Northern Ireland Assembly, 19 October 2026

343 contributions from 54 members. The official report.

Matter of the Day

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Linda Dillon has been given leave to make a statement that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24 on the sentencing of former DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson for sexual offences against children. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members called will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted and that I will take no points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I begin by saying that our thoughts are with the victims of Jeffrey Donaldson and, indeed, with all victims of the sexual abuse and abuse of women and children. The victims of Jeffrey Donaldson have used their advocacy to reflect the challenges and difficulties in coming forward and the re-traumatisation caused by doing so. They are much better placed to reflect their feelings on the issue. I will, however, say to everyone that their right to anonymity and privacy should be protected and must be respected. The identity of the abuser should not remove that right. It is important to highlight that at the outset.

Jeffrey Donaldson was the leader of the DUP, an MP, a knight bachelor and a member of the Privy Council. That raises a wider issue about the abuse of position, trust and power, the protection of children and the barriers to victims and survivors coming forward, particularly when their abuser holds a position of power. Jeffrey Donaldson and others like him use their position to abuse and then cover up that abuse and to undermine and threaten their victims.

We need to understand whether the Executive Office has looked at the case with advocacy groups and, indeed, victims to see whether lessons can be learned so that they can be implemented in the strategy on violence against women and girls. We need to understand from the Education Minister whether there are any safeguarding concerns arising from Jeffrey Donaldson's involvement with schools or boards of governors. We need to understand from the Communities Minister whether he will look at stronger regulation for charities, such as the Christian Family Centre in Armoy, on the reporting of sexual offences.

The DUP's review of the Jeffrey Donaldson case was announced in July. We have not yet seen a report or even had an update on that.

There are still many questions left to be answered about the crimes committed by Jeffrey Donaldson. It is important for us to have answers to all those questions, because holding a position of power and trust comes with an expectation that should be met. The public should rightly expect that we all behave in a certain way and that, when we do not, we will be held fully to account, as we should be. We should allow nobody to use a position of power and trust to give them some sort of air of respectability or cover for their behaviours. We need to know the answers to all the questions surrounding the other allegations against Jeffrey Donaldson in Westminster and, potentially, here.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I begin by paying tribute to victim A and victim B. Their courage, tenacity and resolve saw one of the most powerful people in Northern Ireland finally brought to justice. I cannot begin to comprehend the fear, anxiety and sleepless nights that Donaldson inflicted on those young victims, both at an early age when growing up in their younger years and when going through the trauma and ordeal of the court case. Their bravery should be an encouragement to people across Northern Ireland who have suffered at the hands of paedophiles and perverts such as Jeffrey Donaldson. Their bravery should encourage those people to come forward to tell their story. In this case, we have seen that justice has been done, and it shows that no one, regardless of their position or stature, is above the law.

Positive as all that is, we would be naive to believe that the sordid affair has not damaged trust in politics. Donaldson's political legacy is not that of the character he created and played throughout his lifetime; it is not one of advancing unionism. His political legacy is the restoration of this place on the basis of lies and deceit. Indeed, we are sitting here today only because Jeffrey Donaldson, while he was the leader of the DUP, did a deal with the then Government that claimed that the Irish Sea border was gone; a deal that claimed that Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom was restored; a deal that, we all know, like the life of Jeffrey Donaldson, was a tissue of lies and monumental deceit. What did the British Government know about Donaldson's double life during the negotiations that restored this place? While members of the DUP may not have known about Donaldson's double life and the fact that he was a pervert, they would have known, like the rest of us, that the Donaldson deal was nothing but a sham.

The conviction of Jeffrey Donaldson has delivered justice for his victims. I trust that they will now be able to start living their lives with the knowledge and confidence that their actions have ensured that Donaldson will hurt no one —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Time is up.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— else in his lifetime.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Jeffrey Donaldson deserves every day of his sentence and much more for his crimes against innocent women. I have been absolutely appalled to watch in this debate what has been mere lip service being paid to the trauma that those ladies went through by Sinn Féin and, sadly, the TUV representative. They have both used the victims' experiences to further their political ends. I say that with no pleasure; it is a disgrace at the highest level, where we need to see responsibility. Women in today’s society are suffering, and they have had to listen to political reps in the Chamber trying to score political points about what was a horrendous ordeal in the courts. Do you have any morality? Those young women — victim A and victim B — are on record as expressing the pain and anguish that they felt at the hands of a perverted, self-centred demon, only for Members to come to the Chamber and launch political assaults on other Members. Have some self-respect.

Victim A said:

"My childhood was stolen from me and I will never get it back."

and:

"those responsible do not control me now. They forever changed me, but they will not take my future. The cycle is being broken and it ends with me."

Victim B said:

"Many people get to look ahead and plan their lives with hope, I've never known what that feels like. My hope was taken away from me a long time ago."

No words in the Chamber will even come close to describing the experiences that the victims not only put down on paper but endured through a lengthy court ordeal. To this day, people speculate about their identity. There are victims at the heart of this, and there are others across Northern Ireland. Let us bear that in mind when we talk about women and their experiences at the hands of monsters. That is where my thoughts are today, and I encourage every Member to keep their remarks focused on those victims.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

First and foremost, I pay tribute to the incredible bravery of Jeffrey Donaldson's victims following his sentencing. Last Thursday, Jeffrey Donaldson was sentenced after being found guilty earlier this year of 18 child sexual abuse offences, including one charge of rape.

The victims in the case showed incredible bravery in speaking out about the most heinous and vile crimes that they endured as children. That has led to Donaldson facing justice, despite, to this day, not accepting any responsibility or showing any remorse for his crimes. The harm that he has caused is long-lasting. The two women will have to live with what happened for the rest of their lives. I absolutely support a victim's right to maintain their lifelong anonymity unless they actively choose to waive that right. The victims in the case have already done so much by coming forward and enduring a trial process, so we must respect the fundamental right that they hold. I urge everyone to refrain from engaging in speculation or online discussion that could reveal their identities: to do so is a crime.

Child sexual abuse is a heinous crime with profound impacts. The case again highlights the importance of ensuring that there are trauma-informed special measures in court processes here. Such measures make justice possible.

Lastly, it is important to recognise that the high media coverage that the case has garnered and the high-profile nature of the offender may cause other victims of sexual crime to consider coming forward with their stories to the police and other relevant authorities. To them I say this: help is available. There are organisations that will listen to and believe you. Whether it is Women's Aid, Nexus or the Men's Advisory Project, they can help you take that daunting first step.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Last Thursday, Jeffrey Donaldson was sentenced to 15 years for the sexual abuse of two children. It is difficult to say those words aloud, and it will have been even harder for the two women whose childhoods he took and for their families to hear what was read out in court. My thoughts are with them today. What those two women did took extraordinary courage. They sat in a courtroom in front of a man who had abused them, and they told the truth.

They were called liars: they were not liars. A jury believed them, and now a judge does too.

Justice has been done. It is not perfect justice — there is no such thing in a case like this — but the sentence handed down last Thursday says plainly what needed to be said: that this man committed the most serious crimes against children and that no career, title or office that he once held could ever place him beyond the reach of the law. Today, he is a convicted child sex offender, and that is how he will be known for the rest of his life.

I want to say one other thing because it matters. The courage of those two women has reached further than their own case. Since the verdict in June, charities and support services in Northern Ireland have told us that they have seen more people coming forward — people who had carried their experiences of abuse sometimes for decades — who felt able, perhaps for the first time, to pick up the phone. That is the quiet legacy of what those two women did. It will outlast every headline about the case. If there is anyone watching or listening who is carrying something of their own — something that they have never told anyone — please know this: you will be believed if you come forward. There are people who are ready to help you. You are not alone.

There is still more work to do. My party, the Ulster Unionist Party, is undertaking an independent safeguarding review of Jeffrey Donaldson's 21 years of membership of our party. That review is live. It will report. My party has committed to acting on what it finds. We owe those two women and every survivor who found their voice because of them nothing less. However, today is a day for the simplest thing that I can say in the Chamber: those women were believed; he is in prison; and the bravery that they have shown will carry a long way beyond the courtroom where it was finally recognised.

Colin McGrath (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

The monstrous crimes of Jeffrey Donaldson have dominated our airwaves, filled newspaper headlines and commanded public attention. Today, I want to speak about the voices that, too often, have been drowned out by the noise — those of the victims. Regrettably, some of the noise in the Chamber is drowning out their voices as well.

This is not and should never have been a story about Jeffrey Donaldson's political career, reputation or fall from grace; it is a story about innocent lives that were devastated by his evil and depraved actions: lives changed for ever, innocence stolen, trust shattered and wounds that no prison sentence will ever fully heal. We must never allow the prominence of the perpetrator to overshadow the strength and forbearance of the victims. We must send an unequivocal message from the Chamber that no one is above the law, regardless of their title, their position, the office that they hold or held, the influence that they wield or the people they know. When someone commits such appalling crimes, they must face the full consequences of their actions.

Mr Donaldson has received a sentence of 15 years, yet the reality is that he may serve only seven and a half years in custody. Many people think that that is too lenient: I share that view. How do we begin to measure the destruction of someone's childhood? How do we put a tariff on stolen innocence, years of suffering and a life that might have been so very different? We cannot. That is why we must examine whether our sentencing framework adequately reflects the lifelong devastation that is caused by such crimes.

Jeffrey may, one day, walk out of prison. His victims can never walk away from what was done to them. That is the greatest injustice and indeed cruelty, which we must never forget. Their courage deserves our respect. Their suffering demands our recognition. Their right to justice must never be diminished by the status of the person who harmed them. Today, the clear message that we must send from the Chamber to all victims is this: you will be heard, you will be believed and you will get justice.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

The shock, horror and devastation that has been felt throughout this case runs very deep. Those evil crimes have rightly seen justice served in court.

Today, I will speak about the victims — complainant A and complainant B — their incredible bravery, as others have said, and the importance of the voice of the lived experience in our justice system and the victim impact statements in the sentencing process.

Nobody can overestimate the personal nature of sexual abuse within our community. The way that those victims felt needs to be heard. Their case has really shone a light on the feelings involved and the long-term impact. Complainant A said:

"My childhood was stolen from me and I will never get it back".

As a mother, I see my children in that quote and think about how I would feel if they came to me with that. Complainant A also said:

"The effects of the Donaldsons' actions have bled into every part of my life. ... their impact did not end when the abuse ended. ... The last few years have been nothing short of a battle".

Complainant B said:

"What happened took away my ability to trust people, and, in all honesty, I don't think I really know what trust or love truly is".

That is absolutely heartbreaking to hear. They are so brave, and I hope that they find some measure of comfort in the sentencing as it has come out.

The important thing that we also need to highlight is that there are many victims whose voices do not get heard. In my area, I recently was at a conference of Advocacy VSV. Anna Kahill has a book, 'Not the Perfect Victim'. She came forward some 17 years after an offence, but she did not get her case heard in court. She described herself as "not the perfect victim". There are no "perfect victims". Victims are innocent. They are prey to predators, the evil that walks amongst our society.

We need to reflect on the court process. We saw complainant A and complainant B retraumatised through having to give evidence at the trial. We saw the way in which they were publicised, the attack on removing the anonymity that they have the right to, and the way that they were cross-examined. Some of the questioning was extremely triggering for so many people. I work in this sector. I chair the all-party group on domestic and sexual violence, and the number of people who have been in touch with me has been overwhelming. Those victims deserve our compassion. Jeffrey Donaldson deserves every day of his sentence that was applied, but I want to make sure that everyone takes the time to think of those victims in this case, and victims right across Northern Ireland, as they think of the language that is used today.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I express my utter revulsion at the crimes of Jeffrey Donaldson. His conviction and sentencing have exposed horrific abuse inflicted on two children. There is no excuse for what he did. His actions were disgusting. They were vile, and the responsibility for those actions rests squarely with him.

My thoughts are, first and foremost, with his victims. They have shown tremendous courage in coming forward and seeing the case through the courts under the most intense public scrutiny imaginable. Victim A said:

"My childhood was stolen from me and I will never get it back".

Victim B said:

"Nothing can ever change what was done to me".

Those words tell us more about the consequences of Jeffrey Donaldson's crimes than anything we could ever say in the Chamber. These were children who should have been safe. Instead, they were abused by someone whom they should have been able to trust. The thought that that individual will be released after serving seven-and-a-half years of a 15-year sentence is abhorrent to any right-thinking person. I recognise that the court must apply the law, but that does not lessen the deep concern that such an outcome causes. His victims will carry the impact of his crimes long beyond those years.

For those of us who worked alongside him, there is profound disgust and a sense of betrayal. However, our focus today must be on the victims and on their needs. Their privacy must be respected and protected. Nobody has the right to identify them, speculate about their identities or circulate information that could expose them. That applies as much to social media as anywhere else. Those victims have already endured enough.

