Northern Ireland Assembly, 23 September 2025

322 contributions from 56 members. The official report.

Speaker's Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I inform Members that the Speaker remains unwell and will therefore not be in the Chamber today. I am sure that we send him all our best wishes.

Members' Statements

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

As usual, yes, everybody on their feet. Members who are called to speak will have up to three minutes in which to make their statement. I remind Members that they are not permitted to make points of order. Should any arise, I will deal with them afterwards.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Rinne na Náisiúin Aontaithe Lá Idirnáisiúnta na Síochána a cheiliúradh Dé Domhnaigh seo a chuaigh thart, an 21 Meán Fómhair.

Tugann an lá sin deis don domhan ár machnamh a dhéanamh — agus ár dtiomantas a athdhearbhú — ar an dóigh a dtig linn deireadh a chur leis an choimhlint, cearta an duine a chosaint agus síocháin an domhain a chur chun tosaigh.

Tugadh dearbhú cinnte an tseachtain seo caite i dtuarascáil ó Chomhairle na Náisiún Aontaithe um Chearta an Duine go bhfuil stát Iosrael ag déanamh cinedhíothú in aghaidh mhuintir na Palaistíne. Is é a tuairiscíodh inti:

“Scaoil naoscairí cuid de na páistí, lena n-áirítear naíonáin, sa cheann.”

Ná haifir orm é, ach caithfidh mé sin a léamh amach an athuair. Is é a dúradh sa tuarascáil:

“Scaoil naoscairí cuid de na páistí, lena n-áirítear naíonáin, sa cheann.”

Cad é an cineál domhain a bhfuil muid inár gcónaí ann?

Tá freagra na ceiste sin le fáil i gcruachás mhuintir na Palaistíne. Tá uileloscadh comhaimseartha ar siúl os comhair shúile an domhain. Tá stát ag baint úsáid as an chinedhíothú, as an ocras éigeantach, as an ghlanadh eitneach, as an choinneáil agus as an chinedheighilt, agus tá stát ag ciorrú páistí nuair a scaoileann naoscairí sa cheann iad. Agus tá sin uile go léir á dhéanamh d’aon turas. Tá an dara cothrom lae den chinedhíothú seo ag druidim linn.

Ar mhaithe leis an chine dhaonna, ní mór don domhan gníomhú le deireadh a chur leis an tsádachas seo. Ní mór trádbhaic arm chuimsitheacha, smachtbhannaí agus dífheistiú a chur i bhfeidhm i gcoinne Iosrael. Tá an t-am ann le Benjamin Netanyahu agus na gealta ina Chomh-Aireacht a thabhairt os comhair na Cúirte Coiriúla Idirnáisiúnta.

Caithfimid rún comhchoiteann a bheith againn ceartas, comhionnnas agus síocháin a bhaint amach do mhuintir na Palaistíne ós sin is brí do Lá Idirnáisiúnta na Síochána.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I rise to highlight the persecution of Christians, particularly those in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Often, the world turns a blind eye to that brutal news. It does not get the same coverage as many other issues and the persecution of many other peoples. Open Doors reports that over 380 million Christians face high levels of persecution and discrimination: one in seven Christians worldwide.

In the past month, at least 100 people have been killed by Islamic groups in a series of attacks in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and a large number of them were of the Christian faith. Over 95% of the population of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are Christian, but levels of Islamic extremist violence have soared over the past year. That is only one of many attacks on Christians over the past year. On 22 August, 59 Christians were killed in attacks. On 3 August, 49 Christians were killed. On 25 February, Christians were found killed in a church. On 30 January, churches closed as rebels attempted to take them over. I could go on to list other examples.

I want the House to recognise the persecution of Christians, not just in the Democratic Republic of the Congo but worldwide, and acknowledge that it is a real and present issue and that people are entitled to live out their faith in freedom.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I rise to speak about children who are missing in education. I am specifically talking about children who are not registered in school or as being in home education. We do not know how many kids are in that situation, whether they are in harm's way or whether they need support. However, from speaking to the Education Authority, the British Association of Social Workers, the Children's Commissioner's office and other experts, I know that those who are responsible for safeguarding issues are worried. Having received internal minutes and briefings from the Department of Education through an FOI request, I know that the Department is, rightly, worried about the issue.

We have seen heartbreaking incidents in the South that showed what can happen when children fall through the cracks in our systems. We need to do everything that we can to prevent that from happening. That requires better data sharing between our Departments and other jurisdictions, statutory guidance and legislative change, all of which, I know, are being looked at by senior officials in the Department of Education. I fully appreciate that that work is ongoing, but we need urgency. I will help in any way that I can. I will back legislative changes and statutory guidance to improve the situation. We must focus on closing those gaps in our system, and we must get it done in this mandate.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Yesterday, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, I joined others in meeting the Fine Gael Oireachtas team, led by Emer Currie and Frank Feighan. As is always the case with good friends and colleagues, we had a full and frank discussion, about everything from legacy and Ireland's lack of defence spending to the Windsor framework, the stability of the Assembly and migration issues. Finally, we had quite an animated discussion about the Irish presidential election and the relative merits of the candidates.

Yesterday was such a busy day that, unfortunately, I had not heard the interview with the Sinn Féin and People Before Profit Irish presidential pick, Catherine Connolly, with William Crawley on 'Talkback' and nor had our Fine Gael guests. I have now. I encourage everyone in the Assembly to listen to it as well. You will note Connolly's reluctance to unequivocally condemn the 7 October attacks; her remarks that Keir Starmer should have no say about Hamas and that it should be up to the Palestinian people; that she does not believe that the murder, rape, torture and infanticide by Hamas of 1,195 people on that infamous day in October was genocidal; and that Hamas is part of the fabric of the Palestinian people and it is not up to us to dictate to them, though, hypocritically, she has no problem dictating to the people of Israel.

You may also note that the leader of Sinn Féin, Mary Lou McDonald, and, indeed, our First Minister called it a "game changer" when they endorsed Catherine Connolly for the Áras. The question for the Assembly is this: do Sinn Féin and People Before Profit support Connolly's assertions about Hamas? If they do, they should come to the Assembly and correct the record, as both parties have asserted regularly that they do not support Hamas and condemn unreservedly the violence of 7 October as war crimes and attempts to commit genocide on the Jewish people, the aim that has been stated clearly by the Hamas leadership. Which is it, Michelle, Declan and Gerry? How do Connolly's assertions match what you have said in the Assembly? With the First Minister's complaining about selling your soul for a sip of champagne with POTUS, how can you sell your soul and that of your party to Catherine Connolly? The question is whether you endorse or condemn her remarks. If, of course, you agree with her and believe that Hamas is to be rewarded by being given power in the future, that is a damning indictment of your support for the causes of peace and reconciliation here and everywhere else.

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

I rise to discuss the blight of alcohol and drug addiction in our communities. It is one of the greatest social challenges facing our society. Behind the statistics are real people, families and communities that are being torn apart. Every week, I meet families in West Tyrone who are watching loved ones spiral into addiction. Too often, their stories are stories of despair, not because they have given up hope but because they feel that the system has given up on them. Our services are failing. They are underfunded, fragmented and, in many cases, completely inaccessible to those who need them. Waiting lists are far too long. Community organisations are stretched to breaking point, forced to pick up the pieces with little or no support from government. The result is predictable: more lives lost, more families broken and more communities living in fear of what drugs do their streets.

We cannot talk about addiction in isolation. Too often, those struggling with alcohol or drugs are also battling mental health issues, depression, anxiety and trauma, yet, in Northern Ireland, there is no proper dual diagnosis system that treats both conditions together; instead, people are pushed from one service to another and fall through the cracks at the very moment when they need joined-up, compassionate care.

Drugs are destroying lives in every community. From Strabane to Belfast and Omagh to Derry, we see young people being robbed of their future and neighbourhoods being destabilised. It is not just a health crisis; it is a social emergency on which the Executive must act now. We desperately need urgent investment in addiction services. We need accessible, properly funded community-based supports that people and families can rely on. We need a dual diagnosis approach that recognises the inextricable link between mental health and addiction, so that people are treated as whole human beings and not as cases to be passed between Departments. In that vein, it is regrettable that the core funding for the Northlands centre in Derry has been cut. That is short-sighted and speaks to the failings of the Executive to prioritise those who are struggling and battling with addiction, particularly across the north-west.

Addiction is not a lifestyle choice; it is an illness. It requires treatment, support and compassion, particularly from those in positions of leadership in government. If we continue to underfund and ignore the crisis, more lives will be lost. However, with the right services, the right investment and the right political leadership from the Executive, people can have a chance to recover and rebuild their lives with dignity and the support that they so desperately need and deserve.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Last week, a number of Sinn Féin colleagues and I met farming families in Seaforde in South Down to hear about the devastating impact that bovine tuberculosis is having on them. What I heard that night can only be described as heartbreaking. Generations — three, four, five or six generations — of families have seen their work and investment wiped out in a matter of weeks as their herds were destroyed by bovine TB. Farmers spoke that night with raw honesty about the huge emotional and financial toll that that has taken on them and about their despair at seeing their life's work reduced to almost nothing.

The overwhelming message from the floor that night was one of anger: anger at being neglected; anger at being ignored; and anger at being left behind. Among the crowd of men and women was a passionate young farmer called James. James is just 10 years old. He sat quietly beside his grandfather while his mother told the family's story, which was one of heartbreak, cattle loss and livelihoods under threat. In that young man's face could be seen his pride in his family's farm but also his worry as he listened to local farmers' devastating stories.

James represents the next generation of farmers, and he deserves a future in which farming is supported rather than undermined. That night, James showed me a picture of his cow, which he had reared himself from birth. Just the week before, he had watched helplessly as it was taken away to be destroyed. The look on his face said more than any report, review, strategy or consultation ever could, but what struck me the most was his determination to keep on farming. I have to say, "Fair play" to James, because, after that late-night meeting, he still managed to get up in the morning and get to school on time.

That night, farmers told me that they felt abandoned by DAERA and by the Minister, who, they believe, has sat on his hands for far too long. While their herds are being wiped out, the Department produces review after review and undertakes consultation after consultation. Farmers do not need another consultation on this: they need action. They believe that the strategies are already in place: fair compensation; meaningful intervention; support for farm biodiversity; and urgent implementation of existing recommendations.

The Agriculture Minister needs to step up to the plate and deliver. It is a human crisis, with families who have farmed for generations now at breaking point. I call on the Minister to meet the farmers without delay, listen to their devastating stories and take urgent action to protect our agri-food sector.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

On 24 October, the people of the Irish Republic will select their new president. That provides an opportunity for parties to set out their vision and seek the trust of the electorate. Where is Sinn Féin in that election? After months of speculation, of shadow-boxing and of telling the people of Ireland that its announcement would be a game changer, Sinn Féin has bottled it. Once again, Sinn Féin is on the run: no vision, no courage and no leadership. The same party endlessly talks about holding a referendum, first by 2016, then by 2030 and then within its members' lifetime, but, when it had the opportunity to stand for the highest office in the Irish Republic, it ran away. It vanished. It spent months complaining, saying that the people of Northern Ireland should be able to vote in that election and, indeed, wasted time in the Assembly calling for that, yet, when it had it had the opportunity to run a candidate in the election, it ran away.

Instead of taking responsibility, Sinn Féin has a habit of demanding that others do its work. It insists that Dublin must produce a strategy to deliver Irish unity. It insist that civil servants must write the plan, and, when nothing happens, it blames everyone but itself. The decision not to run should come as no surprise. Despite claims from Sinn Féin that Mary Lou McDonald was the Taoiseach-in-waiting, the people of the Republic of Ireland sent the party a clear message. Now, instead of standing on its own two feet, it hides behind the independent candidate, Catherine Connolly, who has already managed to make a mockery of her campaign. We were told that she would be a champion for Irish unity, yet, when newspapers looked at her record on Irish unity, they found that she had not made one single comment on the issue in the past 25 years. However, her anti-Israel, anti-NATO, anti-American and pro-Hamas views might have more to do with the fact that Sinn Féin has run behind her. That pattern runs through Sinn Féin's politics. The party shouts the loudest, but, when asked to lead either in Dublin or here, it blames others for failure to deliver what it wants.

