most serious harm. The consultation therefore considers a number of areas of offending. It seeks views not only on proposals relating to the unlawful killing of a child's other parent but on whether similar approaches should apply in other circumstances, such as attempted murder, certain serious sexual offences, cases involving the conception of a child through rape, and the most serious offences against children.

The consultation recognises that individual situations can differ significantly from one another: the nature of the offending, the needs of the child and the wider family circumstances will not be the same. That is why we are seeking views on a range of options and safeguards rather than presenting a single predetermined solution.

They are not straightforward matters. They raise important issues concerning child welfare, victims' rights, parental rights, human rights, due process and the role of the courts. What unites them, however, is a common concern: whether the current legal framework places too much responsibility on victims, surviving parents and families to seek protections that may be necessary in the interests of a child.

At present, where concerns arise about the exercise of parental responsibility, it will often be necessary for someone to bring proceedings before the court. That is entirely appropriate in many circumstances. However, where the most serious criminal offending has already been proven in a criminal court, we must consider whether the law should provide a different starting point. The consultation therefore explores whether restrictions should arise automatically in certain circumstances, subject to review and oversight by the courts.

Let me be clear: the consultation is not about removing the role of the judiciary, nor is it about creating a system that operates without safeguards. The courts play a vital role in protecting rights and assessing the individual circumstances of every case. The welfare of the child must remain the paramount consideration. Any future reforms must reflect that principle fully. We are asking whether those already coping with bereavement, trauma or the consequences of serious offending should still bear the burden of bringing these matters before the courts or whether the law itself should provide stronger protections once the criminal offending has been proven. That is the conversation that we invite our society to have.

It is important to note that this work sits within a broader context. Across these islands, there is growing recognition that children affected by the most serious forms of violence and abuse may require stronger legal protections and that families should not carry unnecessary legal burdens during periods of immense distress. Governments have increasingly recognised the need to examine the relationship between serious criminal offending and parental responsibility. In England and Wales, Jade's law provides for the automatic suspension of parental responsibility in specified circumstances where one parent has unlawfully killed the other. In the South, Valerie's law was introduced following a similar recognition that the law should respond more effectively to the impact of domestic homicide on children and those caring for them. While legislation has now been enacted in both jurisdictions, the relevant provisions have yet to be commenced. We can and will learn from experiences elsewhere.

As we consider reform here, we must ensure that any changes are effective and proportionate. We must also recognise that proposals of this nature may have significant implications for the operation of our courts and justice system. Limiting parental responsibility, establishing review mechanisms, creating new procedures and ensuring appropriate safeguards all have practical consequences. Any future legislation would require detailed consideration of judicial processes, court resources, legal aid implications, safeguarding arrangements and the interaction between family law and criminal law. Those operational considerations are important, but they should not distract us from the central issue before us.

The consultation is fundamentally about ensuring that our legal system responds to protect children appropriately when the most serious harms have occurred. That is precisely why the consultation is so important. We want to hear from victims' organisations, children's organisations, legal professionals, academics, family justice practitioners, the judiciary and all those with an interest in such issues. Most important, we want to hear from the people who have experienced first-hand the impact of serious offending in families and the challenges of navigating the legal system that follows.

The consultation is, at its heart, about children. It is about ensuring that our laws reflect the reality of the harm caused to children by the most serious offences. It is about recognising that parental responsibility is more than a legal status; it is a duty to protect and promote children's well-being. It is also about ensuring that those caring for children in the aftermath of traumatic events are not left carrying avoidable legal burdens at the most difficult time in their life.

None of us can undo the devastating events that have led families to call for change. We cannot undo the devastating loss experienced by a child who has lost one parent as a result of the actions of the other or the profound impact that that loss has on the wider family.

Equally, we cannot erase the trauma experienced by children who have been victims of the most serious sexual offending. However, we can examine whether our laws are providing the right protections at the right time and serving the best interests of children and whether the parental responsibilities of the adults involved in that child's life are being exercised appropriately. That is what this consultation seeks to do.

I encourage all Members, stakeholders, representative bodies, community organisations and members of the public to engage fully with the consultation process. The views that we receive will help to shape future policy development and any legislative proposals that emerge from the work. This is an opportunity to help build a family law framework that continues to place children first and supports families at times of profound difficulty, while ensuring that the burden of seeking protection does not fall unfairly on those who are already coping with loss and trauma.

I am committed to bringing forward legislation that will make a meaningful difference to the lives of people here. Undertaking that important work and developing that legislation will enable a Bill to be brought forward in the early part of the next mandate. I commend the consultation to the House and encourage everyone with an interest in these important matters to make their views known.

Mr O'Toole: I welcome the fact that the consultation is happening, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister will know that I am on the record as saying that, given all that he and his Department have to do, lots of the law would sit more properly with the Department of Justice, which has relevant expertise. However, I welcome the fact that the consultation is happening. To be clear, is the Minister saying that he and the Department are minded to proceed with a version of Jade's law for the North? That is the implication of his saying that he wants to legislate early in the next mandate or that he wants his successor, if he is not still in the role, to do so. Or is he saying that it is a more open-ended consultation simply to seek views on options? Does he want to proceed with Jade's law or is it simply an open-ended consultation?

Mr O'Dowd: I want to proceed with a Jade's law; I want to ensure that legislation is placed on the books. I want it not only on the books but implemented and available to protect the rights of children and families who have been wronged by a parent who has killed the other parent. I also think that there are grounds for examining other issues, including serious sexual harm, as I have set out in the consultation, and other traumatic and harmful events that are inflicted upon children by one parent or by one parent on another parent in the relationship. Legislation has been passed in Dublin and London, from which, I think, we can learn and build on to ensure that whatever legal protections we bring forward here are fit for purpose.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for his statement. As others have done, I commend him for his work on this. Minister, I know how deeply you feel about the issue, and I appreciate the language that you used yesterday in your commentary when you said that the term "partner" is not appropriate for somebody who kills the person they are supposed to love the most in the world. Do you believe that parental responsibility should be automatically removed from an offender?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for her kind comments. I put on record my thanks to the officials in my Department who have worked with great empathy and diligence in bringing us to this stage. I have no doubt that that work will continue, regardless of who is Finance Minister in the next mandate.

I want to see a process in place that will automatically withdraw parental rights once someone is convicted of a serious offence, including homicide, serious sexual offences and other aspects. We have set out in our consultation document, which will be issued immediately after this, a number of circumstances that may arise in which the automatic withdrawal of parental rights would be adjudicated on at the time of a guilty verdict, but there may be other circumstances. It is an open consultation, and we are keen to hear the views of stakeholders. When listening to victims' families, it is heartbreaking to hear of the circumstances that they have been left in. The courage that they have shown to campaign for a change in the law is remarkable. I want to see automatic withdrawal of parental rights for a certain category of serious criminal offences. There may, however, be other offences that should be included on the list.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I thank the Minister for his statement. I will take a moment to remember all those women who have been murdered, and I know that a number of families are in the Public Gallery today. The heartbreak can never be overstated, and I think of all the children and wider family involved. I thank the Minister for his work on the matter. He knows that I feel strongly about the issue, and I have liaised with him on it before. His tone has been very appropriate, as has been that of his officials, who have had a huge workload. I welcome the Minister's approach, which is victim-centred and trauma-informed. That is so important. Moreover, it underpins the Programme for Government (PFG) objective of ending violence against women and girls. It was mentioned that the work is cross-departmental, happening between the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice, but, given that it touches on so many aspects of children's lives, will it also include the Department of Education and the Department of Health?

Mr O'Dowd: I am keen to hear the views of all Departments on the consultation responses. There are arguments for and against whether the work should sit in the Department of Finance or the Department of Justice. Broader responsibilities and transfers may be a matter for a future Executive to take on. I do not mind where the law is finalised, as long as it is passed. I think that we are all in the same boat on that.

The Deputy Chair mentioned the tone behind the legislation. The entire House has shown the issue great respect, and I have no doubt that that respect will continue through the work of current Committees and future Committees. We will be able to present a united front to deliver workable legislation in the next mandate, because Members are dedicated to delivering on that commitment. I will therefore engage with my Executive colleagues to ensure that they are fully across the consultation and that there are opportunities for Departments to respond.

Ms Egan: I welcome the Minister's statement. I pay tribute to all the victims, families, loved ones and campaigners who have got us to the point at which we can make progress on the issue. I agree that we need to remove parental responsibility in cases in which one parent has murdered the other, but his statement references the inclusion of other serious sexual offences. Can he confirm that the other offences will include cases in which a parent accesses or owns child sexual abuse material?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank Connie for her work on the issue. I met her earlier in the year, along with advocacy groups, and she has been in regular correspondence with me.

I have not been specific about what the serious sexual misconduct offences are. As I said in my statement, I am open to listening to the views of MLAs, advocacy groups and victims on the matter and on how the crimes that the Member described impact on children. She has brought views on the matter to my attention before, and those views should be submitted as part of the consultation. In my remaining time in this role, I commit to ensuring that all views are given equal weight and deliberation, and where we believe they can or should be moved forward, I am happy to move them forward.

Mr Chambers: Minister, my question does not imply any support for offenders who have committed the types of crimes that you have listed in your statement. Where, however, parental rights are removed from a parent who has offended, is the legal right of that parent to any form of access to their children also removed, even under strictly controlled circumstances?

Mr O'Dowd: My understanding is that if parental rights are withdrawn, there will be no legal basis on which a offender can demand to see their children.

Each case will have its own circumstances, and how the caring family — the family who have the children — responds may differ. However, removing parental responsibility means that there is no legal authority for the offending parent to demand any rights in those children's lives.

Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas fosta.

and for launching the consultation. What would the Minister say to families who have campaigned so courageously for change, often while coping with profound loss and trauma?

Mr O'Dowd: I have found the engagement with families who have lost loved ones in such circumstances to be humbling. The courage of those families is remarkable. I meet families who are in the midst of grief and are dealing with the most horrible, horrific events that anyone can imagine happening in their life. They are caring for children where one parent has murdered their other parent. They are trying to deal with the trauma that those children are going through, and they are dealing with their own loss. In the midst of all that, they find the courage to campaign for the rights of others to ensure that the legal challenges and difficulties that they face are not faced by other families.

Murders and convictions of murderers in recent days have shown what monsters there are in our society. I listen to the evening news, and, on occasions in the past week, the three top stories have been about the murders of women, mothers and daughters. I ask myself at times what is wrong with this society, but, when I meet families who have lost loved ones, I know that there is more good in this society than bad.

Mrs Middleton: Minister, I sincerely thank you for your work on this, for your statement and for launching the consultation today. Sharon and family, Edwin and other families: today is your day. Minister, how do you plan to include the grieving families in every stage of the review?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, it is crucial that we listen to the voices of bereaved families. They have brought us to the Chamber today. I commend my officials, who have been engaging with bereaved families and have learned so much from them. They have also shared information with the families so that the families better understand the processes. Those families will be vital in the consultation and the next steps. I have no doubt that, when it reaches Committee Stage, the Committee will also find the experiences of those families invaluable in developing the legislation.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for your work on the issue. I pay tribute to the victims and their families for the incredible advocacy and lobbying that they have done.

Minister, I am really reassured to hear you talk about the paramountcy of children's welfare being at the heart of the consultation. How will you ensure that children who have been affected, whether that is by domestic abuse or worse, have a meaningful voice in the consultation and in the framework that should follow, with support that is appropriate to their age, their understanding and the trauma that they have faced?

Mr O'Dowd: We will actively reach out to children's organisations — I think of the Children's Commissioner and other children's advocacy groups — to ensure that we understand the needs of children in an age-appropriate way and engage in a way that does not cause further trauma or harm to those children. It has to be about the children and the impact on them.

Losing a parent in any circumstance is a tragedy, and the mother is the keystone of any family. To lose them through homicide or unlawful killing is just horrific and traumatises a child for life. We do not want the parent who was responsible to continue that trauma.

Mr Kingston: I welcome the launch of the consultation on restricting parental responsibility in cases of extreme offending, and I commend the Minister for that. The Minister read out the stark statistic that, since 2020, 30 women have been killed in domestic homicides. Of those women, 15 were killed by a former or current partner. In at least seven cases, the perpetrator was reported to be the father of the victim's children.

Minister, in your statement, you referred to the restriction on parental responsibility and the law providing protections once the criminal offending has been proven. What powers currently exist, and what powers are you seeking to bring in that would apply immediately? While people are entitled to due process of law, in those extreme cases, social services might need to step in —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Brian, is there a question?

Mr Kingston: The question that I am asking is about the need to step in at an earlier stage, even before the court proceedings have reached a conclusion, to provide protection for children and to prevent families having to initiate proceedings themselves.

Mr O'Dowd: That issue was raised with me this morning. It is an important question. As Brian knows, my remit covers family law, and that issue may fall under public law. The consultation gives us an opportunity to examine that further because what I am talking about would be enacted once someone is found guilty of serious offences against a parent that then impact on the child. However, before the court proceedings conclude — as we know proceedings can take several years and be traumatic — there is still a gap where children can be subject to ongoing harm. I am keen to engage further on that subject as part of the consultation.

I do not have the answer, Brian. Because of the relationship between various laws, we may not be able to enact anything ahead of that. However, I will certainly explore that as part of the consultation.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for making the statement to the House. He rightly points out that, since 2020, 30 women have been killed in domestic homicides here, including 15 who were killed by a current or former partner. This morning, my heart goes out to the family of Chloe Mitchell as they listen to the details of what happened to their daughter.

I understand that it would fall under different legislation, but, following on from Mr Kingston's question, I want to encourage the Minister and impress on him that there is the opportunity in the consultation for organisations and victims to come forward and feed into the process and that, when there are red flags about somebody, whether that is in the family home, where children are present, or out and about, they must be detected and acted on. I impress on the Minister the need to consult as widely as possible, even if it is outside his scope, and to ensure that whatever information is collated is acted on in a cross-cutting manner by the Executive.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, Mr Gaston. While I will not mention any ongoing cases, there are, as I said, monsters in our society who are not fit to be called "fathers" and, on very rare occasions, people who are not fit to be called "mothers". You cannot call yourself a "father" and carry out the actions that we have witnessed over many decades in our society and that we hear about when we turn on the news in the evening of cases that have reached final verdict and conviction. Those people are not fathers; they are monsters.

I am happy — I do not know whether "happy" is the right term — to engage with anyone as part of the consultation and discussion, because it has raised other issues, as you and Brian have touched on. If we can create laws to protect children throughout the terrible processes that they face, let us do it. That is what we are here for as legislators. Let us do that and explore all options to see what we can do.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Minister, for this really important work. I commend you and all those who have campaigned to create the change in law. You have already touched on it, but I am conscious that the criminal justice system is desperately slow, and this takes effect only from the point of conviction, which could be two years after the alleged incident. What interim measures have you explored to protect those children? The trauma will happen immediately after the event, not when someone is convicted.

Mr O'Dowd: The consultation gives us an opportunity to examine all of those areas. This is not me trying to silo my responsibilities compared with another Minister's. As you know, my responsibilities are for family law: criminal law and public law fall elsewhere. However, I have no doubt that the Justice Minister will work alongside me and other Executive Ministers to explore how we can do these things. There are issues and challenges for social services, the health trusts and all of the agencies that come into play after such horrific events. I am prepared to engage with and listen to all of those to see how we can create a legislative framework that protects children.

Mr Frew: I will touch on the collaboration between the Justice and Finance Departments, because it is really important. In the Minister's consideration and consultation, he will have specific questions about areas of law in the Justice field that may take into consideration bail conditions and visiting rights. That might help with what we have just been talking about: protecting children at an earlier stage.

Mr O'Dowd: Members will have the consultation document, hopefully, as soon as the debate has finished. It will be emailed to everyone, and Members will see the consultation. It is not a closed document. I am not saying, "See the questions I have asked? Those are the only answers I want". I am genuinely keen to hear how we explore all options. It is true — you in the Justice Committee will understand — that it is a very tricky legal area to navigate your way through when someone has been charged with an offence but has not been found guilty. However, an offence has occurred that has traumatised a child or children, and we have to protect those children with every avenue that we have. I will explore those issues with the Justice Minister and others on a way forward for that.

Miss Hargey: As others have echoed, this is important work and good progress. I am glad that, as Sian said, it is children-focused. On the importance of cross-departmental collaboration, even if you do the legislative bit, Minister, there are other elements, particularly in Health and Justice, that need to be done. It is about trying to see, as you are working through the consultation process, what that engagement with other Ministers will look like.

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, I will engage directly with Ministers on the consultation. I have no doubt that, at official level, there will also be ongoing engagement as part of the consultation process. We all accept that everybody around the Chamber wants to play their part in ensuring that we get the right legislation in place and that we encompass as many protections as we can for children. I am not suggesting that Deirdre is suggesting that there will be barriers to that from anyone. I think that we are pushing on open doors here, and people will play their part in ensuring that the legislation encompasses as many protections as we can humanly introduce.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. That concludes questions on the statement.

We will take our ease for a few moments.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for the Economy that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. It is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be permitted.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I wish to update the Assembly on my plans to strengthen protections for people who rely on home heating oil.

Members will be aware that the price of home heating oil increased significantly following the US/Israeli attacks on Iran. A relatively high proportion of people here rely on home heating oil. Having engaged formally with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in March about my concern for consumers, I welcomed its decision to investigate the home heating oil market.

Following the publication of the CMA's report in July, I established a home heating oil working group comprising officials from my Department, the Consumer Council and the Trading Standards Service. The group reviewed the findings and assessed their suitability for the local market. I had a very constructive meeting with the CMA on 15 October at which I indicated that I accepted in principle the recommendations in its report. Its helpful comments are incorporated in the statement, which will set out the way forward to the Assembly.

The CMA found that the local home heating oil market is generally competitive, with prices tending to be among the lowest across these islands. The inflationary spike experienced in recent months was driven primarily by increases in international wholesale prices. The CMA found that those accounted for around 83% of the retail price of heating oil. Nevertheless, the CMA identified the need for stronger consumer protection, support for vulnerable households and more formal dispute-resolution arrangements. I am therefore bringing forward five key changes.

First, my Department will work with the Trading Standards Service to establish a comprehensive suppliers register. Our intention is to explore the use of HMRC's registered dealers in controlled oil scheme, to which every oil supplier here must be signed up. That will provide a practical and proportionate means of identifying suppliers that operate in the market, improving transparency and supporting effective engagement with industry.

Secondly, the Consumer Council will develop an opt-in register of vulnerable home heating oil consumers using eligibility criteria informed by the CMA's definition of vulnerability and tailored to the specific characteristics of the local market. Subject to appropriate data-sharing arrangements, the Consumer Council will engage with the Utility Regulator (UR) and NIE Networks to consider the critical care register and the emerging customer care register in the context of the local heating oil market. Engagement will also take place with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to ensure that any data-sharing arrangements are appropriate and compliant with relevant data protection requirements. An opt-in register represents a practical and proportionate means of improving consumer protections while balancing the administrative, operational and data protection challenges associated with establishing and maintaining a more comprehensive register. Such an approach will allow targeted support to be delivered effectively and at a lower cost than with a register that covers all home heating oil consumers.

Thirdly, the Consumer Council will develop plans for a priority service programme for vulnerable home heating oil consumers. The programme will seek to provide protections comparable to those available in the gas and electricity markets. Building on relevant experience from existing support arrangements, including those associated with NIE Networks' critical care register, the programme will help to ensure that vulnerable consumers can be prioritised for support during periods of supply disruption or fuel shortages.

Fourthly, we will develop the existing local Oil Federation voluntary code of conduct into a mandatory code of conduct. The Consumer Council and the Trading Standards Service will use it as an opportunity to improve transparency around minimum order volumes, payment and delivery terms and associated charges and ensure that the code is strengthened. The Consumer Council will continue to have responsibility for advice and dispute resolution in the heating oil market, with the Trading Standards Service able to consider any matters that may constitute breaches of the relevant consumer protection legislation.

Fifthly, we will strengthen the Consumer Council's consumer redress role to provide a clearer route for consumers to seek resolution where contract or service disputes arise. Building on the Consumer Council's existing role in providing consumer advice, handling complaints and assisting consumers to resolve disputes with suppliers, future legislative changes could enhance consumer redress arrangements in a manner similar to the function performed by the Energy Ombudsman in Britain. That approach will improve consumer confidence and help to secure better outcomes for consumers without the need for a more extensive licensed regulatory arrangement.

These measures build on the characteristics and strengths of our distinctive local market, comprising a large number of suppliers, many of which are microbusinesses operating in a highly competitive environment. The interventions are a proportionate way of implementing the recommendations of the CMA report and will enhance existing heating oil consumer protection at a minimal additional cost.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I welcome the stronger consumer protections, but I note that the proposed opt-in register has been justified partly on the grounds of reducing administrative costs. The priority must be to ensure that vulnerable households receive the protections that they need. What assessments have you made of the risk that vulnerable consumers will be missed, and can you assure us that cost considerations will not undermine their consumer protections?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I assure her that my top priority in this is consumer protection, particularly for more vulnerable customers. I can understand the merit of the idea of a heating oil register. In practical terms, however, it can be difficult to deliver, which is why we have put the focus on particularly vulnerable customers. As we encourage people to move away from fossil fuels, such a register will continue to move. The priority is around vulnerable customers, and the Consumer Council in particular will take forward additional work to raise awareness of everything that we are doing and proposing as part of these measures.

The Member will know that the British Government, when they responded to the CMA report a couple of weeks back, talked about taking time to consider how they would implement the recommendations, particularly recommendation 1. We will keep a close eye on what the British Government, Scotland and Wales do to take forward the recommendations, including, for example, if they propose to set up the heating oil register in a way that we could mirror. At the moment, we cannot think of a practical, easy way to do that, but, if others come up with something that could be applied here, we will be very open to keeping that under review.

Ms Forsythe (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I thank the Minister for her statement on the CMA report recommendations and for offering a pre-briefing to the Economy Committee this morning.

The CMA briefed the Economy Committee on its report on 9 September, and the Committee expressed concern about vulnerable customers and breach of contract issues due to the oil price surge a few months ago. The Minister's measures to address some of those issues are therefore welcome.

I ask the Minister to set out what she understands to be the extent of the breach of contract issues in Northern Ireland, where householders ordered oil at one price and then found that they had to pay a higher price on delivery. Will she confirm how the new arrangements that she has set out today will address that problem and make use of existing powers in the Trading Standards Service and the Consumer Council? Finally, will new primary legislation be required to give effect to the new measures that the Minister has identified today, including in respect of the vires of the Consumer Council or the Utility Regulator, and, if so, when will it be introduced?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There were three questions there, Minister. You are at leisure to answer them.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Deputy Chair of the Economy Committee for her questions. I hope that I will remember them.

My understanding of the issues that were raised in the CMA's review is that there were fewer issues experienced by consumers here, fewer cancellations and fewer instances of finding that prices had increased. I am happy for us to engage with the Committee on the specifics of that, because they are set out in the report.

One thing that the report identified was some lack of awareness of things that already exist, such as minimum orders or price plans that many suppliers here provide. There is certainly a need for additional awareness raising on those issues, and the Consumer Council will look at taking forward that work.

We are looking to enhance the powers that the Consumer Council and the Trading Standards Service currently have. I asked my officials to create a table for me, which I will share with the Committee afterwards, because it is particularly useful. There are a number of pieces of legislation under which the Consumer Council and the Trading Standards Service currently operate, so it may well be the case that most of what we intend to do can be delivered through existing legislation. The working group will, however, now focus on how we take forward the measures that I have set out today and look at whether we need any enhanced legislation. That is the next phase. I assure Members that, in addition to those already represented on the working group, we have asked the CMA for representation to support us in taking forward the recommendations. As I said, we have already had some very useful engagement, and it shaped today's statement. I hope that I have covered all the Deputy Chair's questions.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for her statement. We are all aware of the importance of protecting those who use home heating oil, particularly those customers who are most vulnerable. Minister, can you give us some detail on the nature of your discussions with the CMA on that issue, please?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. There has been extensive, constructive engagement with the CMA since its report was published. As I indicated, the working group met again to discuss how we can best execute the practical outworkings of the report in the specific context of here. As I said, I met CMA representatives on 15 October and talked them through my intention to implement the report's recommendations. We had a really useful discussion, and I subsequently wrote to the CMA setting out my proposals. It then provided some feedback, which helped inform today's statement. As I said in response to Diane, we already have a working group with members on it, but we will also involve the CMA on that working group as we look to implement the recommendations.

Mr Honeyford: I welcome your statement, Minister, and the work that is being done to provide stronger protections for vulnerable consumers. You have told us that the market is competitive, but competition alone does not guarantee that consumers are being treated fairly. That came out when the CMA was at the Committee. Let me be really clear: none of the five measures that you outlined will reduce the price that people pay for home heating oil. None of it is regulation. When it comes to independent oversight of pricing, where is the transparency around wholesale costs —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question, David?

Mr Honeyford: — and retail margins? Yes, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

The Department has not even spoken to the Utility Regulator.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Any time today, David, would be good. It is questions on a statement.

Mr Honeyford: Everybody else got to say a bit.

Put very simply, Minister, do you intend to give the Utility Regulator powers to monitor wholesale prices — retail margins are important — and how quickly price reductions will come? The statement is plans about plans.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I thought that that was a statement rather than a question, but —.

Mr Honeyford: Do you intend to give the Utility Regulator —?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There you go. There is a question after all that.

Mr Honeyford: I said that.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I know that he has strong views on the issue.

The CMA did not recommend economic or price regulation as part of its review. In fact, for recommendation 1, which is the recommendation on the introduction of a proportionate regulatory regime, we are taking forward all its various parts in one form or another. The CMA has directly compared the functions of Ofgem and the Utility Regulator, but some of Ofgem's functions sit with the Consumer Council and the Trading Standards Service here. The view of the Department is that enhancing what already exists is the most efficient and practical way in which to go forward. Doing that will ensure that we prioritise consumers and do not add additional cost through having a regulatory regime that was not recommended. That formed part of the discussions that I had with the CMA on 15 October, and its concern is to do with the protections being implemented, not with who implements them. It recognises that, given the different roles that exist here, there are specifics involved. We are therefore looking at whether we need to enhance those roles, and that work will be taken forward as the recommendations are implemented.

Mr Nesbitt: I am interested in the opt-in register. I would be grateful if the Minister could take us on the journey that she is proposing for vulnerable people and give her assessment of whether the stigma of admitting to being financially vulnerable might act as a barrier to its success.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. It is a very good point. I mentioned in my statement looking at the definition of "vulnerability" that the CMA used, which had a number of different criteria. People can become vulnerable at different points in their lives. For example, pregnancy is included as one of the characteristics that could put people into that category at a particular point, as are disability and other factors. It is not just financial vulnerability. Obviously, that will be reflected in NIE's critical care register, which is one of the examples that we are looking at. There will be a need for awareness-raising on this issue and on development of the register, including clarification of its intention. We need to encourage people to be part of the register and explain the protections that it will provide. Work will be required to ensure that people understand what it is intended to do.

Mr Kearney: Minister, one point of consensus in the Economy Committee, which has been reflected in a couple of the interventions, is concern for the most vulnerable consumers. I strongly believe, as I have said in the Chamber and in Committee, that the most vulnerable are ultimately the victims of profiteering and price gouging by the international conglomerates that dominate global markets. Will you elaborate on the work that has been taken forward by your home heating oil working group?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. My concern is absolutely for consumers and getting the balance right in ensuring that consumers are protected without additional costs being added to them. The home heating oil working group has been taking forward that work. It is comprised of departmental officials, the Consumer Council and the Trading Standards Service, and it will now also include a representative from the CMA. Up until now, the group has been looking at how we can implement the recommendations in a proportionate way that is aligned with the specific characteristics of our home heating oil market, ensuring that we take the most appropriate approach for local consumers and businesses.