At this point, I thank the police, the prosecutors and those who supported these women through the criminal justice process. That support did not end with sentencing. They must have access to the help that they need for as long as they need it. No political position, public reputation or personal connection should ever shield an abuser from justice. Jeffrey Donaldson is responsible for his crimes. His victims bear no blame and no shame. They deserved protection as children, and they deserve privacy, dignity and support now. Every one of us has a responsibility to respect that.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you, Members. That concludes the Matter of the Day.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, with your indulgence, I offer my solidarity to Minister Muir regarding the threats that he has received, as was reported in the news this morning. I ask that the Deputy Speaker reflect on Mr Buckley's comments. He had clearly written his speech before I had made my contribution, because he had already decided what I was going to say. He reflected entirely incorrectly everything that I said in my commentary. I will not accept that. I was absolutely clear about my position in relation to victims and about the abuse of positions of trust and power. That has been specifically outlined not only by those victims but by many other victims of those in positions of trust and power across society. I would like the Deputy Speaker to reflect on that.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given the topic that we were talking about, I want to make it absolutely clear that I had no pre-planned remarks. I spoke from my heart and for the victims in that case. I make no apology for doing so.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have heard it be confirmed in court this morning that the "feelings" of the Provisional IRA were a factor in the Chief Constable's request to ban the Drumcree parade. How can the Assembly be said to function as a democratic body when one of its parties, namely Sinn Féin, has at its beck and call an illegal —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Gaston —.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— terrorist organisation —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Gaston, could you tell me what your —?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— that influences its political decisions?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

You have finished, yes?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am happy to continue.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

OK. It most certainly was not a point of order, nor did it relate to what was discussed previously.

Mr Buckley issued some clarification on the points that Mrs Dillon raised. Nevertheless, the points that both Members raised will be taken to the Speaker for consideration.

Members' Statements

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should indicate that by rising in their place. Those Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted. I will not take points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I have listened to attempts to link peaceful opposition to an unwanted Orange parade down the Garvaghy Road with the baseless assertion that a future new Ireland will be a place hostile to Orange culture or the unionist tradition. Let me deal with that: it is a false narrative, and it is intentional and premeditated. That takes us to what is going on at the Garvaghy Road. It is not only an attempt to force an unwanted sectarian parade through that community but an engineered crisis and a proxy for an assault on the Good Friday Agreement that has been over two years in the making. It is an attack on progress and peace, and it is about next year's election. It is also a counter-reaction to the growing momentum for Irish unity, and all because the extremists have taken the whip hand in political unionism. They have hijacked the DUP and are dragging it along by the nose.

We have been driven to this point by the mentality of 'Croppies lie down'. It is a throwback to the bygone days of the Orange state. Twenty-eight years after the Good Friday Agreement, political unionism still does not get it. If you really want to get a sense of what the future looks like, look at the fleadh. That is the future. Here is the thing: unwanted supremacist marches through Garvaghy Road or anywhere else or the domination of any section of our society belongs to the past. Be sure of this: we are not going back there.

By contrast, a new Ireland can and will be a place that celebrates diversity, parity of esteem and respect. That is what the rest of us want: ambition for the future; for an inclusive, progressive society; and for a new republic where there will be no place for domination, division, demonisation or sectarianism.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

This morning, there were reports that over 100 schools across Northern Ireland received threatening emails that are deeply disturbing and utterly unacceptable. I condemn such reckless and dreadful behaviour in the strongest possible terms. Those responsible have shown a complete disregard for the safety, well-being and education of our children and for the dedicated staff who work tirelessly to provide a safe learning environment. No child should ever have to experience the fear, uncertainty and disruption caused by such threats. Schools must remain places of learning, security and opportunity, not targets for intimidation and alarm. I commend school staff and the PSNI for their swift response in prioritising the safety of our children and providing reassurance to parents during what must be an extremely distressing situation. My thoughts are with all pupils, families and school communities affected today. To parents who received the alarming news, I say this: I fully appreciate the fear and anxiety that you will be feeling. Your children's safety is the highest priority, and I encourage you to follow the guidance provided by your school and the emergency services.

Every child has the right to learn in an environment founded on respect, safety, rights, equality and dignity, free from intimidation, threats and disruption. Today's events are a stark reminder that we must stand united in condemning any such action that puts our children at risk. Violence and the threat of violence must always be condemned regardless of where they come from or who is responsible for them. As a society, we must stand united in condemning any action that places our children at risk and reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that every school remains a safe place where young people can learn, grow and thrive.

We cannot demand respect for rights, equality and the rule of law from others while excusing or justifying unlawful behaviour when it suits our interests. Such hypocrisy undermines public confidence and weakens the very foundations of our society. The law must be respected, upheld and applied equally to all. Today, our thoughts are with the whole school community.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

This month, we mark the 10-year anniversary of the Bengoa report. In 2016, Professor Bengoa described an "unassailable case for change" in the way that we deliver healthcare, and that case has only grown stronger over the past decade.

Last week, Alliance held an event with representatives from across the sector to discuss Bengoa and our position 10 years on. The event highlighted the profound disappointment and frustration at how little Professor Bengoa's ambitious programme for change has been delivered in the time since its publication. We have half a million people on a waiting list; fewer GP practices to meet rapidly increasing demand; people's dying being associated with long waits in our A&Es; and agonising delays for the diagnosis and treatment of conditions such as cancer and mental ill health. Despite the Herculean efforts of our health and social care (HSC) staff, the system has deteriorated to such an extent over the past decade that we are now seeing service reconfiguration as a result of collapse, with the attendant risks to patient safety. That unsustainable situation will only get worse under the pressure of an ageing population, underlining the need for a step change in our approach to delivering health transformation.

In the opening speech of the event, our party leader, Naomi Long, issued a direct call to leaders of the other Assembly parties to agree a cross-party compact on health and social care reform. Naomi spoke directly to Michelle, Gavin, Jon and Claire and stated that, if they are willing to sit round a table and agree a common way forward to fix our health and social care system, she will be there. The letters have been sent, and the ball is now in their court. Hopefully, they will engage fully in that process in good faith and in the interest of all those who rely on the healthcare system in Northern Ireland.

Ill health does not discriminate. We have a responsibility to take party politics out of the debate and deliver on the ambitions of the HSC reform agenda on a collective, cross-party basis. Alliance is not prepared to sit back and watch as our health service continues to fall apart, patients continue to come to harm and staff continue to be driven out of the vocations that they love. We have a responsibility to our constituents to remove politics from the debate and take forward health reform on a collective, cross-party basis. Reform needs to happen now; otherwise, there will soon be nothing left to fix. Political leaders must come together, put practical solutions ahead of party politics and give people hope that a better health and social care system is possible.

I am hopeful that that call will be responded to in the spirit in which it was meant. There is an important window of opportunity, and, if we grasp it and put practical solutions ahead of party politics, we will give people hope that Stormont can finally deliver the health and social care system that we all need.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will deliver a Member's statement with some optimism. Recently, despite not having run for a number of years, I took part in a 5K in aid of Cancer Focus NI. I finished it with a real appreciation of what it takes to put one foot in front of the other, even for a short distance, and that is why, today, I want to recognise a Fermanagh woman who, like me, is of a certain age and is showing what is possible.

That woman, Irene Clements, has had a year that is almost beyond belief. She won her category at the Berlin marathon. A fortnight later, she ran the World Masters marathon championships in Zagreb and did it again: she opened up a decisive lead through the second half and took World Masters gold. That makes it two marathons in a fortnight, with a world title to show for it. She did not stop there. At the European Masters championships in Catania, she added a silver medal in the 10K and a team gold. She won a further two gold medals, including in the half marathon in very warm conditions, when she took the title with more than six minutes to spare. She also won her category at the Malta half marathon in one hour, 31 minutes and 15 seconds. It has been a medal-winning and record-breaking year, and, to be honest, there seems to be no stopping her.

Irene shows that age is no barrier. She is an inspiration to women everywhere, particularly those who think that they have missed their moment or have not laced up their trainers yet. Her achievements are a reminder that it is never too late to start and never too late to excel. I ask the House to join me in congratulating Irene on a remarkable year and wishing her every success in the races ahead.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I rise today to again discuss the serious concerns about maternity services at Daisy Hill Hospital. What frustrates me most is that front-line staff have been raising concerns for well over a year about the direction of travel for maternity services at Daisy Hill. Those people are working on the ground every day, and they see the challenges and feel the pressures building. They have repeatedly expressed their fears about the future of the services, yet, here we are, facing the very situation that they feared. How can the trust or the Department of Health expect to maintain public confidence when staff have been raising those concerns for so long?

I attended the public meeting at the Canal Court Hotel that was organised by UNISON and Save Our Services Daisy Hill. I heard the people. There were nurses, healthcare workers, expectant mothers and fathers and families expressing their frustration and genuine upset and rightly so. Those people are the experts. Their voices should be at the centre of the decision-making, and they deserve to see evidence that their concerns are being acted on. As a woman from south Armagh whose three children were delivered in Daisy Hill, I know how important those services are to rural families and to the wider Newry, south Armagh and south Down area. They are particularly important for rural families, because, for them, distance is already a challenge, so travelling further while in labour or in an obstetrics emergency raises real concern about accessibility and patient safety.

We must consider the wider implications. Staff are asking, "If the consultant staffing issues cannot be resolved, what impact could that have on the special baby care unit, gynaecology and early pregnancy care, and can Craigavon hospital safely accommodate additional mothers and babies?". I acknowledge the exceptional staff at Daisy Hill, who have gone above and beyond to sustain the services. I urge everybody to get out to the rally in Newry on 25 October. People should come out and represent and show what Daisy Hill means to them.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Last week, NHS England updated its guidance to say that trans patients should be cared for on single-sex hospital wards or in bays that align with their biological sex rather than their gender.

That means that the updated NHS England guidance brings care arrangements — excuse me — into line with the Supreme Court ruling of 2025 on the definition of "sex". Although — excuse me — it should not have taken a Supreme Court ruling to decide something that — I am sorry — most of us view as being common sense, the —. I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I make my statement in the next round?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Yes.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Apologies.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Today, I highlight a matter of profound concern for those families across the Southern Health and Social Care Trust area who rely on services provided by incredABLE. For almost two decades, incredABLE has offered residential short breaks for children and young people with learning disabilities, autism and complex needs. The breaks help those young people build confidence, develop independence and enjoy experiences that many of their peers take for granted, while also providing vital respite for parents and carers. Around 150 families depend on the provision. The strong record of incredABLE over the years has resulted in no safeguarding concerns whatsoever being raised about the service. That is why families have been shocked and alarmed to learn that the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) has, by way of a cease-and-desist letter, instructed incredABLE to stop its highly regarded service.

Appropriate and proportionate regulation is, of course, essential. No one disputes that. The situation appears to have arisen, however, because an innovative community-based short-break service is being assessed through a regulatory framework that is entirely inappropriate, in that it is designed for something completely different. Despite the fact that it does not provide residential long-term care or long-term accommodation, incredABLE is being asked to register as a residential care home. It provides short-break opportunities through a model that has operated successfully for decades. As such, it cannot reasonably meet the requirements intended for an entirely different form of provision. We cannot allow a service to close not because it is unsafe, its standards have fallen short or families have lost confidence in it but because the regulatory framework lacks the necessary flexibility to accommodate it. Although the extension of the cease-and-desist deadline is welcome, I urge the Minister of Health, the RQIA and all relevant stakeholders to work urgently to find a solution.

The case also raises wider questions about whether our regulatory structures are capable of supporting innovative models of care and whether children and young people with disabilities are being afforded the same opportunities as their peers to participate, to socialise and to enjoy meaningful residential experiences. The stakes are high. Around 150 families now face uncertainty about the future of a service that they trust and on which they depend. They deserve certainty, a common-sense approach from the Department of Health and the RQIA, and action to protect that vital service for the years ahead.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I ask Diane Dodds whether she is back to her usual good voice.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I am good to go.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

You have two minutes remaining.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last week, NHS England updated its guidance to say that trans patients should be cared for on single-sex hospital wards or in bays that align with their biological sex rather than their gender. That means that the updated NHS England guidance brings care arrangements into line with the Supreme Court ruling of April 2025 on the definition of "sex". Although it should not have taken a Supreme Court ruling to decide something that most of us view as being common sense, the court established that single-sex spaces must be protected.