I agree with the former Sinn Féin MP for Mid Ulster Francie Molloy, who broke Sinn Féin ranks to say that it should not have backed Catherine Connolly. The decision is a clear recognition that Sinn Féin is not fit to lead the Irish Republic. On that, Members on these Benches agree with Sinn Féin.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

I will talk about organ donation, given that it is Organ Donation Week. It is life-changing. It is an act of generosity that can be tinged with joy and grief, depending on the circumstances.

Across the UK, 8,000 people are waiting for a transplant, and 276 of them are children. However, only 1% of deaths happen in circumstances that could even allow donation. As Anthony Clarkson from NHS Blood and Transplant put it:

"You are more likely to need a transplant than you ever are to be a donor."

That really hits home for me when I think about my family and my wee ones. The truth is that any of us in the Chamber could need a transplant at some point.

In Northern Ireland, our waiting list has risen to 163 people. Last year, 44 deceased donors enabled 123 transplants, and 68 living donors stepped up, including one of our civil servants who work alongside the Communities Committee this year. However, eight people in Northern Ireland died while still waiting. Those are eight funerals that I would rather had not happened, and I am sure that we all feel the same.

That said, there is a lot that we can be proud of. Ninety per cent of people here support organ donation, and 59% of us are on the register. That is the highest in the UK. Normally, when we look at statistics across these islands, we see that Northern Ireland is usually lagging behind but not this time. That is testament to Dáithí's law. It is making a difference. Máirtín, his daddy, said that Dáithí's law is already playing a role in saving people's lives, but there is more to do. He is right, because, while deemed consent helps, families still need to be part of that discussion. They are far more likely to say yes when they know and have had that conversation with their loved one about what they wanted. Therefore, I take the opportunity today to beg people to please register, tell your family, have that conversation and leave them certain of your wishes.

For families, losing a loved one is already a really torturous time, and leaving them with one less thing to worry about can help. Máirtín also put it really perfectly when he said:

"What could have been an avoided subject is now part of everyday conversations in schools, homes and communities".

That culture shift is precious. He reminds us of the humanity behind it all and the human heart of the work. He said of donors and their families that:

"Their bravery and compassion by thinking of others in their darkest hour makes them true heroes".

I agree with every word.

I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to an fear beag cróga

[Translation: the brave wee man]

that is Mr Dáithí and the smiley wee face that I sometimes see in Ballycastle when he is up for his holidays. He is a little boy who has used the toughest of circumstances to change the world around him. This week, please have that conversation with your families.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I rise today to condemn and to highlight the behaviour of some private car parking firms that operate across Northern Ireland with impunity. As we all know, those firms use bully-boy tactics and target ordinary people with extortionate fines and threats that are completely disproportionate to the circumstances.

In my constituency recently, an elderly lady contacted my office. She had paid the fine after 15 letters of intimidation by one of those so-called parking firms. When a family member challenged it, it transpired that the lady had been in hospital when the incident occurred. That is not a one-off incidence, but it is absolutely disgraceful. I have written to the Minister today to highlight that issue and many others.

We have all heard the stories. Someone pays for a ticket, is perhaps one or two minutes late and suddenly faces a £100 penalty. If they challenge that or try to debate with the company, they get harassed. Bailiff letters begin arriving, and there is threatening language and intimidation. Those are not the actions of fair businesses; they are the actions of companies that are seeking to squeeze every penny out of our constituents. What makes matters worse is the fact that some of our public bodies employ those companies to do that. Public bodies that are funded by the taxpayer are, effectively, outsourcing intimidation.

The Assembly cannot stand idly by while our constituents are threatened in that way by those companies. We must look to what is happening elsewhere. In England and Wales, new codes of practice and legal frameworks have been introduced to curb the excesses, and action has been taken in Scotland to ensure that enforcement is fair, proportionate and transparent. Northern Ireland must not lag behind. I call on the Minister for Infrastructure to review the existing legislation and regulations to finally rein those companies in. As we know, the companies have access to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) records, so it is important that they are completely under control. We need clear rules, robust enforcement and real protections for the public. We need to ensure that, if penalties are applied, they are fair, reasonable and transparent. Above all, we need to put an end to the harassment and intimidation of ordinary people who are going about their daily life.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

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

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

As many of you will know, my home town of Derry proudly carries the title "City of Song". Few ensembles encapsulate that spirit more than the choir Codetta, one of our most distinguished musical institutions. Codetta is celebrating a remarkable 25 years of singing together. Under the expert direction of Dónal Doherty, Codetta has flourished over the past 25 years, earning widespread international acclaim. Such is the dedication of its members that many travel home to Derry regularly from Belfast and beyond for weekend rehearsals and performances.

Codetta has performed and competed at the highest levels across Europe. There have been notable appearances in Washington DC and Mexico, where it brought its talent and voice and represented us across the Atlantic. Its accolades are as impressive as its itinerary, which goes from live broadcasts on television and radio to recordings and standout performances at the opening and closing nights of the Proms and even 'Sports Personality of the Year' when it was broadcast from Belfast 10 years ago to an audience of over eight million viewers. Codetta has earned recognition and won awards across the global choral stage. However, I maintain that Dónal Doherty's greatest musical achievement was managing to get a few notes out of me when he taught me recorder at St Columb's College.

In recent years, Codetta has expanded to include junior and youth choirs, nurturing young talent and enriching the musical life of our region. Those ensembles have played a vital role in music education, particularly in developing young voices and fostering a love of singing for generations to come. We are truly privileged to have a choir of such calibre representing Derry and, indeed, the country. I congratulate everyone involved with Codetta on this remarkable milestone.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

September is Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month and is an important opportunity to raise awareness of ovarian, womb, cervical, vulva and vaginal cancers. Those cancers affect thousands of women across the UK and Northern Ireland, yet awareness, detection and outcomes remain poor. In recent weeks, I have received correspondence from constituents and charities raising a specific and concerning issue: the widespread misunderstanding that cervical screening detects ovarian cancer. Nearly half of women in Northern Ireland believe that a smear test will pick up ovarian cancer: that is not true. Cervical cancer screening detects changes in the cervix that could lead to cervical cancer, but it does not test for ovarian cancer or other gynaecological cancers. That misunderstanding is costing women time and giving them false reassurance, and, when it comes to ovarian cancer, time is everything.

Ovarian cancer is often called the "silent killer", because its symptoms are vague and easy to dismiss: bloating, pelvic pain, feeling full quickly and changes in bladder habits, which, to be honest, are an everyday event for women. We are told that those symptoms can be put down to hormones, stress or simply being a woman. Too often, referrals come too late.

Only one in three women here knows that bloating is a symptom of ovarian cancer.

The five-year survival rate, overall, remains below 45% across the UK. For woman diagnosed at stage 1, survival can be as high as 95%, but for those diagnosed at stage 4, it drops down to 15%. That difference is stark when we consider the consequences of a late diagnosis. Those outcomes are among the worst in Europe, and that is not acceptable. However, it does not have to be inevitable.

Other parts of the United Kingdom are beginning to act. For example, in England, cervical screening information states in clear wording that the test does not detect ovarian cancer. Public awareness campaigns have helped to challenge myths and encourage women to see their GP if they notice symptoms. Northern Ireland needs to do the same. I urge the Public Health Agency to take immediate steps to run a public information campaign here, using plain language, community channels, GP surgeries and the local media. Women need to know what cervical screening is and is not for. Awareness is not enough, however. We need better pathways for diagnosis.

Finally, we need a women's health strategy in Northern Ireland, because, across these islands, women's health has been an afterthought for too long. Pain is normalised, and symptoms are dismissed, resulting in poor outcomes for women in areas ranging from endometriosis to fertility, from menopause to cancer. Behind every statistic is a woman — a daughter, a mother, a sister or a friend. Some are lucky to still be with us, but others are not, because diagnosis happened too late. Their voices should not be ignored.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Tá an Ghaeilge faoi bhláth. Tá líon na bhfoghlaimeoirí ag fás, tá earnáil na Gaelscolaíochta ag borradh léi, agus tá coimisinéir teanga le ceapadh gan mhoill. Is léir go bhfuil an Ghaeilge ag dul ó neart go neart. Tá sé ríthábhachtach go dtacaímidne uile anseo sa tSeomra seo leis an fhás sin.

In ainneoin an dul chun cinn atá déanta, b’éigean do bhreis agus 25 000 Gael ó gach aon chearn den oileán sráideanna Bháile Átha Cliath a thabhairt orthu féin Dé Sathairn seo a chuaigh thart. Mé féin ina measc agus mé bródúil as bheith ann ag seasamh gualainn má gualainn le pobal na Gaeilge. Bhí 25 000 Gael ar na sráideanna – bródúil agus bríomhar – ag éileamh a gceart. Ag éileamh infheistíocht agus aitheantas cuí don Ghaeilge san oideachas, sa tithíocht agus sa reachtaíocht.

Tá seasca faoin gcéad de Ghaelscoileanna ó Thuaidh lonnaithe go fóill i gcóiríocht shealadach neamhshásúil, agus tháinig titim thubaisteach ar líon na ndaltaí atá ag roghnú na Gaeilge mar ábhar TGMO sna meánscoileanna Béarla le 20 bliain anuas. Tá earnáil na luathbhlianta Gaeilge ag snámh in aghaidh an easa, nó tá méadú suntasach ar an éileamh ar a seirbhísí tráth atá an stát fuarchúiseach sa scéal, rud a chuireann tuilleadh brú airgeadais, acmhainní agus foirne ar an earnáil. Leanann Gaeilgeoirí orthu ag streachailt ar son infheictheachta sa réimse poiblí i gcomhairlí ar fud an Tuaiscirt, pé acu i gcomharthaí sráide dátheangacha nó i mbrandáil comhairle.

Ach lig dom é seo a rá: seasaimid leis na Gaeil nuair a thugann said na sráideanna orthu féin. Leanfaimid orainn ag stocaireacht sa tSeomra seo agus níos faide anonn ar son a gceart, ar son tacaíochta agus ar son infheistíocht chuí. Tá dul chun cinn á dhéanamh, ach tá bealach le dul go fóill, agus leanfaimid linn, go bródúil bríomhar.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Peter Martin. You have just one minute. Sorry about that.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I was going to speak about a young girl who died during the summer, so I would prefer to wait.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go ahead. I will give you an extra minute, so you have two minutes.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Are you sure? That is very kind. Thank you.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No problem.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

During recess, on 8 July, Jaidyn Rice, a 16-year-old girl, was killed on the West Circular Road in Bangor. Jaidyn had just finished her GCSEs and was looking forward to going back to school to complete her A levels. She was an active member of the army cadets, where she excelled in first aid, and was considering a future in the army or community work. She was also an active youth leader with the development, integration, citizenship, education (DICE) futures project in Bangor, where she helped young girls and boys from the local area. I know that all those involved in the DICE futures project and the wider North Down Community Network are still very much coming to terms with her loss.

Her mum, Elaine, described her daughter very tenderly:

"There will never be anyone with a heart as big as yours. ... You have half of my heart with you – please hold tight to it princess, and know that I am with you always."

Her brother described her as "brave and amazing" and said:

"like glitter, she always shined hope and happiness into everybody who met her."

A man has been charged with causing death through dangerous driving, causing death whilst driving without a licence and causing death whilst driving without insurance. Few of us in the Chamber, I hope, will ever know the pain that that family has gone through in losing a child. My thoughts remain with them at this time. It is now up to others to honour her legacy and remember her through our actions.