As I set out in the statement, the group concluded that the Consumer Council and the Trading Standards Service, which are well established and already undertake a lot of the work in that respect, are best placed to work with the Department to deliver the recommendations proportionately.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, I am very pleased that the contents of your statement reflect the warm healthy homes scheme. However, as a rural dweller, I have to use oil, because there is absolutely no competitive alternative for those of us who live in rural areas and wish to move away from it. Can you confirm whether the Consumer Council will provide advice to vulnerable people on fuel alternatives and perhaps direct them to the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group or Northern Ireland Energy Advice?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Like her, I am a rural dweller who depends on oil and has few alternatives. There are even fewer alternatives for less well-off households, because some of the existing alternatives can be expensive to implement. We need to continue to take action on that. I am happy to take the specific points that she raised to the Consumer Council and ensure that they are incorporated into the work that we are taking forward.

Ms Mulholland: Minister, you said that you intend to strengthen transparency around minimum order volumes, charges and delivery terms. Will you be able to require suppliers to publish clearer and more consistent pricing information? That would, hopefully, help consumers to compare prices more easily, particularly those in vulnerable areas who are experiencing fuel poverty and cannot buy oil in larger volumes.

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. The review sets out the fact that there are existing mechanisms, particularly in respect of minimum order volumes, which are lower here, and that payment plans exist already for many suppliers but that consumers might not be aware of them. It is important that that fact is highlighted further. We intend to introduce a mandatory code of conduct. Oil Federation members already sign up to a voluntary code of conduct, but we will make that mandatory. Oversight of that will sit with the Consumer Council, and it will incorporate some of the specific things that the Member mentioned.

Mr Gaston: Minister, what savings can vulnerable heating oil consumers who are fortunate enough to get on the opt-in register expect? In North Antrim, the problem is not with getting a supply of heating oil but with being able to afford it. Will your statement be accompanied by the offer of any Executive money to support vulnerable consumers who use oil or gas, or is it two pages of waffle?

Dr Archibald: It is not two pages of waffle, Mr Gaston; it sets out the response to the CMA review. The CMA review looked at whether there is a need for regulation of the home heating oil market and whether specific bad practices are happening. It found that not to be the case. I share the Member's view that the biggest problem facing consumers currently is the cost of home heating oil. Unfortunately, that is the result of illegal wars that are taking place elsewhere. Our continued reliance on fossil fuels means that we are vulnerable when such things happen, and they have been a fairly regular occurrence over recent years. That has a direct impact on households and businesses here. We need to see an end to the conflict that is impacting directly on prices. I am sure that the Member is well aware of the Executive's current financial circumstances and of the fact that we do not have the financial firepower to be able to support consumers through the particular challenges that everybody is facing at the minute. That is why we have made consistent representations to the British Government, who do have the fiscal levers to intervene. We will continue to make the case that such intervention needs to happen.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for her answers and for her work and that of her officials. Almost two thirds of households in the North rely on home heating oil, so this conversation casts a long shadow over households here. What work is the Minister doing to ensure that local homes are less dependent on home heating oil as their only source of heating?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. We need to have a continued focus on that, a fact that I touched on in my response to Ms Armstrong. As I said, the home heating oil working group has been taking forward the recommendations specific to that, but the wider work that is happening through the Department's energy strategy is also important. Some interventions have been targeted specifically towards those on lower incomes. For example, since 2023, my Department has invested over £5·6 million in the sustainable energy programme, which is focusing on insulation measures for over 2,000 low-income households to improve the warmth and energy efficiency of their homes. Those measures help homes to prepare for the adoption of low-carbon heating technologies, including heat pumps. The consultation on low-carbon heat in the residential sector has concluded. We are considering the evidence from that and plan to launch a consultation, later this month, on a new domestic energy efficiency and low-carbon heat programme that would provide support to homes that are seeking to make the transition to low-carbon heating.

There is also the Executive's work, through the fuel poverty strategy, and we are working closely with DFC colleagues on the warm healthy homes strategy. Support has also been delivered by the Executive and DFC on the home heating oil support scheme. However, the medium- to longer-term strategy has to be about transitioning away from expensive fossil fuels that have the volatility of pricing attached to them and a move towards self-sufficiency and reliable renewable heat.

Ms Sugden: Thank you, Minister. You put this into the context of the increase in price of home heating oil. The reality is that there is nothing in the statement that will actually help with that. I appreciate to an extent, as you have outlined, that the costs are beyond your control. However, there are things in the local market that you could potentially do, including affordable payment arrangements, small deliveries, transparent charges and collective buying schemes. Are you looking at those to try to support people who are struggling to buy their home heating oil?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. As I reflected in my answer to Ms Mulholland, many of those things already exist across many of our suppliers here. It is important that we raise awareness of those and that those suppliers are also raising awareness of those to people who are purchasing home heating oil from them. That is some of the work that we will be seeking to take forward on awareness raising and also through the mandatory code of conduct that we intend to introduce.

Mr Martin: First, I apologise to the Minister and to you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for being late to the statement. I have only been here for the second half.

Minister, you have announced a range of measures today. I do not want to sound overly critical, but a lot of the language in your statement used terms such as "explore", "develop plans" and "future legislative changes". Can you inform the House of the timescales that you foresee for some of the measures that you have announced today? Also, I have a second sneaky question on the voluntary mandatory code. Specifically, what actual powers do you foresee arising from that?

Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. On the timescales, the working group existed in its current form to look at how we implement the recommendations. That working group will immediately switch to looking at how we take forward the measures that I have set out today. I am happy for officials to engage with the Committee around the specifics of the timescales. In respect of that, some things will be quicker than others, as I am sure he will appreciate.

Obviously, some work will be needed to lay the groundwork for the code of conduct. We have indicated that we want to use the HMRC register that already exists, and we will need to do work on making sure that the code of conduct in its current form meets our requirements. Are there some additional elements that have been talked about in the Chamber today that need to be more clearly reflected in that? Clearly, some work will be needed around that. As I have said, once that is in place, the Consumer Council will have responsibility for the oversight of that. We need to look at whether the powers that it currently has through legislation give it the scope to enforce that or whether additional powers are needed. A bit of work is required to get us to the point where we are implementing the code of conduct, but clearly we want to take it forward at as quick a pace as possible.

Mr McNulty: Minister, people across the North are struggling with the rising cost of living. I hear frequently from constituents about the stress that high home heating oil costs put on their families. Whilst I welcome protections for vulnerable consumers, relying only on raising awareness of the opt-in programme is putting the onus on already vulnerable and stretched-thin individuals and will leave many people left behind. How is your Department making sure that vulnerable people do not have to jump through hoops to receive those protections, and what confidence do you have that President Trump's declaration that the war in Iran is over will lower oil prices?

Dr Archibald: On the latter question, I have no confidence in anything that President Trump says; it can change on a daily basis. Unfortunately, we have seen the impact of the war in Iran hitting everybody in their pockets.

On the Member's question around the opt-in register, obviously, we want to make it as least onerous as possible so that people can access it and are aware of it as readily as possible. Of course, we will need to work through existing data protection considerations with regard to the NIE's critical care register or other such registers of particular groups of people. We want, however, to ensure that the register is accessible and to make that access as easy as possible for people, notwithstanding the question that Mr Nesbitt asked earlier about helping people to understand why we need such a register in the first place.

Mr Buckley: The Minister is right: rising oil prices are increasing the burden on people in Northern Ireland, largely due to the reality of our need for home heating oil. She is right to say that that leaves us vulnerable to other global factors. Will she also acknowledge, however — it has not been acknowledged thus far — that there are not only unrealistic net zero policies and targets but a potential failure to ensure that fossil fuels and renewables work alongside one another so that we have price stability? In that regard, does she welcome the Labour Party's position on exploring further oil and gas drilling in the North Sea?

Dr Archibald: Affordability for consumers must be at the top of our priority list. However, the issues are interlinked, and our continued reliance on fossil fuels leaves people exposed to price shocks and volatility. The need to move away from that as quickly as possible has to be what drives us, but we must protect consumers while we do that. We need to ensure that we create the conditions for investment in renewables and that we do that as quickly as possible. I want us to take forward the policies that we have. We have ambitious targets — Mr Buckley and I have discussed those targets before — but we have to continue to strive to meet them. The best way to ensure affordability for consumers is to have control over our own energy generation. We need to own energy generation locally in order to be able to do that. That has to be the focus of us all.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister for the Economy.

Before we change the top Table, I want to say something about ministerial statements. If Members walk in late but are here for part of the statement, they will be called at the end. Members who were not in the Chamber for any part of the statement will not be called. Like many who take the Chair, I allow Members a bit of latitude, and I can stand over my conduct, but I do not think that anyone should be expected to indulge or allow rants without questions. That is just for future reference.

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

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Chairperson to open the debate on the motion.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am conscious that this is the second time that I have risen on behalf of the Committee for Infrastructure to move a motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill. If Members will forgive me, I will dispense with the formality of a full repetition of the Bill's progress to date in my remarks as Committee Chair. The Bill was referred to the Committee on 23 September 2026. The Committee subsequently agreed a timetable with an indicative end date of 29 January 2027. When the Committee delved into the detail of the Bill, it became clear that there was significant work to be undertaken.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will.

Mr McMurray: Does the Member agree that the end date of 29 January 2027 was set to allow not only sufficient time for the Bill to be scrutinised but a chance for it to be developed and progressed through the Chamber?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. That certainly was the intention, and I will come on that in my remarks as the DUP's infrastructure spokesperson.

For the purposes of transparency and the Committee position, however, I will at this stage read the remarks as agreed by the Committee. However, I am more than happy to give way as many times as Mr McMurray wants in order to discuss that further point in detail. He and I love to talk about the issue of scrutiny, and, I think, he has found to date that I am a very fair Chair when it comes to allocating to him as much time as he deems appropriate. I will continue if the Speaker permits.

The Committee had to carefully balance allowing sufficient time to ensure thorough and effective scrutiny of the Bill with the likelihood of passage by the end of the mandate. The aim was to ensure that the legislation that emerges at the end of its passage through the Assembly is fundamentally good legislation. When considering last week's Committee motion to extend, Committee members divided on the date, with five voting for 19 February and four voting for 29 January 2027. The five members who voted for the 19 February date were the SDLP member, Justin McNulty, the DUP members and the Ulster Unionist members. The four who voted against were the Alliance and Sinn Féin members of the Committee.

I place on record my thanks to all who contributed to the debate. Last week's motion being defeated left the Committee with an end date for the Bill's Committee Stage of 10 November — today. Recognising the need for further scrutiny of the Bill before it progressed, the Committee considered the matter again at its meeting last Wednesday, and, again not agreeing a date, the indicative date of 29 January 2027 was proposed — by Mr McMurray of the Alliance Party, I believe — and a compromise amendment by the SDLP member, Justin McNulty, was moved. The Committee again divided on a date of 12 February 2027, which was carried by five votes to four.

In view of the deadline for this week's business having passed last Wednesday, I express the gratitude of the Committee for Infrastructure to the Business Committee for agreeing to put today's motion in the Order Paper. I recognise that that was an extraordinary ask, given that the House debated such an extension the week before, which was voted down.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Having heard what the Member just said, he being the Chairperson of a Scrutiny Committee in this place, does he not think it extraordinary and, indeed, reckless that the Committee was placed in a position where it had to seek an extraordinary commitment or process from the Business Committee when it was about scrutiny?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for his intervention. There is much that I will say on the point that he raised, but, in the interests of delivering remarks agreed by the Committee, I will not comment at this stage. I will, however, come to those points in my contribution as DUP infrastructure spokesperson.

This afternoon, the Committee will take evidence from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. Those are two of the organisations listed at clause 4(3) with which the Department must consult before issuing:

If this motion falls, the Committee Stage ends today, and the Committee will then consider a draft report that can be only factual with there having been no time for Committee deliberations. If the motion passes, the Committee looks forward to hearing from a range of stakeholders in the coming weeks, especially those referred to in the Bill. We will have more time to hear evidence, deliberate on the Bill, consider each clause in detail and come to some conclusions. I understand that there are differing opinions on the Bill, but the primary focus of the Committee is on effective scrutiny. The Bill engages important matters, and the Committee looks forward to undertaking its work in that regard.

That concludes my remarks as Chair of the Committee for Infrastructure. With your indulgence, I will now make some remarks in my role as infrastructure spokesperson for the Democratic Unionist Party. I apologise to the House. We should not be here again, debating another Committee motion for extension. We simply should not be doing so, but we have been left in that position by the reckless approach of the Bill sponsor, who, time and again, has attempted to obstruct legitimate democratic scrutiny of the Bill.

I will set out why I believe that it is essential that the House support the extension motion today. In doing so, however, I must also showcase exactly how, at each opportunity, scrutiny has been obstructed by the Bill sponsor and the useful lackeys in her party. That is what has happened time and again. The central argument in today's debate —.

Mr Donnelly: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is the use of the word "lackeys" in the Chamber appropriate?

Mr Speaker: I am not aware that it is not appropriate — I think that it has been used in other places — so Members do not need to be as easily offended as Mr Donnelly perhaps is today.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pretty sure that the word has been used in the House before. To those who took offence, I say that I meant it. I meant it because I have watched how, time and again, they have set out to destroy Assembly scrutiny of what is a very important matter for debate.

Scrutiny should never be an obstruction. The debate about Committee Stage scrutiny is not about the Bill's general principles — we had that at Second Stage — but about the practicalities, the workability and the legality of legislation that a Member introduced. As I and many other Members have witnessed, there are some — I think particularly of the Alliance Party — who comment extensively on and seem very keen to scrutinise other Members' homework but are not too keen to have their own homework scrutinised.

Some departmental Bills that previously came before the House were poorly scrutinised, and that, in effect, led to poor legislation. The Department has vast resource, with its access to the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) and with its departmental staff and a Committee to scrutinise legislation. There is therefore even more onus placed on us to undertake legitimate scrutiny of a private Member's Bill that places on the Department for Infrastructure a far-reaching and controversial statutory duty with potentially huge cost implications for it when it is already struggling with its core responsibilities, which are road maintenance, strategic infrastructure, new roads, street lighting: the list goes on.

When a Member introduces legislation that will place a new statutory requirement on the Department, the Member should be assured that it will be scrutinised. Be assured that, as Committee Chair, I will be fair and proportionate to all members, giving each of them the opportunity to flesh out fully what a Bill on blue paper means in practice, by which I mean what happens when the rubber hits the road. Assembly scrutiny is a democratic safeguard, not an inconvenience. Committee Stage exists for members to test legislation, to challenge assumptions, to hear evidence and to identify unintended consequences.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will give way to Mr Frew, after which I will give way to Mr Gaston.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way, because he raises an important point about why we are all sitting around the Chamber. It is to provide a democratic safeguard, which, I believe, is the most important and greatest principle of democracy. Democracy is not about giving people power, and it certainly is not about giving the Members in this room power; it is about protecting the people out there from the power that we have through our privileged position. We could bring forward a private Member's Bill that could be horrendous for the population. It is our role, through democratic accountability and scrutiny, to protect people from that power.

Mr Buckley: The Member makes a very valid point. There is nothing more fundamental in the Northern Ireland Assembly than good, thorough scrutiny. When I first came to the House, I remember listening to the Member as he debated at length some of the provisions in the Justice Bill. He worked in a cross-party way to ensure that the intent and purpose of the draft legislation's content were deliverable, that it was costed and that it would have a tangible, real-world impact. He, of all people, knows the importance of democratic scrutiny, because he chairs the Justice Committee. If I were not standing here making these arguments, I know that he, in his Back-Bench capacity, would be making the very same arguments where a Member had brought forward a private Member's Bill that had been not tested, whose assumptions had not been challenged and for which we had not heard the evidence thoroughly and, most importantly, had not had the ability to identify any unintended consequences of bad legislation.

I will give way to Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Buckley, for giving way. I am somewhat lost, given what we are hearing in the Chamber today. After the Alliance Party presented the Bill in September, it decided to bring forward a closure-of-debate motion that shut down scrutiny by MLAs in the Chamber. It shut down the ability of Members such as me to hear from others who were willing and who wanted to put forward their concerns about this whataboutery draft legislation that had been moved in the name of Ms Bradshaw. It shut down debate in the Chamber. Is it also trying to shut down debate in your Committee? Is it scared of scrutiny? The Alliance Party prides itself on being the thought police. We now find out that it is the social media police as well. Is that what it is trying to do: shut down debate and scrutiny by not just those MLAs who sit on the Committee but the bodies and experts who wish to come forward to present information to the Committee?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for the intervention. I will come on to the procedural controversy and how the Alliance Party has engaged in the debate to date. It is, however, fair to say that the Member's assumptions are, in my view, correct. I know that there has been gnashing of teeth from some in the Alliance Party at your mere suggestion that it would, in some way, try to obstruct the democratic scrutiny of the Committee, but that is what the evidence points to.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

That is what the evidence points to. Time and time again, when the House or the Committee has disagreed with the position of Alliance or the Bill sponsor, Ms Bradshaw, it has attempted to close down the debate. I have the evidence — I have kept the receipts — and I will talk to that shortly. The Alliance Party has voted against those issues at different times in the House and at the Committee.

I will give way to the Member for North Antrim.

Ms Mulholland: Thanks very much. What you have said calls into question the ruling of the Speaker. The Speaker would not have allowed the motion to go forward had it been a way to block democratic conversation. The Speaker allowed the debate to be closed because every party and every Member in the House had had their opportunity to speak. Every bloc had had an opportunity to speak to the Bill, otherwise the Speaker would not have allowed the motion to be moved. To say that that was an abuse of a democratic process is fairly ironic coming from the party that has abused the petition of concern on many occasions.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for her intervention, because it pointed to the Alliance Party's duplicitous position. Mr Dickson may laugh, but I will point it out. Is that not the party that was telling us in the past couple of weeks that just because you have a legal right does not mean that you should exercise it? Is that not the party that was lecturing Members on how they should show restraint and show courtesy and respect for debate? Is that not the party the deputy leader of which, Mr Tennyson, has introduced a private Member's Bill that is —

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment; I am addressing your colleague's intervention just now. I will come back to you. Mr McMurray knows that I am always fair in taking interventions. At this moment, I want to deal with Ms Mulholland's comments directly.

Mr Tennyson has introduced his Bill, which is even more dangerous and controversial than this Bill, and that is saying something. However, when Mr Tennyson brought forward his legislation, he at least had the dignity and respect to listen to all Members in the House. [Interruption.]

Mr Dickson is keen to shout across. Mr Dickson, would you like to make an intervention?

Mr Dickson: Mr Buckley, as I understand it, it is the convention in the House for Members, when addressing the House, to address it through the Speaker rather than consistently standing facing the party you are speaking about and pointing your finger at its Members.

Mr Buckley: I note that Mr Dickson wants to tackle the man but not the principle or the substance. Time and again, the Alliance Party wants to get personal. This is about scrutiny; this is about the Bill.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment. They are queuing up, Mr Speaker. I have all the time in the world to take interventions from any Member, because I am serious about the scrutiny of the Bill. I will have time; there is no time limit on this.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will give way in a moment. I have now two. I will take anybody else, but, first, let me address the substance. I will close on Ms Mulholland's points, then I will go to Mr McMurray and then to Ms Bradshaw and any other Member.

Let me finish my point. After the lecture about legal rights and whether you should exercise them, the Alliance Party's actions were clear at Second Stage, and now they have been demonstrated in Committee. Mr Tennyson listened to all Members, including the Minister. He had a chance to respond. That was not the action of Ms Bradshaw when it came to the debate surrounding her legislation.

I give way to Mr McMurray.

Mr McMurray: Much as I love listening to you, Mr Buckley, it is hard to judge when to interject or intervene because, unlike some of the flags that adorn our lamp posts and have symmetric patterns, so you know when they are 50% worn, it is sometimes hard to know whether you are 50% through your speech.

You have referred once to respectful dialogue, and you have referred to playing the man and not the ball. A lackey is a uniformed manservant. With all due respect, I have always found my interactions with you to be respectful and courteous, but is that what you meant: a uniformed manservant?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for his intervention. He started by saying that it is hard to know when to make an intervention when I am speaking, so I will give him a basic rule when it comes to debating with me in the Chamber: ask for it any time, and it will be given, because I do not fear democratic scrutiny of legislation. When the Member wants to debate the content of the Bill in the House and when he wants to stand over his actions in Committee and the Bill sponsor's action in the House, I am all ears to hear him explaining why the Alliance Party has adopted a particular approach.

The extension is about scrutiny; it is a compromise position. Time and time again, your party has voted against that.

I will go first to the Bill sponsor, Ms Bradshaw.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for giving me an intervention. I find it ironic that you keep saying that I am opposed to scrutiny of the Bill. Last week, I said that you could have whatever meetings you wanted to have. I have reached out to you and your predecessor in the Chair on a number of occasions and to all the unionist members of the Committee — four times now — and not once have you agreed to sit down. I am happy to go through the Bill with you line by line individually, but also, if you really wanted to scrutinise the Bill properly, you should have gone for 29 January and put on extra Committee meetings. That is in your gift as a Committee. I do not understand why you are opposed to doing your job of scrutiny within a reasonable time frame that would allow for the passage of the Bill before the dissolution of the Assembly.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Bill sponsor for her intervention. Again, the mask slips, because the Member is trying again subtly to threaten and say that I, as a Committee Chair, care not for the scrutiny of her Bill, when a majority of the Committee and I actually want to scrutinise it. It is the Member who has attempted to close it down.

Mr Stewart: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will make progress, and then I will come to the Deputy Chair of the Committee. I thank him for adopting a mature, sensible and rational position when it comes to the scrutiny of this legislation. I will finish a number of points, and then I will come back to him.

Last week, there was a veiled threat from the Member, and she repeated it twice in the House. I do not know whether she was talking to the SDLP; its member voted for democratic scrutiny in Committee, only for that to be overturned by the rest of his party in the Chamber. I did not quite understand that, but Mr McNulty, to be fair, voted for more scrutiny. He came to last week's Committee meeting and voted again for more scrutiny. I do not know where the veiled threat came from, but an extension is not a vote to kill the Bill, despite what the Member threatened members with last week.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: It was a ridiculous position for a Bill sponsor to come to the House to talk about killing her Bill if you dare scrutinise and question the content. It is an opportunity to establish whether the Bill is workable.

I see Mr McMurray. I have promised an intervention to the Deputy Chair. When I have had that intervention, I will come back to you, because you have a lot to say on the matter, and I will give you fair ear.

We have to ensure that Bill is workable, proportionate, affordable and legally sound. I do not think that any Member would disagree with that. A timetable should follow the evidence, not dictate the evidence. Where substantial questions remain unanswered, further scrutiny can be justified.

The Assembly has to maintain its core independence. The scrutiny Committee has to maintain its core function of scrutiny and independence. A Bill sponsor is totally entitled to advocate for their legislation. Many Members of the House have authored private Members' Bills. Some have been successful; others have not. They are totally entitled to do so, but the Committee should never be taken as a rubber-stamping of private Members' Bills or departmental legislation.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will come to the Member in a moment. I have to take a couple of interventions, but I will come to the Member.

The Committee and the Assembly have separate responsibilities to scrutinise everything. The public interest must come before political deadlines and threats from Bill sponsors, and legislation that deals with flags, identity, public space and enforcement deserves particularly careful consideration in the House. I do not think that any Member could say with a straight face that the Bill does not have unintended consequences in different communities. I will come to it clause by clause, but the identity issues in Northern Ireland mean that offence is taken at some flags and emblems on street furniture and not at others, and it means different things in different places, which is all the more reason for an extension of the scrutiny.

At that point, I give way to the Deputy Chair.

Mr Stewart: I thank the Committee Chair for giving way. The Committee Chair has raised the role of the Department, and sadly we did not get to hear from the Minister during the Second Stage debate because it was cut short. The Chair will know that, over the last couple of weeks, we have heard at length from departmental officials. While they have agreed in principle, as the Member will know, they have deep concerns about serious aspects of the Bill, and we heard that over two long sessions. That is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the scrutiny that the Committee needs to do.

The proposer of the Bill said that we need to agree to more meetings. The Committee now meets twice a week. We are doing all that we can. We are in the hands of the Clerks, who are working tirelessly on it. Mr Speaker, as you and the Chair of the Committee will know, we are also scrutinising more legislation than any other Committee at the moment. There is only a certain bandwidth [Interruption.]

We are dealing with four pieces of legislation. I stand to be corrected in that respect, but the point stands that we are dealing with four pieces of legislation.

There was a compromise in place. Originally, as you will know, I had proposed 26 February. Sinn Féin had proposed 5 February. We went for the week after that, which was a date put forward by the SDLP. We were looking for a landing ground that worked for all. Therefore, to suggest that there is something wrong in asking for an extension to scrutinise one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation that the Committee has dealt with is an insult to the Committee. Finding a compromise on a date that is two weeks after the original proposed deadline is not too much to ask. That is why I supported the SDLP proposal for the date in question today.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Deputy Chair for his intervention. He has been most reasonable when it comes to the scrutiny of the Bill. On two occasions, he made alternative proposals that would have had longer terms of scrutiny. On two occasions, he was willing to take a sounding in the room to see whether there was a majority in order to ensure that we got the right balance and that the Bill was given a fair chance for scrutiny and a fair chance for passage, if that was the will of the House. He was reasonable, whereas other members attempted to obstruct.

Mr McMurray asked for an intervention. I am willing to give way now, if he still wishes to intervene.

Mr McMurray: So much time has elapsed that I have almost forgotten what my point was, but Mr Stewart reminded me of it. Is it a compromise when the date exceeds the time that, the Clerk said, would be reasonable to allow the Bill to proceed? I do not understand having a compromise that, effectively, puts it into touch, if you will forgive the sporting analogy.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for that. We have had robust scrutiny in Committee, but I have always been keen to remind the Member that a Committee extension date is not a target. The Committee already meets twice a week. It has already agreed additional meetings, contrary to the accusation by the Bill sponsor that I was not getting on and doing my job. I take offence at that, because it was the Committee that agreed to additional meetings, not Jonny Buckley MLA and not John Stewart MLA. Had the Member been following the Committee in any detail, she would not have come to the House to throw about lazy accusations about a Committee not doing its job.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will. I argue that we have done our job thoroughly despite — and I mean "despite" — the continued attempts to delay and frustrate democratic scrutiny.

I will come to the point in a moment, but, on the Deputy Chair's intervention, he sought that compromise position, and, again, there was a majority vote in the Committee. That is important when we look at the procedural aspect of this and why it has been delayed.

I will give way to the Member behind.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. What I have heard about the Committee getting on with its job and all that that entails is absolutely disgraceful. I chair the Justice Committee: we meet on two days a week. That has had a massive impact on all members of the Justice Committee. Instead of having three or four days to read a full meeting pack, they are given two days to read a pack and two days to read a full pack. It is putting immense pressure on all members of a scrutiny Committee that is meeting twice a week.

We have to meet twice a week to get through the work, and most Committees that have any legislation on their books to scrutinise will have to meet twice week. They will do that diligently, but that still has an impact. For the Bill sponsor to suggest that we should get on with our job and even have additional meetings on top of that is really horrific to hear, even for someone who loves scrutiny, laps it up and does it well.

The fact that Committees will have to meet two or even three times a week will have a devastating effect on the quality of legislation that we produce in the House.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. He makes his point extremely well.

I do not say this lightly: it has been an attempt to bully the Committee. You can scorn all you want, Bill sponsor Ms Bradshaw, and you can snarl, but you have attempted repeatedly to bully the Committee. You and your party members have voted down its majority position in the House. You and your party members voted to close the debate at Second Stage. I go back to Mr Gaston's point. The Member moved a censure motion on the Bill.

Ms Bradshaw: I did not move a censure motion.

Mr Buckley: Her party moved that censure motion on the Bill. I stand corrected: it was the Alliance Party. I suggest, although I am willing to be corrected, that —.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Buckley: A point of order. Indeed, absolutely.

Ms Bradshaw: Mr Speaker, it was a motion to close the debate. It was not a censure motion. I would appreciate it if you could correct the Committee Chair's language.

Mr Speaker: It was a closure motion, yes.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you.