What does that mean for Northern Ireland? The Minister of Health should now move to clarify the position in Northern Ireland. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has declared that biological sex should be the basis on which organisations offer those services. We have heard very little from the Health Minister on that important issue. Women in hospital, who are often at their most vulnerable, need to be reassured that their rights will not be caught up in the uncertainty that has been created by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which, rather than implement the Supreme Court ruling, has asked the High Court for a declaration on how to proceed before issuing guidance. Does the Health Minister understand that that puts women in Northern Ireland at a distinct disadvantage? Surely the Minister wants women in Northern Ireland to be offered the same protections as women in other parts of the United Kingdom.

The straightforward principle is that women's rights matter, that the law should be upheld and that common sense should prevail.

Thank you for your forbearance, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

The musical instruments programme provides an often-vital lifeline for musicians, bands and performers. It is crucial that the integrity of the programme is upheld and that those who benefit from it are not in breach of the Arts Council's standard conditions for grants or the good relations duty that the programme requires. The latest tranche of the fund is worth £750,000 of public money. If we are to retain public trust in the Executive, the Department for Communities, the Arts Council and the programme itself, it is important that public funds are not seen to be funnelled towards organisations that have openly announced their intentions to flout those standards and duties.

In the past week, we have seen at least 10 marching bands announce publicly that they will no longer engage with the Parades Commission or the PSNI, and we have seen at least one band hold an unnotified parade. Several of those bands have benefited from previous iterations of the musical instruments programme to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds. I therefore urge the Arts Council and the Minister for Communities to state clearly that bands that refuse to engage with the Parades Commission and the PSNI will not qualify for the musical instruments programme and that the Arts Council will use its powers to recover already issued funds from bands that have announced such intentions.

The arts in the North are already desperately underfunded. We cannot allow what little funding there is to go to organisations that show open disdain for the Arts Council's standards and duties and have used the funding that they have been given to break them. As we saw from the incredible success of the fleadh, the arts in Ireland have a huge capacity to contribute to the public good and promote reconciliation and understanding. We must ensure that public money goes to organisations that have that as their intent.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I wish to raise awareness of a rare type of cancer that affects a woman in my constituency, Nicola Crymble. I had not heard of it before and apologise if I do not pronounce it correctly. Nicola has a female adnexal tumour of probable Wolffian origin, which is abbreviated to "FATWO". That type of cancer grows from a tiny amount of leftover tissue from before birth, usually beside the womb. Most of the doctors who have treated Nicola had never seen such a case; in fact, only 150 cases have been recorded worldwide. There is no proven treatment and no clinical trial, so Nicola Crymble's family is asking the public to help them to find answers, to raise awareness and to appeal to anyone who has studied it or seen it anywhere to please reach out.

Nicola is 43. She is a devoted mum to Rebecca, Rachel and Hope. She is married to Andrew and is at the heart of the family. She was a classroom assistant — a job that she always wanted — and, for years, has poured herself into mission work in Kenya. For the past two years, however, she has had hospital appointments almost every week in Craigavon, Newry and Belfast. Through all that, she gets up every day for her girls.

Nicola's husband, Andrew, has launched a Facebook page called 'Nicola's Journey'. If anyone wishes to follow that, I would encourage them to do so; I shared it this week. They have a £5 challenge on GoFundMe, asking people to give £5, share the page and nominate friends to do the same. The funding will support Nicola's three daughters, explore further treatment options and therapies and raise awareness of this rare form of cancer. It will help Nicola fulfil a few personal wishes, support a local charity and the work in Kenya to which Nicola has given so much over the years. The family is making the appeal because the life insurance that they put in place for Nicola is no longer there: when her insurer closed, the policy passed to a new company and was unable to be furthered.

On Tuesday 13 October, Nicola began chemotherapy. She will have chemotherapy every three weeks, with a scan after every three cycles. Her doctors have been honest about the aim being to control the cancer for as long as possible, because it is so rare that there is little research to guide her care. Nicola's husband, Andrew, has said, "There's no road map for this". Every decision about Nicola's care is being made with little to go on. We all believe, however, that, somewhere out there, there is a woman who has had this, a family who has gone through it or a doctor or researcher who has studied it and who may be able to help. I make this appeal to raise awareness. I ask everyone to keep Nicola and her family in their thoughts and prayers. Please follow and support this and raise awareness.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

On Sunday, St Brigid's won the Antrim Senior Football Championship for the first time in the club's history, beating O'Donovan Rossa at Corrigan Park. I congratulate the team, the committee, the management and every volunteer who made it happen. The win was almost 30 years in the making. There was a great write-up in 'The Irish News' last week that talked about how St Brigid's was set up in 1998 with:

"one whistle, one football, and no cones."

The founders, Conor McSherry, Dermot Dowling, Greg Blaney and the late John Cahill printed flyers that said, "Fun. Friendship. Football", and handed them out to primary schools in the area. On a freezing, foggy morning at Strangford playing fields, over 100 children turned up. Those children are grown, and they included the current captain, Jack Dowling, whose father helped found the club.

There is a wider lesson in what St Brigid's did. The club always welcomed everyone in South Belfast, regardless of the sport they played or their background. People from South Belfast and blow-ins have played side by side since the start. I should declare an interest as, two years ago, I watched St Brigid's win the Division 1 title when my husband was still in the squad. He has since retired, thankfully, but I know what the win means to him and to every former player, everyone who has been involved, everyone who has volunteered, everyone who is part of the Brigid's community and especially the next generation, who watched those heroes win the Antrim Championship. The players have sacrificed so much, as have their families. The players have worked hard and, in doing so, have made history. It was a win for South Belfast as a whole. I wish St Brigid's every success as they represent Antrim in Ulster, and I know that all of the South Belfast representatives will be cheering them on.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

This morning's revelation in the High Court should have profound consequences for the Assembly. The feelings of the Provisional IRA — an illegal terrorist organisation — have been found to have influenced police thinking when it came to Drumcree. Let us be in no doubt about what that means.

Last week, the Assembly marked 20 years since the St Andrews Agreement, a deal that was sold to unionists by the DUP on the basis that the IRA was gone and Sinn Féin supported the police and the courts. We knew, when we debated that motion, that Sinn Féin's support for the police and the courts was conditional on Sinn Féin getting its own way. After today's revelations, it is beyond question that the IRA not only continues to influence Sinn Féin but is a factor in decisions made by our Chief Constable. If the Provisional IRA influences police decisions, does anyone in the House seriously believe that it does not influence the decisions made by O'Neill, who regularly celebrates its barbarity?

The questions for this institution and particularly for the DUP as the largest party and the leading party for unionism are profound. Will they continue to sustain the First Minister of lawlessness in office, knowing not only that she broke the law but that the Provisional IRA remains in place? I heard Gavin Robinson say that, if the DUP resigned the deputy First Minister, that would leave three lawbreakers in office, and the DUP would be happy with that. Let me remind Gavin Robinson and the DUP that the TUV would never have broken its word to the unionist people. We would never have entered into partnership with Sinn Féin in a protocol-implementing, Union-dismantling Executive. Having got Northern Ireland into this mess because of your lies to the unionist electorate, you feel that it would be better to have three lawbreakers in government than the four that you seem content to prop up and sustain. It would be better to show that you have some shred of decency about this than none.

It would be better to evict Michelle O'Neill, the First Minister of lawlessness, than to maintain O'Neill, the PIRA puppet, in office. Remaining in office continues to give Michelle O'Neill a character reference.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Time is up.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Is that the legacy —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Time is up, Mr Gaston.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— that you want to take to the electorate in May?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Time is up, Mr Gaston. Thank you.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

We know that up to 300 schools across the North this morning received a serious threat letter: first and foremost, that needs to be utterly condemned. There is absolutely no place for that in our society, especially not in our schools, where our children should be safe and secure. Yet, principals and parents were left in complete limbo with absolutely no clear guidance or direction from the Education Authority (EA). The confusion was stark. I spoke to one parent who was dealing with having to leave work at the last minute and to deal with the distress of having one of her children's schools closed while her other child's school remained open. Other children were evacuated and left standing outside, unsure of what was happening. This morning, I spoke to one principal who was in turmoil. He had complete fear for the safety of his children and his staff. His words to me were:

"There you go. They have thrown us under the bus again."

Understandably, parents were worried about their children's safety, while schools were left without answers or the support that they needed to make consistent decisions and reassure families. It must be noted that school leaders and staff this morning did their very best in extremely difficult circumstances. They basically were creating emergency guidance and policy on the hoof, and they should be commended for that. The Minister has said that the threat was not credible, and that reassurance is, of course, welcome. However, it does not erase the confusion and the anxiety that families witnessed this morning.

School leaders are still not getting clear information. They are getting their information off the media, not directly from the EA. Where was the EA when schools needed it most? The EA cannot simply continue to wash its hands of responsibility and leave principals, staff and parents to fend for themselves. School leaders and staff are sick, sore and tired of what they see: the same pattern from the EA time and time again. Whether with weather warnings or security threats, they see poor communication, a lack of leadership and an organisation that appears all too willing to wash its hands of responsibility, leaving our schools again to pick up the pieces.

We now need an explanation of what steps were taken and why schools were left again in that position. Families deserve to know why one school closed while others remained open and why children were evacuated and left standing outside with clear information. The Minister and the EA's chief executive must now account for how this was handled, why schools were left without that direction and what will be done to address the repeated failures.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members, that concludes the time available for statements. Please take your ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Assembly Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Ms Paula Bradshaw has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to present the petition, which was organised by Lough View parents' council and has been signed by 1,084 people. It calls for the installation of a safe designated school crossing on Church Road outside Lough View Integrated Primary and Nursery School to protect pupils, parents, carers and the wider school community.

I start by welcoming the staff, pupils and parents to the Public Gallery, and, specifically, I thank the principal, Mr Spillane and the Lough View parents' council for their years of hard work in campaigning on the issue. Their efforts reflect the strength of feeling across the school community, and I commend them for their efforts in pushing for this action.

Improved pedestrian safety around the school has been a long-running concern. Church Road is in a semi-rural location and serves two primary schools — not just Lough View but Leadhill Primary School — a nursery unit and two private childcare businesses, resulting in significant traffic during school drop-off and collection times. A designated school crossing would benefit not only Lough View's pupils but all the other young people going about their business on Church Road in the morning.

The layout of Church Road makes the road safety situation even more perilous. The road rises towards the top of the hill in one direction and curves in the other, thus restricting visibility for drivers and pedestrians. Parked cars further limit visibility, and concerns remain about the speed at which vehicles are travelling. Notably, in recent months, 20 mph signage with flashing lights has been erected outside the school, but it appears that that is having little impact on drivers' speed.

Disturbingly, on numerous occasions, parents have reported to me near misses outside the schools, including incidents where drivers have dangerously overtaken slow-moving or stationary traffic at school drop-off times. Those reports underline the need to address this serious issue before someone is seriously hurt.

I also want to highlight the planned improvements to pedestrian access to Lough View Integrated Primary and Nursery School as part of the Department of Education's minor works schemes. I have written to the Education Minister to ask for an update on those improvements. I urge the Department for Infrastructure to work with the school, parents and the wider community to assess the risks and bring forward the necessary steps for a designated school crossing.

I share others' condemnation of the disruption to schools this morning, Lough View being one of them. It was highly reckless, and I join others in calling on the Department of Education and the Education Authority to provide greater clarity to schools on what needs to happen next.

Ms Bradshaw moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I will forward the petition to the Minister for Infrastructure and send a copy to the Committee.

Executive Committee Business

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I beg to introduce the Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill [NIA47/22-27], which is a Bill to amend the Credit Unions (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No.2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026 be approved.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will not reread the motion that I am about to speak to. I thank the Justice Committee and the Examiner of Statutory Rules for examining the order.

Under article 2, courts and statutory tribunals in Northern Ireland can continue to conduct all or part of their business through audio or videoconferencing, known as "live links". Video is the main means of enabling people to take part remotely. These wider provisions and powers sit alongside existing legislation that permits an individual witness or defendant to join by video while other participants are in the courtroom. The extension will maintain access to live links until 24 March 2027 unless the temporary provisions are repealed earlier as part of the move to permanent legislation. Live links remain an essential tool in addressing the backlog in cases accrued during and since the pandemic.

The Justice Bill will provide a permanent legislative basis for live links in our courts and tribunals. In previous debates on extensions, Members heard about that work. The Bill completed Consideration Stage on 30 June and is awaiting Further Consideration Stage, so I expect this to be the final extension. The Bill provides for the repeal of the temporary Coronavirus Act 2020 provisions. The intention is for the permanent arrangements to take over when the relevant provisions come into operation. Until those permanent arrangements are in place, this extension will help the justice system to operate effectively and enable more people to access court proceedings remotely. A judge must be satisfied that participation by live link is in the interest of justice.