The astounding facts are that the accused in Jaidyn's case was already on bail for other driving offences. He did not even have a licence, but he took a car, and police believe that they can connect him to the circumstances of the night of 8 July. I wrote to the Alliance Justice Minister recently about Jaidyn's case, specifically regarding the man charged being released on bail, which was very hurtful for the families. I was incredulous in trying to understand that. It is therefore very disappointing that Minister Long replied to me that she has no plans to include new guidance on the granting of bail in her sentencing Bill. I believe that to be a significant missed opportunity to provide Jaidyn's family with a positive, legal legacy from the tragic circumstances of her death. It is, unfortunately, an opportunity that the Justice Minister will not take.

Committee Business

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 26 January 2026 in relation to Committee Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you. As Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, I propose an extension to the Committee Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. The legislation is not only technically complex but deeply personal. It seeks to deliver truth and redress to survivors of institutions that operated in Northern Ireland over many decades. Those institutions left a legacy of trauma, shame, secrecy and exclusion. Our duty now is to ensure that the legislative response is thorough, inclusive and survivor-led.

The Committee has already undertaken significant work. We launched a comprehensive call for evidence, which has been open for 11 weeks and closes at the end of this month. We held engagement sessions with survivors and advocacy groups to provide more information on the passage of the Bill through the Assembly. We have begun detailed scrutiny of the Bill's provisions, including, at last week's Committee, meeting men and women with lived experience of the various institutions.

It is clear that more time is needed. Survivors have asked us for space to reflect, respond and be heard. Important questions about eligibility, compensation and the structure of the inquiry have emerged, and we, as legislators, must ensure that every clause of the Bill is fit for purpose. An extension will allow the Committee to deepen its engagement with survivors and affected stakeholders, refine the initial redress scheme to ensure fairness and accessibility, and strengthen the inquiry framework to guarantee independence and trauma-informed practice.

This is not about delay; it is about dignity. Survivors have waited decades for recognition, and we must not rush the process now but take the time to listen, to learn and to legislate with care. I urge Members to support the extension of the Committee Stage until the end of January 2026. Let us honour the courage of those who have come forward, and let us ensure that the Bill delivers the truth and redress that they deserve.

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 26 January 2026 in relation to Committee Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 15 May 2026, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Dilapidation Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit for this debate.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the AERA Committee, I request an extension to the Committee Stage of the Dilapidation Bill to 15 May 2026. That date was agreed after discussions at the Committee meeting on 11 September 2025.

The Committee was first briefed on the proposed content of the Bill at its meeting on 26 June by officials from DAERA's neighbourhood environment quality branch. We considered the outline of the 31 clauses and two schedules. We were informed that the Bill is intended to provide Northern Ireland councils with the powers to deal with dilapidated, dangerous or neglected buildings and sites and to establish a fit-for-purpose enforcement regime. That reflects the powers already available in the rest of the UK and will enhance the cost recovery powers for councils. The Committee heard that the Bill provides for a tiered approach based on severity of dilapidation, with those requiring emergency action being judged to be the most severe.

The Committee recognises that much of the current legislation is old and that the departmental consultation in relation to the Bill was carried out almost a decade ago, in 2016. Given the length of time that has elapsed, it is of utmost importance that the Committee take its time to fully scrutinise all the aspects and impacts that the Bill may have to ensure that it addresses the current issues across buildings and sites and that it is viable for councils, in terms of resources, in the current financial climate. The Department's 2016 consultation received 24 responses, mainly from councils, and there was majority support for introducing a Bill with a new broader, updated regime to deal with dilapidated and dangerous structures, neglected sites and a range of visual amenity issues. However, Members are all aware of dilapidated buildings leading to further neglect in an area, and you do not need to go too far from this Building to see a row of dilapidated vacant shops, at the Knock lights, that have been that way for many years.

In the Second Stage debate, Members raised significant issues about the Dilapidation Bill and highlighted the need to see DAERA guidance documentation that will accompany the Bill. I thank the Department for moving on that guidance at pace, and a draft has now been provided to the Committee. That will ensure our enhanced scrutiny at Committee Stage. One of the reasons for the extension date is that the Bill is not as straightforward as it seems, as demonstrated by the issues raised at Second Stage by Committee members and other Members of the Assembly. Therefore, the AERA Committee will need to scrutinise the powers provided to councils and whether it is appropriate that they be discretionary, as well as the full financial and wider resource impacts on councils in implementing the Bill, as guaranteed central funding is not provided for in it, and to explore further whether the cost recovery mechanisms are fit for purpose to encourage councils to use those powers. We will also look at ensuring that there is adequate cooperation and clear communication between councils, landowners, occupiers and other interested parties; the adequacy of the fees and fixed penalty charges; and the time frames for remedial action and dealing with unregistered land.

The Committee is due to receive a briefing from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) at its next meeting, on 25 September. We received its paper yesterday, so we know that RaISe has highlighted further pertinent queries and issues in addition to those that I have just mentioned. The Committee will want to pursue them in detail with external witnesses and departmental officials. For example, further clarity is required from councils on whether the ability to seek compensation under emergency action will have an impact on their decision to use the powers, and there are concerns about the habitat and conservation aspects associated with dilapidated buildings. The Committee will also want to explore and compare the provisions in other jurisdictions to assess whether they are working well.

At this point, the Committee's public call for evidence on Citizen Space is still open and will remain so until 10 October. We encourage all interested individuals and groups to recognise the Bill's potential impacts and to respond to the call for evidence and the invitation to provide oral evidence to the Committee. The Committee is particularly keen to hear from councils, relevant advisory bodies, professional bodies and the housing and rental sectors and NGOs.

The Committee wishes to give the focused issues and wider impact of the Bill due diligence and scrutiny, while keeping on top of its extensive scrutiny remit for statutory rules (SRs) and the new agriculture, environment and fishing policy that seems to be moving forward. The Committee is also aware of the need to provide sufficient time for its deliberations and to allow additional time, given the likelihood of further Bills overlapping with this Bill in the near future.

Having consulted the Bill Office and having considered the evidence that we wish to take on the Bill and our other ongoing other work, the Committee seeks the support of the House to extend the Committee Stage of the Dilapidation Bill until 15 May 2026. We will, of course, work at pace to report in advance of that date, if that is at all possible.

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 15 May 2026, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Dilapidation Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair)

Private Members' Business

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That this Assembly rejects the notion of an amnesty for those responsible for wrongdoing during the Troubles; stresses that any revised proposals for dealing with the legacy of the past must be the product of serious and sustained engagement with innocent victims, survivors and their advocates; deplores the decision of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to enter into bilateral discussions with his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland whilst acquiescing on the abject failure of the Irish Government to provide answers for those families who suspect Irish state involvement in the murder of their loved ones, or who believe that their deaths could have been prevented; highlights, furthermore, the absurdity of this approach when the Irish Government maintain their inter-state case against the UK Government; notes with concern the memorandum of understanding between the Irish Government and the Omagh bombing inquiry, which masquerades as cooperation but includes no statutory powers, no ability to compel witnesses and no guarantee of full disclosure; opposes any role for the Irish Government in overseeing the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery without first establishing parallel investigative processes in their jurisdiction; and calls on the UK Government to urgently provide assurances that any agreement reached in principle with the Irish Government on legacy commands the broad support of victims and survivors.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

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. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Please open the debate on the motion, Mrs Dodds.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given the events of the past few days, this is a crucial motion, and the Assembly once again has the opportunity to stand with the innocent victims of terrorist violence by supporting it. The DUP will always stand with the innocent victims of terrorism. We record once again our view that there can be no viable process on legacy unless it has access to truth and justice at its heart. Victims of violence have for many years been sidelined, made to feel that they are the pawns of political expediency by successive Governments who have served up prisoner releases and on-the-run letters of comfort. There are even those in the Assembly who have royal pardons in their back pocket.

Over recent months, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom have spent their time consulting the Dublin Government on a framework for Troubles legacy issues, but the record of the Dublin Government on the issue of victims and their access to truth and justice is truly lamentable. They refused to extradite IRA criminals so that they could face justice for their crimes in Northern Ireland, and they have failed to provide answers to those who accuse the Irish security forces of collusion with the IRA.

I make no apology today for talking about some of those cases. I have spoken many times in the House of the case of Ian Sproule. His family have long suspected the gardaí of passing information to the IRA that resulted in his murder. It was a brutal slaying of a young Protestant and loyalist. As Ian drew up to the family home in Killen, just outside Castlederg, his car was sprayed with bullets. The IRA later phoned the house and told his father to go out to the yard and to look at the mess that it had left. It was his son. There has been no expensive Finucane-style inquiry for him; just a heartbroken family still searching for justice. There have been no answers from the Republic's Government, and the Sinn Féin First Minister says that there was no alternative to such wicked murder and loss. No wonder victims are sickened and angry.

I could, of course, mention many others who feel that pain, including the Kingsmills families; the family of Lord Justice Gibson and his wife, who were murdered as they crossed the border; and the Hanna family. Those are all families for whom the truth of collusion with the IRA played a part in their fate. I also acknowledge the families whom the Government of the Republic of Ireland have failed — their own citizens — in their quest for truth and justice. The family of Terence McKeever and of Private Patrick Kelly, who was shot during the rescue of Don Tidey, have raised serious concerns about the lack of a full and proper investigation of their murders by IRA criminals. In a recent 'Belfast Telegraph' article, Private Kelly's son David said:

"we are all invisible in the south."

On 15 August 1998 at 3.10 pm, a bomb explosion ripped through Omagh. Twenty-nine people and two unborn children were killed. Over 200 people were injured. That bomb was built in the Irish state and driven to Northern Ireland. After a long campaign, the Omagh families were finally granted their inquiry, but the memorandum of understanding between the Irish Government and the Omagh bomb inquiry only masquerades as cooperation. It includes no statutory powers, no guarantee of full disclosure from the Irish authorities and no ability to compel witnesses. It is no wonder that some of the Omagh families are deeply disturbed. That same Government have been given a role by Labour in the legacy process. The PM should not trample so lightly on the blood of innocent victims.

The Sinn Féin amendment removes the word "innocent" in reference to the victims of terrorism. Are we surprised? Absolutely not. It is a party that is led by someone who talks about there being no alternative to violence and that constantly eulogises IRA terrorists. Some in the party have suggested that it should embrace the criminals and gangsters of the IRA more fully. There is irony at its heart.

We recently saw a host of Sinn Féin tributes to the IRA killer and criminal "Bik" McFarlane, who led the attack on the Bayardo bar on the Shankill Road in which five people were killed and over 60 injured. Around that time, the killer "Bik" McFarlane was being remembered and honoured at an event in the Falls park. How can we have a reconciled future for Northern Ireland and our children when murder is treated so lightly and murderers are venerated by political parties? Erasing the word "innocent" blurs the distinction between perpetrator and victim. That is the antithesis of justice, and there can be no workable legacy process in which justice is ignored.

We will always stand with the victims of terrorist criminals. A legacy process should have victims at its heart, and the suffering of the innocent should not be airbrushed for political expediency. It is essential that it include the opportunity to hear the stories and voices of innocent victims and to learn about their lives, which were so cruelly taken. We are not interested in the airbrushing of history or the manipulation of the lives of innocent people for political gain. We are not interested in an imperfect opportunity. The lives of the innocent still cry out for truth and justice.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I beg to move the following amendment:

Leave out all after "sustained engagement with" and insert: "victims, survivors and their advocates; notes with concern the memorandum of understanding between the Irish Government and the Omagh bombing inquiry; further notes the motion agreed by the Assembly in March 2025, calling on the Irish Government to initiate a public inquiry into the Omagh bomb; reiterates the call for a separate public inquiry by the Irish Government into the Omagh bombing; and calls on the UK Government to urgently provide assurances that any agreement reached in principle with the Irish Government on legacy commands the broad support of victims and survivors."