Mr Buckley: Whether it was a "censure motion" or a "closure motion", it is all the same to me, because what it did was close the debate. It censored the ability of Members who had their names on the speaking list to give their views. It closed them down.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Not only did it deprive Members who wanted to speak on the Bill and represent their constituents of a voice to do so but it deprived Members of hearing the Minister's utterances on how the Bill would impact on the Department. I know that the Bill sponsor would say, "Well, the Minister agreed with the closure motion", but it still deprived us of hearing exactly what the Minister and Department think of the Bill.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. Again, that goes to the —.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

The Member's point goes to the core of why I am absolutely sceptical about the Bill sponsor's intentions. My word: it would have been no wonder to anybody who had been listening in to the departmental evidence sessions at the Committee that, given Ms Bradshaw's seniority in the Alliance Party — I stand to be corrected but I think that, in fact, she occupies the position of Chief Whip — she would have been intricately involved in tabling such a closure motion. I stand to be corrected if the Bill sponsor wants to intervene on that point.

Ms Bradshaw: I will correct you, because you say that you are all about detail. You keep accusing me of bringing forward that closure motion. It was not me. That is the point that I am making. It is not the first time that you have made a mistake in your contribution. I will correct you when I make my substantive remarks later.

Mr Buckley: It is very interesting that the Bill sponsor did not answer the question: was she involved in the closure motion at Second Stage?

Ms Bradshaw: We are a democratic party. Of course, I would have called for that. I am just saying that you keep making the accusation that it was me who brought the motion, and it was not me. The record will show that it was not me.

Mr Buckley: Mr Speaker, it is clear —.

Mr K Buchanan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

With every question comes more questions about the Member's intent regarding the Bill. It would have been no surprise to anybody who listened to the departmental evidence that the Member would not have wanted the Minister's views to be on the record of the House, because, whilst the Department has agreed with the principles of the Bill, every question that has been answered through scrutiny at the Committee has been an absolute demolition job of the Member's Bill.

I will give way to Mr Buchanan.

Mr K Buchanan: Is the Member aware that, the last time that we debated the Bill, I did not get the opportunity to speak? It was not me who did not get the opportunity, however, but the people of Mid Ulster who voted for me and whom I represent. Forget about Keith Buchanan: while my name was on the list — I appreciate that the Speaker said that it was a closure motion, but it censored the debate — it was the people of Mid Ulster who did not get to have their views heard. It is as simple as that.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. That is so important, and it is an adequate reminder of who puts us in this place. The Member for Mid Ulster has just said that he did not get the opportunity to speak at Second Stage due to some crafty procedural trick by the Alliance Party. Those are the real-life consequences: Members do not get the opportunity to have their voices heard on behalf of their constituents.

I will give way to Mr Gaston.

Mr Gaston: I thank Mr Buckley for giving way. I will follow on from Mr Frew's intervention. We missed out not only on hearing from the Minister but on hearing the Bill sponsor's response to Members' contributions. I raised a concern at Second Stage that the Bill sponsor was not taking too many notes in order to respond to Members' concerns. She had an opportunity, after hearing from the Minister, to come back in at the end of the debate to make a winding-up speech and go back over every concern that each Member had raised. We were therefore not only deprived of hearing what the Minister had to say but missed out on hearing from the Bill sponsor. The Minister, I believe, was very concerned during the debate, given that she got up and questioned which Department should be responsible for the Bill. That is why scrutiny at Committee Stage is so important. The dereliction of duty that was shown by shutting down the debate in the House means that more importance has been placed on the scrutiny taking place in Committee.

Mr Speaker: We have discussed the closure motion at length, so it would be good if we could proceed.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Member for his point. In order to understand why the extension is necessary, it is important that we debate thoroughly how we got to where we are now. The Bill sponsor will hopefully answer on that very point herself, because, surely, as Bill sponsor, she wanted to respond to such a lengthy debate. I remember the argument being made that there was not enough time left to continue to debate the Bill in the House, yet the House rose early a couple of weeks later. It rose early after debating non-binding motions, when here we have a Bill that places a statutory duty with far-reaching consequences on a Department. I have discussed Second Stage and the tabling of a censor or closure motion, or however one wants to present it. We will get on to that.

Mr Dunne: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

Moving on, there was an attempt to put pressure on Members who wanted either to advocate legitimately for the Bill or to express concerns about it. Their points were valid. I did not want to dismiss their contributions. Rather, I wanted to listen to them. I wanted to have thorough discussions. At one point in last week's debate on the extension motion, the Bill sponsor threw out the accusation that, because the Committee for Communities will be scrutinising the Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill, which has 50 clauses, in such a short time, the Committee for Infrastructure can do the same with this Bill. What utter nonsense. It is not about the number of clauses but about their content. That is what we are getting at. Ms Bradshaw's Bill may have nine clauses, but each one of them would have significant consequences. Each clause therefore needs thorough scrutiny. I will give way to Mr Dunne.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that, in recent weeks, it has been particularly concerning to hear at Committee from DFI officials about the adverse impact that the Bill will have on many of the Department's core functions, including, importantly, road maintenance, which is something that the Department is struggling to keep on top of as it stands? Many of the impacts are totally unquantifiable, which leaves many more questions needing answered, thus making the request for more scrutiny time a very reasonable request.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for his intervention. He has repeatedly put on the record his view, which I and, I think, the majority of Committee members share, that the Department get on with exercising its core functions. We are facing a winter during which, again, we will see considerable distress on our road network. We have come out of what was a pothole pandemic — I accept that more money has been provided for addressing that particular core function of the Department — but there is still considerable trouble with rural roads and with our road network in general.

Here we are discussing a Bill about flags and emblems, however. Here we are, expected to give up scrutinising something that will potentially redirect resource from other core functions of the Department in order to make DFI the flag police, and I am told, as the Chair of the Committee, that I should just suck it up and wave it through: not in my name, and not in the name of the Member who just intervened. We need to distinguish between legitimate advocacy for the Bill and suggestions that Members who are seeking additional scrutiny of it would therefore be responsible should it fail to pass. That is not a fair position in which to put any Member of the House.

The history of the scrutiny is important. We have already discussed the scrutiny at the Second Stage debate and how it fell short. The Bill then went to the Committee, where the date of 29 January was put forward. That was an indicative suggestion to keep it in line with another Bill that the Committee was discussing, the Tree Protection Bill.

Speaker, I will let you into a little secret from the Committee. Committee members from all parties are broadly supportive of the principles of the Tree Protection Bill, though our scrutiny of its contents may involve different points. I thank Mr McReynolds for how he has engaged with the Committee on the Tree Protection Bill. His approach stands in stark contrast to that of the sponsor of this Bill, who has attempted to be obstructive. Although he is only new to the House, Ms Bradshaw could perhaps learn a lot from her younger colleagues about how to conduct oneself during the scrutiny of a Bill and how to engage professionally and proportionately with a Committee.

We studied the initial dates. Having sensed that there was not universal agreement on the flags Bill but that there was general agreement on the Tree Protection Bill, it stands to reason — it is common sense — to extend the scrutiny of a Bill with far-reaching consequences for longer than one that has broad agreement. Does any Member disagree with that broad concept? No. Why? Because it is common sense. It may not be common sense to Ms Bradshaw, but it is common sense to anybody who has had time to scrutinise the content of her Bill.

The Alliance Party voted against the extension agreed at Committee. When the Bill came to the House last week, it orchestrated another rebellion against the Committee and dragged the SDLP along with it, leaving Mr McNulty hung out to dry. Mr McNulty wanted democratic scrutiny, yet he could only watch as his party leader in the Assembly, Mr O'Toole, marched his Members through the No Lobby at the Bill sponsor's behest. I commend Mr McNulty for his bravery, because, at the very next Committee meeting, he came again with a compromise position. When we voted on it, guess what happened, Mr Speaker? The Alliance Party voted him down again.

Mr McMurray: That is not [Inaudible.]

Mr Buckley: That is true. Let me explain the context. There was an amendment —.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: Mr McMurray, I will give you time.

Mr McNulty proposed the date of 29 January. Last week, the Deputy Chair proposed the original date that the Committee discussed. There was not agreement on Mr Stewart's position. Procedurally, that would not have been allowed because the Committee cannot ask the Business Committee to let it bring exactly the same motion back to the House. Mr Stewart was willing to find a compromise at that point, and that compromise came from Mr McNulty. His amendment was put to the Committee, and the Alliance Party Members voted it down. It passed, however, and here we are today.

On a number of occasions, therefore, the Alliance Party has done the work of curtailing scrutiny of this private Member's Bill. I ask the House why.

Ms K Armstrong: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have heard the Member speak often now, but I want to ask your opinion on Standing Order 65, which concerns order in the Assembly. We have heard consistently from this contributor that the Standing Orders are incorrect and that the tools that we can use in this place are not right. Any curtailment of debate has been undertaken through the appropriate Standing Orders. I do not think that it is in good order in the Assembly for the Standing Orders to be criticised in that way, given that we have all signed up to adhere to them.

Mr Speaker: From listening to Mr Buckley, my understanding — I spoke to the Clerk as well — is that his point about the closure motion was a political point, not a procedural one. Procedurally, of course, it is allowed; in fact, it could have been utilised earlier if Members had really wanted to do so, although probably not much earlier. It could have been used, and it was used, and that is entirely within the rules and confines of the Assembly.

Regarding order, we will call the debate to a conclusion for now, because the Business Committee meets at 1.00 pm. When we resume — I assume that you are not at the conclusion of your speech, Mr Buckley, and do not have two minutes' worth left with which to regale us?

Mr Buckley: Mr Speaker, I will respond to Ms Armstrong and other Members.

Mr Speaker: No, you will not. We will close it down now, and you can respond afterwards. The sitting will resume at 2.00 pm with Question Time. We will resume this debate after questions to the Minister of Health.

Mr Butler (The Minister of Health): I thank the Member for his question. Improving outcomes for people living with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains a key priority for my Department. Early diagnosis, rapid access to specialist advice and timely intervention during periods of disease flare-up are essential for reducing complications, avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions and improving patients' quality of life. Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of IBD have access to specialist multidisciplinary services, including consultant gastroenterologists, specialist IBD nurses and dietetic support. Each health and social care trust provides an IBD flare helpline, accessible via telephone and email, to support patients who are experiencing a disease flare-up. Patients can also access advice and support through the regional IBD digital FlareCare services. Access is available via telephone and email, with answerphone messages directing patients to appropriate sources of advice and support outside normal working hours.

The regional gastroenterology group continues to work with trusts to strengthen IBD services and develop the workforce required to meet increasing demand and quality standards. My Department also supports the regional IBD flare card, which provides patients with information on recognising flare symptoms, self-management and how to access specialist support. The resource is provided during clinical reviews and is available online through the Northern Ireland IBD flare website. In addition, the regional gastroenterology forum, working in partnership with the regional IBD nurse group, is progressing a programme of work to update and enhance regional flare management resources. That includes strengthening patient information and improving consistency of advice across Northern Ireland, helping patients access the right support at the right time. My Department will continue to enhance workforce capacity, improve access to specialist advice and supply the delivery of high-quality, equitable IBD services across Northern Ireland.

Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Minister, I appreciate that you have given us the textbook answer to the question, but can you actually confirm that that is what does happen in Northern Ireland and that patients do not end up sitting on trolleys or seats in A&E?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. To be fair to the Member, the frustration that is felt by people who suffer with IBD is shared by many patients who suffer with many different diseases and chronic conditions. It would be wonderful to be able to stand here and say that I have absolute confidence that there are no people in A&E, or trying to access a GP appointment, who are in pain or are dealing with that complexity. However, I am absolutely confident that work is ongoing not only to provide that service and intervention but to raise awareness in that regard.

That information provision is one of the most important things that we can do. I will give you an example, if that is all right, because there are a number of subsets that sit underneath IBD in regard to what is ongoing. One of those is inflammatory bowel disease, and improving the quality, consistency and availability of the data for people living with IBD is an important part of the pathway and an important element of the Department's wider programme of work to improve IBD services across Northern Ireland. Accurate population-level information, including what the Member asked for, which is whether people are going to the right place at the right time, is absolutely essential, because we need to benchmark every part of the pathway, whether that is awareness, diagnosis or where that intervention and support come from. It is a key component of the work that is being developed to dedicated IBD models within Encompass, and the module has been adapted from an established solution used by King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. I hope that that goes some way towards offering some confidence.

Ms Flynn: Minister, I will ask a question specifically about women who might be presenting with symptoms of IBD or IBS. I am conscious that some of those symptoms can overlap with the symptoms that a woman might have if she has ovarian cancer. Is the Minister taking any specific steps to do a wee piece of work around that?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her question. She rightly points to the complexity of the comorbid experience that people live with. Having the right diagnosis is crucial to getting the right support in place.

Significant work is under way to benchmark IBD services across Northern Ireland against the revised standards developed by Crohn's and Colitis UK. That includes a comprehensive review of workforce capacity, service provision and compliance with recommended multidisciplinary team standards across the health and social care trusts. It is really important that we have a linear service, regardless of postcode, and that there is awareness. It is also important that specialists understand, as the Member pointed out, that symptoms can sometimes persist or manifest in a way that points to something else.

Through the regional gastroenterology forum, a programme of work is also progressing to strengthen the multidisciplinary care pathway and improve access to specialist support for patients with suspected or confirmed IBD. Obviously, if another illness is ruled out through that pathway, that is really good. Equally, it would not be a surprise for some people, sadly, to be found to have both complications and require support from both sets of specialists at the same time.

The review includes faecal calprotectin pathways in line with Crohn's and Colitis UK guidance, developing an electronic IBD patient register in Encompass, reviewing regional flare management protocols and considering psychological provision and other multidisciplinary team requirements for that patient cohort. We must never underestimate or forget the psychological impact that those manifestations can have on patients, particularly if they are waiting for treatment on some of our chronic waiting lists.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. Despite extensive efforts across the regional health and social care system, the Southern Health and Social Care Trust has not been able to secure the consultant obstetric workforce required to maintain inpatient maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital. On Tuesday 3 November, following a Southern Health and Social Care Trust board meeting, the trust confirmed that all births and inpatient maternity care would temporarily be consolidated at Craigavon Area Hospital from Monday 23 November in order to protect the safety of women and babies. Efforts to recruit consultant obstetricians will continue throughout the intervening period. The trust's intention remains to restore inpatient maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital, provided that it can recruit and retain sufficient clinical expertise to support a safe and sustainable service.

To support a safe and smooth transition, the trust is planning a phased approach, including the transfer of elective caesarean section activity from 9 November 2026, should the contingency arrangements be required. Unfortunately, that happens to be the case. My Department is clear that decisions of such significance must be informed by appropriate clinical advice, robust risk assessment and engagement with relevant stakeholders. The views of service users, staff, elected representatives and local communities will continue to be considered as part of the wider discussions.

I have been clear that I wish to see the return of consultant-led inpatient maternity services to Daisy Hill Hospital, and I remain committed to working with the Southern Trust and other partners to identify a safe and sustainable pathway to achieve that. However, any reopening must be underpinned by a resilient workforce and the necessary clinical safeguards to ensure the continued safety of women and babies.

Mr Wilson: Minister, back in June, I raised the issue of a temporary suspension, which your predecessor described as an inconvenience. We now know that it was far more serious than that. Today, it affects hundreds of women and places further immense pressure on Craigavon Area Hospital. With that in mind, local people have heard repeated assurances that the suspension is temporary, yet confidence continues to ebb away. What concrete evidence can you provide today that maternity services at Daisy Hill have a viable long-term future?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. He will be cognisant of the fact that Daisy Hill Hospital has, in recent years, seen an influx of midwives. That was a very deliberate move and display of support by the Southern Trust and the Department to ensure that maternity services were supported. Support for maternity services and the continued, sustainable provision of maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital has very much been part of the long-term vision for the hospital.

That point has been made repeatedly to political representatives, public groups and advocacy groups.

The all-islands pressure on recruiting obstetricians into clinical posts has come out in the wash in the public debate. We know that being in maternity services is one of those vulnerable moments for mothers and babies — one when the highest levels of clinical expertise and support are needed. The changing face of maternity and the changing pressures faced in maternity wards are dictated by some changes in society, with women having babies later in life and other medical complications that mean that clinical support needs to be better than it ever has been. The ongoing work to retain the maternity services in Daisy Hill is encompassed in high-level talks about ensuring that our hospitals, particularly those in rural areas, are attractive places to work. Daisy Hill is a vital part of the hospital network, and it is incumbent on the Department and the trust to ensure that we have the facilities in place and that we send out the message that will bring the best clinicians in the world to our hospitals.

Miss McAllister: Minister, you have spoken a lot about trying to recruit obstetricians to Daisy Hill Hospital, but something that your Department is not very good at is long-term workforce planning. Will you speak about what the trusts and your Department are doing about long-term workforce planning for maternity services, not just in that trust but across the region?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her question. To be fair, the question goes wider than maternity services, but the same pressures apply whatever the discipline, particularly at consultant level. I will bore into the situation in Daisy Hill first, because it is transferable, regardless of what discipline we are talking about. Under my instruction, the Southern Trust continues to actively pursue recruitment opportunities to support the restoration of inpatient maternity services in hospitals. I have responded to many questions for written answer on the matter. It is important when it comes to informing us on how to get better at workforce planning. As we know, we cannot just instruct clinicians, compelling them to work somewhere in particular. We need to create an environment where we have the right hospitals with the right support and work with the right packages for them to make a difference. The Southern Trust has undertaken extensive recruitment efforts over a number of years in an attempt to secure sufficient consultant obstetrics staff in order to support the long-term sustainability of maternity services in Daisy Hill. That has included efforts to recruit on a permanent and a locum basis. Unfortunately, those efforts have fallen short.

Legislation is coming that will assist us in some small way. That was called the "safe and effective staffing" legislation but is now called the staffing legislation and is for health and social care across the piece. That will require us to have a myopic focus on ensuring that whatever is available matches the need of our increasingly diverse population and the pressures in our hospitals in rural areas. We have to have equitable provision of clinical cover, no matter where the hospital is.

Ms Finnegan: Given that Drogheda hospital is significantly closer to many women who live in south Armagh than Craigavon hospital, does the Minister accept that some of those women will not travel to Craigavon but will go directly to Drogheda? What discussions have you had, Minister, and what practical arrangements have been put in place to facilitate that?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her important question. Many Members in the Chamber today have been in solution-focused mode with me in investigating any and every opportunity to save the maternity services at Daisy Hill. One idea that we had was to try to recruit obstetricians from the Republic, from the wider UK and from further afield, even if that was on a temporary basis. Unfortunately, that did not come to fruition. However, my Department's strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) has engaged with colleagues in the Health Service Executive (HSE) in the first instance. Senior HSE representatives advised that they are not in a position to provide consultant obstetrics staff to work in Daisy Hill. In addition — the Member asked about who we had spoken to — I have had discussions on the position of maternity services in Daisy Hill with my counterpart in the Irish Government, Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, the Minister for Health.

No sustainable staffing solution was identified out of those discussions, however.

The Southern Trust has engaged with the HSE through Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda to explore whether consultant obstetric capacity was available in the Republic to support maternity services. I think that I am pretty much up to date in my understanding that there is capacity for some births, probably after the new year some time, so in January or February. As has become evident from our discussions with partners on these islands, such pressures are not unique to Daisy Hill or to Northern Ireland. They are being felt right across these islands, and there are capacity issues even in the Republic. Conversations are ongoing, however, and systems and metrics will be put in place to support mothers who would be suited to going there and for whom it would be clinically better, when distance of travel and complexities that they may have with the birth are considered.

Mr McGrath: Over the years, the bitter experience of hospitals, particularly rural hospitals, has been that the term "temporary suspension" has meant that a service is lost and never returns. It feels as though it is a one-way street, where a service is taken out and does not come back. On that basis, and given that we have heard from the Southern Trust about the work that it is trying to do to return maternity services to Daisy Hill, is the Minister aware of a single thing that the trust is doing differently now from what it was doing six months ago to try to sustain maternity services?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. To be fair, every one of us, including senior trust staff, has exhausted all possible avenues. He will know that the Southern Trust spoke to other trusts about their obstetricians, as did the SPPG. I myself wrote them a letter. We have certainly exhausted all internal avenues. All external avenues that we pursued through our all-islands and international approach have also been exhausted. The focus now needs to be very firmly on ensuring that communicating information on the pathways for pregnant mums is the priority and that the safety of those mums and babies is paramount.

Alongside that, as Members have said, is consideration of what the workforce strategy looks like in order to ensure that we do not lose further services, which has been a very real threat. Even when workforce pressures existed previously and a Minister of Health got up and said that we do not want to lose a service, that, unfortunately, happened in some instances. We need to move on from that, however, because we now have hospital network reconfiguration. We understand where our hospitals could and should be, and we understand better what services should be provided. I cannot be clearer than to say that, given the more than 1,700 births at Daisy Hill, the excellent service that that hospital provides and its rurality, the need to have a confident, sustainable maternity unit there is central to every discussion that I have had with the Southern Trust. In my short time in office, I will not give up on my efforts to recruit the right people to Daisy Hill as quickly as possible, whatever such a programme may look like.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. The privacy and dignity of all patients is of the utmost consideration for staff who deliver and commission health and social care services, and, indeed, it is a priority for me. In our hospitals, the overriding principle is that all patients in adult inpatient areas should be cared for in same-gender accommodation, except where it is in the best interests of the patient not to be or reflects their personal choice. That is set out in the mixed-gender inpatient accommodation guidance that my Department issued in September 2016. Patient placement decisions are based on clinical assessment, safety considerations and operational requirements, with the aim of providing appropriate care while also maintaining dignity and privacy.

In March 2025, my predecessor, Mike Nesbitt, commissioned a region-wide review of the existing Health and Social Care (HSC) gender identity and expression policy, with a view to adopting a consistent position that respects women's access to safe spaces. That review and the legal context remain important to the Department's work. I do not think that it would be unreasonable, however, nor do I believe that it would be unlawful, to make certain shared spaces, such as changing rooms and toilets, single sex as a matter of policy, with whatever additional provision that may be required.

NHS England's revised guidance, which was published in October, is a useful and considered framework. I welcome the clarity that it offers and its focus on protecting the well-being of all staff and patients. The Member will be aware, however, that Northern Ireland has a separate equality framework. The Equality Commission has asked the High Court to clarify how the Supreme Court judgement should be applied here, and a hearing on permission is scheduled shortly. The Department will take account of that process and the English guidance as we review the regional position so that any approach is consistent, workable and legally sound.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for his answer. I hope that Northern Ireland's Health Minister agrees with me and many right-thinking people in our country that gender is based on biological sex and that there are but two genders: male and female.

The Minister knows that there is a huge public debate around the safety of single-sex spaces, and he referenced that in his response to my question. Has he had any engagement with his ministerial counterparts, in particular the Education Minister, who has already produced guidance to ensure that single-sex spaces in schools are protected? Is that, perhaps, an approach that he could adopt in the Department of Health?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. I am not aware of any communications with the Education Minister. Certainly, there have been no verbal communications, and I not sure whether there have been any written communications. The outworkings of any Minister's response in that space is of value to their Executive colleagues.

I said in my answer to the question about the Department's approach that, in order to be legally compliant, we need to wait for the decision of the High Court in December and see what direction it goes in. The English framework is a model that has vires in that space. I do not disagree with the Member's assessment — I agree with him on biological sex — but I also have transgender friends. While we might hold fundamental views on it — my views are not dissimilar to the Member's — it is really important that we are always conscious and careful about how we approach the subject.

I believe that the trajectory is the right one. With new hospital accommodation, we are moving away from wards and towards single-patient rooms with en suite facilities. We are a long way off getting that, but it will help to take some of the energy out of the question. I do not disagree with the Member, but the Department will wait for the High Court's advice in December and will make the necessary changes if that is what has to be done.

Mr Chambers: Minister, is it accurate to say that the direction of travel of new hospital builds is towards having more single en suite rooms? From personal experience, I know that single rooms contribute hugely to patient comfort and timely recovery.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. I mentioned that. It is the right thing to do in many ways. The reason is nothing to do with the debate around gender and sex. The reality is that, in hospital and health and social care settings, decisions are made on a clinical basis, and, after that, there is a methodology for determining on this matter. There is absolutely no doubt that, as regards the experience in hospitals, which is about not just the gender and sex issue but waiting times and access to expert services, it is the right thing to do to move patients into a much more dignified space.

We have seen the photographs overnight of people's extended waits in accident and emergency departments. When people are in urgent need of care, they want to have the right person in the right place at the right time, and that will remain my principal direction as Minister.

Mr Speaker: The Speaker had to wait for four days in a corridor last year.

Mr Butler: I apologise to the Speaker for his having to wait for four days in a corridor.

I have previously acknowledged that our health system is not in an acceptable position. 'Delivering Together' set the direction in 2016: we are now 10 years on, and some progress has been made, but we must do more. That is why our system needs to be reset.

Reform is taking place rapidly in elective care. Elective centres, endoscopy services and mega-clinics are helping to increase capacity. The Member and I have the Lagan Valley Hospital day procedure centre in our constituency, which has treated almost 22,000 patients. The overnight stay centres at Daisy Hill Hospital, the South West Acute Hospital and the Mater Hospital have treated around 29,000 patients between them.

In primary care, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) have provided more than 354,000 additional consultations in the past year, and around 1·3 million people can now access enhanced services in their GP practice. That is helping people to get support sooner, preventing deterioration of their condition. Further investment in primary care through the development of the neighbourhood model will enhance services further. Sixty-one million pounds will be invested to support further expansion of the MDT model, an additional £42 million in the e-pharmacy programme and £60 million in Together for Families to improve the life chances of children across Northern Ireland. Digitisation will play a critical role in transformation in the coming weeks. The Belfast Trust has stood up the first virtual wards in Northern Ireland — a significant step forward for the region in reforming care delivery.

All that must be supported by investment in our people. The Health and Social Care workforce is the backbone of our system, and continued delays in allocating pay awards will impact on transformation, so that issue must be resolved. Recent service issues have further reinforced the need for strong workforce planning so that our system has the skills and capabilities to deliver. My Department has recently established a working group to drive that agenda across Health and Social Care.

Mrs Guy: I consistently hear from constituents that they want a new kind of politics where we show leadership and work together to give better services to our constituents. Naomi Long has written to party leaders proposing a cross-party compact for health transformation. Minister, will you commit to working with Alliance on that and going to your party and getting its support?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her question. Her constituents are my constituents. No MLA in the room would deny that, when we are getting our ears boxed, health and social care is the number-one issue. I have been in the post for only three months, and I will be honest and say that I do not see any orange or green in health. I do not see any party playing politics with health. I welcome the intent of the communication that your party has sent to my party leader, and I will certainly take time to consider it, as will the other parties.

The Member will not disagree that perhaps the two main reasons why we have not seen transformation are that we had five years when we did not have Stormont and political leadership and we have struggled with a Budget that, we agree, limits our opportunities to transform. I believe, however, that we are seeing the green shoots of transformation not just through the elective care waiting lists and urgent care but through the reset model towards neighbourhood. It was really good to get the support of GPs this week and re-engagement on the neighbourhood model of care.

I was about to say to the Member for East Antrim that some of the communication is just the start, and it would be remiss of me to say that that is not the case. Every journey starts at the beginning, however, and I do not think that it is the start because GPs were previously involved in the process. We did not get to where we are with the neighbourhood model without their engagement, so having all those voices at the table is crucial. Whoever takes up the mantle of this portfolio come May, if we re-establish an Executive, I would point them towards the neighbourhood model and reset because that is where we will see the transformation.

Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for outlining the transformation projects that have begun. Many of them are welcome. Every journey has a start, but, for care workers in the community, their journeys are becoming more expensive every day. How will you ensure that home care services are adequately supported as part of the transformation agenda? We all know that the only way that we will ever transform the health service is by allowing people to remain in their own homes and to get home from hospital at the earliest possible juncture. That can happen only if we have a healthcare workforce in the community in our social care sector —

Mr Speaker: Minister.

Mrs Dillon: — so, what are we going to do to implement the real living wage for healthcare workers and ensure that they can cover their mileage when travelling from home to home?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for her question. She has raised that issue a number of times. It is a pressure on which I absolutely share her concern. Many representative bodies know that I return to that when we talk about pay negotiations. There is a lived reality for those absolutely amazing care workers, who will work 365 days per year in some of the most remote areas of the country, arriving in their cars in all types of weather, and have not yet achieved the real living wage. It is a commitment. It was a ministerial direction made by my predecessor and is one that I absolutely intend to live up to. Obviously, that is dependent on agreeing a Budget and making sure that the Secretary of State listens.