Members have raised understandable concerns about the continued use of emergency legislation. I would prefer to have the permanent arrangements in place, but, for now, I see no practicable alternative to a further temporary extension while we continue to deal with the effects of the pandemic on the justice system. During the pandemic, criminal courts received more cases than they could conclude, leaving a growing number outstanding. Northern Ireland continues to face that backlog as do other parts of the UK.

The Department has examined the number of live cases across the system and the time taken to complete cases in court over the past six years. That analysis shows the continuing impact of the pandemic. For example, the number of live Crown Court cases measured from the point at which a person is charged or informed rose from 940 on 1 March 2020 to 2,348 on 1 June 2026, an increase of 149·8%. For adult Magistrates' Court cases measured on the same basis, the number rose from 25,604 on 1 March 2020 to 30,843 on 1 June 2026, an increase of 20·5%. The median time taken to complete a criminal case across all courts from the date an offence was reported until it was dealt with was 209 days in 2025-26. That was 40·3% higher than the 149-day median in 2019-2020. The median reached a high of 226 days for cases dealt with in 2021-22. For cases at court stage, June 2026 management information records 12,656 defendant cases compared with 7,269 in March 2020. Therefore, significant delays remain, so sustained recovery will require further time and resources.

Taking account of those statistics, I consider that, while progress is being made, significant delays persist in the Crown Court and Magistrates' Court. Some cases continue to take more than three years to conclude. The pandemic remains a significant contributing factor but is not the only cause of delay. Other factors include limited capacity to increase case throughput, the withdrawal of services by members of the Criminal Bar Association in 2025-26, and wider financial pressures. In that context, the Magistrates' Court and the Crown Court depend on the continuing availability to conduct remote hearings. The roll-out of the justice video platform (JVP) was completed in mid-November 2025 to replace SightLink. The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) reports that approximately 14,000 videoconferencing connections are made each month. Court users continue to support the option of remote participation, particularly those who represent the interests of the victims of crime. For people who prefer not to attend court in person, live links offers that choice where the judge approves it. I consider that that supports the commitments in the Victim Charter.

I therefore ask Members to support the motion and approve the order.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I am pleased to speak briefly on the motion as Chairperson of the Committee for Justice. The Minister outlined the intention of the rule.

Members will know that it is the latest in an admittedly lengthy sequence to extend the provision of live links for courts and tribunals under section 90(2) of the Coronavirus Act 2020. This is the tenth such extension, but, hopefully, with the provisions proposed in the Justice Bill, not many more will be required.

The Committee previously recommended that the Assembly approve each extension for six months at a time. It is content to approve the current rule to extend the provisions until 24 March 2027 in view of the provisions in the primary legislation, the Justice Bill. The Justice Bill ticks onwards and, while this may not be the last extension before the Bill completes its passage, the end is in sight.

The Committee considered the rule at its meeting on 8 October 2026. While the Examiner of Statutory Rules had not reported on the rule at that time, no issues had been raised about the technical aspects of the previous rules. The Committee therefore agreed to recommend that the rule be approved by the Assembly subject to the Examiner's report. On 15 October, the Committee noted advice from the Examiner that the rule would not be drawn to the special attention of the Assembly. On behalf of the Committee for Justice, I therefore support the motion.

I will now speak in my capacity as an MLA and justice spokesperson for the DUP. There is no doubt that the Coronavirus Act 2020 — that emergency legislation — had a profound effect on our justice system, as the Minister of Justice outlined. The 2020 Act not only impacted on our justice system but caused grievous harm to our people and our population, not least the young people in our schools and the people in the care of our health service. It affected not only our people but the psyche of the House. It turned the Assembly into a zombie Assembly where one person, no matter who, could dream up restrictions, write them down in the morning, put them in legislation by dinner time and have them enforced by the evening, thereby putting the police, another arm of the justice sector, in the impossible position of having to enforce legislation and regulations that they were not designed or meant to enforce.

The Act has had a profound impact on our people and on our democracy and everything that flows from it. As you will know, Madam Deputy Principal Speaker, I will be glad to see the end of the Coronavirus Act 2020.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No other Member has indicated to speak, so I invite the Minister to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to Paul for the views that he has shared, and I thank the Committee for its attention to the matter. I do not intend to drag this out for any longer than is absolutely necessary, so, with that, I conclude my remarks.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That is much appreciated, Minister. Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No.2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026 be approved.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension of the provisions of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, as introduced in the House of Commons on 12 November 2025, dealing with the security and resilience of network and information systems used or relied on in connection with the carrying on of essential activities.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Members will be aware of the growing cybersecurity risk that accompanies an increasingly digital and interconnected world. Technological change brings significant opportunities but also creates new and evolving risks. It is those risks that the Bill engages. Cybersecurity is critical to the continued delivery of the essential services that people, businesses and communities rely on every day. Those services increasingly depend on complex networks and digital systems, and ensuring their security and resilience has never been more important. Cyberthreats to such services continue to evolve. It is therefore essential that the regulatory framework evolves with them.

The Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill was introduced in Parliament on 12 November 2025. Its purpose is to update and strengthen the existing Network and Information Systems (NIS) Regulations 2018, commonly referred to as the "NIS regulations", thereby improving cyber-resilience across critical sectors. The 2018 NIS regulations require essential parts of our economy to have appropriate cybersecurity measures in place. The European Union subsequently updated its framework through the NIS2 directive.

The Bill provides an opportunity to strengthen the British Government's existing regime while minimising unnecessary regulatory divergence from the European Union. There are three practical ways in which the Bill does that. First, it widens the scope of the regime. For example, it brings into scope new categories such as medium and large data centres, large load controllers, medium and large managed service providers and designated critical suppliers. Secondly, it strengthens the regulatory toolkit. For example, it updates arrangements for incident reporting, information sharing and enforcement. Thirdly, it makes the framework more adaptable. For example, it enables further changes to be made through secondary legislation and provides powers for targeted action in response to imminent or evolving cyberthreats. While much of the subject matter is technical, the Bill should not be viewed simply as an IT measure. At its heart are matters of governance, resilience and accountability, ensuring that appropriate duties, regulatory oversight and powers exist to protect the network and information systems on which our essential services depend.

The Department of Finance is designated as the NIS competent authority for the operation of essential services across the devolved sectors of transport, specifically road and rail; energy, including electricity, gas and oil; drinking water supply and distribution; and health. For the Department, that is an evolution of its role and a strengthening of the existing framework rather than the creation of a wholly new cyber regime or a fundamental change to the Department's role as the competent authority. My Department will continue to work collaboratively with the operators of those essential services and the respective Departments to ensure that they meet their regulatory requirements, safeguard their services and benefit from the best possible advice and support available in this rapidly evolving field.

I now turn to why the consent of the Assembly is being sought. On 21 July, following changes to the machinery of government under the Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, responsibility for digital and online safety functions transferred from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). References to DSIT in the legislative consent memorandum were correct when it was drafted. However, responsibility for leading the Bill's passage now rests with DCMS.

The British Government's position is that the Bill's provisions fall within the telecommunications and national security reservations. However, implementation of the NIS regulations and the Bill's provisions also intersect with devolved responsibilities. A number of essential services that are subject to the regime operate in devolved sectors, and certain provisions of the Bill alter the executive functions of the Department of Finance. Following the Bill's introduction, further engagement was required with DSIT on the devolution analysis and the assessment of the Bill under the Windsor framework. For that reason and in accordance with Standing Order 42A(4)(b), on 15 November 2025, I laid before the Assembly a memorandum setting out the content of the Bill and explaining why a legislative consent motion was not being sought at that stage. Following further engagement, 22 clauses were presented as requiring the consent of the Assembly. Departmental officials considered that a further six clauses affected the Executive competence of the Department of Finance and should therefore also be included in the request for consent. On 9 June 2026, I subsequently laid a legislative consent memorandum under Standing Order 42A(4)(a) providing details of the relevant provisions and the rationale for seeking the Assembly's consent. The Committee for Finance published its report on 24 June 2026 and agreed to support my request for the Assembly's endorsement of the legislative consent motion. I take the opportunity to thank members of the Committee for their support during that process.

Consideration has also been given to the Bill's implications for human rights, equality and the Windsor framework. The Bill is considered to be compliant with the Windsor framework, and no denial of rights has been identified. Maintaining appropriate regulatory alignment and arrangements applying across Europe and Britain also helps to ensure that people here continue to benefit from a comparable level of cyber protection for essential services, reducing the risk associated with those services operating under an outdated regulatory framework.

In terms of regulatory impact, stronger cyber-resilience requirements are expected to increase the need for cybersecurity capability and skills, which may, in turn, create opportunities for our local tech companies and digital sectors. The operators of essential services may incur additional compliance and investment costs as they respond to strengthened cybersecurity and supply chain requirements. However, given the nature of the operating environment, they should be seen as good governance and an investment, rather than additional burdens. It is not anticipated that smaller businesses will be adversely impacted.

I will also briefly update Members on the Bill's passage through Westminster. The Bill has progressed through the House of Commons and the House of Lords. At Committee Stage in the House of Lords, the Government tabled amendments to strengthen the management of risks arising from vendors supplying operators of essential services through the proposed introduction of a new vendor risk management framework. Those arrangements were not moved following an objection. They are not considered to engage devolved competence in a manner that would require a further legislative consent motion, although they may be re-tabled when the Bill returns to the House of Commons. Report stage in the second Chamber is scheduled for 22 October 2026.

The essential services that our society and economy depend on are increasingly reliant on interconnected digital systems. The consequences of disruption to those systems can extend well beyond an individual organisation or sector. Maintaining appropriate regulatory alignment with Europe and Britain will help ensure that people here continue to benefit from comparable cybersecurity protections for essential services. More fundamentally, cyberthreats do not recognise boundaries. Effective regulations, strengthened organisational resilience and coordinated action are therefore essential if we are to safeguard the critical services that our society and economy depend on. The Bill represents an important strengthening of the existing NIS framework. It builds on the regime already in place, strengthens its effectiveness and ensures that it is better equipped to respond to an evolving cyber threat environment.

The motion seeks the Assembly's endorsement of the principles of extending the relevant provisions of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to this jurisdiction. I therefore commend it to the Assembly.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for moving the motion to enable the Assembly's debate. I will reflect the scrutiny undertaken by the Finance Committee on the legislative consent motion.

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology had been developing cyber legislation for a number of years. Currently, the main piece of cyber law is the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018. Those regulations transpose the European Union's network and information systems directive. The Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill takes account of the EU's second national information security directive and addresses the ongoing need to protect essential services through cybersecurity measures.

The Bill was introduced by DSIT in the House of Commons on 12 November 2025 and reintroduced on 14 May 2026. It consists of 61 clauses that are divided into five main parts. I will not go into the details of the individual parts and clauses. It is worth reiterating, however, that a significant number of the provisions apply to Northern Ireland, as the Minister has already indicated. DSIT has provided a devolution analysis that states that consent is required for a large numbers of clauses: clauses 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 56. The Department of Finance considers that legislative consent is also required for clauses 15, 18, 25, 26, 32 and 52.

I think that I included clause 30 incorrectly. I was just running through a large number of clauses, so, if I included clause 30, I should not have. It is clauses 29 and 31 that engage devolved competence. The Executive considered the policy and agreed that the provisions just mentioned should extend here.

The Committee was first alerted to the Bill on 8 September 2025. At that time, members were advised that the territorial extent of the Bill was UK-wide, and they were advised of the Bill contents. The Department notified the Committee that legislative consent to the Bill proposals would be required and that the Department would keep our Committee updated. On 26 November 2025, as the Minister has just alluded to, Committee members were informed that the Minister was not yet bringing forward a legislative consent memorandum but would do so when the Bill's impact had been more fully assessed.

During a briefing from officials, members asked why the Assembly could not legislate separately on the issue, relying on Westminster legislation. Officials indicated that cybersecurity is a national security question and a reserved matter. They pointed out, as the Minister has done, that threats do not respect borders and the UK-wide framework gives stronger and faster protection than potentially fragmented local legislation. They confirmed that no separate primary legislation for the North was planned.

The Minister subsequently laid a legislative consent memorandum on 6 January 2026 under Standing Order 42A(4)(b) confirming that the provisions of the Bill that deal with devolution matters should be agreed and that it was his intention to bring forward a legislative consent motion as soon as possible following the Executive's agreement. The Minister sought Executive agreement to lay a further legislative consent memorandum. That was granted on 28 May 2026.

An LCM under Standing Order 42A(4)(a) was laid by the Department of Finance on 9 June 2026. Therefore, the Committee had limited time to scrutinise and report on the legislative consent motion. A further briefing session with officials was held on 17 June. Following the briefing session on 26 November 2025, the Department added to the number of clauses that, it felt, were subject to an LCM. Those clauses were 15, 18, 25, 26, 27, 38, 46, 47 and 56.