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I noticed a lot of use of the word "we" in the speech of the previous Member to speak. This is not about "we". At the heart of any debate on legacy must be the victims and survivors of the conflict. Their pain, their voices and their right to truth and justice need to be the starting point and, to be perfectly honest, the finishing point.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Absolutely not.

The motion highlights the need for answers, including answers from the Irish Government. I am clear that victims deserve the truth, wherever it leads. We must ensure that the approach to legacy is not about closing doors but about opening the door to truth, accountability and healing.

Victims — not "we" — have consistently told us that they need a process that they can trust. They almost had that in the Stormont House Agreement, which the DUP agreed to, by the way.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

No, I will not. Allow me to go on further. I will let you back in.

The DUP agreed to that. It was far from a perfect mechanism, but, at least, it had buy-in from many victims. At least, they had a say in it and had input to it and were consulted on it. Seventeen and a half thousand people responded to that consultation. There are not many consultations that we can say that about.

As I said, victims have told us that they want a process that they can trust. They need a process that commands their confidence and does not simply re-litigate old political arguments but seeks to meet their needs: truth recovery, justice, where possible, and recognition of the harm done. That is why any legacy —.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member

[Inaudible.]

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Am I OK to move on?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Go ahead.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

That is why any legacy framework must be victim-led and have broad support. It cannot be imposed by London or Dublin or even by the Assembly. As I said, it is worth remembering that we have been here before. We had the Stormont House Agreement, which had the endorsement of the Assembly. The DUP supported it, and both Governments were involved in it. The agreement envisaged a role for the Irish Government, who were very involved in the conversations around it.

A process that fails to include cooperation from both Governments would fail all victims.

I share concerns about the British Government's approach to the unilateral passage of the Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and the amnesty provisions that have undermined confidence across the board, but the answer is not to walk away from engagement. The answer is to insist on a process that victims can trust, that compels disclosure, that has investigative powers and truth recovery processes, and that puts victims at the centre.

I ask that everybody in the Assembly works together to that end, not scoring political points but securing a process that commands confidence, deals with the past comprehensively and allows victims to finally get the answers that they have been denied for too long. I am asking that Members in the Chamber today support our amendment because, truthfully, I think that the original motion is political posturing and has little or no focus on the victims' needs or asks. Legacy is not about whataboutery; it is about families all across our community. I could name many, just as the Member across the Chamber did, but I do not think that they want us to name them; they want us to deliver for them. They lost mothers, sons, daughters, fathers, brothers and sisters during the conflict. They come from all backgrounds and lost their loved ones at the hands of those from all backgrounds. They all, without exception, deserve to know the truth and have the justice that they require for their loved ones. I hope that we will get some of that, but it remains to be seen what will be in the legislative text following the announcement by the two Governments on Friday.

Let me be very clear: as a party, we will listen to all victims, as I have done over many years. From as far back as 2016 and 2017, I have been meeting victims and families from all backgrounds, who were killed and injured by all actors in the conflict, whether republicans, loyalists or state actors. They will decide on the process that meets their needs.

The DUP does not get to decide who a victim is. The definition of a victim is outlined in the Northern Ireland Act 2006. You do not get to decide it, I do not get to decide it, nobody in this Chamber gets to decide it. The definition of a victim is there. I would like us all to accept that, move on and understand this: every single family that lost a loved one feels the same pain; every single family that lost a loved one deserves the same truth; and every single family that lost a loved one deserves the same justice. That is it. There is no equivocation and no nonsense. Every person who died is a loss, and every person who has gone is missed and loved by the people who lost them. Let us just stop this nonsense in the Chamber. I know that people in the Chamber have lost loved ones — right across the Chamber, from all backgrounds. We cannot ignore that. I am one of the very lucky people who did not. I understand that, so I do not speak for victims. That is why I listen to them.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I welcome the debate today. We should all keep one thing firmly in our minds this morning, which is the victims and survivors of the Omagh bomb and, indeed, all those bereaved, injured and killed during the entirety of the Troubles. They should be at the heart of today's discussion. Their voices must be heard, and their experiences and those of their family members must be used to guide how we deal with the difficult issues surrounding legacy.

In considering the original motion, I found that, while it raises real concerns, it risks becoming more about political point-scoring than about real commitment to truth, justice and accountability for victims and survivors, and it takes us away from where the focus should be. Victims are not best served by jabbing rhetoric or a political blame game, passing responsibility back and forth between jurisdictions. They are best served by a practical, victim-centred, human rights-compliant approach.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I just want to make a bit of progress, then I will maybe let you in.

It is because of that that I will oppose the motion and, instead, support the amendment —

[Interruption]

— which I believe —

[Interruption.]

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Sinn Féin rewriting history, aided and abetted by Alliance.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Excuse me. I will be heard in the Chamber. Thank you.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Sinn Féin stooge.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Mr Deputy Speaker, will you please rule?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member will be heard. I have already asked Members to be quiet. I am now doing it more formally and more loudly. Proceed.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I feel that the amendment better places the emphasis on the lived experiences and realities of victims and survivors here. Of course, there must be cross-border cooperation, and, of course, legacy issues are an all-island responsibility, but that means working together to put victims first, not using them as pawns in a political contest. I was struck by a comment that a witness made at a Committee session on this very issue. He said — I am paraphrasing more than anything — that we will not see reconciliation on the island of Ireland unless both Governments step up to the plate and provide the information and evidence that they have. That needs to be at the heart of this.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Go ahead. I will, actually.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with her when she talks about transparency between the Governments — our UK Government and that of the Irish Republic — but what about the terrorists? What about disclosure for the victims of terrorism? What about the political parties attached to terrorists, like Sinn Féin?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you for that. I was ready for that question.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I totally agree that everybody who was involved in the Troubles should come forward with the evidence that they have. Do you not think that I find absolutely abhorrent what the IRA and others did to Northern Ireland? I hate it every day. I want to see reconciliation.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

You are going to vote with them.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I am going to vote for an amendment that puts victims and survivors at the centre.

[Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, please.

[Interruption.]

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will Members please stop speaking from the sidelines? The Member will continue.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you.

That is my frustration with this entire debate. These motions are tabled, and we have a ding-dong in the Chamber. Victims and survivors and their families look on in absolute disgust and horror at the childish behaviour in the Chamber. Can we please move on and put them at the heart of our work here, through the Executive Office Committee and its programmes and other departmental responsibilities? It is nauseating.

The amendment focuses on one issue: a separate public inquiry by the Irish Government. I am conscious that that could result in victims and survivors being asked to give evidence more than once, and that that carries a real risk of re-traumatising families who have already endured that pain for more than 25 years. If such an inquiry goes ahead, there must be put in place robust victim support; access to counselling and legal advice; and, above all, a coordinated, all-island approach to evidence-giving, so that families are not forced to unnecessarily duplicate statements.

In light of the recent agreement between the Irish and UK Governments, we have a new framework: a proposal for a reformed legacy commission, repeal of the immunity scheme and the reopening of inquests that had been stalled. That deal has the potential to deliver for families that have waited for decades. It offers us a real chance to deliver on the commitments that we are discussing. The overall direction of the amendment is right. It reaffirms the Assembly's position, recognises the failures of the current arrangement, and calls on the UK Government to ensure that any agreement with the Irish Government commands the confidence of victims and survivors. Without that confidence, no legacy mechanism can succeed.

Legacy is a contentious issue for a reason. It is not easy, but we owe it to victims and survivors to approach it with honesty, compassion and practical solutions. The days of the politics of appeasement need to be placed behind us so that we can achieve meaningful and sustainable reconciliation on the island of Ireland.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I will just remind people that this is a debate about the Irish Government's role in legacy; that is why we are focusing on the Irish Government's role. We debated our motion on that in March of this year, and not a single Member in the House disagreed. That motion passed without issue, having been amended by the DUP, but, for some reason, we seem to have gone off at a tangent.

James Elliott was kidnapped close to the border in 1972, taken into the Irish Republic, tortured and murdered. His body was then booby-trapped and dumped on the border two days later. Two individuals were charged, not with his murder but with possessing explosives. There was no article 2 investigation by the Irish Government into James Elliott's murder. Why not? The UK has now initiated an article 2 inquest, and hopefully that will start again. Jean McConville, who was abducted and then murdered in the Irish Republic, has had no article 2 investigation. Robert Nairac was abducted and tortured: no article 2 investigation. I could go on an awful lot more.

There is a concern, because Kieran Conway and Michael Hayes admitted involvement in and knowledge of the Birmingham bombing, which killed 21 people and injured over 200 more, and they have not even been questioned by an Garda Síochána. An Garda Síochána did not interview Father Patrick Ryan, who admitted involvement in multiple explosions, including in Brighton and Hyde Park. He was never even interviewed by an Garda Síochána. Kingsmills certainly did not get the open and transparent cooperation from the Irish Government that was promised. Corporal Heather Kerrigan and Private Norman McKinley were murdered by the PIRA during a cross-border operation — their killers were quite happy to slip back into Ireland, which they saw as a safe haven. The fact is that Ireland was used as a safe haven for terrorists, who were comfortable attacking civilians in Northern Ireland safe in the knowledge that they could go back to the Irish Republic and be safe.

Do I have confidence in the Irish Government and their legacy dealings on the Troubles? Not one bit, and here is why: because the former Irish Justice Minister made it clear in 2021 that the Government had decided that it was no longer in the state's interest to investigate and prosecute Troubles-related crimes. In 1998, the Irish Government literally said, "That is it. We have drawn a line in the sand. We are not going to do it any more". They did so having been lobbied by Sinn Féin for amnesties. The Irish Government stand with their hands in their pockets complaining about the UK Government's legacy legislation while they do absolutely nothing. Their refusal to investigate Troubles-related crimes has delayed and denied justice, and that will be exploited by the perpetrators in the same way that the OTR letters were exploited by Downey. The chief suspect in the murder of Gareth O'Connor in 2003 was handed an OTR letter by a senior member of Sinn Féin — again, denying and delaying justice.

We have already debated this issue. We have already talked about what happened in regard to Omagh, and we supported the families' call for the Irish Government to open an independent inquiry into the Omagh bombing. That is the core of what we are talking about here. The Irish have not done enough, if anything whatsoever. I remind people that the Omagh bomb was constructed in Ireland, the explosives were sourced in Ireland, the timer power unit was built in Ireland, the car was stolen in Ireland, the murderous operation was planned and mounted from Ireland, and the murderers — the perpetrators — returned to Ireland, yet the Irish Government think that it is nothing to do with them. It is utterly scandalous. We should all be up in arms about that. That is the heart of the DUP motion: to say to the Irish, "You have not done enough. Do more". How you cannot support that is absolutely beyond me.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Yes, of course.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

The motion also says that it deplores the decision of the Secretary of State to negotiate with this counterpart in the Republic of Ireland. How do you propose that we get full cooperation from the Irish Government in the absence of negotiation?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Negotiations are negotiations, but you cannot be a negotiator if you are the ones who are literally denying justice at the same time. You cannot turn round and say, "We are going to negotiate with you and we are going to make sure that you have an oversight body, but, do you know what, we are not going to do anything". That is a genuine concern. Whether you see it or do not see it, that is a genuine concern.

The Irish Government have now said that they will have a gardaí legacy unit. That is a move in the right direction. Who will be the oversight body for that legacy unit? How will we ensure that they do not redact information? In my last conversation with the Irish Government, they were quite clear that the directorate of military intelligence, which was formerly known as G2, will be able to redact information before investigation, and an Garda Síochána will also redact information before investigation. There is no oversight body.

I am further concerned, because, when I asked the First Minister just yesterday whether she could guarantee that the process will be victim-centred, it became clear to me that nobody has even engaged with our Executive Office, which is responsible for the victims and survivors strategy, so it cannot even say that it will be victim-centred.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member give way?