We have been honest in the discussions with the Secretary of State — I will put that on the record, given some of the stuff that flies about in the public domain — and, in Health, we have been particularly open and transparent about the fiscal past and the fiscal future.

The Member rightly pointed out our vulnerability, which is in the risk of losing the goodwill of those people — that is all that we are going on at the moment — and that there is a geopolitical crisis, with the price of fuel adding to the burden. This is not scripted: I recognise the same risk. When we shift left and move healthcare closer to and, hopefully, into people's homes, where people will better receive their care and have better outcomes, we will rely even more on that workforce.

We need to see a process, and it is not under way, so I am not making any promises that I am doing it, but I am having conversations. When I talk about the real living wage, I will be honest and say that it is not enough. If this is to be a component of how we deliver care in the future, we need to develop further the conversations about professional pathways that we talked about for childcare in the previous mandate, because the pressures are the same. These are people who may want to move into other specialisms —

Mr Speaker: Right, your time is up, Minister, on both fronts. We move on to topical questions.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. I have been acutely interested in understanding the difference between screening and someone having symptoms and getting tested, particularly in relation to a lung screening programme. Work has commenced on the planning for a targeted lung cancer screening programme. That will be a significant programme to plan for and deliver over future years. I will stop there to say that I very much regret that we do not have such a programme at this moment, particularly when I think about some of the habits that we previously had in this country, with the high level of smoking, but also asbestosis and the environmental factors that can increase the risk of respiratory disease. My Department has provided funding to the Public Health Agency (PHA) to commence work on scoping the project and establishing a project team. That team will take forward work at a regional level to develop a plan for a targeted lung screening programme, including additional diagnostic pathways for incidental findings of treatment and the services that are required. The work will take approximately 12 months to complete.

Implementing a lung screening programme here will require substantial funding. The anticipated cost of fully delivering the programme in England is about £270 million on an annual basis, which indicates that the cost to Northern Ireland will be somewhere in the region of £9 million a year once a programme is fully implemented. Northern Ireland may be starting from a different baseline than England, however, and development and implementation costs may therefore be significantly higher. At this stage, I am unable to outline a specific time frame for the full implementation of a lung cancer screening programme in Northern Ireland. I understand that Scotland estimates that the full implementation of its programme will take between seven and 10 years. As we often say when we talk about these things, that does not need to be a target; that is our baseline, and we need to do things better in Northern Ireland.

Mr McGrath: Thank you for that detail, Minister. When we look at the whole landscape of testing, we see that 230,000 people in the North are waiting for a diagnostic test — up by 11,000 since March — and that 80,000 of those people have been waiting more than six months. Are we genuinely telling the people out there that we are doing the best that we possibly can for them when that is how long it takes to get seen?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. I need to be really careful with words: evidently, we are not doing the best that we could do, but we are doing our best with the resource that we have. When it comes to the resource, unfortunately, when I look at my budget to find out where I may be able to run an initiative, I very often think, "That initiative is just going to have to wait". Sometimes those decisions are not just fiscally led. For instance, when we look at how we tackled reducing the bowel screening age, we see that we have to have the clinical capacity to ensure that, once someone gets their diagnosis, support is readily available. The complexity is such that people who are lot cleverer than us in this room advise us in that space.

We must not shrink our ambition, however. We must recognise that people are suffering and understand that we must get to a much better place. That will require robust engagement with colleagues across the Executive about an agreed Budget and multi-year funding. If we get to a place where we are doing mature, multi-year funding, we will be able to predict where we will be able to get the maximum benefit for the people who are waiting much too long.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. I have read about that, but I do not have the detail in front of me at the moment. I know that the Department is alive to the pressures that, as you have rightly outlined, face some constituents and to the fact that it is grossly unfair that such services exist in other places. In a number of areas, if there is a complexity or a difficulty, we have to go south to the Republic to access shared services or across the water to GB, particularly for cancer services for children. We need to get a whole lot better at addressing what that provision looks like.

I do not want to do any injustice to the topic that the Member has raised. I will therefore respond to him in writing with a much more detailed and up-to-date picture. Since I have been in post, I have been in discussions with my Department on the issue.

Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra.

I look forward to hearing from him.

Friedreich's ataxia is a terrible wasting disease. I know that because I had a friend who died from it within the past year. Three of her siblings have been diagnosed with the same disease. It is a terrible affliction not just for the individual but often for the family, because the parents carry the rogue gene.

In the absence of having access to the types of treatments that are available in other jurisdictions, will the Minister commit to engaging with his counterpart in the South to explore cross-border solutions to giving patients access to those treatments?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for that. If he puts the detail of that in writing — we will also pick it up in Hansard — we will respond to him. I have to be careful because I am not a clinician, but I know that we follow the NICE guidelines on medicines for difficult diagnoses. Those are the rules that we play by.

In discussions with my officials, we always have to examine what is the right thing to do. We have our legal parameters and guidelines, but we also have emerging technologies and emerging medicines. We do not want people in Northern Ireland to be behind the curve in getting the help that they so dearly need.

If the Member includes the detail in his communication, I will ensure that we respond in kind. Those are the types of things that we need to examine at all points while following best practice. I know that medicines for other conditions have been suggested. We saw one suggested recently for breast cancer, for instance. Once a medicine becomes available — once it comes online — we are not slothful. We put the resource where it needs to be to meet the need.

I am very sorry to hear about your friend who, sadly, passed away last year.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. He should have declared an interest as having been a bit of a builder back in the day.

I am alive to that concern, and I know that the Health Committee is very aware of it. We have seen a horrendous overrun in capital costs, particularly in the Belfast Trust. I have been trying to learn at pace about what went wrong there and what is wrong in our wider procurement and capital project space. Certainly, the first thing that does not look right is the pathway for the initial concept for the provision of a service, whether it is an A&E, a children's hospital or a maternity unit. Unfortunately, the timeline between the concept and delivery is way too long, which leads to unavoidable inflation pressures. Geopolitical moments also skew costs. The second thing is that the business case comes after the initial concept. Pricing is done on the initial concept, and then you get the business case, in which costs invariably rise.

In recent builds, shall we say, in the Belfast Trust, we have seen the failure to commission those buildings and some of the materials in them, leading to exponential costs. I am alive to that. I am looking at options for how to mitigate the cost and how to learn from that to ensure that we do things differently in the future.

Mr Honeyford: The Minister is confusing me with Steve Aiken who makes declarations of everything under the sun from years ago.

Is that the last bit of money that will be needed for those projects? The mental health champion was with the Public Accounts Committee, last week. Very little has happened in that area to bring support to people. I know that that is something that the Minister has lobbied for in the past. When will patients — people — be able to access those facilities?

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. As the Member has rightly pointed out, I talked about mental health when I took over this portfolio. It is still a primary priority for me. I very much regret the fact that we have not been able to deliver on the promises that were made. To be fair, I do not have a date, and I do not have the final fiscal amount. I do not want to tie myself to anything. However, I put on record that my Department and I are alert to the costs that have escalated. We are pushing back to understand those better and to put energy into opening the buildings and getting them ready. An ongoing process of investigation of how we have arrived at the point should be no reason to stop progress in getting the door open and providing the required support, particularly, in this instance, in a mental health facility, but also in the maternity unit, which is vital for the Royal site. We should then take that learning into the significant build of the children's hospital, which is under way at the Royal site.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. That is an issue on which I get a monthly update, because it is an Executive commitment for ring-fenced money. We see that these institutions can achieve good things when funding is translated into extra activity across our health service. This morning, I received another very positive update from senior officials for elective care, which is led by Professor Mark Taylor.

Since its peak, the current endoscopy waiting list has fallen by 71%, which means that 28,333 fewer patients are waiting for that procedure. Furthermore, it reduced by a further 11% since March alone. The number of patients waiting for more than four years for an outpatient appointment is projected to have fallen by 24% — 20,156 patients — between March and September, and, since March, the named procedure waiting list has reduced by 52%, with particularly strong reductions in tonsillectomies and hip and knee procedures. Across the waiting list initiatives, 104,560 episodes of activity were delivered between April and September. That progress reflects the commitment of staff and the work that is under way to make better use of theatre capacity, day procedure centres and other treatment settings. My focus is on sustaining that effort, extending effective approaches, where possible, and ensuring that patients continue to see benefits.

Mr Chambers: Minister, those reductions will be very welcome, especially to patients who have spent years waiting for treatments. What are the Minister's priorities for sustaining that progress and ensuring that the benefits of the additional activity are felt across all trust areas?

Mr Butler: My priority is to keep the focus on turning investment into treatment, because the money does not matter if we do not see that reality coming through the theatres. That means supporting staff to deliver more activity; making full use of facilities, such as the Omagh and Lagan Valley day procedure centres; and continuing to improve how patients are treated across hospital and community settings. Some of the answers on how we use our clinical time and spaces are quite simple. It is about ensuring that an operating theatre is used throughout the day and is not lying vacant and, similarly, that consultants have full days in which to carry out their outpatients' interviews, thus ensuring that we have no idle resource.

Every week, I have the privilege of visiting facilities that are driving the huge progress that we are witnessing in many of our hospitals and challenging those lists. I look forward to seeing, tomorrow, how an innovative approach by primary care has made such a positive transformation in the delivery of — wait for it, men — vasectomies. I will continue to monitor delivery with trusts and officials, build on what is working and keep the reduction of long waiting lists firmly in view.

Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his question. I also thank Community Pharmacy NI and its advocacy representatives, whom I have met a number of times. I have a feeling that I will be meeting them again, because they will play a vital role as we move towards the neighbourhood model of care. The Department has maintained a strong commitment to support the sustainability and development of Community Pharmacy NI through continued investment in service expansion, within the resources available. Again, I return to the fact that I am dealing with a finite resource.

For 2026-27, an opening funding envelope of £172·27 million has been confirmed, which represents an 8% increase on the previous year's baseline. The Department continues to work with Community Pharmacy NI, through the agreed contractual framework and commissioning arrangements, to support the sustainability of the sector and enable the continued expansion of clinical services that it delivers.

To strengthen community pharmacy's role as a key pillar of primary care, the Department is taking forward a range of strategic initiatives, including the community pharmacy strategic plan 2030; the Pharmacy First service; pharmacy workforce reform to support the introduction of pharmacist prescribers; the neighbourhood model of care; and a £42 million investment in digital e-pharmacy infrastructure. Those programmes are designed to enhance access to care that is closer to home and to expand the clinical services available through community pharmacy. Community pharmacy also plays an important role in the Department's annual winter preparedness planning by helping patients to access timely advice, treatment and support for minor illnesses while also reducing pressure on GP practices, out-of-hours services and emergency departments.

Mr Speaker: I omitted to ask you to be brief, Minister, but, nonetheless, thank you. Time is up for questions to the Minister of Health.

Before we return to the debate on the extension of the Committee Stage of the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill, I advise Members that the Adjournment debate on the impact of drugs and drug-related intimidation on rural communities in Fermanagh and South Tyrone will not be taken this evening. It has been rescheduled by the Business Committee.

Mr Buckley: I apologise to the House. The Committee had been continuing its deliberations on the Bill, but, unfortunately, it had to adjourn today's meeting because members needed to come to the Chamber to debate a motion that should have been agreed last week.

We have talked through the procedural controversy in which the Alliance Party has placed the House. We have talked through how, if the motion in the Order Paper had been agreed last week, as was the Committee's majority position, the Committee could have continued its deliberations and scrutiny. Instead, its meeting today was cut short in the middle of receiving evidence from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) on how the Bill intersects with articles 9 and 10, among others, of the European Convention on Human Rights. That session, however, was cut short purely because of how Alliance handled last week's debate on the extension motion. That party has shown, time and time again, be it at Second Stage, at Committee Stage or in extra meetings that had been scheduled, that the Bill sponsor's attempts to destroy scrutiny is having an effect on the Committee's ability to scrutinise the legislation.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

Before I finish my remarks, I will say that Ms Armstrong attempted to suggest that I was in some way misrepresenting the Alliance Party's position on using the procedures of the House. I do not deny that it can use the procedures of the House, but I fundamentally disagree with the manner in which the party has done so. Alliance has stifled scrutiny and debate and, to return to his point, denied the ability of Mr Buchanan's constituents to be heard on the matter. That is on the Alliance Party. Its reluctance for there to be adequate scrutiny of the Bill raises more questions than answers.

Every time that somebody is questioned on the content of the Bill, significant questions are raised, including by departmental staff with whom we have had significant sessions. I understand that Ms Bradshaw has also engaged with them directly. Questions have been raised by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission about how the Bill intersects with its core functions and duties. That is but one aspect of the Bill.

I give way to the Bill sponsor.

Ms Bradshaw: I am a bit perplexed, Chairman. You have spent, I think, 40 minutes going over the same stuff. You could easily have finished this before we broke for lunch to allow the Business Committee to meet. It is on you that your Committee meeting this afternoon has had to be adjourned. The issue could easily have been dealt with in the 30 minutes that was allocated by the Business Committee prior to lunch recess.

Mr Buckley: I will make one point to begin with. Did I not listen to lectures from Alliance Members just before we broke for lunch about referring comments through the Chair? Did I not listen to Mr Dickson make a point of order? Perhaps Mr Dickson could educate his colleagues on the courtesies of the House. Ms Bradshaw again —.

Ms Bradshaw: Come to the question.

Mr Buckley: I am coming to your question, through the Chair. Ms Bradshaw, by her remarks, has demonstrated a complete arrogance when it comes to scrutiny. I will make it clear again that Alliance Party Member Ms Bradshaw has come to the House —.

Ms Bradshaw: If you want scrutiny, go down to the Committee.

Mr Buckley: Sorry, Speaker, are we making remarks through the Chair? I can go back and forth with the Member as much as she wants. If she wants to make another intervention, I will give it to her.

Ms Bradshaw: Will you take an intervention?

Mr Buckley: I will.

Ms Bradshaw: Through the Chair, if scrutiny is so important to you, why are you not down in the Committee room doing the scrutiny work as opposed to repeating the same stuff over and over?

Mr Frew: Because he has to be here.

Ms Bradshaw: We did not need to come back to the subject after Question Time. Nothing new is being said. The same thing happened in the three sessions at Second Stage, when 10 of your MLAs spoke and four made interventions. We gave plenty of time to the DUP at Second Stage, which was meant to be on the general principles of the Bill.

Mr Buckley: Further arrogance and dismissals.

Ms Bradshaw: No, no, no.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment. I am not surprised that the Member has taken that approach, because it is symbolic —

Ms Bradshaw: You are the one who — [Inaudible.]

Mr Buckley: — of how she has approached scrutiny of her Bill. It is clear that the only reason why the Assembly is here today debating the issue is that Ms Bradshaw and her colleagues voted down the motion that was before the House last week. That is the only reason. To come to the Chamber today to insinuate and make accusations that it is my fault that we are here debating is an absolute misrepresentation. I want to scrutinise the Bill.

Ms Bradshaw: Go and do it.

Mr Buckley: I want to be at my Committee meeting. Ms Bradshaw is responsible for the curtailment of scrutiny of the Bill. The Assembly would not be discussing this right now if it were not for her petulance and her desire to cut the Minister off from responding, to cut herself off from responding and to stop other Members in the House from having their democratic say.

I am calling time on Alliance duplicity when it comes to scrutiny because, every time it comes to important matters of scrutiny in the House, she has put a block on it.

Mr Speaker: OK, Mr Buckley. We said before the break that we did not need to go back to the issue of the previous debate, so move on, please.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will respect your ruling, but, when the Bill sponsor —.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will. When the Bill sponsor intervenes and wants to cast aspersions on my intentions, ability or desire to scrutinise her private Member's Bill, be assured that you will have a response from me. The response does not come from some prepared script that Ms Bradshaw wants me to read; it will come from my engagement on the Bill.

Ms Bradshaw: Go and do your engagement.

Mr Buckley: Still, she continues because she knows that the truth hurts when it comes to the Bill.

I will give way to the Member.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. The Bill sponsor has shown once again, as she does consistently, a blasé contempt for the House and the attention to detail that it should provide in scrutiny and the democratic process. She has uttered that the motion should have been dealt with in a half-hour slot before Question Time. She has not even realised that there may be other people who might want to speak on the extension. She just flips her hand in a blasé fashion as if to say, "You should be in the Committee room". We should be in the Chamber first of all, and the Committee should have ample time to do its scrutiny. The Bill sponsor wants to deprive the Committee of that.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. He makes a valid contribution. How insulting is it to suggest to the House, for one moment, that it should wrap this up in 30 minutes? Does the Member not see the irony in that? The debate would have been done and dusted and the motion approved to give the Committee more time for scrutiny, had the Member and those whom she has gathered up not had the democratic will of the scrutiny Committee overturned by the House. It is ridiculous. That is why scrutiny of the Bill is important.

Mr McGrath: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, in the interests of assisting good order. Is the purpose of a debate not to put forward your perspective on the issue that is being debated, not to stand up and give your thoughts on what other Members are thinking? If Members would just give their views, it would help us, because we are a good 45 minutes into a debate that was scheduled by the Business Committee to have half an hour. If you give your view on what you think, we will vote on that, rather than on what, you think, everybody else is thinking.

Mr Speaker: Well, of course, you can use context. Nonetheless, we would like to keep the thing moving. I encourage the Member to do that. While it is not a time-limited debate, there is a lot of business to be conducted today.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I regret that the so-called party of opposition and scrutiny is here to lecture me about my context for the debate. Do you know what is even more interesting, Mr Speaker? The democratically elected SDLP Member who sits on the Committee, Mr McNulty — do not go red on the issue — voted for the Committee amendments. Mr McNulty said to me before the debate resumed, "Thank you for representing the democratic view of the Committee on the scrutiny that is required", yet, for some reason, Mr McGrath is in lockstep with the Alliance Party when it comes to scrutiny of the Bill. Not once, but twice, Mr McNulty voted with the democratic majority of the Committee. What is going on in the SDLP?

Apart from that, for an extension to be agreed, there has to be debate and we have to reflect views. Had the Member had the courtesy to be here for the beginning of the debate, he would know that I addressed the Committee remarks and the context and tried to put across the view of the Committee.

I am now on my personal remarks as DUP infrastructure spokesperson. It is interesting that, now, the noise from the Alliance Party has shifted to noise from the SDLP. It "doth protest too much" on the matter. What vested interest is there in denying scrutiny of the Bill? Surely that should be the basic premise and function of the official Opposition.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: In one moment, Mr Dickson. I want to make progress, but I am coming back to you.

The reason why we need an extension for that scrutiny is that, when we look at the Bill clause by clause —

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is part of the problem. The Second Stage debate lasted over three sessions, with 10 DUP Members and four interventions from that party engaging in clause-by-clause scrutiny despite the ruling from the Principal Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair, that it was not meant to be a clause-by-clause debate. Now we have Mr Buckley trying to do that again in order to filibuster, gaslight us and deflect from the fact that his party does not want to deal with flags that are put up on lamp posts by paramilitary thugs. That is it in a nutshell.

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. Mr Buckley said that he wished to make progress, and I think that we all wish that Mr Buckley would make progress.

Mr Buckley: Mr Speaker, there has been an accusation directed towards me and my colleagues by the Bill sponsor. She has accused my colleagues and me of — to paraphrase — working akin to those who want to apply paramilitary flags to lamp posts. [Interruption.]

Quite frankly, I find that slur ridiculous. Had the Member had any courtesy to listen to my Second Stage remarks, I said that the one point in her Bill with which I could find common ground was that nobody — I mean nobody — wished to see the display of any paramilitary flags from any proscribed organisation. However, through her contribution here now, she has shown that she cares not for democratic scrutiny. [Interruption.]

She wants to cast aspersions on any Member who has attempted scrutiny.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will, but what the Member has just suggested to the House was a shocking indictment on her part.

Mr Speaker: Order, order. The Bill sponsor made an allegation. You have replied to that allegation. Now can we get back to the issue of the motion on the extension?

Ms Bradshaw: I said that they do not want to deal with the issue, and they do not.

Mr Speaker: Ms Bradshaw, I am speaking. You might interrupt Mr Buckley, but do not interrupt me. I encourage Mr Buckley to get back to the issue, which is the motion on the extension, and not to be diverted on to other paths.

Mr Buckley: I will give way to Mr Frew.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. It is clear that the Bill sponsor had an issue with how the Bill was debated at Second Reading. Quite frankly, to talk about the principles of a Bill, you do have to go into the detail. There are Members in the House who will not and cannot sit on a Committee that is scrutinising a Bill. Once again, the Bill sponsor has shown her contempt for scrutiny and our place in the House to do our job properly in representing our constituents.

Mr Buckley: The Member makes such a worthy point. Again, I am saddened by the tone that the Bill sponsor has now taken. She has taken the debate down to a guttery path of lies and deceit. I made it clear to Members in the House that I have no truck with nor support for any proscribed paramilitary organisation.

Mr McCrossan: What are you going to do about it?

Ms Bradshaw: Yes, what are you going to —?

Mr Buckley: Are you going to let me finish? I have no truck with nor support for those organisations. I do not put up their flags. My community does not seek their erection. However, to try to suggest that my scrutiny of the Bill is in some way reflective of the viewpoints that Ms Bradshaw put across is disgraceful and distasteful from somebody who is meant to introduce a Bill.

Sometimes there is a bit of a ruse with the Members opposite. Had they wanted me to continue to talk to the motion, they would quit intervening, but they continue to want to intervene. There is a reason why I need to talk about the Bill, clause by clause. It is because [Interruption.]

No, I will not at this stage, but I will, Mr Dickson. I am now getting on to the clause by clause. The motion is before the House today to seek an extension of the Committee Stage of the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill. [Interruption.]

The extension is needed because those clauses are so flawed. Clause by clause, the Bill gives more questions than answers. Clause by clause means that we have to debate it in the House, so I am going to continue, and then I am going to come to —.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Buckley: Oh my word, this is —. Ms Bradshaw.

Ms Bradshaw: Mr Speaker, will you please rule on the last statement from Mr Buckley? He said that this debate is about debating the Bill, clause by clause.

Mr Buckley: No, I did not.

Ms Bradshaw: That is exactly what you just said.

Mr Buckley: No, I did not. Look at Hansard.

Mr Bradley: It is exactly what you just said.

Mr Buckley: Look at Hansard. Mr Speaker, I do not know whether that was a point of order —.

Mr Speaker: The debate today is on a motion to extend, so can we proceed on the basis that it is on the issues around the motion to extend? Please be as succinct as possible.

Mr Buckley: It does not surprise me that the Bill sponsor is irritable on this point, because she has denied scrutiny before and she is attempting to deny it again. My exact words were that the motion is to extend the Committee Stage, and therefore we have to understand why that is required. Whenever there has been an attempt by Alliance, the SDLP — with the exception of Mr McNulty — and Sinn Féin to overturn the democratic view of the Committee for its extension of scrutiny, it is because of those very clauses that I have to talk to.

Mr Dickson: I thank the Member for giving way. Would the Member perhaps like to reflect on the issue of the date to which the Committee proposes that scrutiny be extended, which is 12 February? The Member well knows that extending Committee Stage to that date would result in the Bill falling because of the timetabled dissolution of the Assembly.

If the Member is as serious about the Bill as every one of the very many words that he has used in the House in the past hour might suggest, he and the Committee would agree to a date of 29 January. That date would make no difference to the outcome of the scrutiny, given that it is absolutely clear that the Member and his party are totally and utterly opposed to every word in the Bill. That is the whole purpose of the stupid bluster that he is performing in the Chamber today.

Mr Buckley: I normally thank the Member for East Antrim for his interventions. He is an experienced Member of the House, and his interventions are often well thought out and well timed. I want to talk to parts of his contribution, particularly those about the point of the motion. I am open to taking an intervention from Alliance Party Members, but am I to take it, based on Mr Dickson's words just now, that the Alliance Party intends to vote for the extension of the Committee Stage today? Mr Dickson, if you want to respond, I will give way to you.

Mr Dickson: I am happy to. Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: Yes. Please respond.

Mr Dickson: The reality, Mr Buckley, is that you have completely and utterly destroyed the Bill by your absolute insistence on the date of 12 February. This debate is an opportunity for you to stand up on behalf of the Committee, as is your right as Chair, and say to the Speaker that the Committee will withdraw the motion and go back and find a date that will allow the Bill to reach Final Stage and the end of its scrutiny in the House. To do otherwise would be to force Members to destroy the Bill today. That is the purpose of your comments and actions in the House. That is exactly what you are doing.

Mr Buckley: I see that Mr Dickson is getting quite animated. He did not answer the question that I put to him.

Mr Dickson: I absolutely did.

Mr Buckley: The question is this: will the Alliance Party vote against the motion?

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: Yes.

Mr Dickson: Yes, absolutely, because there is no alternative to the absolute bluster that you and your party are putting forward in the House. From day 1, you have been determined to destroy the Bill. The citizens of Northern Ireland are fed up. They are sick, sore and tired of the sectarian and paramilitary flags on lamp posts and street corners around Northern Ireland, but that suits some people in the House.

Mr Buckley: As Mr Dickson has made clear, this will be the fourth occasion on which the Alliance Party will vote against the democratic will of the Committee.

Mr Dickson: You are forcing it.

Mr Buckley: Mr Dickson, when I gave way, I listened respectfully to you. I ask that you do the same.

Mr Dickson is entitled to his own view but not to his own facts. First, I have not heard anybody in the House, in any debate on the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill, express any support for proscribed paramilitary flags. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not heard one Member do that. [Inaudible.]

Mr Buckley: If you want to correct me, I will give way. [Inaudible.]

Mr Buckley: Mr Dickson, I will give way if you can correct me by pointing to one occasion on which any Member of the House gave support for the flag of a paramilitary or proscribed organisation.

Mr Dickson: Have you [Inaudible.]

Mr Buckley: No answer from Mr Dickson. That is the first point. [Interruption.]

The second point is that, if Mr Dickson had been following the debate instead of sniping from the sidelines, he would understand that the scrutiny of the Bill falls today. Given the suggestions that Mr Dickson has put on the public record and the fact that I heard the Bill sponsor indicating the same from the side, the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill will fall today because of the actions of Mr Dickson and the Alliance Party. That is on every Member of the Alliance Party for twisting the narrative, showing contempt for democratic debate and thwarting the will of the Committee. It is beyond ridiculous that Alliance Members come to the House —.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment, Mr McMurray. I am dealing with a substantive point from Mr Dickson.

Mr Dickson, his party colleague Ms Bradshaw and Members from the Alliance Party have fundamentally killed scrutiny of the Bill, and the thing that they do not like is that somebody is prepared to stand up in the House to call time on the Alliance Party's bullying antics and on its attempt to thwart Committee scrutiny. Mr Dickson knows that there is no support in the House for paramilitary flags. [Interruption.]

Mr Dickson knows that, when I spoke during the Second Stage debate, I expressly said that we had terror legislation, public order legislation and powers under legislation in the Department, all of which could deal with the fundamental issue of paramilitary flags, and that it was about enforcement rather than the need for blanket new, bureaucratic legislation that ran the risk of putting departmental staff in front of a controversial issue. [Interruption.]

He also made the accusation

that, in some way —

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Buckley: — I am trying to thwart the Bill.

The last point that I will make before I move on to the next is this.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: Just one moment. I want to clear this with the Speaker.

The last point that I will make is this, and Mr Dickson, again, from his experience, knows it full well: if the Committee had extended the date to that proposed by a majority last week, it would not have meant that the Bill, or any Bill, would die.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: The Member knows —

Mr Speaker: Mr McMurray —.

Mr Buckley: — that additional sessions had been scheduled —

Mr Speaker: Just a moment, Mr Buckley.

Mr Buckley: — and that the Committee can conclude its evidence before —.

Mr Speaker: Just a moment, Mr Buckley. Order.

Mr McMurray, you can ask a Member to give way, but only one Member should stand when the debate is taking place.