The Committee considered the legislative consent memorandum at its meeting on 24 June. The Committee agreed that it was content with the proposal to extend provisions in the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to Northern Ireland by way of an LCM.

There was a further briefing on 23 September to discuss the Bill's progress through Westminster and to update Members on developments since the Committee's report was first published. Officials noted that the Bill had moved through to the House of Lords. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, which took over responsibility for the Bill, tabled amendments at Committee Stage in the House of Lords. The amendments that were accepted by the Lords were largely technical in nature, so no additional LCM action was required.

The Committee agreed to contact the Department regarding the EU proposed directive on digitalisation and common specifications to seek the relevance of the directive to the LCM and confirmation that it had been considered in relation to legislative consent. The Department subsequently confirmed that the directive did not impact the LCM.

The Committee has published an addendum to our original report to ensure that all Members of the House are fully informed when it comes to today's debate. That offers a very fulsome flavour of the scrutiny done by the Committee.

I will make a couple of brief remarks in a party capacity to reinforce some of what the Minister said. One of the most important subjects that any Government, whether it is a sovereign Government or a devolved Government, needs to deal with in the 21st century is security of information and the risk to continuity of services and security from our increasingly technologically reliant and interrelated systems. The Bill creates sweeping powers for the UK Government to make decisions on our critical national infrastructure, for example, the regulation of data centres.

There are two parts to that. The first is that it is necessary that Governments keep on top of the changing pattern of potential risks to the sustainability of services. You need only look around the world at the number of increased threats to security of information and the onward threat to public services. It is important that the regulatory regime keeps up with that. The Minister has clearly scrutinised the Bill and given us his assurance that the right decision for us to take, as a devolved legislature, is to agree to the application of the LCM in this jurisdiction.

It would be helpful if the Minister could outline what work has been done to interrogate any particular cross-border impacts. Clearly, there is an EU directive. The Committee asked the Department to look into how current and future EU directives would interact with that and whether there is any particular cross-border, all-island component to that, including where there is provision of services on a cross-border basis and other cross-border activities in the private sector or community and voluntary sector, so that we can understand that there will not be undue regulatory burdens for those providers or, indeed, any threat to their ability to move or store information on a cross-border basis. One of the important questions around the Brexit process was to ensure that moving data from North to South would not become an impossible burden. There have been some issues. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment on that and on how the legislation will and will not intersect with cross-border provision of services.

My second, final point is on a bigger argument. In general, we will need much more regulation on technology, whether that is at UK level or EU level. Really, we are only in the foothills of understanding quite how powerful some of the tools that have been created are. I noticed that some of the commentary critiquing — if not opposing — the Bill in London was from tech companies suggesting that they did not want undue burdens of regulation to be created for their companies. We should probably think about going further and reassuring ourselves that those technology companies do not have completely undue power, not just when it comes to the advancing of frontier models in AI but in general, and that regulation is keeping ahead of and is not beholden to the interests of big tech companies. It is not just about national security and cybersecurity but about the regulation of those firms and the whole range of other things that they are doing that, occasionally, have profoundly negative consequences on our lives.

I just wanted to make those general points. My party is otherwise content for the LCM to proceed.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you. No other Member has indicated that they wish to speak, so I call the Minister to conclude the debate and make the winding-up speech on the motion.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

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

[Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.]

Again, I thank the Committee for its scrutiny of the LCM and the report that it has published.

Mr O'Toole mentioned cross-border data and the need for regulatory cooperation and coherence across the border. That presents similar challenges to Governments across the globe. There is broad alignment between the Bill and the approach that has been taken by international colleagues, including the European Union. The British Government continue to engage constructively on that issue with the EU through the UK-EU cyber dialogue. The EU's NIS 2 directive covers more sectors and captures a wider range of entities, including the food sector, chemical industries and postal services. There is continued cross-jurisdictional cooperation on that matter.

When it comes to big tech companies etc, we have to be concerned. We have to ensure that Governments, rather than large corporations, are setting the agenda on these matters. You will understand that that falls outside my remit at this time. However, I share your concerns about large tech companies, rather than democratically elected Governments, being able to set the agenda.

I end my remarks by commending the LCM to the House. It is important legislation. As I said in my opening remarks, we always have to be conscious of and all play our part in cybersecurity.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension of the provisions of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, as introduced in the House of Commons on 12 November 2025, dealing with the security and resilience of network and information systems used or relied on in connection with the carrying on of essential activities.

Committee Business

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 29 January 2027 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As Chair of the Committee for Communities, I seek the support of the House for the motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill until 29 January 2027.

The Committee recognises the public interest that the Bill has generated. As the Second Stage debate demonstrated, there are strongly held and differing views on the issues that the Bill seeks to address. Careful, balanced and evidence-based scrutiny is therefore essential.

Building on work undertaken before the Bill was referred following Second Stage, the Committee has commenced its detailed examination. It has received a substantial volume of written submissions from members of the public, professional bodies, faith groups, advocacy organisations, academics and other stakeholders, and it is examining the issues arising from written and oral evidence. The evidence raises questions about the scope of the proposed offences, their interaction with existing law and how the legislation would operate and be enforced. It also raises human rights issues, including freedom of religion or belief and expression, as well as parental rights and responsibilities, and safeguarding. Stakeholders have expressed differing views on whether the Bill, as drafted, balances protection from harmful practices with fundamental rights and freedoms. The Committee must consider those perspectives, scrutinise the provisions and examine the potential legal, policy and practical implications. There is therefore a substantial body of evidence to examine and a number of matters that require further exploration. The Committee also intends to engage further with the Bill sponsor and to consider comparative material from other jurisdictions. During Committee Stage, the Committee may choose to seek its own legal advice on particular aspects of the Bill before completing its clause-by-clause scrutiny.

Members should know that the Committee gave careful thought to the length of the extension being sought. Some members considered that a longer period would be necessary; others emphasised the need to complete scrutiny in time for the Bill to have an opportunity to proceed through its remaining legislative stages during this mandate. The Committee was advised by Parliamentary Services officials that 29 January 2027 was the date that would offer the least risk to the remaining stages in the legislative process. Having weighed the competing considerations, the Committee agreed on the date of 29 January. Two members wished to have it recorded that they did not consider that that would allow enough time for adequate scrutiny of the Bill.

The Committee recognises the importance of being transparent about the extent of its scrutiny. If there are particular aspects of the Bill that it considers it has not been able to examine as fully as it would wish, it can make that clear in its report to the Assembly. In the meantime, the Committee intends to make full use of the additional period, including through a number of extra meetings to take further evidence, consider the legal and policy questions in detail, undertake clause-by-clause scrutiny and report its considerations to the House. The extension reflects the scale of the task and the need to balance rigorous scrutiny with the practical constraints of the remaining legislative timetable.

Given the substantial public interest in the Bill, the range of views that have been expressed and the importance of ensuring that any legislation introduced in the Assembly is subjected to rigorous examination, the Committee believes that an extension to 29 January is proportionate and justified. For all those reasons, on behalf of the Committee for Communities, I ask Members to support the extension of the Committee Stage of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill until 29 January 2027.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I will be brief. I support the extension of the Committee Stage of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill, but I record my party's concern that, even with the proposed extension, the available time for scrutiny is unlikely to be sufficient for legislation of such complexity and constitutional significance. It is not an ordinary Bill. It proposes the creation of new criminal offences in areas that touch on family life, on freedom of expression, thought, religion and belief and on the relationship between parents, children, professionals and faith communities. Legislation that concerns such sensitive areas should not be rushed through the Assembly.

Members will be aware that legal practitioners have raised serious concerns about the Bill's drafting and legal consequences. In a published legal opinion, Aidan O'Neill KC described the proposals as "jellyfish legislation", criticising what he considered to be vague concepts that are difficult to define, coupled with significant criminal penalties. He further concluded that there were "strong arguments indeed" that the proposals could be "beyond the legislative competence" of the Northern Ireland Assembly, citing concerns about "over-breadth", proportionality and the impact on rights that are protected by law, including:

"family life and freedom of religion and freedom of expression".

Likewise, criminal barrister Dennis Kavanagh warned that the Bill could place:

"the shadow of criminal law across your kitchen table",

reflecting concerns about the potential reach of criminal sanctions into ordinary family discussions and parental guidance. Whether Members ultimately agree or disagree with those criticisms is, of course, not the point that is before us today. The point is that, when a Bill attracts that level of legal concern from experienced practitioners, the Assembly has a duty to ensure that it is subject to rigorous, careful and comprehensive scrutiny. For that reason, I support the extension and record my view that legislation of such a nature should not be rushed through the Assembly within an artificial or compressed time frame. Getting law right must take precedence over getting law passed quickly.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Pam. No other Member has indicated that they wish to speak, so I will put the Question. Sorry, I call the Committee Chair to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have nothing further to add, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle, other than to say that the Committee certainly recognises the complexity and significance of the issues that are involved. We will apply our scrutiny rigorously in that regard.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 29 January 2027 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Members, please take your ease until we move on to the next item of business.

Private Members' Business

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That this Assembly recognises the severe and growing pressure that rising fuel and energy costs are placing on household finances across Northern Ireland; notes that these pressures come on top of persistently high living costs, leaving many households facing increasingly difficult choices; further notes the publication of Budget 2027 in the Republic of Ireland, which has brought forward a package of measures aimed at easing cost-of-living pressures and supporting households; expresses concern that the Executive have failed to agree a Budget to provide families with certainty about the support available to them; and calls on the Executive to bring forward a package of measures aimed at alleviating the cost-of-living crisis as part of an agreed Executive Budget.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I rise to speak on a matter that is not a new item on our agenda or a blip on our economic horizon. The term "cost-of-living crisis" has not slipped from our daily lexicon for the entirety of this mandate, and for some considerable time before that. It has shifted from an economic headline into a permanent, grinding reality for the people whom we all represent.

This is not a highbrow debate about macroeconomic theory or fiscal forecasting; it is about a heavy, suffocating burden that everyday people have been forced to carry on their shoulders. It is felt when bills drop through the letter box; when the oil tank runs dry; and when the weekly food shop costs significantly more despite there being less and less in the trolley. As we sit in the comfort of the Chamber, working parents are recovering from lying awake all night staring at the ceiling and wondering how they will make ends meet, keep the radiators warm, keep a roof over the heads of their children or put food in their bellies.

In times of crisis, people look to leadership. Times of crisis test the mettle of those in power. They demand a simple choice from us. Do we have leaders who turn a blind eye and detach themselves from the unsavoury reality on our streets, or do we have leaders who step up?

Regrettably, while the Executive have been chronically preoccupied with their internal political arguments and constitutional grandstanding, working families across the North have been left entirely alone to carry the weight of the crisis. We have had plenty of talking shops. We have listened to endless ministerial statements expressing deep, profound concern. We have been promised the delivery of an anti-poverty strategy that has been delayed for a decade and has yet to materialise. Our people have been forced to get used to a level of hardship that should never, under any circumstances, have become normal. It is a damning, shameful indictment of our collective leadership and of the Executive that people in full-time honest employment are forced to rely on food banks to feed their family.

Working hard is no longer a guarantee that a family can afford even the basics in life. Let us look at the brutal arithmetic of life in 2026. Food prices rose by a staggering 19·1% in the year to March 2023, the highest annual increase since 1977, and prices have only gone one way since then. We will all have noticed it. That peak has left a devastating legacy. Trussell's data exposes the human terms of that failure: over half a million people across the North are now classified as food-insecure, including 130,000 of our children. One quarter of all children in our society live in poverty.

Heating oil prices surged by more than 80% in a single week in March, and by September, the cost of an average 900-litre order had risen above £1,000. For most households, that is more than a minor inconvenience or a budget adjustment. It is simply money that they do not have. The rainy-day funds have gone, the credit union loans have been maxed out and the few pounds borrowed from friends and family have been completely exhausted. A year ago, £50 of diesel would have filled the tank of my trusty old Volkswagen Golf, but today that same £50 barely meets the half-tank mark. Translink has been forced to cut discounts, forcing more people into cars and the costs associated with that. Other Members have raised the cost of insurance. Last week, I had a gentleman in my office whose car insurance had tripled. He had made no claims, he had had no accidents and there were no changes whatsoever in his personal circumstances. He was being penalised simply for living here.