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am sorry, but I have only five seconds left. I support the motion. Not every word in it is perfect, but I still think that it is clear.

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

It has been said before but needs to be said again, and as often as possible, that the people who matter most in this discussion are not those in the Chamber but those who are victims of the Troubles, as well as their families. In everything that we say and do, we must think about them. We also have a responsibility to the society in which we live. Young people today and future generations will take on the leadership of this society in years to come. We have a responsibility to them not to pass on the poison of our conflict but, rather, to do as much as we possibly can to create a healthy and reconciled society. We are clearly failing at that task thus far.

The amnesty proposals that the previous Tory Government put forward marked a nadir in the post-conflict period. The proposals —.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will give way in one second.

The proposals that have come from the UK and Irish Governments are as yet scant in detail. There has been progress made in some areas, but there are real concerns that need to be addressed, and I hope that they will be, in part through legislation and engagement with victims and survivors first and then with political parties. I have to say, however, based on the quality of debate in the Chamber, that some will wonder how productive that engagement will be. Legislation will come forward in Westminster, and it is right that there are parties that will actually be in the Chamber there to amend that legislation where necessary.

I will continue with my points, but I will give way now for the purposes of debate.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I accept and agree that a proposal for amnesty from any Government is totally inappropriate. You described the previous UK Government's proposal as being a nadir. Do you also agree that the amnesty that Michael McDowell says that the Irish Government gave to every suspect in terrorist crimes in the Republic of Ireland at the petition of Sinn Féin was morally indefensible? In fact, it was worse, because it was not even transparent, as it was not done through legislation.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

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

Our party has a consistent record of opposing amnesties. I do not want the debate to be about political point-scoring, but I am clear about where my party has always stood on violence in this society, be it republican, loyalist or state violence. All three happened. Parties on all sides of the Chamber remain in denial about the violence from republicans, loyalists or the state, or, indeed, from the state in collusion with loyalists or through the state controlling senior republicans. We have no issue with being clear about our position. We have no problems with our record, and I do not want this to be about party political point-scoring.

We have been clear, and we were so earlier in this year, when we had the debate on their role, that the Irish Government needed to do more to assure and do right by the victims of the Omagh bombing. As a nationalist party that believes in a new Ireland, we have never had any difficulty with saying that. We have always stood by the Omagh victims, and we stand by all those who need more information from the Irish Government about incidents that happened during the Troubles. We make no bones about that. We have also been clear in calling out what happened and in standing with victims, not just those of state-sponsored collusion by Britain but those who are unable to access justice because the British state continues to hide information from them, and it is hiding information from them.

Bridie Brown is 87 years of age. She wants to achieve in her final years some level of truth and justice for her family. The British state is preventing her from getting that, because it will not disclose information that is germane to the murder of her husband. Those are clear facts. Just as we stand with the Omagh families, with the victims of Kingsmills, with Bridie Brown and her family and with the families of all the victims of our conflict, we will always call for a system that does right by all those people. That will be our approach, and it is the approach that we have always followed, as we deal with the new legacy proposals.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member take an intervention?

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

Yes, I will take a very brief intervention.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It will be very brief. Does the Member agree that the Brown family did not seek an inquiry but tried every other process, and that the legal process told them that the only way in which they could get the truth was through a public inquiry?

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

That is certainly true. The Brown family has behaved with extraordinary dignity and has been thwarted completely indefensibly at every turn.

Let me say this: we will not be found wanting in our responsibility to challenge, where necessary, the Irish Government, and we are robust in challenging the British Government. We will test the new proposals, doing our job in the Chamber, at Westminster and everywhere else and speaking up for the values that we want to see. We want to see a reconciled society. I worry about the trivialisation of violence. I am worried about the minimisation and glamourisation of everything that happened. I worry about people minimising and glamourising the IRA campaign and about people turning up outside a courthouse wearing a Parachute Regiment beret when a man is on trial. I do not want to prejudice that trial, but we know that innocent people were mown down on the streets of Derry. A British Prime Minister stood up in the House of Commons and apologised for it, but people still see fit to turn up to a courthouse to somehow undermine the idea of justice for those who seek it over Bloody Sunday.

In all those things, we need to be serious, but I fear that there is no seriousness in the Chamber today. I fear that there is a constant desire, 30 years on from the first ceasefires, to rub one another's nose in it. Nothing in a legal framework —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Your time is up.

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

— stops clarity coming from the organisations that were responsible for the conflict.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Your time is up.

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

We will call for consistency —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr O'Toole, your time is up.

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

— and clarity for victims.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Your time is up.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I will point everyone again to the motion, which refers to:

"the abject failure of the Irish Government to provide answers for those families who suspect Irish state involvement in the murder of their loved ones, or who believe that their deaths could have been prevented; highlights, furthermore, the absurdity of this approach when the Irish Government maintain their inter-state case against the UK Government; notes with concern the memorandum of understanding between the Irish Government and the Omagh bombing inquiry, which masquerades as cooperation but includes no statutory powers, no ability to compel witnesses and no guarantee of full disclosure; opposes any role for the Irish Government in overseeing the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery without first establishing parallel investigative processes in their jurisdiction; and calls on the UK Government to urgently provide assurances that any agreement reached in principle with the Irish Government on legacy commands the broad support of victims and survivors."

Why can the House not support that wording, in a motion that seeks truth and justice for victims and survivors? Why can it not? Why will the House divide, when the victims and survivors need truth and justice and need the House to fight for them? They have waited long enough. They have waited for decades and generations. People have died not knowing the truth and not seeing justice applied to the perpetrators and the people who killed and savagely murdered their loved ones, yet some Members here think that the motion is unhelpful and want to move on. They want to forget. The SDLP Member talked about the failure of moving on from the "poison" of the past. Well, I can tell you now that the innocent victims who died at the hand of terrorism did not spread any poison.

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

I did not say that.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

They did not spread any poison.

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

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I will give way.

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

The Member has just misquoted me. I said nothing about innocent victims not moving on and that being a form of poison. That is a direct and offensive misquote. I acknowledge the seriousness with which the Member takes the issue, but that is not what I said. Dealing with innocent victims and giving them justice is not the same as —. The whole point is to create a process that allows them to have truth and justice. That is how we remove the poison from the future.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his clarification.

Then we have Sinn Féin Members, who want to amend the motion to take out the word "innocent". Does removing that word from the victims not resonate and perpetuate the guilt? That is shabby. It is really, really bad. Sinn Féin has campaigned vigorously for amnesty, which is the opposite of justice. How can it say out of one side of its mouth that it seeks justice and truth while lobbying from the other for amnesty for IRA terrorists who perpetrated murder and killed people at the border in Northern Ireland, including Protestants at that border and Catholics who they suspected of informing? Without any trial or a justice process, those people were summarily executed at the side of the road. That is what the IRA did to the people of Northern Ireland from all religions, including Protestant and Catholic. So many people cannot move on because they have not seen truth and justice. That is what they want.

We talk about transparency from the British and Irish Governments, but where is the disclosure from the IRA and loyalist terrorists? Where is the disclosure from Sinn Féin members who were in the IRA? They are bound by some code. That is some code indeed for the victims of terrorism when they cannot get the truth from politicians in this country who had a history in the IRA but will not speak up and deliver that truth for those people when it would be so easy for them to do so. Search your conscience. People out there have been living in hell because they cannot get the truth. Some people know the truth, but people cannot get justice because of the on-the-run letters and the fact that the Irish Government will not investigate their part in the terrorist campaign. That is truly awful. My party will always defend every innocent victim, no matter where they come from, what their religion, where they went to school or where they serve their God. We will support them all. I wish that every other party in this place could say the same.

I turn to the Alliance Party, which is going to support Sinn Féin's amendment. That is diabolical. I ask it to search its conscience and read the text of the DUP motion. I pray that it sees the light when it comes to our wording, comes back and runs round to support us in our endeavour, because we have the victims at the heart of the process.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

When we discuss legacy, victims and survivors must always be at the centre of our discussions. One of the greatest failures of this place and of the two Governments over the past 27 years since the Good Friday Agreement has been the perennial failure to find a way forward or deliver a comprehensive package to deal with our past and its legacy. That has let down not just victims but wider society. It has acted as a barrier to truth, justice and accountability and to building the truly reconciled, united and integrated community to which we on these Benches aspire.

However, more callous is the perennial willingness of Members to use victims as political footballs. We have seen it when perpetrators have been eulogised by some parties in the Chamber or, I have to say, when politicians have stood outside courts alongside alleged perpetrators or, worse, have met representatives of active paramilitary groups, pouring fuel on the flames and causing even further trauma to victims. Allow me to be clear at the beginning of my contribution and say that, since my party's foundation, it has been unwavering in its commitment to the rule of law and that we will take no lectures from any party that flirts with terrorists and paramilitaries.

Alliance has also been clear that the border should never be a barrier to victims in accessing the truth and justice that they deserve. The Irish Government have a duty and an obligation to ensure full cooperation and the delivery of reciprocal arrangements. The fundamental problem with the motion is that it condemns any bilateral negotiations with the Irish Government. You cannot deliver a comprehensive package and have Irish Government cooperation in the absence of that negotiation between the Secretary of State and the Tánaiste. That is why we will oppose the original text.

Indeed, since the motion was tabled, a significant new framework has been announced. Like other parties, Alliance wants to take time to consult victims and survivors, who must be at the heart of our considerations. We want to see the detail of any legislation that will be passed either at Westminster or by the Dáil.

It is clear, however, that there has been a significant change in substance and tone. That change is to be welcomed. As part of that framework, there is now a commitment from the Irish Government to investigate all Troubles-related incidents that happened in the state. That is progress, and it must be acknowledged. There is also a commitment to set up a new legacy unit and cooperate fully with any inquiries that happen in the United Kingdom. Let us take time to consider the detail of the legislation that will go through the Dáil.

I give way to the Member.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Do you accept that the belated setting up of a unit in an Garda Síochána to investigate the past is too little, too late? How many victims have died during the amnesty? How much evidence has been lost? How many suspects have died without being brought to justice in the past 25 years? It is too little, too late to investigate things 25 years later.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I agree: it is too little, too late. Perhaps, I will come back to that point as I close my remarks. There has been too little from the UK Government, the Irish Government and, indeed, many of those who were involved in paramilitary organisations during the Troubles. There are failures on all sides. The challenge with the motion is that it does not acknowledge that shared ownership and responsibility across all parties.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I will, briefly.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I appreciate the Member's being generous with his time. You have articulated the reason why the Alliance Party opposes the motion — because it states that we deplore the negotiations between the Irish Government and UK Government — but, if you read on, you will see that there is a particular reason for that, which is the failure of the UK Government to get a proper process and reciprocal arrangement from the Irish Republic. It is not, therefore, an outright condemnation of the negotiations. With all due respect, Mr Tennyson, the reasons that you have articulated for opposing the motion are wafer-thin.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Well, that is your view. I did not read the motion in the way in which you have just described it. It focuses solely on the Irish Government and rejects engagement with them. Because it was tabled prematurely, it does not acknowledge the progress that has been made in the past week, and that is a flaw.

There is a clear departure from the folly of any notion of amnesty. The callous approach of the previous Government was to depart unilaterally from the Stormont House Agreement and seek to shut down avenues for truth and justice for victims across our community and society. Ultimately, any process must command the confidence of victims. It must have independent oversight of the involvement of both the UK and Irish Governments. It must be human rights-compliant and have active participation from victims and their families. There is shared ownership, which the motion does not recognise. I hope that that can be redressed through the new framework.