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I have to reiterate this to Mr Dickson: please do not come to the House to mislead. Mr Dickson knows full well that there is no guillotine when it comes to Committee scrutiny. He knows that, if the Committee had carefully considered that, in its legislative programme and forward work programme, it could not facilitate the Bill within the given time frame, it would have given at least consideration to having two weeks' additional scrutiny. He knows that the Bill does not equate to the Tree Protection Bill and that there are strongly held views. However, he has let the cat out of the bag. His words today show exactly why the Alliance Party wants to curtail scrutiny. It knows that the emperor has no clothes when it comes to the Bill.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Is the Alliance Party suggesting, by the way that its Members voted last week and the way that they intend to vote this week, that the standard period for Committee scrutiny of the Bill is sufficient? If it is, that is for the birds. A scrutiny Committee will always ask for an extension, and the responsibility for that extension and for the time required is placed nowhere other than on the Committee. If the Bill were to proceed, pass and be challenged in a court of law, the judge could well pass down a judgement on the Committee for the lack of scrutiny. We have seen that before, because the Alliance Party has form on that very subject.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for making such an important point.

In Mr Dickson's fit of rage —.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

In Mr Dickson's fit of rage, he let the cat out of the bag and showed that the Alliance Party will, again, kill democratic scrutiny. From Genesis to Exodus, in relation to the scrutiny of the Bill, the Alliance Party's hands are dripping when it comes to the denial of democratic scrutiny.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

The extension is required because no evidence has been brought forward by any of the scrutiny thus far to suggest that the Bill, given the subjective terms that have been used in clause 1 to describe its content, is in any way workable.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mr Buckley: Before I do, I will give way to Mr Baker.

Mr Baker: I thank the Member for giving way. He will not convince anyone that what he is trying to do will change any minds.

Mr Frew: That is not for you to call.

Mr Baker: You have a short memory. Your own Minister, Paul Givan, did exactly the same thing with the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill.

He took to the radio to apply pressure to make sure that there was no extension of that Bill's Committee Stage, and the Committee got its job done. The legislation was no good, but that was for reasons other than the work done in Committee.

Come on, folks. We are well over time. You overly scrutinised the Bill sponsor on her private Member's Bill at Second Stage. You had three sessions on it. This is embarrassing to watch. Just get on with it and get to the vote, because you are convincing nobody. You are changing no hearts and minds, Jonny.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for his intervention. I will defend his right to have a differing view from mine, and his is fundamentally different. My view of scrutiny is very different from the Member's when it comes to this Bill. I have no knowledge or understanding of the workings of his Committee. I understand that it is a very thorough Committee and that its members work in tandem to scrutinise the Minister on some of his legislative programme.

Here is the deal that the Member for West Belfast needs to understand. This private Member's Bill places a statutory duty on the Department. If we place a statutory duty on the Department that is not fulfillable, be that legally, financially or as a result of the legislation's subjective nature, we will leave the Department for Infrastructure open to a plethora of litigation. We will also divert important resource from fixing roads, and I am sure that, in West Belfast, more people are concerned about roads than are concerned about a flag [Interruption.]

I am here to reflect views. I respectfully gave way to the Member, but please understand that, when it comes to scrutinising the Bill, there is a reason that an extension is required. The Member says that I am convincing nobody: I have tried to convince Members. I have represented a majority Committee position, which is that the Bill needs more scrutiny, but it is Members led by the Bill sponsor, Ms Bradshaw, who are trying to deny that scrutiny. If she had adopted the approach that Mr Tennyson took, we would not be in the position that we are in today.

I will move to clause 1 and discuss the subjective nature of the Bill. We have to understand the thresholds. That has been part of the Committee's consideration. What makes a display "abusive" or "insulting"? What makes a display exclusionary or contrary to good community relations? How would the Department apply the tests consistently? Those points are so important when it comes to seeking an extension to the Bill's Committee Stage. The Committee has held evidence sessions with the Department, and officials could not answer even those basic questions. The subjective nature of the Bill means that the legal interpretation of it is a nightmare for officials.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: No, I will make some progress, Ms Bradshaw. I am sure that I can come back to you later, but, as of now, you have in no way demonstrated that you are taking this seriously, because you have already indicated — I say this through the Chair — that you intend to vote down the extension motion, which is regrettable. It will be interesting to see whether Alliance reverses that public position. The SDLP has also declared that it will vote down the motion. I think that Mr McNulty had a different viewpoint, but we will let the SDLP explain that.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. If Sinn Féin also votes down the motion, that effectively means that your Committee will have only the standard time available to scrutinise a private Member's Bill and that time will be over by the end of today. That is a disgraceful position in which to place any scrutiny Committee, and I really object to that.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. There has been a clear case of bullying of me and of other members of the Committee on the matter. Ms Bradshaw may make light of that comment, but —

Ms Bradshaw: I am not making light of it.

Mr Buckley: — I want to say something: I am as entitled to my view on the issue as any other Member. Despite the barracking from Alliance Members, I will not be silenced when it comes to scrutiny. I will not be silent when Members from the Alliance Party and others attempt to deny the Committee its ability to scrutinise. If you bring a private Member's Bill to the House, be assured that it will be scrutinised. If you bring a private Member's Bill to the House that is so far-reaching, be assured that it will get adequate scrutiny. This is not a debate about trees, important as they are; it is a debate that will affect thousands upon thousands of objects of street furniture — those are not my words but those of departmental officials — across Northern Ireland.

We really should be worried about the Bill's subjective nature. Let us look at discretion and enforcement.

When would removal be mandatory, and when would it be discretionary? How would competing considerations be balanced? Look at cultural expression. Who would decide what amounts to freedom of expression, lawful commemoration and the rights of communities affected by intimidation? Who would decide on those matters? In the Committee session that I have just come from — I had to leave to ask a question in the House — it was stated that some of the fundamentals of the European Convention would apply to the Bill. There would be an operational burden, which is why we must have appropriate scrutiny. Who would investigate complaints, make decisions, document evidence, authorise removal and handle challenges? If we are saying that all of that would be dealt with by a subcommittee in DFI — I think that a grade 3 member of staff was mentioned in Committee, although I stand to be corrected — that is for the birds. That is why we have to scrutinise the Bill.

Ultimately, the Bill would grant the Department for Infrastructure functions in respect of flags and emblems displayed in public places. Where would the buck stop in the Department? It would stop with the Minister, who would have ultimate responsibility for decisions that are some of the most controversial and that would interact with many different areas. We need to be cognisant of that. That would potentially put staff in the firing line. I asked what engagement there has been with trade union staff in the Civil Service and with other contractors. They have not been consulted.

We talk about "costs". I think that it was stated in Committee last week that the costs involved are unsubstantiated because the Department cannot predict the huge costs that would apply. One thing that officials made very clear is that, given the funding context with which we are dealing, the costs associated with the Bill would have to come from within the Department's current funding envelope and that we cannot be fooled into thinking otherwise. I have questions for further scrutiny. Where would we redirect that money from? Would we redirect it from roads infrastructure? Would we redirect it from light infrastructure? Would we redirect it from the A5 considerations, other major road schemes or another aspect of the Department's work? Those questions are fundamental to today's consideration. The Committee needs evidence that those tests would be administered fairly and consistently, rather than simply assurances from the Member. After curtailing Second Stage and trying to avoid scrutiny at Committee Stage, it is not sufficient for her simply to say, "Look, I've suggested some amendments. I'm open to amendments". If she had been open to amendments, we would at least have been able to hear her conclude at Second Stage, and we would have had a better sense of the direction in which she wanted to go.

Clause 2 is entitled "Sensitive places". The definition of "sensitive place" is extremely broad, and departmental staff have said that that is a problem. The proposed categories include schools, medical facilities, leisure centres, shopping centres, arterial roads and public parks, but the list is not exhaustive. Clause 2(3)(d) refers to:

One departmental official told the Committee that that could apply to everywhere other than Slieve Donard. That is how extensive the provision is. That is why the Committee must ensure that the request for the extension is rational and based on the need for increased evidence.

Mr Speaker: OK, Mr Buckley. That level of detail in explaining your rationale is not necessary. If you want to give illustrations, that is fine, but let us not get into Consideration Stage at this point.

Mr Buckley: OK, Mr Speaker.

Broadly speaking, I have outlined why the Committee needs more scrutiny of clause 1. I have outlined briefly why scrutiny of clause 2 is also essential. We do not have any clarity on just how far-reaching clause 2 would be. We do not have any indication of the legal implications of the Department's responsibilities where they intersect with other departmental land or another "sensitive place". We also looked at the issue of the notification, on which further in-depth scrutiny will be required because, every time they are asked about it, departmental officials cannot give us any concrete examples of what it would look like.

Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will indeed.

Mr McMurray: Thank you. I was watching the clock, and I will have to go back a few stages in the conversation. Mr Buckley, I know that you are now giving your opinion as a Member, but, given your role as Chair of the Committee and your repeated remarks about the need for scrutiny, are you, as Chair, open to continuing to take evidence sessions? Is there a commitment from the Chair that the Committee will continue to take evidence sessions on the Bill?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for his intervention. I know that it was probably well-intentioned, but it was factually and legally wrong. I know that Alliance is big on procedure in this place, and, procedurally, scrutiny of the legislation will fall if the Alliance Party votes against the motion today. That would mean that I would not be able to schedule further Committee sessions to scrutinise the Bill because the Alliance Party had voted down the motion to extend its Committee Stage. There may be a fundamental misunderstanding there, although I suspect that the intervention was meant with the right intentions. That is why Mr Dickson's —

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment. That is why Mr Dickson's outburst of rage, in which he essentially told us exactly what the Alliance Party will do today, was so misguided. Ms Bradshaw talked about others trying to kill her Bill, but she will kill it herself if she continues down this road of self-destruction.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member raised a valid point about scrutiny. Due to the actions of the Alliance Party and others last week, the Committee had to secure special circumstances from the Business Committee to even get this motion into play. That is a unique and dangerous place for the Business Committee, the House and the Infrastructure Committee. I will make this point very clearly: if Members vote against the motion, there will be absolutely no more scrutiny of the Bill, and that is a dangerous place to be.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for that intervention. It is so important to hear those words.

The other point that we must bear in mind is that it was the Alliance Party that proposed to the Committee, following last week's debacle of its Members voting against the extension to Committee Stage, that we write to the Business Committee, in exceptional circumstances, to ask whether it would accede to a request for a further extension. Today, Mr Dickson and the Bill sponsor, both of whom are on record as saying that they will vote this motion down, have shown exactly their discontent in the way in which they have behaved towards the Assembly and the Business Committee.

I will move on to the procedural aspects of the Bill. A notification system is proposed, which we are told is what will help with community input. Surely we should scrutinise what that procedure would look like. If people will be applying using an online portal, surely we should understand what emphasis will be put on the location —.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment. Surely we should understand what emphasis will be put on the type of flag that is being reported, what emphasis will be put on the type of sensitive place that is being reported, what emphasis will be put on the type of public street furniture it is applied to and what emphasis will be put on the description of core emblems and flags and what they pertain to. There is no detail in the Bill, and whenever I have asked departmental officials to elaborate on terms in the Bill, they have been unable to give answers to very basic questions, such as what —

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: — would happen if there were a list of people who complained about a Union flag or a list of people who complained about an Irish tricolour?

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: What does it mean? Does it mean anything to the Bill? Is the purpose of a portal just to be another burdensome, bureaucratic and costly mechanism that will divert staff away from their core functions to deal with what is going to be a complaints charter? Those are the fundamental questions, and that is why scrutiny is needed. What emphasis will be placed on the portal? Is the burden on those who have notified it? What about those who have responded to it? What about the legalities when it comes to those who have responded to it? Those are all legitimate questions.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way on that point?

Mr Buckley: I am going to continue, but I will come back to the Bill sponsor.

Then we have the code of practice. There has been a lot of debate about the code of practice, but that code of practice has no legal emphasis. The code of practice does not contain anything that makes anybody punishable by law if they do not follow it, so what is the point? It is only more bureaucratic jargon to entrench division and to place staff in an unenviable position of having to adjudicate on issues that even the Bill sponsor herself, a woman who told us at Second Stage that she been involved in the Bill's development for over 10 years, cannot identify. She herself has told us that she cannot identify the difference between a Linfield flag and a paramilitary flag, and that —.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I am coming to the Member now.

To me, that shows just how ill-thought-out the Bill's content is.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I may be putting him on the spot. Can he tell the House how many evidence sessions the Committee has had on this Bill to date?

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. Since I have taken up the Chair, we have had a meeting with DFI, where there was a first round of questioning. At the conclusion of that first day, I wanted to come back to the issue. There were some differing opinions on whether or not that should happen. DFI came back for a second session. Today, in one of our scheduled additional sittings — which the Alliance Party has accused us of not having — we had the first part of a session with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. We were also due to hear from the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, but we were not able to do so because we are back to the House today following the voting down by the Alliance Party and others of the Committee's extension motion last week. That is the scrutiny to date, and that is an example of why scrutiny is important.

I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks, and I want to focus Members on clause 7, which deals with interpretation, and why that clause gives me most concern. Definitions matter. Terms such as "public place", "public street furniture", "flag", "emblem" and "sensitive place" determine the reach of the Bill. The Member has been so expansive in those terms that it is clear to anybody with any level of integrity that this Bill is intended to go way beyond what the Member outlined in her utterances at Second Stage. That is why the Committee must scrutinise thoroughly every single word that is said. Ownership: who will determine responsibility for where the street furniture belongs and where it belongs to another "public authority"? Consistency: could different authorities interpret the same provisions differently? It is open to litigation. Legal challenges arise. There is risk of unclear boundaries, overlapping responsibilities and issues from different legislation that go down a very different way from what the Member is proposing. I have asked the question, and I still have not had an answer to it. In the interpretation —.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

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

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. As you keep saying, we had a debate last week. In that debate, I highlighted the fact that I have been working with the Bill Office on the notification procedure, and we are going to table an amendment by way of regulations. I also talked about putting the code of practice in regulations, changing some of the interpretation, removing some parts and better clarifying some stuff. You are going over old ground that I mentioned last week.

I said last week that I would be happy to meet any individual MLA or party group to go through my amendments. That was a week ago, but I have not heard a thing from anybody since. You are not concerned about the clauses in my Bill. Obviously, you were either not listening last week, or you do not care to hear what I have tried to do to address the issues that you and others have brought to the Chamber through the Infrastructure Committee.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Bill sponsor for her intervention. First, I care deeply, and that is why I am here debating the Bill. [Interruption.]

Ms Bradshaw: Why did you not —

Mr Buckley: The issue for me is this —.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Buckley has said that he is about to reach his conclusion. It would be better to let him reach his conclusion, Ms Bradshaw, and you are next to speak.

Mr Buckley: I say this: I am serious about the scrutiny of the Bill. I have just received a barrage of criticism from the Alliance Party for talking about the clauses that I have concerns about and need more scrutiny of, because I am bringing them up in the debate on a motion to extend Committee Stage. Yet, the Member has just said that, in the debate on a similar motion last week, she did exactly the same thing. Why am I wrong and you are right?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. The Bill sponsor is saying that she wants to do her own private scrutiny of the Bill, arrange her own meetings with parties and do other things, but she will not afford the Committee the time to do that. The Committee's scrutiny finishes today if the motion does not pass. The Bill sponsor is not affording the Committee the time to scrutinise the Bill. She does not even have the ability to listen in on the Committee's deliberations. If I were the Bill sponsor, I would be embarrassed.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. He sums it up well.

I will return to my point about interpretation. Clause 7(1) states:

As drafted, the Bill means that the Department for Infrastructure will be responsible for the removal of said "flag or emblem" on street furniture, which goes way beyond its remit. Clause 7(1) also states:

You would think, when I asked the question of departmental officials, that they would be able to define what a "similar medium of display" is, but they could not. If it follows that "flag or emblem" means a banner or a billboard, I assume that the Member means that that includes words contained on a banner or a billboard. Clause 7(1) goes on to state:

Could a "similar medium of display" be street signage? Let us go back to see how that interacts with clause 1. Clause 1(2) points to incidences where:

Yet, in Belfast, at the moment, there is dual-language — Irish and English — street signage that requires only 15% of the residents of the street to agree to it. When you follow that through and recognise how controversial it has been where a minority imposes its position on the majority view in the street, of course, that intersects with the Bill.

Those are the reasons why I have serious concerns about the Bill. As Committee Chair, I stand ready to scrutinise the Bill. I have already heard publicly the Alliance Party's stated position that it intends to vote down the extension today. When the Committee's scrutiny ends today, that will be courtesy of the position that the Alliance Party has taken, and that will be on it. It has attempted to withhold and limit scrutiny at every stage. I suppose that I should not be surprised that it is at it again today. With that, Mr Speaker, I conclude my remarks.

Ms Bradshaw: I agree with the Chair of the Committee that we should not be here today. I could not have been clearer last week, when we first debated the Committee extension, that any date after what was recommended by the Committee Clerk to the Committee for Infrastructure would effectively prevent the passage of my Bill through its final stages before the Assembly is dissolved on 24 March. I appreciate that Mr McNulty suggested at the Committee for Infrastructure meeting last week that 12 February was in some ways a fair and compromise position. However, Mr McNulty has not brought a private Member's Bill, and this is obviously mine. It is clear that, after 29 January, it will take a few weeks between each stage, and then the Bill is required to go to the Speaker's Office for final legal checks before Final Stage. There are practically not enough weeks for the Bill to go through all its final checks before the Assembly is dissolved.

I am not opposed to scrutiny at all: as I said, I have offered four times since I introduced the Bill before summer recess to engage with all parties on various clauses. I think that Mr Harvey came back and said, "Maybe it would be best to go through our Committee Chair". That was the only acknowledgement that I had that the emails had even landed in people's inboxes and they had received them.

As I outlined at Second Stage, the Bill is essentially about the removal of flags that are used for intimidation and demarcation. It is not about trying to penalise people who want to celebrate and commemorate their cultural heritage, sporting achievements or anything else. What I want to do through the Bill is to place a duty on the Department for Infrastructure to remove flags that are used for intimidation and demarcation in a process that is transparent and clear and for which people can see the reasons and rationale.

Today we have seen the Committee Chair, for nearly two hours, I think, trying again to delay and frustrate the Bill. Frankly, it is pathetic. As I said, we have had three Second Stage sessions with contributions from 10 DUP MLAs, four interventions plus everyone else in the House. There has been more than enough time for Members to put their views on the record. To pick up on Mr Gaston's point, I went through Hansard and looked at all the issues. I have been and remain sincere in my passion to listen to all sides of the debate and bring forward amendments. I now have 26 amendments that I was more than willing to go to the Committee with — on Wednesday week, I think it was — to go through them in detail and work with the Committee on shaping the Bill as well as I could. Frankly, however, the fact that we are now nearly two hours into this debate, which should have taken about 10 minutes last week —

Mr Frew: This is really important.

Ms Bradshaw: Excuse me, Mr Frew.

— shows that there is no appetite on the unionist Benches to see the issue resolved.

Mr Buckley said that he has no truck with paramilitary organisations: I totally agree with that, but I worked for 19 years in loyalist areas, and I know that they do not put up just paramilitary flags. They put up other flags to intimidate. Last week, I had a constituent contact me about flags that went up in a side street just behind my office on the Ormeau Road. When he went out — they were just Union flags and Ulster banners — and said, "Look, we've never had flags on this street. Why are you putting this up?", he was threatened.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: No, I want to finish my story. It is not a story; it is fact. I have the emails. When he approached the guys and said, "Why are these flags going up? This is a mixed area. We've never had flags", he was intimidated. We contacted DFI and the police. I am pleased to say that, for the first time when we have contacted the police, they did not say, "Oh, we need to speak to community representatives", and we all know who they are. They said, "Tell DFI that we will provide it with support if it wants to take these flags down". I fully acknowledge that today.

Mr Speaker, I hope that you will give me a bit of latitude, given that we have just heard from the Committee Chair and DUP infrastructure spokesperson for two hours, to put on record something that others may not know. Work between the Department for Infrastructure and the PSNI on a memorandum of understanding (MOU), which is a replacement for their flags protocol from 2005, has accelerated. Senior departmental officials met the PSNI last week to start hammering it out, and there will be a meeting between the Minister for Infrastructure and an assistant chief constable on 20 or 21 November. They want to agree a memorandum of understanding that would see them jointly commission external contractors to take down flags. They want to see that MOU in place before next summer.

Away from the Chamber and the Infrastructure Committee, all of that is happening, so, when people say that there is no scrutiny by or input from Members, I say that my Bill would allow that. I wanted to work with people. As I said in an intervention at Second Stage, my voters do not want to see any flags taken down. My Bill was about trying to strike a balance by saying, "If you want to put your flags up for a few weeks, be that for the marching season or a sporting event, put them up for a few weeks and then take them down. Be respectful of the flag, be respectful of the community and be respectful of the situation in which flags and emblems are going up".

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Words are important, but it is the content of the Bill that we must scrutinise, and that means that, in practice, what the Bill sponsor suggests would simply not happen. She knows the legalities involved in the Bill, and she knows how important it is that we produce consistent legislation that does not leave the Department open to litigation. Under the provisions in her Bill, how would we see consistency across the country? An Irish tricolour that means one thing to somebody in one part of Belfast may mean something different to somebody in Portadown or another town. How therefore would her Bill ensure that there is consistency?

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. Apologies, Mr Speaker, but we are straying a little from the —.

Mr Frew: You are.

Ms Bradshaw: OK.

As I said, we are looking at having a code of practice, so there would be consistency. That would be the guide that the Department, along with its multi-agency partners, would use to assess the complaints that came in. We are seeking to change the notification process so that it is about the gathering of views. From all the information that had been gathered, an assessment would then be made. The Department would post its intention to remove a flag or, if it felt that the flag had been put up legitimately, give an explanation for not doing so and then give people a period in which to respond. That is not in the Bill as drafted but will be provided for through an amendment. There would then be a duty on the Department to post at the end of the year all the complaints that had come in. As I have said previously, at present, hundreds of complaints come in each year, yet no flags come down. In its end-of-year report, the Department would say, "We have had 200 complaints. We investigated them, and here are our determinations. Here is the number of times that we needed police support. Here are the costs, and here is other information". There would therefore be transparency. Anyone who looked, be they in Limavady, Lurgan or Larne, would be able to see that there was consistency in the approach taken. Does that answer your question?

Mr Buckley: Not really, but go on.

Ms Bradshaw: How does it not answer your question?

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr K Buchanan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I am not sure to whom you are giving way.

Mr K Buchanan: Through that process, how many complaints would it take for a flag to be removed? In what part of the country would complainants need to be? Within what proximity of the flag that they do not want up would they need to be? What is the process involved?

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. As I said, what I propose —.

Mr Frew: This is what the Committee should be doing.

Ms Bradshaw: I —.

Mr Speaker: Again, Ms Bradshaw —.

Ms Bradshaw: OK. I will return to my speech.

Mr Speaker: Yes. I also reminded Mr Buckley that this debate is on the extension of the Bill's Committee Stage, not on its detail.

Ms Bradshaw: I appreciate that, Mr Speaker. My frustration is this: I have reached out continually to the DUP and other political parties about sitting down together, because this is the sort of stuff on which we could sit around a Committee table, or a —.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms Bradshaw: No. The Speaker has asked me to move on.

We could sit down and go through those issues.

As I said, my Bill is about providing a clear, consistent, transparent and accountable process for members of the public. People who wish to put up flags or emblems and those who are opposed to them in public spaces could have their views recorded and considered in a determination about whether the Department will take them down. The memorandum of understanding that I have just mentioned would not provide that front-facing portal, notification process or whatever its final name might be. An alternative approach that is gathering momentum is that determinations would be decided away from public scrutiny, without the need to report on them.

Over many years in the Chamber, we have seen unionists try to block legislation on same-sex marriage, the Irish language and female reproductive healthcare, yet all those issues are now on the statute books. Like my friend and colleague John Blair said about his Hunting with Dogs Bill, if my Bill does not pass in this mandate, I will bring it back in the next mandate, if I do not feel that the memorandum of understanding goes far enough. All the work has been done. As I said, I have listened; I have gone through all the consultation responses; and I have looked at what came back to the Committee. As I said, we have 26 amendments at the minute. I would like to have heard what the Equality Commission, the Human Rights Commission and the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression had to say today. They have, however, submitted written evidence, so we can look at that. In my amendments, I have covered the broad issues that have been raised in the Chamber. Rest assured, therefore, that I will come back with the Bill. I do not want to see flags being used as weapons or to mark territory. Regardless of the stunts that we have seen since the day and hour that I introduced my Bill, I am not going to drop this.

The other issue is that we know that the Secretary of State and his officials have been engaging with party leaders in recent days and weeks to bring forward legislation on institutional reform. Hopefully, that work will include provisions on voting and the petition of concern, because, later today, we will see a shameful use of the petition of concern by the DUP and others to block the Irish-medium Education (Workforce Plan) Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. That is another debate. If you want to make that point in that debate, you are free to do so, but let us get back to this one.

Ms Bradshaw: OK. Thank you.

I am saying, Mr Speaker, that it has been very apparent from the start that the DUP and others will use everything in their armoury to try to block my Bill, whether that will be through extension of the Committee Stage or the use of the petition of concern at the end.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way on one point?

Ms Bradshaw: I am coming to the end.

Mr Buckley: I gave way plenty.

Ms Bradshaw: OK. Go ahead.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. I want to be clear — I hope that she recognises this — that the first agreed Committee motion that came before the House last week was proposed by the Ulster Unionist Party and supported by the DUP and the SDLP member. The motion before the House today is an amended proposal that was brought forward by the SDLP member and supported by the UUP and the DUP. Does the Member therefore accept that it is an unfair characterisation to suggest that any of the motions that have come before the House that she and her party have taken issue with have come from me or the DUP, because that does not stand up to scrutiny?

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your intervention. The point that I am making is that you have used everything in your power — everything at your disposal — to delay and frustrate my Bill. When we have tried to look again at what we can do to try to expedite this and move it forward, we have been accused of trying to misuse Standing Orders.

The issue of cost has been raised continually. None of us wants to see public expenditure being used to fight culture wars or to deal with this type of issue given our fragile peace and our shared communities. However, if the Bill goes forward and there is a co-produced memorandum of understanding, and if people act responsibly and respectfully around the flying of flags and use them exclusively for commemoration and celebration, there will not be a cost to the public purse.

Mr Frew: I rise, completely alarmed at what I have heard transpire in the debate. You can have all of the bad manners that you like, and all the disrespect that you like from all parties, but this is about scrutiny in a democratic process. I remind Members that we are in a privileged and important position. We need to take our jobs very, very seriously. That job includes the scrutiny of legislation. It pains me to see Members being cut adrift by their parties. They have represented their party in a Committee, agreed a position, taken a stand and even produced dates, but then their party wishes to rescind that. I heard an SDLP Member say from a sedentary position that the SDLP wished to rescind the actions of its Committee member. I will give way if the Member wants to put that on the record in Hansard. He is leaving his colleague totally exposed and let down.

Mr McCrossan: I will put it bluntly: does anyone in the House honestly believe that the Bill has not received scrutiny? I have never seen a piece of legislation that has come to the Floor receive more scrutiny. You do not get as overheated about things relating to the hunger of our children, the health service, roads or anything else. Quite plainly, Mr Frew, this is about you being against the Bill, and you are afraid to take it that way.

In relation to my colleague on the Committee, the SDLP will not be supporting an extension. It is very simple.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his illuminating response. Here is the issue: I have seen plenty of Bills in my time being scrutinised at Second Stage and Consideration Stage. The Justice Bill had, I think, over seven days. That is what it took to scrutinise —

A Member: Nine days.

Mr Frew: Nine, sorry. That is what it took to scrutinise that Bill. People who are taking some sort of blasé attitude —

Mr McCrossan: It is flags, Paul.

Mr Frew: It is not flags. The issue is this: the content, what the clauses say or whether it is a controversial issue do not matter. The Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 had substantial support in the House, and it received more scrutiny than this Bill is going to receive. However, the Northern Ireland High Court struck down five sections of that Act as being incompatible with article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 10 is on the freedom of expression, before the Member has to look up what it relates to. That is how important it is to the House.