Let us focus specifically on the housing market, which has become a trap for our citizens. Rents have risen by 56% over the past decade, yet virtually no protections have been secured for tenants. In my constituency, rent for a modest, basic, two-up two-down terraced house has more than doubled in recent years to £1,000 per month.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. He rightly mentioned the rise in rent prices across Northern Ireland. Does he agree that that issue is driven primarily by demand and supply? We have a waste water crisis that the Infrastructure Minister has not solved. The Member's colleague, who is sitting beside him, has been very passionate about the issue. We need to build more houses in Northern Ireland, and increasing the supply of housing should, theoretically, drive the cost down.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I have made many similar points in the Chamber. I agree entirely. It is a multifaceted problem that requires a multi-agency and cross-departmental approach, but we are not seeing that. We have not seen anywhere near enough of that during this mandate.

The notion of homeownership is now a pipe dream for young families or young couples, who are saving hard. They save every penny that they have and do everything that previous generations were told would secure them a home, yet they find themselves entirely priced out. When people are priced out of buying or renting privately, the pressure transfers directly onto the social housing sector. The all-time high of 50,000 households currently languishing on the social housing waiting list stands as a permanent testament to the Executive's housing failures. Housing associations want to build, but they are crippled by funding shortfalls and massive infrastructure constraints.

There are also regional anomalies, and I have made that point before. It makes no sense whatsoever that the cost of housing in Derry has outstripped the cost of housing in Belfast, which has significantly higher average wages. It is economically nonsensical as well as socially unjust. Instead of cushioning our poorest families, the Executive's policy decisions have actively punished them. Rates have been increased across the board, with absolutely no effort made to cushion the poorest council areas and, therefore, by extension, our poorest families.

School meal costs were increased by 20% this year, and that cruel decision was compounded by a flat failure to raise the criteria threshold for school meal and uniform support. A decade ago, the criteria were more generous than they are today, which is utterly absurd in the context of soaring inflation. Because of bad Government decisions, 3,000 fewer children receive school meal support today than did three years ago in 2023. The SDLP has consistently called for a universal school meals programme. Scotland has already proven that universal primary-school provision is entirely possible. A child's access to a hot, healthy meal at school should not depend on their parents navigating a labyrinthine benefits system or falling below an arbitrary income threshold. Universal provision also removes the stigma of poverty from the school canteen.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member take one more intervention?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will not have time to take another one.

Furthermore, our public service workers, who are the very backbone of our society, are being actively penalised by crushing Executive decisions or by Executive indecision. Consider our home care workers, who are spending up to £40 a day on fuel just to travel around the vulnerable people whom they support. Current mileage rates utterly fail to reflect the real-world cost of travel, leaving independent care staff, in particular, severely out of pocket. Carers are leaving roles that they absolutely love and that are absolutely essential, simply because they cannot afford to go to work. You cannot build a sustainable health and social care system on the goodwill of exhausted, broke and broken workers.

Look at the bureaucratic nightmare facing our health workers and Education Authority (EA) staff. Thousands of those low-paid workers are in receipt of universal credit, and, when they — if they ever do — get their long-awaited pay rise, which will be backdated, they will see no benefit from it. They are literally left worse off for receiving a raise. Ministers are fully aware of that universal credit trap, yet pleas to fix that technical oversight remain entirely unheeded. Band 2 staff were recently awarded an additional 8p per hour to bring them up to the legal minimum wage, only to be told that that tiny uplift will be completely absorbed and erased by the upcoming standard pay award.

Meanwhile, our community and voluntary sectors are tired. They are under unbearable pressure trying to meet the soaring demand in communities, where almost every household could now be classified as vulnerable. They are doing the work of government by protecting the poorest, but they should not have to shoulder that burden alone. They do not just need more charity; they need better political decisions. Where is the strategic —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Mark, time is up.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thought that I had an additional minute.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No, you do not. Sorry.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Apologies. I propose the motion.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thanks, Mark. You thought that you had an extra minute, but not when you have had 10 minutes.

The next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Deirdre Hargey. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 1.55 pm and resumed at 2.00 pm.

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Questions 5, 6 and 12 have been withdrawn.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

1. Mr Brooks asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the steps being taken to ensure the full and consistent implementation of the armed forces covenant across all Departments. (AQO 4112/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There is currently no agreed Executive position on the implementation of the armed forces covenant.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Given that the armed forces covenant is intended to ensure that current and former service personnel are not disadvantaged in the areas of housing, healthcare and employment, will the First Minister explain why she continues to block its full implementation? Does she still present herself as the First Minister for all?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said, there is no agreed Executive Office position on it, nor will there ever be. The British Government —.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

First Minister for all.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The British Government have sole responsibility for their armed forces.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

For all.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Excuse me. Order.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Minister, for decades, British armed forces have been central to state terrorism in this place. Today, their security and intelligence agencies continue to play a malign role in our politics and society. That is reflected in the attempt to push through the so-called legacy legislation in Westminster today and tomorrow. Does the First Minister agree that the armed forces covenant is a matter that should be handled exclusively by the British Government?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely agree with the Member. As he knows, the British army's involvement here over decades was seen by many of our people as that of an occupying military force. Its actions and the failure to secure truth and accountability for those actions continue to cast a long shadow over all efforts to deal with the legacy of the past.

We can point to many examples, such as the findings of the Saville inquiry, subsequent inquests and the apologies issued by the British Government. All those things have documented the profound suffering caused to victims and bereaved families. For many families, the struggle to secure truth and accountability continues. That is seen in the fact that, even as we speak, Westminster is debating legacy legislation that I can characterise only as a veterans' charter, because it is about giving preferential treatment to veterans over the needs of many victims and families. At a time when families are still fighting for justice and information about what happened to their loved ones, the proposals being discussed today are more about preferential protections for former members of British state forces. All that does is undermine the needs of victims, their families and all who have been bereaved, which is deeply concerning.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

As you know, First Minister, we support the implementation of the armed forces covenant, and we do so because we recognise the fact that everyone from this country deserves to have protections in law when they are being disadvantaged. Your Department is responsible for equality legislation. Please outline any efforts made by you and your deputy First Minister in that space.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I know what our responsibility is when it comes to equality legislation, but there will not be a meeting of minds on the armed forces covenant. There will not be political agreement on how to proceed on that. My position is as I just stated: there cannot be special status or preferential treatment for British state forces. The British Government are solely responsible for their armed forces and for ensuring that they bring in any protections that they wish to. There will not be agreement on that in our office.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I declare an interest as an armed forces veteran, and a proud one at that. I was proud to stand up and serve with Her Majesty's armed forces and would do so again tomorrow. Some of the comments from across the way are, frankly, disgraceful. The Executive have responsibility for this, given that many of the services — not least health — are delivered here. That is what the armed forces covenant is about: removing disadvantage, where it arises, for members of society who serve in the armed forces. In that context, will the First Minister reflect on her comments?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for the question, but the reality does not change: there will not be political agreement on the issue. We have to be honest about that. I have said that from day one, and it remains my position. It will not change. It is for the British Government to take forward whatever actions they select for their armed forces. They will not come through the Executive Office.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

2. Mr Kingston asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline how they ensure their actions adhere to paragraphs (cd) and (ce) of the ministerial Pledge of Office. (AQO 4113/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As First Minister and deputy First Minister, we always act in accordance with the ministerial Pledge of Office.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

First Minister, in my opinion, not only did you breach your ministerial pledge at paragraphs (ce):

"to support the rule of law unequivocally in word and deed"

through your illegal blocking of a legal parade, but you failed to uphold paragraph (ca):

"to promote the interests of the whole community ... towards the goal of a shared future".

First Minister, you adopted the slogan, "No going back", but you did exactly that.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Is there a question?

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

There is, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Please.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

You went back, 30 years, through your promotion of intolerance, refusal to negotiate and total misrepresentation of the nature of a peaceful and legal procession.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Is there a question, Brian?

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

First Minister, do you understand that a vast number of people across Northern Ireland think that you have chosen to damage community relations and promote intolerance rather than uphold your ministerial Pledge of Office?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As you said, it is your opinion. It is an opinion that I do not agree with.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Where is your accountability?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I was proud to stand with the residents of the Garvaghy Road, and I would do so again tomorrow —

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Where is the tolerance of different community backgrounds?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— if they needed me to do so.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The issue here is between right and wrong. You may live in the past, and your party may live in the past, but the rest of us are trying to move towards a better and brighter future. When we stood on the Garvaghy Road, we did so to protect those residents' right to live free from fear and intimidation, and we did so to protect the peace and advancement of the past 28 years. Stop looking backwards; stop looking behind you; start looking forward.

[Interruption.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Excuse me. Before I call the next Member — Cathy Mason — I say this: the Minister will be heard.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

First Minister, your decision to stand with the people of the Garvaghy Road in solidarity with a community that is completely opposed to an unwanted and provocative Orange Order march was a hugely important act of leadership. Do you agree that some of the language that has been used by unionist politicians in response to your engagement with the Garvaghy Road residents has been deliberately provocative and deeply offensive and, in fact, says more about their political agenda?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you for that. Yes, I absolutely agree. As I said, I was proud to stand with the residents of the Garvaghy Road. Again, I pay tribute to the people of the Garvaghy Road for the resilience and steadfastness that they have shown through everything that they have gone through and been put through. It has not been of their making. They did not ask for the situation; they did not ask for this wound to be reopened; they did not ask for this trauma to be revisited upon them. They have rights: they have the right to live free from sectarian hate and intimidation, and they have the right to ensure that the progress that they have seen across their community for the past 28 years is protected. I commend them for that.

I agree with the Member about some of the language that has been used. There has been talk of a "rabble", "mobs" and the need for a community to be "sanitised" or sterilised. That is the most horrendous of language, and it is deeply offensive to the people of the Garvaghy Road. I see that such language continued over the weekend and continues, even today, in the public utterances of political unionism. That is dehumanising a community. I will not tolerate that. No one in wider society — no one with a reasonable thought in their head — would think that that is acceptable language. We will not be going backwards, folks. We are only going forward. We are going to continue to build on the progress of the past 28 years. We will not allow any community to be demonised.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

First Minister, just today a young school student said to me that community tensions as a result of Drumcree are his number-one concern. What actions are you undertaking to improve community relations in Portadown and across Northern Ireland? Who will you be working with to achieve that?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I say to that student that everything that we are doing has to build on, secure and ensure the peace that has been built over the past 28 years. We have to continue to look to the future and build on the progress, despite moments like this. When there are huge setbacks in community relations, we have to work even harder to try to build on those community relations. I will work with any willing partner to do so. I think that there is going to be a lot of healing and necessary attention given to the wider Portadown area, because we need to do everything that we can to build community relations again.

I say this to that student: the people of the Garvaghy Road did not want this; I did not want this; and you did not want this. It is for the people in political unionism who decided to bring us back 28 years to one of the most harrowing and traumatic times of the late nineties to explain. I ask this question of them: why? Why do they want to do that? I still do not understand the answer. Why do people want to bring us back? As political leaders in 2026, we have to continue to build on the progress made and to do everything that we can to create that shared future. I want that for everybody, but a shared future will never be built by demonising one community or by asserting one community's rights over another's by domination. We are not going back to those days, and the student should take some comfort from that.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

We all know what sort of armed forces Michelle O'Neill has sworn allegiance to. Given this morning's revelation that her Provisional IRA was a factor in the Chief Constable's decision to surrender the Garvaghy Road, does Ms O'Neill believe that she will still be in office come Wednesday to attend the Committee, or will she be given her P45 beforehand by her deputy?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Minister, that question is not related —

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

— so I am moving on.

A Member

Good luck on Thursday.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

3. Ms Flynn asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on their engagement with the Secretary of State to secure a fair and adequate funding settlement to sustain and protect public services. (AQO 4114/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Someone said "Good luck on Thursday": thank you very much to whomever said that.

There has been extensive engagement over recent months, including with the Secretary of State, most recently on 16 October. There have also been meetings with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We have been clear that, although we welcome the additional funding outlined, the proposed funding package remains insufficient to place our public finances on a sustainable footing. The proposed offer falls significantly short of what is required to deliver fair pay awards, protect front-line services and provide a sustainable foundation for our public services and communities.

We will continue to make the case to the British Government for a fair and adequate funding settlement and continue to be fully open and transparent with the Secretary of State and his officials about the efficiencies and savings that we have already made and about our plans for further reform and transformation of services to ensure better delivery for people and communities here. Securing the resources needed to invest in public services is essential not only to protecting vital services but to supporting economic growth and improving outcomes for all. We remain committed to working constructively to secure a funding envelope that enables us to meet all those challenges and to deliver for citizens.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the First Minister for her response. As we know, our public-sector workers, including our nurses, face huge uncertainty over their pay awards while the British Government continue to insist that no further funding is available. Will the First Minister outline her position on public-sector pay, explain why the current settlement is simply not enough to meet our needs and set out what more the British Government must do urgently to resolve the situation?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you for that question. You are absolutely right: I think that there is a collective will across the Executive to deliver on public-sector pay. Nurses, other Health and Social Care (HSC) staff, teachers and other public servants keep all our essential services running and should therefore not be left waiting for their pay awards. When they look at their counterparts elsewhere, they see that they get their pay awards in a timely manner. The message that I delivered when I met the Royal College of Nursing last week was that my priority is to ensure that we make public-sector pay awards, that workers get them as quickly as possible and that I do everything that I can to ensure that we secure enough money to do so.