There are those who say that we should simply move on. That is easy to say when you have not lost someone; it is much harder for a family living with that pain. Getting a comprehensive legacy process is not about living in the past; it is about dealing with our past comprehensively so that we can move forward together towards a truly united and reconciled community. That ought to be where our focus is. I will take no lectures from parties on either side of the Chamber who have frustrated that process for 30 years.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

As I said yesterday, these are solemn matters. The proposals merit serious consideration, because we owe it to the victims. I will take exception: the Ulster Unionist Party is examining the proposals very closely. We will try to shape, bend and influence whatever the outcome is. There are lots of things that can be done constructively. That is why we have set out our guiding principles, which put victims first.

There is a big issue with how the Irish state has dealt with the Troubles not just during the conflict and the terrorist campaign, with the lack of extraditions — fewer than one in 10 — etc but with the amnesty. It is a really serious issue. I now have the video clip where Michael McDowell says loudly and clearly that members of Sinn Féin lobbied for an amnesty and that the Government gave that amnesty and instructed an Garda Síochána not to investigate any crime anywhere on the island of Ireland. Not only was that shameful and done without legislation and transparency, my big concern, which I am putting on the record today, is that, when a state gives a solemn undertaking not to do something and, 25 years later, says that it will start reinvestigating crimes, that is a "breach of an executive undertaking", as it is called in law, and an abuse of executive power. That is what caused the issues in the Downey trial. Downey was told — there is a specific issue with his letter — that he would not be prosecuted in that case. When he was prosecuted, the judge rightly said that that was an abuse of executive power.

Sinn Féin's former colleagues in the IRA are sitting on a potential "Get out of jail free" card. That is why we will ask the Irish Government for two things. One —

[Interruption.]

Members at the back of the Chamber are laughing; I do not find it funny. I will give you some examples. Let me say first what we will ask of the Irish Government: number one, a full report. Let us have a transparent report on what was offered to whom. I also want to see legal advice. What are the implications? Could they scupper an Garda Síochána in bringing those former comrades to justice?

Let me tell you about one former comrade, Seamus Kearney. This example highlights the hypocrisy. In 1981, Seamus Kearney waited in a hospital car park. John Proctor, a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, was visiting his newborn son in the maternity ward. When he came back and got into his car, who was waiting for him? Seamus Kearney, the freedom fighter for Ireland. He was smoking a cigarette, and he pumped rounds into that man, whose son grew up without him.

Here is the thing: we were told at the time of the Good Friday Agreement that we had to accept that people would get out after two years, but that was it; there was nothing else. What happened when the police brought Seamus Kearney to justice under the provisions of the Belfast Agreement, by which he would get two years? Former Sinn Féin south Derry MLA Ian Milne said that it was a vindictive prosecution, because he had been good republican. I would hate to see a bad republican, but this is the point: Sinn Féin has opposed the rule of law being implemented as agreed under the Belfast Agreement, just as the Republic of Ireland has opposed it in giving an amnesty. The UK should be suing the Republic of Ireland, not the other way around.

Here is the thing: I condemn every loyalist paramilitary. The Shankill butcher was as evil as the Shankill bomber. Any rogue former colleague of mine — one joined the Glenanne Gang — is a traitor and should be put in prison. I call for anyone who did such things to be stripped of all pensions. We stand by every victim, but, in reality, 99% of the people who did wrong were paramilitaries. We need to put the victims first, and we can do so only if we build the legacy agreement on solid foundations. The Irish Government need first to publish what was agreed with Sinn Féin and tell us what the legal outworkings of that are. Will that scupper an Garda Síochána in investigating Troubles-related crime?

We ask the Irish Government — we want to look forward — who will staff the new an Garda Síochána unit. We are told that the investigation unit that will be part of the legacy commission up here must have a non-Northern Ireland director of investigations, so we say that the an Garda Síochána unit must have a non-Republic of Ireland investigator to oversee it. Who provides the insight and the oversight? Both states should give unredacted intelligence to investigators. I know for a fact — no one can challenge this point; I will finish on it — that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) gets unredacted, unvarnished intelligence from the security services. How the ICRIR releases that is a different issue, but it gets it. An Garda Síochána and G2, as it was formerly known, will not give that, but we need to make sure that they do so.

I agree that we should put victims first, but there are massive issues. I support the motion. The Republic of Ireland has a lot of ground to make up —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Time is up.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

— and I hope that it can.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I listened intently to the Member who spoke previously. He makes a case for strong collaboration between the British and Irish Governments. I welcome that, if that is his logic; it is not entirely consistent with support for the DUP motion. We cannot support a DUP motion that "deplores" greater cooperation between the British and Irish Governments on proposals for dealing with the legacy of the past or on any other issue of shared responsibility. A case has just been made for shared responsibility. Why should we negate that? We are minded to support the amendment.

The SDLP has consistently rejected an amnesty for all those responsible for wrongdoing during the Troubles. The two parties in the joint office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have repeatedly failed to make progress on the legacy arrangements in the Stormont House Agreement of 2014. They share a responsibility for the decade of failure since then to deliver on that vital issue for victims and survivors. I have met those victims and survivors and heard their hurt, their suffering and —

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Will the Member agree that responsibility for the Stormont House Agreement and introducing the legislation lay with the British Government? They agreed to do it in March 2017 and in October 2017. They said then that it would be 2018. The British Government failed to introduce the legislation. That was outwith our control.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Absolutely, and I will come to that too. I said "share a responsibility" — very specific in the language.

The agreement announced by the Irish and British Governments at the weekend set outs a new framework for the way forward. It is intended to reform and replace the measures in the widely opposed Legacy Act of the previous Tory Government and more accurately reflect the arrangements agreed by both Governments under the Stormont House Agreement. That process is expected to resolve the legal dispute between the Irish and British Governments that the DUP appears to be concerned about. I remind the DUP that the Legacy Act did not have the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That Act shut the door on the prospect of truth, justice and accountability for victims and survivors. Without that prospect, there could have been little hope for reconciliation, which, I trust, we all so hope to achieve.

We in the SDLP give a cautious welcome to the announcement by both Governments. It represents some progress. However, as we all know, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We will wait until we see the final form of the legislation. No doubt, there will be multiple attempts at amendments. We will wait and see the outcome of that. We have concerns that what is being introduced may fall short in meeting the needs of victims and survivors.

Bridie Brown has been mentioned today, and I emphasise that, for the British Government, a key element is that they listen and that they remove their objection, their stalling and their methodology for trying to prevent the truth from coming out in the case of Sean Brown's murder. It has been before the court multiple times, and there have been multiple findings by High Court judges that the only way forward is a public inquiry. The British Government and the Secretary of State have to withdraw their case, which is placing another blocking stone in the way of that public inquiry.

We are running out of opportunities to address the legacy of the past, but, as I warned the Assembly in 2021, attempts to seal off the past are doomed to failure. The poison will not be contained and will continue to contaminate the present and the future until properly addressed. Secrecy from Governments and from paramilitary groups has long obstructed the necessary process of truth recovery for victims and their families. Both Governments have now committed themselves to legislating to facilitate full cooperation with the proposed legacy commission. We hope that they will deliver on that. We believe that that full cooperation should also cover existing inquiries, such as the Omagh bombing inquiry. Ultimately, it is for that inquiry, as an independent statutory public inquiry, to decide whether any agreement they enter into is appropriate or whether either Government are not cooperating fully with their investigations. However, the SDLP believes that there is a need for the UK and Irish Governments to adopt positions of full disclosure in legacy investigations. To that end, we have repeatedly called for the removal of any national security vetoes in legacy investigations, including the Omagh bombing inquiry. The British and Irish Governments could and should agree to that measure.

The SDLP will continue to engage with both Governments and with victims' groups and consult on the proposals and the forthcoming legislation. Our objective has always been to build a legacy architecture that can deliver a reconciled, shared future. We are committed to working constructively to achieve that shared future.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The motion before the House has in every sense been overtaken by events. The Secretary of State has shamefully announced that Dublin will co-design legacy plans. Let me be clear: that is not just wrong; it is an obscenity.

We must never forget the historical record of the South. Many victims of the IRA would still be alive today but for the deliberate actions and, indeed, glaring inactions of the Irish state: sanctuary across the border; refusal to extradite known terrorists; provision of safe houses and training grounds; and free movement of explosives through the Republic.

All those actions sustained the IRA's murderous campaign.

The facts are undeniable. Between 1973 and 1997, only eight out of the 110 extradition requests from the UK to the Republic were successful. The Irish constitution, which claimed Northern Ireland as its own, was repeatedly exploited by terrorists in Irish courts fleeing justice. Before the arrival of the Libyan Semtex in the mid-1980s, bombs in the majority of republican areas were made from Irish industrial explosives, which came straight from quarries across the border into the hands of killers. Today, however, we are told that the same Republic should be trusted to shape how legacy is handled. That is grotesque, and it is an insult to every innocent victim.

The document that was released on Friday shows that the Republic is committed to investigating only unsolved incidents in its jurisdiction. There is no commitment to examine the fact that the bombs that were made for Omagh and Enniskillen were built in the Republic, before being transported across the border. There is no prospect of getting accountability for the attempted bombing at Tullyhommon, where a bomb that was four times the size of that used on the same day in Enniskillen failed to detonate. It was targeting Boys' Brigade and Girls' Brigade members, and its command wire ran into the Republic.

We also have the very real issue of collusion between the Irish security forces and republicans. Mrs Dodds has already mentioned Ian Sproule. I also think of Ian Sproule today: a young joiner who was shot 44 times outside his Castlederg home, after which his father received a phone call telling him to go outside to see what the IRA had left him on the street. After that murder, an inaccurate gardaí file was leaked to a journalist seeking to blacken the reputation of an innocent man.

I also think of the Hanna family, who were blown up by a 1,000 lb IRA bomb, intended for a judge, as they were returning from Dublin Airport after a trip to Florida. Does six-year-old David Hanna not deserve justice? He was found dead with a Disney ticket in his pocket. The blood of that young boy and his parents still cries out for justice, yet Dublin, London and those who share power with the political wing of the very people who planted that bomb turn a deaf ear. Lord and Lady Gibson, a couple aged 73 and 67, who should have been left to enjoy their retirement together, were blown up just moments after crossing the border. Serious questions have been asked of but never answered by Dublin in the Gibson and Hanna cases. Does Friday's paper commit to anything on them? No. Dublin takes it upon itself to equality-proof the UK proposals, while, all the time, it is up to its neck in facilitating IRA terror, and, in multiple cases, it was colluding outright. My goodness: what we have heard today from the Alliance Party. Sinn Féin can always rely on its little helpers to rewrite history. Alliance is happy and content that the word "innocent" be stripped out of the motion, but —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— I certainly am not.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

When we debate legacy in the Chamber, it is important that we be reminded that we are not just debating history in the abstract but talking about people: about families who are still living with loss and about communities that are carrying grief that does not fade with time. Some are into their third generation of waiting, but the questions remain the same and the answers have yet to come. The motion rejects amnesty and insists that any future framework command the confidence of victims and survivors. That is 100% right. It matters that it also holds both Governments to account, because, for too long, one Government have been quick to hold up the other to scrutiny while resisting the same scrutiny themselves. Victims see that imbalance, and it deepens the mistrust. If we want legacy to mean anything, we cannot have double standards.

From my previous role, I recall sitting with families who had lost loved ones during the Troubles, but what I remember most from those meetings was the look in their eyes. To an extent, the stories that got them to meet me mattered less than the pain that they continued to carry. What also struck me was their determination. They were not asking for miracles; they were asking simply for truth, disclosure and accountability. Almost a decade on from those meetings, many of those families are still asking the same questions. The fact that they must keep telling us shows how far short both Governments have fallen in giving them the answers.

I recently wrote to the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, to press those points. In his response, he spoke about the development of a substantive package, which we have since heard of, with the restoration of civil cases, stronger investigative powers and enhanced cooperation from an Garda Síochána. I welcome those assurances, but words must be backed by enforceable commitments. They cannot remain aspirations. Without statutory powers and the ability to compel witnesses and guarantee disclosures, victims will, once again, be left with promises and without answers.