I am aggrieved that Members treat this as a blasé debate. We have been accused of filibustering. That is unbelievable. This is a place that does not have filibustering. It will have no effect if a Member speaks for three hours as opposed to 20 minutes. The fact is this: the Alliance Party has wasted a week. The scrutiny Committee should have been working harder and planning for the next few weeks — this side of Christmas and the next side of Christmas — in order to do proper scrutiny and work on the Bill. The Alliance Party has left the scrutiny Committee in a bad position. I remind the Alliance Party that it was its Minister who brought forward the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, and it is to its shame that five sections were struck down in the High Court for being incompatible with article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which relates to freedom of expression.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member has not spelt out what should be spelt out: the Minister and an army of officials had scrutinised the content of that Bill. Surely, it would be a sensible approach for any Committee to take an additional two weeks, if required, to scrutinise a private Member's Bill that does not have the army of civil servants or legal expertise to study its detail and unintended consequences, be they on how the Bill contravenes the European Convention or other rights. That is common sense.

Mr Frew: It is absolutely a sensible approach, because it does not matter what the content of a Bill is; if it places a duty on anything or has human rights implications, it needs to be scrutinised. It does not matter when a Bill comes to the Floor of the House. A Committee is responsible for its own work and its own scrutiny, and a Committee will stand or fall with a High Court decision if it comes to that. I remind Members of the Alliance Party and the SDLP — who have left the room — and Sinn Féin that the Mediahuis judgement, which was before my time on the Justice Committee, criticised the Committee for the way in which it handled that part of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill.

The Bill sponsor and the Alliance Party are going to put the scrutiny Committee in an impossible position, because, whilst we are not talking about the content of the Bill today — we are talking about an extension of Committee scrutiny — it will be contested. There is absolutely no doubt that someone will contest this in court, and someone will be left responsible if some of the provisions are struck down by the High Court. The House will be left in ill repute and with the shame of a Northern Ireland High Court decision. That is why I warn the Members of the House to be careful how they proceed, because we are not dealing with trivial matters. No matter what the content of the Bill, we are dealing with legislation that puts an onus on a Department and on individuals within it. Members should think very carefully about what they do.

What has happened here over the last two weeks has appalled me; I am absolutely aghast. With all the experience that I have — in my time, I have chaired three Committees: Agriculture, and Justice twice, and I have sat on many Committees that have had massive Bills to scrutinise — I know that it is difficult to do our job. We get absolutely no plaudits for it; we do not get attention for it in the media because it is not sexy. However, when something goes wrong, our faces will be in the paper, just as Justice Minister, Naomi Long's, face was in the paper because of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. I keep emphasising that Act because five sections were struck down by the High Court because they did not comply with the article 10 freedom of expression rights, and that is a massive thing. I have been here for 16 years, and it was the first time in the history of devolved legislation —.

Mr Baker: We do not need a history lesson.

Mr Frew: Well, you might need a history lesson because of your blasé attitude to legislation. From what I heard the Committee Chair say today, this piece of legislation has had only two and a half scrutiny sessions, and two of those were with the Department. There have been no sessions with outside bodies, except for the NI Human Rights Commission, and that was only part of a session, and you are telling me that the House is going to vote against an extension of the Committee Stage to further scrutinise the Bill? It does not mean that there will be a month to scrutinise the Bill, or two months or six weeks; it does not mean that we will get six days. It means that scrutiny stops now. Now. If I were the Chair of that Committee, I would go boogaloo.

My advice to the Committee is to submit a nil response and a Committee report that says there has not been enough time to scrutinise the Bill, not even one clause. The Bill sponsor and her party have put the Northern Ireland Assembly into that position, and that is how serious this is. This is really fundamental to what we do, and the Alliance Party is riding a coach and horses through it. We all have the privilege of working here, but working here comes with responsibilities and power. We have immense power. We have the power to bring a private Member's Bill that will affect people's lives. If I were the Bill sponsor, and the Committee that was scrutinising my Bill said, "Paul, we will not have the time to scrutinise your Bill. In fact, we need two months", I would be saying to that Committee, "Take all the time that you need. You are a very important function of the Assembly. You will assist me, the Bill sponsor, to make sure that, at Final Reading, the Bill is the best Bill that it possibly can be. If I eventually run out of time because of the end of the mandate, so be it. If I am successful in the next election, I will bring it back. I will have better legislation that I can introduce at the start of a mandate, and I will have five years to make it even better".

Mr Boggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will.

Mr Boggs: The Member knows that this will end up in the High Court, and he knows how we are all going to vote and all the rest —.

Mr Frew: It will not.

Mr Boggs: Well, that is what he just said. Maybe fortune teller Frew, who has just arrived in the Chamber, can tell us whether the DUP will use the petition of concern when the Bill gets to Final Stage and, therefore, that this is all a massive waste of our time?

Mr Frew: The Member should not make assumptions in the House. Everything that I have outlined is a reason why you would use the petition of concern, because we have not had time to scrutinise the Bill.

I have had the privilege of working on a private Member's Bill, and the work that I was putting into it meant that I did not make the guillotine in June. However, I am content with that because I am still proceeding with it and working alongside others, including Assembly staff, to make sure that my private Member's Bill is the best Bill that it can possibly be. I will, if successful at the next election, introduce that Bill.

If I were a Bill sponsor at this stage of a term, I would not curtail the scrutiny of my Bill by a Committee by one minute, one hour or one day. The Bill sponsor is closing down scrutiny. The Bill sponsor said that, all summer, she had asked to meet people. That is not the structured scrutiny of a Committee, and it should never be the substitute for it. It is OK for the Bill sponsor to have all her meetings throughout the summer and in September, October, November, December and January and to speak to as many people as she likes. She should be doing that anyway, but she should not be interfering with the scrutiny Committee's work on the Bill. The Bill has only seven clauses, but it would not matter if it had nine or 59. The scrutiny Committee deserves and is entitled to take its time in scrutinising the law that will come out the other side and be placed on the statute book.

If the Committee had decided on a certain date last week and the parties in the House had voted against the will of a Committee, that would have put it in serious jeopardy. If I were the Bill sponsor, I would be pulling my Bill

because I would be ashamed of bringing a private Member's Bill to this place knowing all the pitfalls, perils and ways that it can be challenged and that the Committee did not have the chance, let alone the time, to scrutinise it.

No Committee here should stick to the standard period for the scrutiny of a Bill. They should always ask for an extension. The thing about an extension that the Bill sponsor has failed to consider is that the date in the motion is the end of the time frame within which the Committee can scrutinise it. If the Committee feels that it has scrutinised it enough at an earlier stage, it can have its deliberations and finish its report.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will give way in a moment. The Bill sponsor was very vocal when the Justice Bill — half a Bill — came to the House. She will remember it very well. She said to all Members, "Roll your sleeves up. Get the staff in your constituency office to work on scrutinising the Bill, and let us see what comes out of Committee Stage". Of course, the Minister doubled the size of the Justice Bill, and the Committee then put down a timeline of a year and a half for its scrutiny. I became part of that when I became Chair, and I can tell you now, Mr Speaker, that we needed every minute of that year and a half. To say, in a blasé way, "Just do your job and get it done in the required, standard period" is not good enough.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: It does not cut it, and you are leaving the Assembly exposed.

I will give way.

Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. In my comments last week, I was repeating back what your party's Education Minister had said to my party colleague Nick, who chairs the Education Committee, when he told him to, "Get on with it and get the job done". That is how that came up. I have not been blasé about it. However, I have not seen one iota of evidence from the Committee Chair or others — I should say "some others": I will qualify that — that they intend to finish the scrutiny. If I thought for one minute that you were hopeful of finishing the Committee Stage by 29 January, of course, I would support the motion to extend it, but I have seen no evidence of that. We had three days of debate at Second Stage. Today, we are probably into three, maybe four hours of debate — I do not know. We are all a bit delirious now. You tried to delay the Bill going out for consultation before the summer recess. I have seen no evidence that the Committee is doing anything other than frustrate and delay. If I saw anything to the contrary, I would vote to approve the motion to extend the Committee Stage. I have seen no evidence. I can go only by the actions from unionists so far. They are trying to delay the Bill.

Mr Frew: Your party colleague Eóin Tennyson takes a completely different stance on his Bill, which, I believe, personally, is a more dangerous Bill than yours.

The Bill sponsor closed down the debate at Second Stage. We were deprived of hearing the Department's views and what the Minister wanted to say. Now, the same Bill sponsor and party want to deprive the Committee of its scrutiny. Let me say this: if the Committee wanted to formulate amendments to the Bill, the Bill sponsor would deprive the Committee of that. The Bill sponsor and the Alliance Party would deprive the Committee of its ability to bring forward amendments. That is how bad it is. I can tell you now that, when you look at the whole spectrum of Bills, no matter what they do, what the topic is or what Department they come from, you will find that, in most cases, amendments will be tabled in the name of the Chairperson of the Committee, working, of course, on behalf of all Committee members. However, the Bill sponsor and the Alliance Party are preventing that work from being done. They are depriving the Committee of the time that it would take to develop its views on each clause and to develop amendments and wording on clauses that could well make the Bill better. The Bill sponsor has thrown all that into Committee members' faces. Here is the thing: it is not just the Committee, because the Committee for Infrastructure works on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly. If you bring that Committee into disrepute, you bring the House into disrepute, as we have seen in the past with the Alliance Party. The Alliance Party has a knack for bringing some really reckless and dangerous Bills to the House.

Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member is getting well off topic. It is not appropriate that he should bring up other Bills etc. We are getting well off topic here.

Mr Speaker: That is fair enough. We should not look at other Bills, although the Member did that herself earlier. Nonetheless, Mr Frew, can you conclude?

Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, I will always respect your ruling and that of anyone who sits in the Chair, as I have always done. I have come to the House to be respectful, while other Members have laughed, jeered and made mock commentary. This is scrutiny. It is not even about the content of a clause but about the scrutiny. I am warning Members: do not go down that road. We are still a good bit away from the end of term. We do not know what turns have yet to be made and in which direction the House will go.

Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will in a second.

We are in jeopardy of bringing the House into disrepute if we deny the Committee the time and latitude to scrutinise the Bill.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with his points about scrutiny, but I will go one step further and say that it is also to do with the democratic accountability that is placed on each one of us. For most Members, that has been placed on them through the ballot box, while for some Members, such as me, it has been through cooption.

At the same time, we should not be denied the opportunity to scrutinise a Bill, be that in Committee or in the Chamber. That, however, is what the Alliance Party did when it tabled the motion to close down the Second Stage debate. We have seen today, when some Members dared to challenge its narrative, Mr Dickson get very angry and excited. That just demonstrates the hatred that the Alliance Party has towards those who would speak out. That party hates the flag. It wants flags to be taken down. It cannot even stand the Linfield flag, and that is what the Bill is all about. Alliance does not want there to be scrutiny of it, because it knows that its Bill will fall apart if subjected to it. That is why it brought the closure motion and why it does not want to vote for the extension motion that the Committee tabled.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his intervention, in which he made valid points. I do not want to get into the detail of the Bill and its clauses, because we are talking about a period extension today. I am sure that he will not mind my not getting into that territory, because, otherwise, the Speaker will pull me back. I plead with the House to consider what it does here today, however.

Here is the thing about Committee Stage: a Committee can start to scrutinise a Bill only when the House has decided that it is ready to proceed to Committee Stage. It cannot start its scrutiny any sooner. Had the Committee for Infrastructure received the Display of Flags and Emblems Bill in June or September, it would have had more time to look at it. The Bill sponsor should not blame the Committee for its needing the amount of time that it now needs to scrutinise the Bill. She is going down entirely the wrong road if she denies the Committee the right to take any further evidence sessions on the Bill, because, if the motion falls, the scrutiny period ends today.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. Based on what I and others think about the extension motion, the Member is missing the point. If we grant the extension, the Bill will effectively run out of road. You will therefore be denying the Members who voted to support my Bill at Second Stage a final vote at Final Stage. That is exactly what you are attempting to do. You are trying to run the Bill off the road in order to ensure that it is not even allowed to get to Final Stage for a vote, because you know that, if the whole legislative process had been gone through properly and there were to be a fair vote in the Chamber at Final Stage, my Bill would pass. That is why you are trying to frustrate the situation.

Mr Frew: For a number of reasons, the Member is completely wrong. One is that we do not have the ability here to run a Bill off the road. Filibusters in here do not have an effect, so we do not have them. They have them in America. We do not have the option of filibustering in this legislature. The fact of the matter is this: the Committee tabled a motion in which it asks the Assembly to extend the Committee Stage to 12 February. We are in the middle of November. It is nothing for a Committee to ask for an extension for the rest of November and into December, January and February, considering that we have the Christmas recess in the middle of that, about which the Bill sponsor seems to have forgotten. She says that we are trying to deprive Members of a vote. That is wrong. It is unfair and uncalled for. There is absolutely no need or justification for her saying that. The Chairperson has already reminded the Bill sponsor that the dates proposed did not originate from my party. Rather, they originated from the UUP and the SDLP, and every single date that was proposed is quite legitimate if the Bill is to be scrutinised properly.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he not find it interesting that the party of scrutiny, which is the party of the official Opposition —. Ah, the leader has arrived. It is very interesting, I am sure that the Member will agree, that, on two occasions now, the SDLP's representative on the Committee, to his credit, has said that he wants there to be further scrutiny of the Bill. His party voted against him last time. He then came back to the Committee with a compromise position, yet we have been told on the record today by Mr McCrossan and the Alliance Party that they are going to vote down today's motion. Who therefore speaks for the SDLP?

Mr Frew: The Member makes a valid point. The SDLP has been in bits over this. I do not know why, because the motion simply seeks an extension of the Committee's scrutiny period in order to afford it the right to scrutinise the Bill properly.

I will end on this: I am appalled that the Assembly would deny a Committee its right to scrutinise a Bill that is within its remit. That will have massive consequences for the Assembly, its good name, the Committee and the work that we are meant to do. I plead with the SDLP to go with the motion to extend Committee Stage to 12 February. It is well within the rights of any Committee to ask for such an extension period. I say this to Sinn Féin: I know that you can be blasé about scrutiny of legislation and that you have not delivered much in the mandate, but do not deprive the Committee of the time to scrutinise the Bill properly.

I say this to the Bill sponsor: I, too, have developed a private Member's Bill and would like to see it become law, but I will not introduce it on this side of the election. If I am successful at the next election, I will introduce it early in the next mandate. It would be far better for the Committee to scrutinise her Bill for two months than for it to be rushed through the House and end up being challenged in the High Court, bringing the House into disrepute.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. There are still two and a half months until the end of January. I appreciate that there is the Christmas recess, but there is still plenty of time for Committee sessions. The Committee is meeting twice a week, so there is plenty of time for it to get through the Bill by 29 January. That is all that my party colleague sought when he brought the amendment to the Committee last week. All that I am asking for is an extension until 29 January. I have not heard a commitment from the Committee Chair that he will do all that he can to get through the Committee Stage by 29 January.

Mr Frew: That is not the question that is before the House. The question is whether we should extend:

If the motion does not pass, the Committee Stage is over. It is over.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Buckley: I know that the Member is drawing his remarks to a conclusion, but it is entirely misleading for the Alliance Party to again put forward in the House a point that is factually incorrect. We will vote on the motion that is before the House today, which seeks an extension to said date. There is no motion before the House today on an extension to 29 January. The Bill sponsor knows that.

If the motion falls today, the majority view of the Committee, which has been expressed not once but twice, also falls. The Alliance Party has already publicly indicated on three occasions that it will vote the motion down. The SDLP has indicated on the public record that it will vote it down. If a majority in the House vote the motion down, after begging the Business Committee to allow it to be heard, the Committee Stage is over, courtesy of those who have voted against the motion.

Mr Frew: I think —.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will make some progress, and, if the Member still wishes to intervene, I will give way.

The Member makes a valid point about what is in danger. The time that is given to a Committee to scrutinise a Bill is at stake. The Bill sponsor is also the Chair of a Committee. Were the tables turned, I would like to see the Alliance Party's attitude. That is the hypocritical nature of this. I am the Chairperson of the Committee for Justice, but, were I the Chairperson of any Committee — I was Chair of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development — I would not want the scrutiny work of a Committee that I chaired to be curtailed in any way.

If Members from the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin vote down the motion, the Committee Stage ends today. However, if they support the motion or even abstain on it, the Committee might — might — be able to finish its work by 29 January. It would then be up to the Bill sponsor to push, cajole and pressurise the Committee Chair and members to finish their work earlier so that the Bill can get to Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage and receive its Final Stage. It would be up to the House at that point, not the Committee, because the Committee would have done its job, taken its responsibility seriously and scrutinised the Bill. It would have furnished a report to every Member of the House, informing us of its deliberations. The Bill sponsor will deprive us of that thorough report, which can inform us all, even the Members who are willing to vote against the motion today. The report is a really important part of Committee scrutiny. It would then be up to the House, depending on how quickly we get on with other business, to decide whether the Bill makes the final cut.

Even if the Bill does not make it by the end of the mandate, the Bill sponsor will still have a better Bill than the one that she has in her hand. I appeal to her: allow the motion to be agreed, and give the Committee time to scrutinise your Bill. Then, let us see how you work with the Committee and the Assembly in order to get something passed. If you do not get it passed, you will still have a better Bill to introduce at the beginning of the next mandate, and you will have five years to do it.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will give way.

Ms Bradshaw: I have asked twice for the Committee Chair to give me some hope that the Committee will try to get the scrutiny stage through by 29 January. I have heard no words of comfort in that regard. I would like to support the Committee. I was looking forward — [Inaudible.]

Ms Bradshaw: Excuse me, Mr Buckley. Mr Frew, you said that Members were chuntering from sedentary positions. This is exactly what happened — [Interruption.]

I have asked twice. This is my third time asking for any indication from the Committee Chair that he will try to get the Committee Stage through by 29 January, which is the only reasonable end date for the scrutiny stage for the Bill to have any chance of getting through by dissolution on 23 March. I have not heard one word of comfort yet.

Mr Speaker: You might be better asking the Chair, when he is on his feet, than asking Mr Frew, who obviously cannot answer for the Committee.

Mr Frew: Mr Speaker, thank you for that guidance. The Member would do well to take it up.

Here is the thing: the Bill sponsor is a Committee Chair. I am a Committee Chair. There is no way that we can give that commitment for this reason: on 28 January, somebody could put in evidence to the Committee that has, for whatever reason, been forgotten or has missed the boat in the time frame for consultation but is so substantial and meaningful that it could change the nature of the scrutiny of the Bill. It is right that the Committee take that on board and that members scrutinise that new, fresh evidence. That is why we need extensions to Committee scrutiny. That is why I ask the Bill sponsor to be careful how she proceeds so as not to bring the Assembly into disrepute by not allowing —

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will give way.

Mr Dickson: The Bill sponsor has put forward a perfectly reasonable request to the Chair of the Committee. While I accept Mr Frew's point that evidence may appear at the end of that period, the reality is that he is clutching at straws in order to protect the Chair from answering the question.

There is a fair question to ask the Chair of the Committee: in the House, will you put it on record that you will use your best endeavours —

— in the Committee to do that? Give a simple yes or no.

Mr Frew: The only way that the Member can guarantee that the Committee can continue its scrutiny and strive to meet such a date is by agreeing to the motion. Voting for the motion is the only way that he can achieve that date, so it really is on the Member to search his soul. He is a learned and experienced Member of the House. He has been a Member longer, I think, than I have, and I have been here for 16 years.

The Member knows how scrutiny works. He knows the pressure that Committees will be under. He knows what the craziness of the end of term is like, and he knows how we pass legislation at 12.00 am, 2.00 am, 3.00 am and 4.00 am, so he will know how important a Committee report is at those final stages of a Bill. I give way again.

Mr Dickson: Equally, the Member will know that, when the Chairperson of a Committee and an honourable Member of this House gives their commitment in honesty in front of this House to say that they will endeavour to do something, I believe that this House will stand behind them in that. We have not heard that today.

Mr Frew: Again, I think that we are seeing movement. That is why debates are very important. A Member said earlier, "Nobody is listening. You can say what you want and say it for two hours, but nobody is going to listen and you are not going to change anybody's mind". I am appealing. I am absolutely appealing. This is not about a point of debate or about whether I like or do not like a specific line in a clause; this is about the procedure of this House and making sure that this House stays on the right side of scrutiny. Therefore, I appeal to the very learned Member, the Bill sponsor, their party — the Alliance Party — and the SDLP, whose member came up with the date of 12 February. It was Justin McNulty, the SDLP member — as far as I am aware, he still is one — who came up with the compromise date of 12 February. Why will the SDLP not stand by that date? I ask Sinn Féin, in the interests of scrutiny, to let the motion go through and then let the Bill sponsor and other Members put pressure on the Committee to finish that scrutiny earlier. Let us see better scrutiny going forward.

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

Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought that other Members were going to speak, but maybe they have heard enough during the debate.

Speaker, can you hear it? There is a climbdown coming. I know that that is hard. Mr Dickson acted in a very erratic fashion by shouting, finger-pointing, making accusations and saying that he will vote the motion down today. Now it is, "Can the Member give me an assurance? Can the Member try to ensure that the" —.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment. I am coming to the Member in a moment.

We are now hearing, "Can the Member give an assurance that the Committee will complete its scrutiny within the time frames that he suggests?" That is a climbdown after acting in a totally belligerent, aggressive, destructive manner. It is no surprise to me — I hope that he comes back to his seat — that Mr Dickson walked out the door before I took to my feet, because Mr Dickson knows —. I hope that he comes back. He may have had to go out for another purpose, but I hope that, when he comes back in, he will apologise and acknowledge the manner in which he conducted himself during that part of the debate.

The Bill sponsor went on the record to say that she would vote against the Committee motion today. She is still nodding that she will do the same. For me, that is very telling, because the Alliance Party came to the Chamber today with the intent of bullying Members of this House into its position, and it has dawned on that party that it will not bully me and other Members who want to give this Bill fair scrutiny. I stated in my remarks that I would ensure that the Bill's target date of 12 February, as suggested in the extension motion, was not a target but was to ensure that the Committee had adequate time to debate and scrutinise. That is still my intention. I stated it during last week's debate as well, but, again, the usual bullying tactics from the Alliance Party attempted to kill a majority Committee position. It attempted that again today. I notice the backtracking, because that party knows that if it acts in haste, it will repent at leisure. That is ultimately what it would do.

The Bill sponsor talked about killing her Bill. She, by her very actions, can probably kill it today if she follows through —

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will finish first.

— with her stated position that she is going to vote against the agreed Committee extension date. In doing so, Paula Bradshaw would kill her own Bill. The SDLP has stated the same position on the record. If those parties are going to climb down or reverse their public position, I hope that that is stated. I will give way now to the Bill sponsor. I do not want any distraction; I want her to be clear. Are you voting for today's motion to extend Committee Stage to 12 February? I have no power over what information comes before the Committee. The only reason why I say that an extension is needed is that all the evidence to date suggests that further scrutiny is required.

Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I wanted to intervene because, regrettably, the Bill will end its Committee Stage today, but that is on the Committee members who voted for an extension date well beyond that which would make it practicable to get my Bill through the Assembly during this mandate. As I said, amendments will still be brought forward. I am happy to work informally with the Committee or individuals to work through those. There will be a Consideration Stage debate, a Further Consideration Stage debate and a Final Stage. There will still be stages to go through after today. For me, this is not the end of the Bill by any measure.

Mr Buckley: From that contribution, I conclude that the Bill sponsor will vote against today's motion.

We now come to Mr Dickson, who has come back into the Chamber. He started off in a very angry manner. He made accusations, pointed his finger and made violent outbursts. Such conduct was unbefitting of a Member with such a long-standing commitment to the House. In fact, it was uncharacteristic of his contributions in the Chamber. However, the most recent contribution from the Bill sponsor shows that Mr Dickson was not serious at all. Perhaps he misspoke when he said that he would "absolutely" vote against today's motion. As I said when Mr Dickson was not in the House — I repeat it so that he has the benefit of what I said — 12 February is not a target date; it is to allow for adequate scrutiny. I do not intend to prolong scrutiny where it is not needed. However, where scrutiny is needed, I will do just that. I am not in control of what evidence comes before the Committee. As I have said clearly in the House, every attempt that I have made to secure additional scrutiny of the Bill has been because the Bill needs it. I hope that that clarifies my position, Mr Dickson. However, your party colleague — the Bill sponsor — heard that intervention and has just stated that she continues to hold the position that she will vote against today's motion. That is regrettable.

Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I am moving on. I have heard enough from the Bill sponsor. She has stated her position on three or four occasions. It has not changed.

In closing, I will ask the House some direct questions. Has the Committee received sufficient evidence to determine the full financial implications of the Bill? No. Has the Department demonstrated that the proposed duties are operationally deliverable? No. Are the statutory definitions sufficiently precise to support consistent and lawful decision-making? No. Have the risks to departmental personnel, contractors and police officers been adequately addressed? No. Has the Committee completed its examination of the human rights and equality implications? No. How much substantive scrutiny would be lost if the extension were refused? Quite a bit. Why should the Committee's timetable be curtailed before those questions have been resolved? That lies at the heart of today's motion to extend.

The case for the motion rests on a straightforward principle: legislative scrutiny must adequately reflect the scale and complexity of the powers that the Assembly is being asked to create in the name of the Department for Infrastructure. I have stated clearly why those tests have not been met and why adequate scrutiny must now pertain. I have made my case, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have heard the Alliance Party say repeatedly that it will vote against the motion, as will the SDLP. That is regrettable, but it is on them. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Some Members: Aye.

Some Members: No.

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

Ms Bradshaw: What?

Mr Buckley: Hold on, Mr Deputy Speaker; there is division.

Mr Brooks: You did not call it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): It was called. I made the decision. It was called. There were more Ayes in the House than there were Noes.

Mr Frew: You slept in.

Mr Buckley: Oh dear. Dear, dear. What has happened?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Ayes have it.

Mr Baker: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Quiet, Members.

The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Mr Baker: I will start the debate by thanking those who have helped me get the Bill to this stage. I could not have done it without my friend and comrade Conor Diamond. I am the Bill sponsor, but, for the work that he has done, the Bill should include his name. He has been with me from the very first meeting, and we have gone over every single detail. We did that as part of our education team, which includes Cathy, Pat, Patrick and Matthew. I will be forever in their debt for the effort that has been put into this.

Of course, all the campaigning to get us to where we have got to today could not have been happened without the people who are at the forefront of dealing with this issue every single day. I am very grateful to Kevin Higgins from Advice NI for the work that he has done and to all the groups that have been with me every step of the way. I put on record the names of those organisations: Act Now; Action for Children NI; Advice NI; Barnardo's NI; Children in NI; the Children's Law Centre; Ciara Fitzpatrick from Ulster University; Disability Action; Employers For Childcare; Feeding Britain; the Joseph Rowntree Foundation NI; the Law Centre NI; MindWise; the NI Anti-Poverty Network; the NI Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY); the NSPCC; Save the Children; Step Change; Trussell; UNISON; the Women's Regional Consortium; and the Women’s Support Network. So many people are on the front line working to support those who need it the most.

We want to level the playing field, and that is why I introduced the legislation. At Second Stage, I said that I was doing this as part of the Sinn Féin team, because we want to play our part in ending child poverty. I know that this legislation is only one piece of a much bigger puzzle. I have had experiences of the issue as a voluntary youth worker. I have seen children filling up their pockets to bring home food for their siblings, and that happened over the summer months. I attach no blame to a parent for that. Mummy was out doing her very best. Those children would be in receipt of free school meals, but that was just not going far enough. When children are returning to school hungry, they are not learning. There is evidence that they are months behind their peers. If we want to deal with educational underachievement, we therefore have to deal with poverty.

I have said from the very beginning that this is the very least that we as MLAs should be doing. I know that I will not convince everyone in the Chamber of that. The fact that there was a threat of a petition of concern being tabled to block this legislation near the end of its legislative passage says everything about this place. A petition of concern has already been used in recent months to attack children, and it will be used again later today to attack children. I suppose that I am grateful that political unionism has not, so far, tabled a petition of concern about this Bill to punish children, but I have no doubt that it is going to vote against the legislation. I do not believe that its Members understand poverty. To be brutally honest, I do not think that they care.