Lat week, I listened to the Secretary of State talk about being irresponsible. Do you know what is irresponsible? Continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. The British Government have never funded us according to need. That is a structural weakness in how we are funded here. If the money is never enough, a balance cannot be struck. Therein lies the challenge, but, yet and all, they keep putting some additional funding on the table without fixing the structural weakness. We will therefore never be able to get to that balanced position. I do not want to hear the Secretary of State level a charge against us that we are being irresponsible. The reality is that we are trying to get a balanced Budget. That is impossible with what we have at this time. We must resolve public-sector pay, and what we have right now does not allow us to do so.

We will continue to make the case. We had meetings last week, and we have more meetings scheduled throughout this week. We will do everything that we can, including asking the British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, to pay attention to the dire straits in which we find ourselves, with an Executive who have been underfunded for decades. We want to get to the point where we have a balanced Budget but only if there is enough money for public-sector pay.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

What specific actions are you and your office taking to ensure that, come February or March, we do not see a US Government-style shutdown?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Everything that we are doing right now is to get a Budget over the line. We have continued to make advances, but it is still not enough; it does not cut it. The challenges that we face, particularly in this financial year, are really acute and really stark. We all want to get enough funding on the table to allow us to pay our public-sector workers and get a balanced Budget. As it stands, however, the figures do not and cannot add up because of the structural weaknesses due to underfunding and the failure of Westminster to step in and give us a proper and fair funding envelope.

We pay our taxes, and we pay into the system, so we should be rewarded accordingly in terms of public services. When we compare our arrangement with those in Scotland and Wales, the difference between us and Wales is £1 billion, and the difference between us and Scotland is £3 billion. That is how stark the situation is. We ask not for preferential treatment but for fairness, and I will continue to make that case. I do not want us to be in a position where anybody else is setting our Budget. I want us to set our Budget, but it needs to be the right one.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I fully accept, First Minister, that you are trying to get a Budget across the line. Has she done a detailed assessment of the impact on front-line services if the Executive do not agree a Budget, and will she publish that detailed assessment?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A number of pieces of work are happening right now, looking at different scenarios and the situation in which we find ourselves. All of our energy and efforts right now, however, are on trying to secure additional funding. We will continue those conversations later this week; the Secretary of State will be here for another round of discussions. We need to advance from where we are now. Nobody in the House, I believe, would support what we have at the minute because it does not allow us to cover public-sector pay.

We need to put all of our energy and our efforts into the collective will of the Assembly, which is to ensure that we have enough money to pay our public-sector workers, invest in public services and do all of our transformation work. Yes, we can find efficiencies and all of that — we will play our part — but the underlying problem here is the structural weakness that we are underfunded.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

First Minister, the Budget is now beyond six months late. On your watch as First Minister, our public services have crumbled to the worst state that they have been in since devolution. What do you have to say to people who are languishing on waiting lists, suffering and in pain, due to the lack of a Budget? Is it simply that they must wait and continue in pain, or is something actually going to happen in the next few weeks that can secure those services for our public?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Had we taken your party's advice, of course, we would be no further on today. As a matter of fact, we have advanced the envelope that we have to deal with those matters. I would say to anybody who is on a waiting list that we are fighting every day for them to have access to healthcare. We are fighting every day for funding for public services that will allow us to deal with health waiting lists. We have been able to make some progress in that regard, because we have secured funding that we are able to invest in our health service. I would say to everybody that we are fighting for what is only fair for you. You pay into the system, so you are entitled to get good public services. We do not accept second class for you; you are entitled to good public services. We will ensure that all of our public-sector workers have their pay. That is our work every day until we get to that end point.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Does the First Minister now accept that the draft Budget produced by her party colleague in January was wholly inadequate, failed to address the scale of the pressures facing our public services and would have left Northern Ireland facing impossible choices? Does she acknowledge that it was the determination of DUP Ministers to challenge that approach that helped to secure the additional money that we have now on the table?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

There are two questions there, Minister, so you can answer whichever one you want to answer.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you. No, I do not agree with you. I commend John O'Dowd for the fact that he has advanced things to the point where they are now. Are we there yet? No; we have more to do to push as far as we can in order to get what is only fair for all the people whom we represent, Stephen — you and I. Everybody in the Chamber represents their constituents, and we are obliged to work together to get sufficient funding for our public services. That is only right and proper. If we had what Scotland has, we would be having a different conversation today. If we had what Wales has, we would be having a different conversation today. I commend John O'Dowd, as the Finance Minister, for driving the process forward in order to get us to the point where the British Government engage with us and have the conversations.

[Interruption.]

You have an awful lot to say: get on your feet if you are going to say it.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Before I call Tom Buchanan, I remind you again that Ministers need to be heard.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

4. Mr T Buchanan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in line with paragraph 6 of the St Andrews Agreement as cited in the ministerial Pledge of Office, whether the First Minister still believes that the essential elements of support for law and order include endorsing fully the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the criminal justice system. (AQO 4115/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As First Minister and deputy First Minister, we always act in accordance with the ministerial Pledge of Office.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

Very short, I suppose, but will the First Minister-not-in-my-name take the opportunity today to accept that she blatantly broke the law, disregarded the Pledge of Office and showed complete disrespect for the PSNI when she took part in an illegal protest at Drumcree, not only blocking the road but calling on others to do likewise? Will she condemn those who threatened violence and hand their names over to the PSNI?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Again, more attempts to demonise the people of Garvaghy Road, both the residents and those who stood in solidarity with and support of a community that refused to live in fear and a community that refused to allow people to drag them backwards. I will take no lectures from you, and I remind you and your colleagues that you are not my judge and jury. I will engage with processes

[Interruption]

— I will engage with processes, but I will not be adjudicated on by you.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

First Minister, you have consistently demonstrated your commitment to the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts. Your decision to stand alongside the people of the Garvaghy Road was an act of leadership at a time of real concern over an unwanted sectarian parade through their community. Do you agree, therefore, that standing with the residents, supporting a peaceful response and working to maintain calm are entirely consistent with the Good Friday Agreement and that there can be no return to the days of second-class citizenship, and standing with them in solidarity —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Minister.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— showed the residents that that was the case?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for her question. I can say to you that, yes, I am fully committed to the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts and to the principles that underpin it: equality, respect and peace. My decision, which I own, to stand with the people of the Garvaghy Road was about standing with a community that made it clear that it has a desire to live free from fear and intimidation. That will always be the right thing to do. It was simply a matter of right versus wrong, of the past versus progress, and I am happy and comfortable with the position that I took.

Standing alongside the Garvaghy Road community together with other political parties and thousands of people from across this island was a collective leadership effort to say that we will not go backwards. It is about a clear commitment to equality and to ensuring that never again will one community have its rights trampled on to the advantage of another. That extends well beyond political parties of a nationalist persuasion. It came from across the board, from people the length and breadth of this island. It came from more than 1,000 people from the unionist and Protestant community who signed up to a letter to say that they also agreed with the

[Interruption]

—

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

— with the need for the residents to have their progress protected. I commend them for that. Everybody standing up for the right thing is always the right thing to do.

We are not going back to the days when there are going to be marches put down roads where they are not wanted. Residents expect much more; I expect much more; and I think that our wider society expects much more, but the real question is why do those in the Orange Order want to walk through a small Catholic community and why do their champions on the Benches opposite think that that is a good idea? That smacks of triumphalism, folks. You cannot dress it up.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Questions 5 and 6 have been withdrawn.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

7. Mr McNulty asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on any recent engagement they have had on the progress in redeveloping Casement Park. (AQO 4118/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The redevelopment of Casement Park remains an Executive flagship capital project. While responsibility for the redevelopment lies with the Minister for Communities, we have reiterated our commitment to making progress on the matter in the Programme for Government (PFG). Progress on the site has been made, and we need to continue to build on that and on the momentum.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Minister , just yesterday, St Brigid's, in its first final appearance, won the senior football Antrim club title with a narrow 0-21 to 1-16 win over O'Donovan Rossa at Corrigan Park. That match could and should have been played in a newly built Casement Park. What happened to "Casement Park will be built"?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Minister.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Why should Gaels in Antrim and Ulster accept being treated like second-class citizens? When will Casement Park be built —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Minister.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

— and what capacity will it have?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Minister, go ahead.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said, I am absolutely committed to working with the GAA to get that flagship project delivered; that is why it is in the Programme for Government. We have seen momentum on the site in recent months, which is positive, and that needs to continue. The funding that we have secured thus far, whether it is from the Executive, the Irish Government or the British Government, shows good progress.

The Member is right: that is where we should have had the game yesterday — congratulations to both teams and to St Brigid's on the win — and we want to see games played at Casement Park. That remains my commitment, and I will work tirelessly with the GAA to ensure that it happens.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I was at the final yesterday: it was a great, tight game that just did not go our way. The sentiment of the GAA community in west Belfast is this: they believe that Casement Park is essential, and they know that it will be delivered. Does the Minister agree that it is a positive development not just for the GAA but for the wider community of Belfast and way beyond?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Commiserations to Rossa, but at least your team got to the final.

As I said, it is absolutely a flagship project, and it must be delivered. We need to continue to work with the GAA, because we want to see today's generation have the chance to play at that ground. Gaels in Antrim have grown up without that chance — it has been so long — and it has to be put right, which means that we have to do everything that we can.

Imagine what a redeveloped Casement Park will do not just for the game and for young Gaels across the board but for the entire local community, the economy, job creation, construction work and everything else that comes with it. I mentioned the progress that has been made on the site, and I want us to continue to build on that momentum. Casement will give the whole of Antrim and Ulster GAA a huge lift. We continue to work with the Ulster council of the GAA and the local community on the project, and I, like you, look forward to the day when Antrim and Ulster finals are played at Casement Park.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

What will the recent Court of Appeal judgement on the A5 mean for infrastructure projects generally, including those related to the functions of the Executive Office?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Given that we heard the judgement only in the past week or so, analysis will have to be done on it, but the outcome of the case is the right one. It is great to see the green light being given to the A5 project. It also shows us that the understanding of the climate change legislation is as we had all considered it to be, although the courts had previously taken a different position. A number of big capital projects that were being held up because of the court case can now go ahead because we have the green light.

It will be a number of weeks before we have a full analysis of what the judgement means for capital projects more widely, but I know that, in my office, for example, some elements of the investment strategy were being held up because we were awaiting the decision, with its major implications. Now that it has happened, there should be no reason for delay, and we should be able to move forward with the investment strategy and the enabling actions to allow us to do all our big capital projects.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

8. Mr Allen asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any steps they are taking to ensure that prevention and early intervention are embedded across Executive policy and spending priorities. (AQO 4119/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The draft Programme for Government is centred on improving well-being and outcomes for people and communities with a strong emphasis on early intervention and preventative approaches across a range of policy areas. Through the Programme for Government framework, Departments are encouraged to work collaboratively to address the underlying causes of social and economic challenges rather than responding solely to their consequences.

As part of the Budget information-gathering process, Departments are asked to identify how their requests for additional resources are linked to PFG priorities. The 'Aligning Spending with Priorities' report published by the Finance Minister provides greater insight into how the PFG is supported through the Executive's Budget. By demonstrating how departmental budgets contribute to agreed outcomes and priorities, the report provides Ministers with better information to inform decisions about the allocation of the resources available to them.

The Executive are committed to shifting the focus of public services towards prevention and early intervention, recognising that addressing issues at an earlier stage can improve outcomes for citizens while reducing longer-term pressures on public services.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. Prevention and early intervention need to be at the heart of everything that we do. Does the First Minister accept that, while we have made progress in some areas, there is much work to be done in other areas to ensure that that is the primary focus?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I agree with you: we have to bank the progress that we have made but realise that there is much more to do. The focus on early intervention and prevention in the Programme for Government marked a change in approach. We all know — it is common sense — that the earlier we can intervene and do the prevention work, the more dividends that will pay in the longer term.