Omagh makes that clear. The bombing was one of the darkest atrocities of the Troubles. Twenty-seven years on, the families are reliving their trauma through an inquiry that they fought for tirelessly, yet the memorandum of understanding with the Irish Government, while presented as progress, is cooperation in name only. It carries no statutory power, no authority, no powers to compel witnesses and no guarantee that all evidence will be put forward. For the Omagh families, that is not justice; it is delay dressed up as delivery.

When we think of Omagh, we think not only of the many lives lost but of the futures that were stolen. Among the victims was Avril Monaghan, who was killed along with her mother, her unborn twins and her daughter, Maura. In that moment, three generations of a family were gone, as was the hope of a new generation, who, had they got to live that day, would never have remembered the Troubles. They would have lived their lives free from the burden of the past, but that never happened, because the atrocity continued. What strikes me most is the innocence of those victims. They were people going about their day. They had no political interests, no political information and no stake in the battles that consumed this place for too long. They were creating lives, raising families and building happiness for their families and children, yet they were dragged into something that they never should have been involved in. It is the victims and survivors — the ordinary people who never asked to be part of it — who carry those consequences, not the politicians or those who claim to be fighting for a cause. That is why legacy is not a matter of convenience for Governments; it is an obligation to the innocent.

Omagh is not the only example. As we have heard from others, the family of Ian Sproule still wait for answers about an intelligence file that was allegedly in IRA hands before his murder. Like so many families, they have lived with silence when there should have been candour. Their experience reminds us that, unless both Dublin and London face up equally to their responsibilities, legacy will remain unfinished business. Reconciliation requires honesty. It requires both Governments to be open, candid and accountable, not just when it is convenient but when it is uncomfortable. We know that the truth will never be complete and that justice will not always be possible, but it is our duty to go as far as we can and provide the answers where we can. To stop short, because disclosure is politically awkward, would be another betrayal of those who have already borne too much.

I support the motion, because it rejects an amnesty, calls for an assurance that any agreement between the Governments will command the broad support of victims and survivors, demands that no side be beyond scrutiny and recognises that grief does not stop with one generation but passes through families and communities across time, which will continue to happen unless we address it. Northern Ireland cannot afford another false start —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you. Time is up.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

— on legacy. Thank you.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I call Pat Sheehan to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Our thoughts are very much with the victims of the conflict on days like today. Those families who refused to be silenced have forced this British Government to recognise that the cruel and callous Legacy Act needs to be repealed and replaced. The key test of the intent of the two Governments is not in what was promised last Friday but what will be in the final legislation when it passes into law.

The approach of British Governments since the Stormont House Agreement, which was agreed in 2014, has been deliberate delay and obstruction. Ten years on from the Stormont House Agreement, we in Sinn Féin remain in problem-solving mode on the delivery of previous legacy commitments. Our focus has been to ensure that any approach to legacy is human-rights compliant and capable of commanding the maximum confidence of families. We have also held firm on the view that all outstanding legacy inquests that were halted on 1 May 2024 should be completed. There should also be an independent investigations unit that is capable of conducting article 2-compliant investigations and, separate to that, an information retrieval mechanism.

The absence of a British commitment to grant a public inquiry into the murder of Sean Brown is deeply concerning. Announcing a long-fought-for public inquiry into the Sean Brown case could be crucial to building trust in this British Government's publicly stated intent of helping to bring truth, justice and acknowledgement to all victims and survivors and their families.

Despite the DUP rhetoric in the debate, the Irish Government have an important role in this process. They are a co-guarantor of the peace process, the Good Friday Agreement and, indeed, the Stormont House Agreement. Only when both Governments have worked together has progress been made. It is crucial that there be a joint approach to legacy matters.

The DUP has a political view of whom it classes as victims. That does not include a huge number of victims. Over many years, it fought against victims of the state who were seeking truth and justice. It fought against inquiries such as the Bloody Sunday inquiry and the Pat Finucane inquiry. It praised shoot to kill by British forces, supported the use of plastic bullets against children and fought against lawful inquests. From its narrow point of view, state killings were OK, so I do not think that it should get too high on the horse of righteousness, particularly when we remember that the DUP had its own armed wing — Ulster Resistance. That was founded and led by DUP leaders, whom we saw flouncing about in their lovely red berets. Of course, Ulster Resistance imported hundreds upon hundreds of weapons, and the Police Ombudsman's report into Operation Greenwich confirmed that weapons that Ulster Resistance brought in were supplied by UDA death squads and murder gangs in the north-west. Therefore, when people on the opposite Benches ask republicans to stand up and come clean, those in the DUP should maybe listen to their own advice.

Our position has always been that all the victims, survivors and families who have been affected should be included in any legacy process. Sinn Féin will scrutinise the fine detail that is provided and urge that the underpinning legislation be published without delay. We will engage with victims' families, advocacy groups and the legal and human rights practitioners who work with them.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

No.

Any published legislation that underpins the proposals will indicate whether the British Government are, in fact, serious about delivering in good faith on their commitments to repeal and replace the Legacy Act and deal with the British state's role during the conflict. Resources will be critical to deliver that package. The onus is on the British Government to provide the resource that is required to deliver that new framework. There should be immediate discussions with the Finance Minister.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I call Phillip Brett to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. From the outset, I pay tribute to my colleague Mrs Dodds, a Member for Upper Bann, who has been a strong and consistent advocate for innocent victims across Northern Ireland in this place and during her entire political career. Mrs Dillon, a Member for Mid Ulster, criticised Mrs Dodds for using the word "we" when talking about victims. Mrs Dillon may like to rewrite the past, but the great lady who is sitting in front of me is a victim of IRA terrorism.

It was Mrs Dillon's colleagues who were the cowards who tried to break into the Royal Victoria Hospital to murder Mrs Dodds's dying child and murder her and her husband. So, we will take no lectures from the party opposite on that issue.

The Member also outlined her opposition to an amnesty yet had no objections to royal pardons being handed to her Sinn Féin colleagues. She had no objections to amnesties being handed to Mr Kelly and others who bowed on bended knee to get the royal pardon from the royal prerogative of mercy. She criticised this party for the stance that we take on the definition of a victim and tried to indicate that she would force us to accept that the definition of a victim should be supported by this party. Let me be very clear. The DUP will never allow those who murdered and maimed to be equivalent to those whom they murdered, and that is what the Alliance Party, in supporting the Sinn Féin amendment, is doing. It is putting on the same level the Shankill bomber who blew himself up and the innocent people whom he was blowing up. Your record will be clear in the House, and the Alliance Party's record will be clear in the House that it stood with victim makers when it could have stood with victims.

Of course, Sinn Féin will always have the cover of the Alliance Party, whether in the Executive Office Committee or here today. The deputy leader of the Alliance Party tried to wheel out the thinnest reason to oppose our motion, so I think that it will be useful to read into the record the exact wording. He stated that he objected to it because we lamented bilateral discussions between our Government and the Government of the Irish Republic, but our motion is clear. It:

"deplores the decision of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to enter bilateral discussions with his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland whilst acquiescing on the abject failure of the Irish Government to provide answers for those families who suspect Irish state involvement in the murder of their loved ones".

That is the line that the Alliance Party claims that it is opposed to, and I will give way to any Member on the Alliance Benches who can reasonably articulate why those victims and those loved ones do not deserve to have the precondition of receiving justice from the Irish Government. There is absolute silence because Alliance has no answer. It has made it clear, as it does in every debate in the House, that, whatever comes forward from Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, without precondition, will support it.

I want to turn to the comments made by the first Alliance Member to speak in the debate, who accused Members of engaging in childish behaviour. I will give way if you want to articulate who you were talking about. Is it this party, which is bringing forward the concerns of victims? Is it this party, which read into the record the names of victims across Northern Ireland of all traditions and of none who were murdered as a result of collusion by the Irish state? Again, that is met with silence.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I will happily give way.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

You have tried to goad us into a response. I have made it very clear that my focus, today and every day, is on the victims and survivors of the Troubles, and I will do everything that I can to move this country forward on the premise of trying to achieve reconciliation on this island of Ireland. That is where my focus is. It is not about political point-scoring in this Chamber.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

You will have the opportunity, Ms Bradshaw, to cast your vote in around 10 minutes' time. Victims across Northern Ireland will be watching how the Alliance Party votes on this because they are sick, sore and tired of being lectured by a party from on high that, when it has the opportunity to stand side by side with those victims, instead decides to stand with its friends and colleagues in Sinn Féin.

My two colleagues articulated very well why this party tabled the motion. We believe that all those responsible for terrorism in Northern Ireland, regardless of whether they were unionists, loyalists, republicans, nationalists, state actors or IRA informants sponsored by the British state, should come forward and give all the evidence that they have to ensure that they face justice.

We heard from Mr Sheehan that Sinn Féin is in problem-solving mode. I will give way to Mr Sheehan if he will call on his former comrades in the IRA to come forward and give all the information that they have about the killings that they were involved in. I will give him the opportunity to set that out now.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Thanks for giving way. You should focus on your party

[Interruption]

and its role

[Interruption]

in importing a massive amount of weapons that were used to kill innocent Catholics. Your party formed that organisation.

[Interruption.]

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Order.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Your party is responsible for it.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

When the convicted cash-and-carry bomber had the opportunity to call out his IRA —

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Ah, use your own script, Phillip —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

One Member will speak at a time.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

They do not like the truth. They do not like justice, but I will give them the truth. The convicted cash-and-carry bomber will not take the opportunity for his colleagues in the IRA to give their information. That is who the Alliance Party is voting with. That is who you are going to troop behind, like you always do.

The record will be clear that some parties in the Assembly have no interest in innocent victims. If our party loses the vote today, we will continue to raise the issues. However, it is not our party that will be failed; it will be innocent victims, the length and breadth of the country, who will watch on in abject horror as parties unite to strip them out of the motion. Some are more interested in protecting electoral transfers at the next election than standing with innocent victims, but our party and all right-minded people will always stand with them.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 44; Noes 34

AYES

Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan

NOES

Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Ms Sugden

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brett, Mr Frew

Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl.

Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

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

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 44; Noes 34

AYES

Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon

NOES

Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Ms Sugden

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brett, Mr Frew

Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl.

Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine.

Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly rejects the notion of an amnesty for those responsible for wrongdoing during the Troubles; stresses that any revised proposals for dealing with the legacy of the past must be the product of serious and sustained engagement with victims, survivors and their advocates; notes with concern the memorandum of understanding between the Irish Government and the Omagh bombing inquiry; further notes the motion agreed by the Assembly in March 2025, calling on the Irish Government to initiate a public inquiry into the Omagh bomb; reiterates the call for a separate public inquiry by the Irish Government into the Omagh bombing; and calls on the UK Government to urgently provide assurances that any agreement reached in principle with the Irish Government on legacy commands the broad support of victims and survivors.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The next item of business will begin after Question Time.

The sitting was suspended at 12.59 pm.