Christmas will soon be upon us. Not one of us will go hungry. There will be plenty of presents under the tree. To unionist Members, I say that probably the worst thing that can happen to you on Christmas morning is that you overcook you turkey. You will have more leftover food than you care to need. That is the reality, and that is what makes life so unfair. That is not the fault of a parent, however. I have no doubt that I will hear that argument be made a lot today, but I will not get into it. We have set out our arguments from the very beginning. That did not happen just during the Bill's scrutiny period.

I have been working on the Bill for the better part of four years. I have worked in lockstep with the sector and talked to school leaders and parents in my constituency.

The Bill will support 90,000 children across all of our communities. I represent West Belfast, which has some of the highest rates of deprivation and where just under 10,000 children would be supported by the legislation. However, I care just as much about the futures of the children on the Shankill Road as I do about the children of Twinbrook, where I am proud to be from. I was on free school meals. I grew up in poverty, as did all my friends. Life is 100 times harder now than it was in my day. I want to give all children the same opportunities in life.

Let us be under no illusion that we need to do much more than to have this legislation, but it would be a positive and progressive step. The evidence is there; we have been here before. This is not a new idea. DUP Ministers championed it at the time; you just have to go to news articles to see that. Motions were tabled in the House calling for the reinstatement of holiday hunger payments not just once but twice, a third time and a fourth time. If I had not introduced the Bill, another such motion would probably have been tabled before the end of the mandate.

The Bill is an opportunity for us all to put out the same message. It would be lovely if, today, we all said together, "We're here to work for everyone — for all the children in our communities". Poverty is not green and orange, folks, and today's vote should not come down to that. I encourage those who have been against the Bill from the get-go to reflect on that. You have to look at yourself in the mirror. Do you really want to be an MLA who walked through the Lobbies to vote down a Bill that would support 90,000 children?

I am grateful for the opportunity to be here today and for the trust that our First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, put in me to go forward with the Bill. I am proud to have got the Bill to this stage. I will not lie and say that I have not been nervous over the past 48 hours because we are so close. I really want this to happen, because I know that, if we do this, we can do more in the next mandate, working together. We need to work together, folks. We have to give every child the same opportunities in life, and they are not getting them. We cannot ignore the evidence, and we cannot ignore the groups that are telling us that.

We are underfunded. I know that everyone in the Executive is on the same page in wanting more. They want what we deserve: the same as Scotland and Wales. When we get a Budget, however, we need to set priorities in order to have a fair and equal playing field. That is what I am trying to do with the Bill.

I will finish with some more thanks. I thank the people who are no longer with me but instilled in me the strength to do this type of work. My mother has missed a lot of what I have achieved in politics. I know that it was what she instilled in me that has allowed me to have not only the confidence but the shrewdness to get the Bill to where it is today. The Members on the opposite Benches have thrown the kitchen sink at me through all the Bill's stages, but we are here, and I hope that we can get it over the line. I dedicate what I have done with the Bill to her.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I am pleased to speak in the debate on the Final Stage of the Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill, in the first instance on behalf of the Committee for Education as its Chairperson. The Bill would make provision for direct holiday meal payments to families whose children are entitled to free school meals, ensuring that support continues when schools are closed for holiday periods.

At the outset, I record my thanks and those of the Committee to the Bill sponsor, Danny Baker, for introducing the Bill and for all of the work that went into bringing it to this stage. I also thank everybody who contributed to the Committee Stage: departmental officials, the Assembly's Legal Services, the Research and Information Service (RaISe) and the many stakeholders that Danny has already listed, organisations and individuals who gave evidence. Their engagement helped to inform a thorough scrutiny process and strengthened the legislation.

I will not go into huge detail on the Bill. It is a short Bill consisting of four clauses that have been discussed at length. The scrutiny that the Bill received over 10 Committee meetings reflects the Committee's approach to getting into as much of the detail of the Bill as we could. We received extensive written and oral evidence from organisations that work with children and families, including Children in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Advice NI, UNISON and the Youth Assembly. In that evidence, one message came through clearly, namely that holiday hunger remained a real issue for many families in Northern Ireland.

The evidence highlighted the wider context in which the Bill sits. The Committee heard that child poverty continued to affect too many children and young people. Witnesses emphasised the pressures faced by families during school holidays when the cost of food rises at the same time as many other household expenses increase. We heard concerns about the impact that food insecurity can have on children's health, well-being and educational outcomes.

The Committee considered those arguments carefully while scrutinising the practical and financial implications of the Bill. We explored issues relating to eligibility, delivery mechanisms, administrative feasibility, costs, equality impacts and the relationship between the Bill and wider anti-poverty measures. We examined concerns raised by the Department regarding the drafting of several provisions and sought assurance that any scheme established through the Bill would be workable in practice.

As a result of that scrutiny, the Committee agreed amendments that, I hope, have improved the legislation. Those changes aim to provide greater clarity around the operation of the payment scheme; allow for multiple payments during holiday periods; ensure that alternative payment arrangements can be made where a family does not have access to a bank account; clarify the definition of "relevant holiday periods"; and strengthen Assembly oversight provisions. The amendments were made during Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage.

It is regrettable that the Minister did not, in the first instance, support the first Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) amendments that he moved at Further Consideration Stage and then failed to move the further tidying-up amendments, which might have been constructive. The Speaker has recently advised the House, as Members will be aware, that Further Consideration Stage is the final opportunity to amend a Bill. It is normal that Ministers table amendments at that stage to tidy up changes to a Bill in order to ensure that the changes are practical and effective as well as to ensure that the statute book is coherent. Certainly, from the Committee's perspective, it was unclear why the Minister took the approach that he did at Further Consideration Stage.

I will draw attention to the Minister's opening remarks at Further Consideration Stage, when he set it out that he wanted to propose technical amendments expressly on the advice of the OLC. It is important to quote his remarks in full:

Those are the Minister's words. I continue to quote the Minister:

That is the end of the Minister's remarks. It seems inconsistent and somewhat puzzling that he should, after making those clear remarks about acting responsibly, then decide not to support his own amendment, which he had moved at the beginning of the debate and framed as a tidying-up amendment, and then fail to support the further amendments when they were called.

I ask for clarity on that. When OLC makes recommendations and provides advice to a Minister, it would seem that the Minister should act on that advice.

I remain unclear as to the approach that was taken, and I would welcome clarity on that, because the Committee —

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

Mr Mathison: — I am happy to give way in a moment — took time to reflect the comments from the Department on the provisions of the Bill that related not to policy intent but to technical issues and the clarity of the clauses as drafted. It therefore seems odd that the Minister did not follow that up.

Again, I will quote the Minister. At Further Consideration stage, he stated:

However, he then failed to support the amendment that he had moved and did not move others that were framed as technical amendments. It could have been a spur-of-the-moment decision that was at odds with those assurances, but I hope that we will get clarity on that point today. I will make a bit of progress, but I am happy to bring the Minister in on that point later in my remarks, because I will refer to it again, perhaps when I speak in my capacity as an Alliance MLA.

As Further Consideration Stage proceeded, amendments tabled by the Committee were passed, and I trust that they will give clear effect to the Bill's policy intent even if they do not satisfy OLC. If they do not do so, that is for the Minister to explain. The Bill now before us establishes a framework under which the Education Authority will provide holiday meal payments to families of children entitled to free school meals during defined holiday periods. It also provides powers for the Department of Education to regulate payment arrangements and amend holiday definitions where necessary.

Members will be well aware that differing views on the Bill were expressed during the Committee's scrutiny, and those views were reflected in the Committee's report. The Committee's role throughout the process was to consider the evidence received, examine the provisions of the Bill and report its findings to the Assembly. Members will now reach their own conclusions on the Bill.

In conclusion as Chair, I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill. I again thank Assembly and departmental officials for their help during Committee Stage, and I highlight the good working relationships that I believe that fostered.

I will now say a few words in my capacity as Alliance spokesperson for education. My party has supported the Bill throughout its journey in the Assembly, and we will continue to do so today. All parties in the Chamber agree that tackling child poverty should be a priority, and this is an intervention that can clearly make a difference in that area. No party, I believe, would object to the idea that all children should receive nutritious meals outside term time. As an Alliance MLA, I thank Danny Baker for his collaborative approach to bringing the Bill to Final Stage, which provided an example of Members across the Chamber working effectively together.

As I have said during previous debates, it is regrettable that the Bill is likely to be the only clear anti-poverty legislation that comes before the Assembly in this mandate, following the Communities Minister's disappointing approach to the anti-poverty strategy, which has been criticised by many in the anti-poverty sector. Of course, tackling child poverty requires a cross-departmental approach, and this single intervention will not solve the problem — no one here would claim that this is the solution that will end child poverty — but, at a time when so many families across Northern Ireland are struggling with the cost of living, we should do all we can to ensure that help reaches the children who are most in need of it. Data from Trussell shows that 35% of households with children have run out of food and not been able to afford to buy more. All our Departments should be prioritising this issue, and I hope that we continue to see initiatives being brought forward that will support people who are at risk of poverty and those who are experiencing it.

We are all aware of the significant budgetary pressures facing the whole Executive and the Department of Education. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that, but, regrettably, as a result of those pressures it is often the families who are least able to afford it who feel the impact most significantly through measures such as increased school meal costs. In a budgetary crisis, we need to ensure that we do not end up penalising those who are least able to bear the costs. That is why we have continued to support the Bill. Overall, the funding required for the Bill is a relatively small proportion of the Department's budget. My calculation of it, on which I am happy to be corrected, is about 0·6% on the basis of the Department's closing position last year. It is the type of intervention that should be prioritised in our system.

So often, it is the community and voluntary sector that steps in to close gaps where provision cannot be met by statutory agencies, and that should not be the case. The community and voluntary sector should be there to provide additional support, not the answer to every problem that exists in our communities. During Committee Stage, we heard such clear evidence that even our education staff — those working in schools — often support families and children out of their own pockets. It is clear that the level of need is real, and I hope that the Bill will be able to address some of that need and relieve some of the pressure on parents while reducing the impact on children and, at school level, on staff members who provide that support.

Other measures that our education system should look at to support those most at risk include auto-enrolment for free school meals, widening access to free school meals and doing more to maximise the uptake of free school meals. Research from the Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) has highlighted the point that many children experiencing poverty are not accessing free school meals. We must not become complacent and think that the introduction of the Bill means that the problem is solved. We must continue to recognise where there are gaps and determine how we can fill them.

I refer to the commentary by a couple of parties in the Chamber and at Committee Stage in particular that, while they broadly support the aim of providing the payment, they see it as a welfare intervention that is not for Education to cover. I will be clear: the payment and the provisions of the Bill clearly intersect a number of Departments: Education, which is responsible for administering the free school meal scheme; Communities, which has responsibility for measures to tackle poverty; and Health, which has an interest in promoting healthy outcomes for our children. Despite the protests that this is not for the Education Department to deliver and that other Departments should look at it, I have yet to see any plans or proposals coming directly from those three Departments on how they can bring forward a collaborative plan to work together and help to deliver the intervention. The Children's Services Co-Operation Act provides a clear framework for budgets to be pooled. Surely the combined resources of those Departments, acting in the best interests of children, as the law requires — not simply permits but requires — could bring a resourcing solution to the table. Surely the Sinn Féin Finance Minister, whose colleague introduced the Bill, would receive such a proposal, were it to come forward, positively. I hope that that can be taken away from the debate.

Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member's giving way. My Department and the Department of Health contributed to the Department for Communities' anti-poverty strategy and outlined actions that both Departments would take towards addressing poverty. The Finance Minister did not allocate a single penny. The Member criticises the two Departments, but we contributed to that strategy. Sinn Féin, through the Executive, did not, however, allocate any finances to it. It is important that that is on the record.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his intervention. It is not for me to comment on the actions of the Finance Minister. That is for him to respond to.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I want to respond to the Minister's comment first, if you will allow me, David.

To be clear, I referenced the Health Department as well. The point that I am making is not about whether the Education Department, the Communities Department or the Health Department is involved in any anti-poverty interventions but about the provisions of the Bill. I have heard nothing about a willingness to work together to deliver the Bill on a collaborative basis. The Executive are often criticised for a lack of collaboration in delivering statutory responsibilities. In the context of this debate, the Children's Services Co-operation Act is surely in the mix when it comes to what Departments can do. I name those three Departments simply because their responsibilities interact so directly with the Bill. On the back of the Bill, I hope, passing today, I hope that they will get around the table and come forward with provisions to deliver this.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: Yes.

Mr Brooks: The Member was very charitable in saying that, if a proposal were brought to the Sinn Féin Finance Minister, he would receive it positively. During Committee discussions on the Bill, we discussed those measures. We wrote to the Executive Office and possibly the Finance Minister — perhaps the Chair can remind me — and it was shown that there was no appetite for that whatsoever. We said that this should be a cross-cutting priority and that it would need to be funded by the Finance Minister. No one responded to say that they were willing to consider that.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Brooks. Yes, as a Committee, we wrote to the Finance Minister and the Executive Office, if my memory serves me correctly. I had hoped that they would respond saying, "Yes, we will, of course, do that". I hope that, on the back of today's debate, a collaborative approach emerges, because dealing with child poverty is the responsibility of the whole Executive. When we set out the functions of the Departments of Education, Communities and Health, we see that they interact so clearly with the provisions of the Bill that many would look on the idea of those Departments simply stepping aside and saying, "We don't want to engage with this" as being puzzling. I hope that other Departments step up with proposals around how, in their statutory responsibilities, they can see a way of contributing to this.

I will return, briefly, to the Bill's Further Consideration Stage debate. I have referenced it as Chair of the Committee, but I will speak to it now as an Alliance Member. I will not go over the direct remarks that the Minister made in the debate, as they were quoted at length earlier in my speech, but it was an unusual approach by the Minister to, on one hand, move an amendment, and then not support it when the Division was called, and then refuse to move the further amendments that were framed as being amendments to protect the statute book. That was unusual. That amendment essentially redrafted the Bill to tidy it up and create, as it was sold to us at Committee, the greatest possible legal certainty. It is clearly not unusual for Ministers to table those sorts of amendments. We are looking to deliver legislation that delivers the most effective clarity and gives the clearest legal effect to a Bill's policy intentions, so I was certainly happy to support the tidying-up amendments. I was not content with the amendments around the timing or the delaying of the implementation of the Bill. I made it clear that we were prepared to support the technical amendments. It seems odd that those amendments were thrown out of the debate. I will give way to the Minister so that he can help me to understand the position.

Mr Givan: Let me take the Member back to the Further Consideration Stage debate. He will recall, as I certainly do, that the Bill sponsor made it emphatically clear that the amendments were wholly unnecessary, that he had absolute confidence in the professionalism of the legislative process in the Assembly and that he would be rejecting every amendment. From memory, I think that Ms Hunter said something similar about rejecting the amendments. I respected the wishes and professional judgement of the Member, and we did not move those amendments. They were rejected. It is interesting that, in speaking in your individual capacity, you have repeated the points that you made in your response as Chairman, when you were officially representing the Committee. That seems to jar with what Mr Baker said at Further Consideration Stage. I do not know how that has become a Committee position on the Further Consideration Stage amendments that I tabled, given what Mr Baker said during the debate.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that intervention and the attempt to provide clarity. I will be clear on why I have come back to those remarks in my position as an Alliance MLA. From the Committee perspective, there was confusion after that debate about why the Minister took that approach. Members may or may not have supported the amendments, but they were unclear as to why the Minister took the approach that he did, because, up until that point, it had been the Committee's experience that Ministers take very seriously the advice of OLC. It seems odd. It is for the Bill sponsor to answer on why he did or did not like those amendments — I will bring him in in a moment. For the Minister to say, "The Bill sponsor didn't like them, so I'll ignore the advice of OLC" seems to be an odd position for a Minister to take, when he made such clear remarks that his interest was in protecting the statute book. I cannot square that circle. However, we are where we are with this. It seems that we have walked into a scenario where there was a petulant off-the-cuff reaction. That is not a good way to make legislation. It seems odd that a Minister would stand to move an amendment, speak to it and sell it to the House but then say, "I'm not going to support my own amendment". That feels like petulance rather than serious legislation making.

The approach that was taken at that stage was irresponsible. It sets a worrying precedent that a Minister can formally table amendments, as advised by OLC, and then discard them on a whim. His concern for the integrity of the statute book, as I referenced a moment ago, seemed to have been short-lived. He appeared to have U-turned completely on that commitment, somewhere between his opening speech and his winding-up speech.

The Minister acknowledged that the First Legislative Counsel's amendments that he tabled provided for more effective delivery of the Bill, but, as he has set out today, he was unhappy that Sinn Féin and the SDLP did not support those amendments. Instead of therefore putting them to a democratic vote, which would likely have resulted in those tidying-up amendments passing, the Minister, along with the rest of his party, simply refused to move the amendments. As I have said, that was an odd position to take, which I hope does not set a precedent. I will bring in the Bill sponsor.

Mr Baker: Thank you, Chair, for giving way. I have never known the Education Minister to trust my judgement, but I hope that he does so for the rest of the debate and the vote.

If we go all the way back, we will recall that the amendments were tabled at the last minute. The Minister did not turn up for Consideration Stage, although he landed in at the last second. The Chair is right: most of the Minister's amendments would probably have passed that day, except for the amendment that would have given him the power of commencement. He spat his dummy out and went into a bit of a strop because he did not have the votes. If, however, he had let the amendments go through the democratic process, they would have passed, but he did not do that. Instead, he was petulant and said to everybody, "By the way, I was told to table these". I do not know what message that sends about the Minister's leadership, but that is for him to answer, along with his officials.

Mr Mathison: I thank Danny for his intervention. I will not labour the point, other than to say that I imagine that the First Legislative Counsel spent significant time and money on drafting the amendments, and that appears to have been a waste.

To conclude, the Alliance Party will support the Bill today, and I hope that others across the Chamber will also do so. There is a clear need for us to invest in anti-poverty measures and to support those who are most in need in our society. As has been said and, I imagine, will be said by many others, the Bill alone will not completely resolve the systemic and chronic problem of poverty in our society, but we should be doing all that we can to direct resources in the right direction, so today is a positive step.

Mr Brooks: From the outset, I have been clear and consistent in outlining my party's approach to the Bill. We do not object to the principle of welfare support where it is needed to support families and children who are experiencing hardship and, most of all, where it needed to ensure that no child goes hungry during the school holidays or at any other time of the year. Of course children who need additional support with food and basic sustenance should receive it, and my party and I wholeheartedly support that principle. I do not believe that anyone in the Chamber would disagree with that position.

The question before us today, however, is not simply whether children should be supported but whether the Bill represents the right way in which to deliver such support, whether it is the responsibility of the Department of Education to deliver it and whether we can realistically afford to introduce another financial commitment into an already overstretched Department. I believe that the answer is very clearly no.

The Bill fundamentally confuses education and welfare responsibilities, because holiday meal payments are not an education intervention. In Committee and in the Chamber, we have heard several references be made to the educational performance of children who have eaten well during the school day as justification for the Bill. The truth is that that is not relevant to holiday payments. Indeed, we cannot even guarantee that payments will reach children in the form of food. We know that the vast majority of parents are good parents who look after their children, but, as John O'Dowd outlined in the Chamber earlier today, we know that is not always the case. This intervention is not about improving literacy, raising attainment, supporting classroom learning or addressing educational disadvantage in our schools. At its heart, it is a form of financial assistance for households to help them meet the cost of feeding children during periods when schools are closed. It may be a noble endeavour, but it is not an education intervention but a welfare intervention.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member not find it a bit rich that somebody on his salary is lecturing families who are stuck in poverty about what they spend their money on? Does he not find that pretty hypocritical and sickening?

Mr Brooks: No, there is a realism involved. I have said that my party supports welfare interventions for children and families, as, I imagine, all parties do.

Mr Boggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: I will answer the Member first.

We are also realistic that there are people who are not good parents. They are in the small minority, but they exist. We had a discussion in the Chamber today about parents who do not always take their responsibilities seriously. That does not mean that there are not families who do take them seriously but who struggle and need support and assistance.

Mr Carroll: That is a bit of a straw man argument. Does the Member agree with me that, if kids go to school wearing inadequate clothing and shoes with holes in them, that is not a welfare issue but an education issue? If kids go to school hungry without nutritional food, that is an education issue, as well as a welfare, social and human rights issue. Does the Member agree with that?

Mr Brooks: No, I do not agree with that at all. I am surprised that the Marxist in the corner does not understand it. If we have a welfare system —.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: No. I will answer before I give way to you again. If we have a welfare system —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): David, through the Chair.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Member should know that the very point of a welfare system is to provide a safety net for families in hardship and times of need. That is what it is there for. If it does not meet that need, we need to have a discussion around how we fix that and advance. I do not think that we should try to match it up through bit-part add-ons from different Departments. This is a welfare issue. I understand that there are families who cannot afford clothes and food for children. I deal with those issues in my office, as every Member does. As far as I know, my office makes the largest number of referrals to food banks in Northern Ireland, so I am well aware of those issues.

I will give way again to Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I would rather be a Marxist and a socialist than a right-wing Tory who does not give a damn about working-class people not getting free school meals, so guilty as charged. Does the Member agree with me that the Bill will help the people in his constituency: working-class Protestants, working-class Catholics, working-class migrants and everybody who is struggling in poverty? Does he not see that? It is hypocritical: he says that his office helps people by referring them to food banks, but his party votes the opposite way and kicks people who are stuck in poverty. Does he not realise that?

Mr Brooks: I will not give way any more to the Member. What would really help people in my constituency is the ability to get a good education. I have walked around Dundonald High School in my constituency, as has the Minister, and the building is falling to pieces. The Minister is dealing with a budget that, unless something happens in the near term, will face £600 million of pressures in the new year. How about we fund the Department of Education to do what we ask it to do before we start asking it to make welfare interventions?

Mr Boggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: I will happily give way.

Mr Boggs: You can build all the nice schools that you want, and you can have the nice TransformEd and education reform agenda, but, if children are not equipped to learn, they will not learn. I find it shocking that the Member has sat through the Education Committee sessions and scrutinised the Bill but not taken the time to speak to anybody to find out that, when a child who lives in poverty comes back from the school holidays, they will be the first to fall behind a peer who had a really healthy, happy summer. Children whose families cannot afford to support them because they are not entitled to free school meal payments over term-time holidays are lagging behind. The evidence to show that is there.

I know that it is not easy for you to sit there and try to justify why you will not support the Bill today. I would not want to be asked to try to justify to people why I do not want to feed hungry children so that they can have a better educational outcome. You can have gold-plated schools and the best curriculum, but, if children's basic needs are not met, they will not learn, so those things will not matter.

Mr Brooks: A child is not in poverty; a family is in poverty, and, no doubt, it impacts on that child. We have all dealt with situations like that in our offices. You may wish to rewrite the narrative and misrepresent my position, but at no stage have I said that I am against the principle of the Bill — quite the opposite. The welfare state is there to support those in need, not just during the school holidays but throughout the year. That is why we have a welfare system. If the welfare system is not delivering for families who need it most, we need to look at the welfare system.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: No, I want to make progress. I have given way to the Member already.

Mr Gildernew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: I will give way to the Member opposite because he asked earlier.

Mr Gildernew: Does the Member agree with me that it is ironic that his party colleague is responsible for the delivery of the benefit system here and for bringing forward an anti-poverty strategy, yet, more than a year after the anti-poverty strategy consultation closed, we still have not seen that? Does the Member agree that, when it comes to hungry children, we are all responsible?

Mr Brooks: I absolutely would like to see the anti-poverty strategy being rolled out. I will tell you better than that: I would like to see it being fully funded. Maybe he can speak to his party colleague the Finance Minister. Members on the Benches opposite are very fond of calling for things, asking for things, putting their hands out and going out to the people of Northern Ireland and saying, "We are fighting for the things that you need". What they do not go on to say is that they have the Finance Minister, who can pay for it.

Mr Gildernew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: No, I will not. I want to make some progress.

That party has the Finance Minister, who is responsible for divvying up the funds, so perhaps those Members can tell us, or get the Finance Minister to tell us, why he has not fully funded the anti-poverty strategy. If they want the anti-poverty strategy, they need to fund it and put their money where their mouth is.

The Department for Communities has responsibility for social security, welfare support and addressing financial hardship. It has the policy expertise, the existing structures and, importantly, the responsibility to assess competing welfare priorities against the budget that is available to it. We have often heard the diversion from that more established route being justified by emergency processes that were used during COVID. They were just that: emergency processes. They were rushed. The idea that a particular thing that we did during an unprecedented crisis is therefore optimal defies logic. For instance, in our current circumstances, who would prioritise a scheme like Eat Out to Help Out? In normal times, we would not do it. The idea that we should do something now because we did it during COVID does not follow.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes, I will give way to the Bill proposer.

Mr Baker: Does the Member accept that circumstances exist outside of COVID? I shared the story of the young lad who filled his pockets. I did not say that he was six or seven years old. That is what he had to deal with. It was not his mummy's fault. As legislators, we must intervene. We cannot leave it to the community and voluntary sector all the time. Whether it is Lagmore Youth Project or Monkstown Boxing Club, we cannot leave it to them. We have to make the hard decisions. As I have said from the beginning, this is the very least that we can do. We need to come back here in the next mandate and work together. Honestly, that means every single party. If we want to end child poverty, put children first and level the playing field, that is what we need to do.

Mr Brooks: I recognise the Bill proposer's genuine intent behind the Bill. However, his argument is a straw man. I really believe that. I have no doubt that he meets children and families who face hardship in his own constituency, as we all do. My argument is clear: this is about the method, where that pressure should lie and the Department from which the funding should come. As I said to the Chair, the Finance Minister was not forthcoming when we wrote to him and the Executive Office, during the Committee's consideration of the Bill, on whether it should be funded on a cross-departmental basis. It has been talked about in the Chamber, considered at Committee and reacted —

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes, I will, happily.

Mr Baker: If the Bill were coming through the Department for Communities, would we be having the same debate? I suspect that we would.

It is not for me to bring forward everyone's amendments. We worked really well and tabled amendments as a Committee. Other Members could have brought forward any amendment that they wanted to bring, whatever that may have looked like. I do not know whether you attempted that and sat down with the Bill Office to try to draft such an amendment, but, if you did not, that is on you. We all had an opportunity to table amendments, as we do on all legislation. You cannot simply get up and say, "This is how it should have been", or, "Do you know what? We should bring the Bill back to the drawing board because we should have done this instead". Folks, you all had the opportunity to do that. You are all legislators. You are talking not about the Bill but about stuff that you would have liked to have seen in it. You should have brought forward your ideas and had a discussion about them with us, as the Committee, and me, as the Bill sponsor. You did not do that.

Mr Brooks: If you had wanted to take the Bill back to the drawing board, as the Member mentioned, that would have required not an amendment but an entirely new Bill, and it would have been considered by an entirely different Committee. I understand what the Member is trying to do in his argument. He and others have continually tried to misrepresent my argument. My argument is not with the principle that welfare should support those in need; it is with the idea that we should continually pile pressure on an already stretched Education Department that is struggling to meet the basic needs of our education system with what is, essentially, a welfare intervention. It should be for the Department for Communities to determine from among its suite of welfare supports whether this is the appropriate intervention, how it should be targeted, what level of support is justified and, crucially, how it should be funded. We do not simply transfer another financial responsibility on to the Department of Education because it happens to be associated with children who attend school.

We cannot ignore the financial circumstances that face our education system. As I have said, it faces £600 million of pressures next year. That is a staggering figure. Behind it are schools struggling to balance their budgets; principals having to make incredibly difficult decisions; classroom assistants and support staff whose jobs are under pressure; and children with additional needs who are not receiving the level of support that they deserve. We have schools struggling to maintain basic provision, with pressures in the SEN education system, pressures on classroom assistants and school maintenance, and an education system that is crying out for additional investment.

Against that backdrop, is it responsible to impose another financial commitment on the education budget for a scheme that is fundamentally, as I have said, a welfare intervention? Every pound committed to the scheme must come from somewhere. It cannot simply be wished into existence. There is an opportunity cost to every spending decision that we make. We must be honest about that, particularly when the Department that is responsible for educating our children is already struggling to meet its existing obligations. I am concerned that the Bill seeks to place an additional burden on that Department, which simply does not have the resources to absorb that burden without there being huge consequences elsewhere.