In the Health Department, the shift left and focus on preventative work are really important, and I am very much a fan of both. We have a lot of work to do on transformation and how we deliver public services. Yes, there has been progress, and, yes, there is more to do.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

9. Mrs Erskine asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any tangible actions that their Department has taken to promote good relations across Northern Ireland, including the measurable improvements that those actions have delivered in communities with contested parades. (AQO 4120/22-27)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Minister, be very quick. You have one minute.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Since the publication of the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy in 2013, TEO has led on its implementation and delivered a range of good relations programmes aimed at building good relations and understanding across communities, including in areas that have had contested parades. For example, a range of funding has been provided directly to the Portadown area this year, including £27,629 through the central good relations fund for a project working with young people close to the Portadown interface. The district council good relations programme has allocated £12,000 to good relations projects in the Ardoyne community this year. Other funding streams are delivering good relations in communities across Belfast and beyond.

This year, over £8 million has been allocated to good relations programmes in TEO and other Departments for T:BUC headline actions. Through programmes such as the central good relations programme, T:BUC camps and many others, communities have been supported to engage in shared activities, build trust and strengthen relationships. Evidence shows that the programmes are making a real difference. We have seen a positive change in how participants view people from different communities, as well as greater awareness and understanding of different cultures and traditions. There are wider benefits too, with many young people developing new skills, greater confidence and increased self-belief.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up. Thank you. We will now move to topical questions.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after stating that, amidst the political rows about extraneous matters and the toxic division here, public-sector workers still do not know, because there is no Budget, when they will get a pay rise and that, in the South, such workers are striking and standing on picket lines with the First Minister's party colleagues, whether the First Minister agrees that our public-sector workers deserve better from the Executive and the UK Government and to confirm when they will get their pay rise. (AQT 2711/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Absolutely, our public-sector workers deserve better. They deserve better in terms of the funding envelope from which we give them their pay rise, and they deserve to get that in a timely way. I regret very much the fact that our healthcare workers are again in a situation where they are having to consider strike action because, this far into the year, they have not had their pay rise. All that I can say to all those workers is that everything that we are doing is about ensuring that we get a Budget that has enough money for the public-sector pay rise. As soon as we get the money over the line, the turnaround in getting that into pay packets will be as quick as we can make it.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

At a time when public-sector workers and everybody else are having to fill up their cars and heat their homes while paying crushing energy prices, they need clarity. As the Opposition, we agree that the Executive should get the maximum funding from the British Government — we have never quibbled with that — but it is true that, if you do not agree a Budget, the British Government, who, the Executive agree, do not prioritise this place, could well set a punishment Budget, and there will not be any pay rise at all. Do you and the Executive have any responsibility to those public-sector workers to ensure that they get paid?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will say this: my responsibility is to try to get the right Budget, which is what I am actively engaged in. We had numerous meetings last week, and we will have more this week. We understand that we need to get the Budget agreed. We cannot, however, agree to a Budget that does not cut it and does not allow us to deliver on public-sector pay, as you have rightly highlighted. I think that it is the will of every party and every independent in the House to ensure that we get to the juncture where we have a public-sector pay rise. On the one hand, the British Government continue to acknowledge that we have been underfunded — we have evidence to back up our case; whether it is the Holtham review or the Fiscal Council work, everybody backs up our argument about our funding envelope — and, on the other hand, we have a Treasury that then comes in and says, "We have only this amount. We can only give you that". That is not fixing the structural problem, which means that we are in a vicious circle of coming back to the same point. However, the priority now is to get the right Budget that will allow us to provide pay.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

T2. Ms K Armstrong asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in light of the report exploring masculinities and attitudes towards violence against women and girls that was launched at Stormont last week, to outline how the Executive Office will respond to its nine recommendations through targeted interventions. (AQT 2712/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Both junior Ministers attended that event. We have only received the report, so I do not have a fulsome response for you. The purpose of the report is to inform our work. As the Member knows, the second phase of our ending violence against women and girls strategy is focused on young boys and our working with them, because they are part of the solution, in order to be able to message successfully, at least, to their peers. There is no doubt that the report will play a part in that. If I have any additional information, I am happy to provide it to the Member.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. As she said, the research focuses on young boys, particularly those aged between 16 and 24. However, as we have seen in recent court cases, it is not just young boys who are violent in making sexual advances towards young women. Will she commit to carry out work that looks at the attitudes among the older male age group?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That is a fair assessment. The work in this phase has been to do with young boys, but the Member has made a very valid point. We cannot, on the one hand, say that it is a whole-of-society problem without having a whole-of-society response. Therefore, everybody has to play their part in that. I am very happy to take that suggestion on board and to explore with officials what we can do in that area, such as working with the many men's groups that will, no doubt, be more than willing to assist.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

T3. Mr McGuigan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the First Minister agrees that last week's sentencing of former DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson for some of the most horrific crimes imaginable against children further underlines the urgent need to tackle violence against women and girls in our society. (AQT 2713/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. In continuation of my response to the previous question, I say that tackling violence against women and girls right across our society is an area that the Executive have rightly focused on. In answer to the Member's question, first, I express my solidarity with the victims of Jeffrey Donaldson. We are all in awe of their extraordinary courage, which brought their predatory abuser to justice and put him behind bars where he belongs. However, no sentence can undo the horrific abuse and suffering that they have endured. I hope that they can now find some peace in knowing that he has been brought to justice.

The case is a stark reminder to us all that predators and abusers can be found in every walk of life, including in the highest positions of power, no matter where they are. We also know that far too many women and children suffer abuse, often in silence because they are afraid to come forward, and that has to change. That is why, in the Executive Office and across the Executive as a whole, we put so much importance on tackling violence against women and girls. We need to make sure that victims are protected and have the confidence to speak out and that those who are responsible are brought to justice. There cannot be any hiding place for any of the abusers.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Further to the point that the First Minister made about protecting victims and calling out violence against women and girls, does she agree with calls for the DUP and the UUP to publish their reviews of Jeffrey Donaldson in full?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I absolutely agree with that. The DUP announced its review almost four months ago, and we still have not seen it. We need to know when the findings will be published. There are very serious questions that need to be answered. We have heard about the warning signs — that may be an understatement — of inappropriate and predatory behaviour that appear to have been ignored. We need to know who knew about it and when, why no action was taken to address his inappropriate and predatory behaviour and whether more could have been done — that is the question — to stop Donaldson in his tracks. The former DUP leader is now behind bars for his horrific crimes against two victims, and that is right. However, the DUP and the UUP now need to be transparent about his activities while in the most prominent roles in those parties. We need to know whether opportunities to intervene were missed and what is being done to ensure that others are protected. More questions are emerging, as we have seen even over the past 24 hours. There are questions about his behaviour in Westminster and while he was abroad as a representative of the British Government, and all those instances also need to be scrutinised. While the wishes and privacy of victims are paramount and must be protected paramount, I urge the DUP and the UUP to urgently publish those reports in full. There must be full transparency from both parties, because the victims and the public deserve answers.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

T4. Ms Brownlee asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the team working on ending violence against women and girls has given any consideration to the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime's recommendation about the installation of CCTV in private hire taxis as part of efforts to improve safer socialising. (AQT 2714/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am happy to take that question on board and ask it. In the whole area of ending violence against women and girls, we are very lucky to have such cross-party and cross-departmental efforts being made. Where practical measures can be put in place to make women safer, particularly in taxis, we should explore them. I am therefore happy to talk to officials about whether something is already in train. If it is not, I will ask why it is not and whether we can consider doing it.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for that. It is something that came to light as we talked about violence against women and girls. It is a topical issue on which the Government can work together.

Will the First Minister commit to keeping everybody updated on the matter and, in particular, to engaging with the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, her colleague the Minister for Infrastructure and her Department, and the PSNI to make sure that we take real action to ensure that everything is a lot safer and more proactive for women and girls?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I am happy to do so. As I said, I will talk to departmental officials and bring up the point that you have raised. All those matters have to be considered. We need to listen to the experiences of women who find themselves in situations in which they feel quite frightened. We need to learn lessons and apply them where we can, be it in law or by working with partners across the board.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

T5. Mr Wilson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that his office was recently contacted by someone who has been waiting four years for an urgent appointment in one of our hospitals, and given that there is understandable anger that more than £3 million of public money has been spent by the PSNI policing an illegal protest led by the First Minister, rather than its being available for front-line services, whether the First Minister can justify her illegal protest to patients facing lengthy waits and whether Sinn Féin will contribute to the costs incurred by the taxpayer, via its pot of mysterious donations or from other sources. (AQT 2715/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

You are being quite insulting to your constituent who needs a hospital appointment. You would be better advised to fight to get them access to the health service. You would be better advised to tell your constituent that you championed an unwanted Orange march down the Garvaghy Road.

We are here to try to make a difference to and improve people's lives. We are here to try to bank the progress made on the past and to build on it for the future. I am not here to play your nonsense games.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

First Minister, figures that I have acquired from the Department of Justice show that, in the past 10 years, of the 73 people convicted for obstructing a public road, four received custodial sentences, four received community sentences and 52 received monetary penalties. Which of those options do you think that you and your colleagues deserve if the law is followed?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The hypocrisy hanging out of the DUP is incredible. There is hypocrisy all day long.

[Interruption.]

I have said that I own my decision to stand with the Garvaghy Road residents. I am proud to have done so, and I will continue to do so. I will deal with whatever processes come my way, but you are not my judge or my jury. You do not get to adjudicate. I will deal with the processes in my time and in my way. I am sorry, but you will not get the answer from me that you want.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

T6. Ms Flynn asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether a more appropriate way in which to ask the previous question is to ask whether they agree that the rights of the Garvaghy Road residents must be protected, particularly when there are still plenty of people determined to reopen the parading disputes of the past. (AQT 2716/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I absolutely agree with the Member. For almost 30 years, the people of the Garvaghy Road lived in relative peace. They had spent years picking up the pieces after the trauma that was inflicted on them 28 years ago. They had spent all those years making progress and building good, strong community relations. Then, along come the Orange Order, championed by political unionism, wanting to reopen a wound that had closed. A decision was taken 28 years ago. I have to ask this question: why does political unionism want to undo progress? Why is it obsessed with the past? Why is it obsessed with the days of triumphalism, sectarianism and intimidation? Why is it obsessed with trampling on the rights of a small Catholic community? People will make up their own mind about why. The people of the Garvaghy Road have a right to live in peace and to expect the peace that they have built to continue, and I assert that right with them.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the First Minister for that response. Does she agree that political unionism is clearly being led by the nose by those who are trying their best to drag our society back to the past, and that they will not achieve that?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Answer quickly, First Minister.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

There are some in political unionism — I say "some" — who want it to be yesterday, and that is not available to them. They want the days of domination and the days of the Orange state. That is not available to them. What we need to do is build on the progress of the past 28 years, keep our eyes focused on the future and condemn those elements in society who are trying to drag us backwards, including those people who, last week, threatened my own party colleague when he went to his place of work. When Paul Duffy received a threat, I did not hear condemnation from the Benches opposite.

[Interruption.]

I did not hear it. The selective condemnation that I hear quite often from the Benches opposite does not serve anybody's purpose. That is why I speak of the hypocrisy from those Benches.

We need to protect the progress of the past 28 years. That is what I am determined to do. It is what I turn up to do every single day. We will not allow people to drag us backwards.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go and read Hansard.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order please. Time is up for questions to the Executive Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

2. Mr McCrossan asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the relisting and progression of Crown Court cases that were delayed as a result of the dispute with members of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA). (AQO 4128/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The unwarranted and unnecessary withdrawal of services by the CBA has caused significant damage to the justice system. It has damaged the efforts and progress that we were already making to reduce delay. More importantly, it has damaged the victims, witnesses and defendants in the system, whom it is supposed to serve. Work on recovery is ongoing but, with hundreds of cases at varying stages having been affected, there is no quick fix.

Listing is a judicial matter. In June, the Lady Chief Justice issued guidance on initial prioritisation of cases, which rightly focused on cases that involve the most vulnerable. That work continues. However, in the absence of significant additional funding, which my Department simply does not have, we will not get back to pre-withdrawal case levels for some time. Recovery for those who were affected by the withdrawal is more difficult to assess and may take longer still.

We will, of course, continue to make all possible efforts to make inroads where we can. I will not allow anyone to lose sight of those who have been impacted by the withdrawal, those who have been awaiting justice for far too long, and those victims and witnesses who are suffering stress, uncertainty and continuing trauma. Therefore, my focus now is on working with justice system partners to ensure that we are never in this position again.

I am already doing all that I can to that end. That is why I commissioned the accelerated review of criminal legal aid and why I have taken all possible steps to implement the recommended fee increases at pace. I have already consulted on proposals, and the draft legislation and business case are in train to allow implementation by the end of the mandate. The uplifts are not affordable within my existing budget, so I will need Executive colleagues to agree to their implementation. I have already written to them in that regard. I hope that a decision will soon be reached.