There is the wider point about our responsibility as the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is easy to stand in the Chamber, as I have said, and propose populist measures that sound compassionate, popular and politically attractive to those outwith. It is much harder to explain how those measures will be paid for. We cannot continue to make commitments without properly considering their financial implications. We cannot simply legislate for additional spending and expect somebody else, somewhere else in the Executive, to find the money. There must be a recognition that the public finances are finite and that every Department has competing priorities. We have a responsibility to live within our means and make difficult choices to ensure that public money is directed towards the areas where it can deliver the greatest benefit. That does not mean refusing support to people in need; I have said that. It means ensuring that support is delivered through the most appropriate mechanisms, by the appropriate Department, and with affordable and sustainable financial frameworks.

I understand that the Members opposite and, indeed, the Member to my left in the corner see themselves as socialists. However, the difference is that socialism usually at least tries to match its greater welfare and greater public services with revenue raising. On the Benches opposite, I see no appetite for that, yet there is insatiable appetite for spending what we do not have. If the Department for Communities believes that families require additional support through holidays, I will welcome a serious assessment of a proposal in that area, including eligibility criteria, cost and impact on other welfare priorities. That assessment should take place within that Department — the Department that holds the responsibility for welfare policy — rather than another unfunded or inadequately funded obligation being placed on Education. We should also be careful not to create an expectation that the Education budget can become a convenient source of funding for every worthy social intervention that comes before the Assembly. Our schools cannot be expected to solve every societal problem, particularly when they are already struggling to fulfil their core education responsibilities.

Let me conclude. Again, I do not oppose the principle of supporting children who face hardship, I do not oppose ensuring that families have the resources that they need to provide for their children, and I certainly do not oppose addressing food insecurity for those families. However, good intentions do not automatically make good policy. We must consider the mechanism, the departmental responsibility, the affordability and the consequences for other public services. They matter. That is good governance. If this is a welfare payment, let it be considered as a welfare payment. Most of the arguments that are advanced for it are about welfare. Let the Department for Communities assess it and assess its responsibilities, its priorities and the budget available to it.

Do not place another financial burden on an Education Department that already faces hundreds of millions of pounds of pressures and when schools are struggling to meet their most fundamental obligations. The Assembly must demonstrate that it is capable of more than announcing popular spending commitments; it must demonstrate financial responsibility, discipline and an understanding that public money is not limitless.

Mr Burrows: I commend Mr Baker for introducing his private Member's Bill. He clearly has a lot of passion in this area. I gave my word that I would not support a petition of concern on the Bill at any stage. No petition of concern was tabled, but I gave him my word when he asked me directly about that. I cannot, however, support the Bill for a number of reasons.

Before I set out those reasons, let me be clear: I take everyone at face value, and I do not think that anyone in the House wants to see a child go hungry or does not believe in tackling food poverty or giving the young people in our country the best chance of having a healthy, happy and productive life. There are, however, hard questions when you are a legislator or part of an Executive. The Bill sums up where this place has gone wrong so many times. I will come back to that in a moment.

I will give three reasons why I cannot support the Bill. First, it is unfunded. We are being asked to pass a Bill for which there is no funding stream or money. Doing so would be disingenuous: the people of Northern Ireland will see the headline but may never see the Bill's implementation. Secondly, it is a matter —.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will, after I make some progress.

It is bad public policy to place the bill for this on the Department of Education. That has an opportunity cost and a knock-on cost on other issues in education, and I will come back to that. Thirdly, the Bill lacks any governance. There are no guarantees that the money given under the Bill will end up putting nutritious meals in children's stomachs. It is also a fundamental misapplication and misunderstanding of how the welfare system should work.

I will go back to my first point. Members from all parties in the Executive met the Secretary of State. We looked that man and representatives from the United Kingdom Treasury in the eye and said that, although we had put our hands down the side of the sofa and checked every jacket pocket, there was no money and we could not meet our existing demands. That is what we — the Alliance Party, Sinn Féin, the DUP and my party — said. We said that we could not pay our public-sector workers and that there would come a time when, legally, we could not spend money. We said that we would run out of money before the end of the year, like a banana republic. Yet we have a private Member's Bill that wants us to add £30 million to that predicament. The Secretary of State raised that with us, saying that it showed that we did not have credibility. It was not a Tory Secretary of State or a right-winger who said that but a Labour Secretary of State. He simply said that we had no money for the Bill. It undermined our negotiations.

Secondly, we are putting the Bill's obligations on the Department of Education. Not only is that wrong because they should not sit with the Department of Education, but what about the cost? I sometimes think that people in the Assembly believe that — I will use a phrase that was in vogue a while ago — there is a magic money tree. Every pound spent on the Bill is a pound not spent on something else, so what will it be? Will we not turn the heat on? Will we have fewer classroom assistants, or will it be, as we have seen today, a rise in the price of school meals? Do we put the cost of the Bill on to the people who pay for school meals? The cost of a school meal has gone up by another 30p. It has gone up, I think, by 80p over the past year.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way towards the end.

We will simply shift responsibility to someone else or not do something in Education that we should do.

The Department of Education is under severe strain. Teachers and classroom assistants face burnout, and many of our SEN children are not getting the support that they need, but we are writing another cheque that the Education Minister cannot cash.

Thirdly, it is about governance. I was asked some difficult questions, but I sometimes get the impression that most people in this place are entirely populist. When asked whether they can be sure that the money will put nutritious meals in children's stomachs, they want to say, "Yes, I trust every parent", but that is now how the world works. The Bill means that additional money would be paid into the bank accounts of a number of people in our country, simply adding to their household pot. There is no guarantee — none whatever — that it would result in extra food in any child's stomach. Food poverty is not just about the amount and the cost of food but about its nutritional value. Many of those who suffer the worst in our society have food but are sometimes given the wrong food.

The Bill is a crude measurement. As Mr Brooks said, it also fails to understand whether this is a welfare payment or an education payment. It is really neither, because, as he rightly pointed out, it is just about school holidays. If a child lives in food poverty, why is there no payment for the weekends? Why are two out of the seven days of the week left out? The Bill is neither here nor there. It is not the right Bill. It is badly designed and has no governance.

It would be easy for me to walk behind the Bill sponsor. I am sure that it would get more social media clicks, but it would erode the legitimacy and credibility of this place. There is also a good prospect that we will come trooping in to this place in the new mandate to try to pass a law to stop us having to pay for this, because there is no money.

Mr Baker, I applaud your passion and your intent, but noble intent does not make good law. People across the country are making ends meet. There are other people towards whom we should target interventions. Thirty million pounds would transform the food banks in Northern Ireland. I used to volunteer in one.

Ms Ferguson: We should be ending food banks.

Mr Burrows: We should end so many things. Those are the glib statements that people throw out. We should end cancer. We should end poverty. We should end all kinds of things. Yes, we want to end them, but the reality is that we have to do the best that we can with every pound. We have to get the best bang for our buck. You will keep going back to the Treasury and blaming the Brits, but you are the ones writing cheques that you cannot afford to cash.

To sum up, here is the dysfunction of this place: a Sinn Féin Member brings a private Member's Bill to lay a bill at the Education Minister's door for which the Member's party's Finance Minister will not give him the money. He will say, "It is nothing to do with me", but he will, no doubt, come in here and vote that way

Mr Sheehan: The Minister has his budget, for God's sake, Jon. He can prioritise his spending.

Mr Burrows: We should have the debate respectfully. We all want what is best for our children.

Mr Sheehan: No, you do not.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Pat, you will have the opportunity to speak in a minute. You have been around for long enough to know that you can ask the Member for an intervention. Come on.

Mr Burrows: I was a food bank volunteer, Pat. That was the volunteering that I did.

I will conclude with this.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: In one second.

It is a noble idea, but it is unfunded, there is no money, there is no governance and it puts pressure on the education system that will affect our children's education and the support that we can give to teachers and teaching assistants.

Before I finish, I give way to Mr Baker.

Mr Baker: I thank you for keeping your word. Such is the craziness of this place that I needed you to keep your word on the petition of concern, because the Minister's party was lobbying you on that, and it would have punished 90,000 children. I thank you for keeping your word on that.

There are couple of wee things, Jon. You talk an awful lot about motions and wasting time in the House. One of the first motions that your party tabled in the mandate called for the Minister to reinstate the holiday hunger payment. What has changed, Jon?

I will give you a wee point of clarity. There will be no coming back in the next mandate to vote to save money. If we pass the Bill today, after it receives Royal Assent, families will be supported over the next holiday. That is what we are doing today. There are no clicks on social media for that. There are no ifs or buts; I am not trying to hide that. If we go through the Aye Lobby, we will support 90,000 children. It is about the 90,000 children.

You talked about parents: do you really believe that the parents of those 90,000 children are not trying their best? I can tell you that they absolutely are. As someone who used to work in a food bank, you should know that. You should know the people who came through those doors.

You should therefore understand the stigma that comes with walking through those doors and how hard doing so is for those people. I am trying to remove that stigma. I am not saying that the Bill will be a silver bullet for addressing child poverty, because it will not. This is only the beginning.

If political unionism cannot stand up today for working-class Protestant children and families, what is it doing? Honestly, what are you doing? Why are you here? Do you not want to give those children the same opportunities that everybody else has? I am giving my children opportunities, but I got lucky by getting in here. It is hard to get out of a cycle of poverty. We need to lift people out of poverty. We need to stop putting it on the community and voluntary sector to do that, and we need to stop attacking families. Folks, we have enough money to support families. Let us start doing that. I ask you to support my Bill.

Mr Burrows: Mr Baker says that we have the money to do it. We do not. It is an unfunded Bill.

When I was a food bank volunteer and took parcels to doors, I saw the complexity of the problem. It was not the case that every household that I went to, or even the majority of them, was a family with children on free school meals. Often, a complex range of issues and interventions in life require someone to need emergency support. The Member's Bill is a crude removal of one threshold for getting a free school meal, and it is being used as a wider benefit measure. It is simply not a precise enough measure, however. I applaud his effort and congratulate him on the fact that he will get a Bill passed, but it has not been thought through, is not fiscally responsible —.

Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way to Mr Dickson.

Mr Dickson: I have sat and listened, with some incredulity, to what Mr Burrows has said. He will have heard Members make comments that those of us who have been working in and supporting food banks want to see them end in Northern Ireland. It should be the aim of our community to achieve that goal. We should not have poverty in our community. We certainly should not have children starving in our community during the holidays. Yes, of course the issue is complicated. I congratulate Mr Baker on his Bill, but I say this to the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party: shame on you if you drag your Members through the No Lobby today.

Mr Burrows: Thank you for that, Mr Dickson, but it is not simply about standing up and making statements that we do not want there to be poverty. Nobody does. Nobody wants a lot of things, but we cannot —. [Interruption.]

I will summarise my position. The money is not there, and the Bill represents poor governance and places responsibilities on the Education Minister and his Department that they cannot discharge.

Ms Hunter: First, I give my respect and thanks to Mr Baker and his team for bringing forward the Bill. We all know that a lot of work goes into the designing, crafting and redrafting of private Members' Bills. Danny, anybody who says that you are being disingenuous or doing this for social media clicks clearly does not know you. I therefore take my hat off to you, because I know how hard you have worked on the Bill.

The scale of the issue is astounding. Over 90,000 children in the North are entitled to free school meals. During the Bill's many legislative stages, I have talked at length about a number of statistics, but I will bring it back to the fact that the issue affects over 90,000 children. That is a quarter of all pupils in the North. Be it summertime, Easter, Christmas, the midterm break or Halloween, those kids are not eating. Mr Boggs made a fantastic point earlier about the importance of recognising how the lack of a meal over those holiday periods comes back to haunt those children, because they then do not get the chance to have the same educational advantage as their peers whose families are on better incomes. That is really not fair, because it is not a fringe issue. Indeed, it affects so many families. I have been in this job for seven years, and I know that so many families go through this. Other Members have pointed out that there are challenges for families whose income is just above the threshold for receiving free school meals. That is another issue that we need to address in the House.

It is hard to talk about such issues in here, because one can be painted as being political or as using political language. Talking about them comes from a very genuine place, however. I feel very strongly that a vote against the Bill today is a vote against those 90,000 children.

At Committee, we heard from many such children, and we heard about them from specialists, academics and stakeholders who have devoted their lives to tackling child poverty and looking at child development and adverse childhood experiences, and at how poverty in the home shapes not only the child but the level of education that they attain and the quality of their retention of that education when they are in the classroom.

Members across the House have raised valid concerns. We have talked about the financial challenges. The problem, however, is that this is what we have in front of us. Private Member's Bills are a tool available to Members across the House to improve the lives of our constituents to the best of our ability. Is the Bill a silver bullet? No. The Member who introduced it has said that it absolutely is not. However, it is the best that we have, and it is what is in front of us.

Having known children who have been entitled to free school meals throughout my life, including my childhood, I feel very strongly that a child cannot learn on an empty stomach. Any teacher in my constituency will tell you that hunger shows up in concentration, behaviour and attainment long before it shows up in spreadsheets or in the speeches that we have heard today.

This private Member's Bill is the route that we have in front of us. If Members oppose it, they owe the House a better plan, not simply a "no". For us in the SDLP, with our SDLP values, social justice has never been just a slogan. Feeding children is the bare minimum. Folks, it is a circus up here, but surely to God we can put our heads together, have this one moment of unity and say, "Do you know what? I don't think that weans —".

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Hunter: Yes.

Mr Burrows: I agree that we could have put our heads together. I said many times during Committee Stage that we should be looking at a cross-Executive way of funding this issue. That would have been the responsible way to do it, not through a private Member's Bill that lacks governance and will place an additional cost on the Education Department. What would you not do in order to free up the £30 million that you would spend on this?

Ms Hunter: I thank the Member for his intervention. I take his point and accept his perspective, but the reality is that this Bill is what we have in front of us. I know that that may not be the response that you want. I know Members from your party, Mr Burrows, who will not want to take the stance that your leadership is offering them on this Bill or on the debate that we are about to have.

Today, however, this is really about children. Let us bring it back to the core value on which many of us across the House focus: we believe that children should have a good quality of life, that they should have full tummies, and that they should have a strong sense of education in their lives. Feeding children is the bare minimum. This is not only about feeding children; it is about better educational outcomes for them, better behaviour from them and a better quality of life for them. Every child in the North, regardless of who they are, where they come from or whether they go to Mass, chapel or church, deserves to be fed. We know that that is undeniably and statistically linked to good educational attainment. Today's vote is about them, and the SDLP proudly supports the Bill. Again, well done to Mr Baker.

Mr Sheehan: I will try to be brief. Unlike some others in the Assembly, I am not so fond of my own voice that I want to drone on interminably.

First, I thank and congratulate my comrade Danny Baker and all the education team in Sinn Féin for helping to get us to this stage. This is something of which Danny can be proud, not just today but for the rest of his life. The intent behind the Bill is absolutely noble. I have heard nothing but negativity from Members on the far side of the House, who say, "We haven't got the money to pay for this". How many MLAs are there on the unionist Benches? Not one of them has done anything to try to alleviate child poverty, but Danny Baker has, by bringing forward this Bill. The Education Department receives over £3 billion each year, which is the second-largest budget in the Executive. Although I accept that a large percentage of that is taken up by inescapable commitments and contractual obligations, the fact is that there is still plenty of funding left. The Minister always seems to be able to find funding for his pet projects. Millions of pounds are going to TransformED, and hundreds of thousands went to Lisneal College for a pitch that was not needed. The Minister tried to siphon money off into Richhill soccer club — something that was nothing to do with education. That is what we are facing. What could be worse —?

The leader of the Ulster Unionists regularly bangs on about our being part of the fifth largest economy in the world. We are part of the fifth largest economy in the world, yet children are going to school hungry and going to bed hungry. That is absolutely disgraceful and disgusting. What could be a bigger priority for us, whether in Education or any other Department, than saying that we are going to do something about that? Jon Burrows talks a good fight, and David Brooks talks an even better fight, but what do they do? They do absolutely nothing.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Absolutely nothing. Yes, I will give way.

Mr Kingston: What contribution are the Member's Sinn Féin colleagues in the Department of Finance, the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for the Economy making to the costs of the proposal?

Mr Sheehan: Maybe if the Minister for Communities brought forward an anti-poverty strategy, we could all work together and use the Children's Services Co-operation Act 2015 —

Mr Kingston: They all have budgets.

Mr Sheehan: — which is on the statute book. If anybody wants to make a donation to the Minister of Education —

Mr Kingston: What are the Sinn Féin Ministers doing? That was the question.

Mr Brooks: What about that?

Mr Sheehan: — they can do that.

Mr Kingston: What are the Sinn Féin Ministers doing? That was the question.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ah! [Inaudible.]

Mr Kingston: Apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Good. Thank you.

Mr Sheehan: You talk a good fight, but when it comes to doing anything —

Mr Brooks: No answer.

Mr Sheehan: I will tell you what you are very good at: punching down on the most vulnerable in our society.

Mr Brooks: We do not try to blow them up, Pat.

Mr Sheehan: You punch down on the most vulnerable — the children who are going to bed hungry. You say, "Oh, it's terrible that children are hungry, but let somebody else deal with it. Don't bother with this private Member's Bill. It's nonsense and we can't afford it".

Mr Brooks: Finance Minister do something?

Mr Sheehan: Do you know what you are saying? You are saying, "Forget about the kids who are going hungry". Why do you not just get up and say that?

It is the same when it comes to educational underachievement, which you are not interested in doing anything about. We have the longest tail of educational underachievement in Western Europe, and what are you doing about it? TransformED. Do you know what that will do? Absolutely nothing, because the biggest distortion of the curriculum in primary schools is academic selection. Lucy Crehan, the woman who carried out the curriculum review, said that. Teaching from primary 5 on is teaching to an exam. You talk a good fight. You talk about a world-class education system. That is absolute nonsense. While you talk about that, you are not prepared to do anything about children who are going hungry. [Inaudible.]

Mr Sheehan: What have you done about children who are going hungry, David? Jon Burrows, what are you doing? You say, "Oh, I worked in a food bank". Big deal: we will give you a round of applause for that. That does not stop children in society going hungry.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Children in society are hungry because of the way that society is organised. All sorts of political choices are being made. Billions of pounds are being spent on armaments.

Mr Brooks: To defend Ireland.

Mr Sheehan: Billions of pounds are being sent to Israel to carry out a genocide.

I will give way, David. Go ahead.

Mr Brooks: Mr Deputy Speaker, as you will know, the billions of pounds being spent on armaments are being spent to defend Ireland as much as they are the United Kingdom. Maybe the reason that there is less money to go round for other things in the UK is that Ireland does not pay for its own defence.

It is OK to stand there and say, "What are you doing to solve child poverty?", but proposing Bills that take money away from education, which our working-class children need — I care about seeing that delivered to our working-class communities — will not solve the issue either. We can promise money from left, right and centre, but we have to decide what our priorities are and how the funding should be weighted. Just promising money that is not there will not solve world poverty or child poverty. As Jon Burrows said, you may have that noble aim, but this is not the mechanism by which to achieve it.

Mr Sheehan: OK, David, I will give way again. Tell me a priority that is more important than stopping children being hungry, children going to bed hungry and children going to school hungry. Tell me a priority that is more important than that. Go ahead. I will give way.

Mr Brooks: Perhaps you should ask your Finance Minister, who does not want to fund the anti-poverty strategy. [Interruption.]

No, you do not want to talk about the money.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): David, Pat, come on. We are enjoying the cut and thrust of the debate, but, first, this is about how we deal with child poverty. I have allowed a degree of latitude, which we normally have when we are doing this. I am quite sure that you are both able to keep going, but let us keep it focused on what we are trying to do.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Here we have the theme again. Sinn Féin is very well prepared with rhetoric on what it would like to deliver and do, but it holds the Finance portfolio, and there is no evidence that the Finance Minister is prepared to fund these commitments. When the Education Committee wrote to him, there was no appetite to fund those commitments, and, when we wrote to the Executive Office, we saw no appetite to work on a cross-departmental basis. Sinn Féin is very good at talk but not very good at action.

Mr Sheehan: I asked you for a priority, and you did not give me one. I will say it again, because it seems to have some problem getting through to you. The Education Minister gets over £3 billion. It is up to him to decide what his priorities are. As far as I am concerned, one of the biggest priorities that we have is child poverty and hunger. That is one of the big priorities. Danny Baker is doing something about it; you are doing nothing. You are sitting there whingeing about a Sinn Féin Minister. We have an opportunity to do something. The Education Minister has his pet projects, and he always finds money for them. He always does. Right or wrong? Right. I ask again: does any unionist want to get up and tell me what is a bigger priority than ensuring that children are fed and nourished and are not going to bed hungry? If somebody can get up for one second and tell me one priority that is more important than that, I will congratulate them.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Sheehan: Have you got a priority? I do not want you to get up and waffle, David, like you did the last time, about a Sinn Féin Finance Minister. The Education Minister has £3 billion. He found £750,000 for Lisneal to pay for a pitch that was not needed. There is other stuff as well. We know about other projects. We found out about the Richhill project, and there is other stuff to come out as well. Bear that in mind.

To conclude, I thank the other members of the Committee for the work that they have put into this private Member's Bill. I also thank the staff in the Bill Office who helped with this. They also helped me with my private Member's Bill, but that is another story that we will get to later. I thank them for the professional and diligent work that they all put in. Finally, I congratulate my comrade Danny Baker on bringing the Bill, and I commend it to the Assembly.

Mr Martin: I am not sure that I will be able to top that in any shape or form, but I certainly hope to address some of the issues that the Member for West Belfast raised. He asked what is more important than children going to bed hungry. I did not want to intervene at that point because it was all getting a bit fractious. He is, hopefully, listening to me. I suggest that making sure that a child is physically and emotionally safe at night is probably a greater priority than a child who is hungry.

I want to address a few things that I have heard. A lot of these points will have been made by Mr Sheehan. He said — well, I will get to his remarks in a second. At the outset, I recognise, as other contributors have done, the passion that Mr Baker has brought to his Bill. He knows that I will not support it, but I want to recognise his passion and energy and his heartfelt desire to make things better for children in Northern Ireland — not that he would refer to it in those terms — in some shape or form. I will address those issues as I go. As other colleagues have done, I recognise the importance of tackling child poverty and food insecurity. I have put my position on that on record in the Assembly before: no child should ever go hungry.

I have no issue with the policy intent of dealing with holiday hunger as proposed in the Bill. I will depart from that point for a second to address some of the points that Mr Sheehan made in his contribution. He said that my party has no interest in dealing with educational underachievement. That is from his speech. Just for context — it is important that the record reflect this — my party was the first Executive party ever to examine the issue of educational underachievement and the impact that hunger can have on that. We were the first Executive party ever to commission research into that and to deliver interventions on it. We did that through the excellent 'A Fair Start' report and action plan, which was led by two DUP Ministers, Peter Weir and Michelle McIlveen. I do not believe that what Mr Sheehan said was right.

Mr Sheehan was very critical of the DUP, saying that we do not care about educational underachievement or about children. I did a bit of research, and I will ask him this question: can he cite one piece of research that his party has ever done, commissioned or delivered on educational underachievement. I am happy to give the Floor to any Sinn Féin Member who can stand up and tell me which piece of research it commissioned on educational underachievement. Pat?

Mr Sheehan: There is any amount of research evidence on educational underachievement. One of the biggest issues mentioned in that research is academic selection. You want to turn away and not look at academic selection. You do not want to address that issue, nor do you want to accept that it causes inequality, which, in turn. results in educational underachievement. Your party has made no serious attempt to address that. Levels of underachievement have risen repeatedly. You talked about the reviews that your party has carried out, but what have you actually done? Absolutely nothing.

Mr Martin: I thank the Member for his intervention. I asked the question because I knew the answer, which is that Sinn Féin has never in its party's history carried out or commissioned a piece of research into educational underachievement. He likes to talk about academic selection, but I ask the Members on the opposite Benches to cite one piece of research. I am sure that they are on their phones now looking through Chat GPT, but they will not find any, because there is none.

Mr Boggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: No, I will make some progress.

I want to get on to the substance of the Bill. I have concerns about whether the Bill is the right mechanism to achieve the stated policy aim. As other Members have mentioned, the Bill remains unfunded, and, crucially, as has been recognised by the House, the Department of Education is being used as a vehicle to deliver a social welfare intervention. My greatest concern, however, is centred on the consequences of the Bill's being unfunded and the wider opportunity costs to an education system that is already significantly overcommitted. The Bill will require the Department to spend an additional £23 million, and, as I have already outlined, anything that deals with child poverty is of real benefit to those children. My issue is not with that, however, but with how that money would be spent if it were there. It would be recurrent expenditure with no additional ring-fenced funding from the Executive. As far as I am aware, none of those facts are in dispute. As already mentioned, on the basis of the Finance Minister's draft Budget — we all know that we do not have a final Budget — the Department of Education was required to make £500 million of savings in the remainder of this year, rising to about £800 million in 2028-29. This is an additional £23 million being placed into that pot.

The question is —.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: Yes, I will give way to the Bill sponsor.

Mr Baker: The financing of this legislation is always talked about as being in the millions. As the Chair said earlier, and his maths were spot on, it is 0·65% of the Education budget. My frustration is that the cost of TransformED, for example, is not spoken of in the millions. The Minister is quite entitled to bring forward his own agenda.

Mr Brooks: That is a different subject.

Mr Baker: I just give that as an example, David. When departmental officials came to the Committee, they said that TransformED cost 0·3% of the Education budget, but they talk about tens of millions of pounds for this Bill. That is how they do it, and that is a wee trick that you are playing. The reality is that it is only 0·6%, and that will go a long way towards dealing with educational underachievement. What you are not talking about is the link between poverty and educational underachievement. That is why the cost should go through the Department of Education.

Mr Martin: I thank the Bill sponsor for a fair intervention. I will try to deal with some of his points, and I will come to TransformED, which he raised.

I accept the link between poverty and educational underachievement. That link is not in dispute. There is a very clear link between those two things, so anything that we can do that is efficient, effective and funded to deal with poverty, I will support. You have that in Hansard: I will support it.

The Member mentioned the 0·6% figure, and I want to address that. I am guessing that the 0·6% figure — the Education Minister knows the figures, but I do not really — is taken to be £23 million of the overall budget of £3·2 billion. Is that right? I am assuming that that is the figure that the Member refers to. [Inaudible.]

Mr Martin: I say to the Member — he will probably recognise this — that a lot of that large figure of £3·2 billion is statutory spend or committed expenditure. A starting point for any Department — it is the same for Sinn Féin Ministers — is that it has to do certain things. For the Education Minister, he has to pay teachers and classroom assistants, so that comes out of that figure. After that, he has statutory duties to look after. SEN provision, for example, at about £800 million, comes out of that figure as well. I do not have the exact figures for the Member, and maybe the Minister will pick this up, but it is not 0·6%, Danny. It is £23 million of a much smaller figure than £3·2 billion, and I do not know what that is. I am just pointing out that it is not fair to say that it is 0·6% of that enormous £3·2 billion Education budget. It is a percentage of a much smaller pot that is currently uncommitted.

I will give the Floor back to the Member.

Mr Baker: Here is the thing: that is exactly what senior officials such as deputy permanent secretaries told the Committee. They did not talk about it in the way that you just did. They talk about the overall budget; so TransformED, for example, will cost only 0·4% or whatever. You cannot have it both ways. If senior officials from the Department relay it like that, I am quite entitled as the Bill sponsor to relay it like that as well.

Mr Martin: I understand that, and I see the point that the Member is driving at. I suppose that there has to be one way of measuring it. What I am saying is that, if we had the Education budget here and took out salaries, addressing SEN and the other statutory things that the Department and Minister have to do, it simply would not be 0·6%. Twenty-three million pounds is quite a lot of money. It is probably about 60% of the entire Sure Start budget for Northern Ireland at about £38 million. It is maybe not quite that.

I will make a wee bit of progress. My line of questioning then is this: where does the money come from? That is a real challenge, because, as I just noted, the Department is massively underfunded for this year and next year. The challenge that I have — I hope that some Members in the Chamber will at least recognise this — is that the argument being made is that we have a Department that, even on its currently committed statutory spending, is overcommitted by £500 million for this year, but let us add £23 million to that.