On resuming (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Communities

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Questions 6, 7 and 9 have been withdrawn.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

1. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister for Communities to outline any discussions that he has had with the Minister of Finance in relation to further investment in sports facilities. (AQO 2401/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I will meet the Minister of Finance next week to discuss investment in sports facilities. I will, however, continue to make the case at Executive level for improved funding for my Department so that it can provide better services across all its activities, including sport.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Last week, the Minister announced £82 million of spending for 20 clubs, but he has only £36 million available. The GAA, Ulster Rugby, Ulster Hockey and all the other sports also need capital investment, so can the Minister tell us what other capital funding he is exploring to bridge that funding gap so that we can finally see the delivery of the full football fund, Casement Park and upgrades to all the other grounds that need them?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I want to see sporting need met in all areas of Northern Ireland. Importantly, I want to make sure that the £36·2 million that has been waiting for many years can be spent. There has been a degree of over-planning so that, if some of the clubs fall out because they are not ready to proceed at that stage, we will still have the funding available so that some can proceed, and we can get the money spent. However, I recognise that there is a need for additional funding for sport in Northern Ireland, and I will certainly make the case for it.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Last week, at the Communities Committee, departmental officials mentioned that the Minister is seeking additional and alternative funding for the football fund. Can the Minister confirm whether he is seeking additional and alternative funding for other sports or projects, or is it just the football fund that he is seeking those funds for?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

There is certainly a need in football, and, when questioned, officials were answering directly about the football fund. I have always said that we need more money for sport across Northern Ireland. One reason why I brought forward the Olympic legacy fund is that I realised that, outside the three main sports, many sports do not feel that they are getting the funding that they deserve. I am putting a proportion towards that so that those needs can, I hope, be partially met, but I will always be an advocate for more money for sport in Northern Ireland.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for the investment that he has made in sport, and I know that he values equality across sports. Does he accept that, at this point, football and rugby are £50 million behind when it comes to equality of funding?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, that is absolutely the case. I believe that we should proceed on the basis of fairness and what was put in place through the arrangements in 2011. He is right. Unfortunately, the UK Government have moved outside of what was agreed previously, and, therefore, football and rugby are now behind when it comes to the funding that has been made available to them. That will need to be remedied.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Did the Minister have any discussion with the Finance Minister in advance of his announcement on the Northern Ireland Football Fund, which over-plans by some £50-odd million? When did he inform his colleagues of the content of that announcement?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member will be aware that there has been extensive engagement through the House and through the Committee. I have updated Executive colleagues at the appropriate times, and I will meet the Minister of Finance next week to discuss these matters further. However, it is under my remit as Communities Minister, and, with Executive approval in place since 2011 for the Minister to take forward such a scheme, I do not require Executive approval. However, I will, of course, keep Executive colleagues updated. Of course, it went through the proper processes, with everything going to the appropriate Departments to get those assurances.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

Twenty clubs are pleased to be moving forward to the next phase of the fund, but, equally, many more clubs are frustrated that they are not moving forward. Minister, what engagement is your Department having with those clubs to better understand their needs and to understand what the Department can do to support them?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Absolutely. We are beginning a process of engaging with clubs that were not successful at this stage so that we can, first of all, give feedback on the assessment and, then, talk about next steps, some of the immediate needs that they have, what other funding sources might be available and the plans that we have moving forward. I emphasise the words "at this stage" because I want all clubs to see their need met and this to move forward.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

2. Miss Dolan asked the Minister for Communities to outline any action that his Department is taking to support community-led regeneration schemes to encourage investment in rural towns. (AQO 2402/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

My Department's regeneration policy focus is on urban settlements with a population of 5,000 or more, whereas rural villages and towns with populations of under 5,000 fall within the remit of DAERA. However, my Department has been leading on the delivery of the COVID recovery small settlements regeneration programme, which was part-funded by DFI and DAERA. It is delivering over 100 projects in small settlements across Northern Ireland, representing a total investment of almost £29 million.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, will you provide specific examples of projects that have been approved or funded in Fermanagh recently?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Under the policy that I have just outlined, we have had improvements to the Belleek marina walkways, construction of a multi-use games area (MUGA) in Rosslea, refurbishment of an Orange hall in Derrygonnelly and renovations at Belcoo Enterprise Centre, and refurbishment of the recreation centre in Castlecaulfield is under way.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I welcome the vital work that the Minister is undertaking to provide support to local communities. Will he outline how his Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund can impact on rural communities? Has the AERA Minister shown his support?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That fund will be open to all community organisations across Northern Ireland that are in need of renovations or improvements. I look forward to updating the House about that soon and announcing the next steps. Certainly, it will be of benefit to rural and urban communities. As to engagement with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, there have been meetings with officials on it. I have spoken to the AERA Minister and would welcome further engagement, because he and I should work together to make sure that we deliver for rural communities.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Minister, you talk about regeneration schemes. What protections will be put in place to ensure that any historical buildings will be looked after in those schemes and not left behind?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Robust procedures are in place to make sure that those buildings are looked after. My big concern is that there is often not the funding, either from the Government or the owners, to make sure that we preserve them. I am keen to emphasise that regeneration does not mean that everything has to be new. Use of existing and old buildings can play a very important role in the revitalisation of towns, cities and rural areas. I will certainly play my part in making sure that that can happen.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Minister mentioned DAERA's metric: the 5,000 population figure. What investment can he make in smaller rural communities that fall under that population figure?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Those are not under my remit, but my Department is leading on the shaping sustainable places policy. Consultation on that ended earlier this week. Under the current proposals, all settlements, regardless of population size, will be eligible for investment. We have heard from Members across the House about the lack of vires that I have in relation to smaller settlements, and this is hopefully a way in which we can rectify that.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

3. Ms Brownlee asked the Minister for Communities how he will ensure that marching bands are recognised and celebrated as part of Northern Ireland’s cultural heritage. (AQO 2403/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Funding delivered by the Arts Council on behalf of my Department supports musicians through various programmes, with an investment from my Department of £750,000 for 2025-26. The musical instruments programme provides three strands of support for various groups and individuals. With an investment of £100,000 from my Department, the travel awards for bands programme will help bands with travel costs and promote music making and player development and complement the musical instruments for bands programme. The Ulster-Scots Agency has supported marching bands in Northern Ireland in 2025 by providing grants of £121,000 to 69 bands for community tuition and £12,300 to 46 schools for band-related tuition. The agency provides ongoing opportunities for bands through major events such as Belfast International Tattoo, as well as support for bands through mentoring and capacity building.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

The travel fund was welcomed by the marching band sector. Minister, can you assure us that it will be a rolling programme that will allow bands the time to plan for their travels?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, I can. I thank the Member for meeting me about that and sharing some of her concerns about deadlines. As a result of her intervention and that of others, we have looked at this and we will make sure that the fund will be on a rolling basis so that those deadlines do not interrupt the bookings that some bands will want to make.

It is good that the fund is in place. We were recently at an event in Carrickfergus where marching bands came from the United States and put on a fantastic show for us. I want people from outside Northern Ireland to be able to benefit from the talents of our bands and musicians. The fund is one way in which we can help them to do that.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Minister, what efforts will you make to ensure that this recognition extends to marching bands across all cultural backgrounds and that it includes GAA bands, traditional Irish bands, republican bands, international bands and LGBT bands that are associated with the pride event?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The fund is open to everybody. It is not about anybody's identity or background. It is about music. That is what we are trying to promote.

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

Further to the previous question, I welcome the fact that we have so many terrific marching bands from all backgrounds. I hope that the fund is inclusive. Will the Minister make any specific effort to ensure that those bands are encouraged to participate and proactively get involved with the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann, which is coming to Belfast next year?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I had a great opportunity to meet the fleadh organisers, and they were very keen to stress how they want the fleadh to emphasise musical ability and talents from right across Northern Ireland. There has already been engagement with the Ulster-Scots Agency around that, and I hope that it can be a celebration of music from all backgrounds and traditions.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

4. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister for Communities to outline any powers that the National Association of Councillors Northern Ireland (NAC NI) has to call a strike or other form of industrial action by councillors. (AQO 2404/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The National Association of Councillors is a representative body. It is not a trade union, as its members are not employees. As councillors are not employees, they cannot go on strike, but they may elect not to perform their duties.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his response. Given that NAC NI is not a union and therefore not subject to the protections afforded to unions, does he agree that strikes or other industrial action, as signed off and recommended by council members from the Alliance Party and the SDLP, in order to attain wish-list items such as pay rises, golden handshakes for those who lose their seats or, indeed, choose not to defend them, free broadband and other items, puts participating councillors at risk under the councillors' code of conduct?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Obviously, it is up to the Alliance Party and the SDLP to say whether they support the action that is proposed by their councillors. Perhaps they will intervene and let us know that at some stage. However, in relation to the Member's specific question on the code of conduct, I highlight the fact that councillors are elected members, and, on taking up office after an election, they sign a declaration that says that they will observe the Northern Ireland local government code of conduct. That code provides:

"you must maintain and strengthen the public trust and confidence in the integrity of your council"

and must not

"use, or attempt to use, your position improperly to confer on, or secure, an advantage for yourself".

That is very clear.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

I am delighted to get up to clarify something. The Minister asked, and I will answer. I have already said so, and my party has been on record to say that. Does the Minister agree with me that, in a ministerial position —.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

You have said what?

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Pardon?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

You have said what?

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

That we do not agree with the strike action. I think that that is pretty clear.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Sorry, we are not having a debate. It is Question Time for the Minister.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Does the Minister agree, then, that it would be wrong for Ministers to use their position when they do not get what they want, perhaps by stepping down, resigning, going on strike and not doing their role, as that might also erode public confidence?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

It is interesting that it has been confirmed that there is great division in the Alliance Party on the issue. Of course, it is clear, and I am very clear, that at no stage have I ever done anything that would confer a personal benefit on myself. That is very different from what is being proposed by the Alliance Party and the SDLP. That is clear for everybody to see.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The NAC has form for being obsessed with money. I think of my time on the NAC, when it refused to give back the £10,000 COVID grant that, I believe, it should not have received. I am looking through the minutes of its meeting on 21 May 2025. Its members said that they wanted to lodge FOI requests because they were unhappy with their pay offer. The minutes state:

"the decision was unexpected and gut-wrenching"

and

"They also felt disrespected."

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Timothy, is there a question for the Minister?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

There is no talk about strike action in the minutes. For transparency, can the Minister point us to where we can find who asked for, and who supported, strike action? I certainly think that the NAC, true —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Timothy.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— to form, is not interested in transparency.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Minister, go ahead.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

All that I can say is that that is an issue for the NAC itself. I had a meeting with the NAC on 7 July. I said that I wanted to listen to its concerns. I invited it to provide me with a paper outlining its views and said that I would consider any additional information on other issues that were raised, such as the issue of uniformity of allowances. Unfortunately, it did not provide me with that information. I am disappointed that the NAC is considering strike action instead of engaging in constructive discussion.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

5. Mrs Dodds asked the Minister for Communities how his Department has delivered for Upper Bann since he took office in February 2024. (AQO 2405/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Since February 2024, I have delivered the following for the people of Upper Bann: £1·8 million for the People and Place neighbourhood renewal programme; £3·5 million for the Banbridge public realm scheme; £247,000 for the Empty to Occupied scheme; and £300,000 for the Fit For Future scheme. I have also delivered £400,000 for the Lurgan laneways scheme and £845,000 for street furniture and seasonal lighting. There has been £2·5 million for community and voluntary organisations, £280,000 for the Your School Your Club project at Lismore College in Craigavon and £225,000 for the Your School Your Club project at Banbridge High School.

The Member will be aware of the clubs that have progressed as a result of the Northern Ireland Football Fund. Over £9 million has been delivered through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's completed maintenance scheme and £6·7 million through its planned maintenance scheme. Over £1 million has been delivered through labour market partnerships, with £60,000 delivered through the Arts Council's musical instruments programme. There have been 87 new starts for social housing and 153 Co-Ownership property completions. A total of 1,738 people have been helped to access additional benefits totalling £3·8 million through the Make the Call service, which I have protected. We have had 12 job fairs. Sport NI has supported many clubs, including the Northern Ireland karate club and Waringstown Cricket Club. In addition, we have supported 10,010 pensioners through the £100 winter fuel support payment.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Minister. It is good to hear the record of a DUP Minister who is delivering for people across all our constituencies.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Hear, hear.

Some Members

[Laughter.]

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I notice the laughter and mocking from the SDLP, which —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Is there a question?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

— does not have a representative at all in Upper Bann.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Is there a question?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Minister, what are your plans for further delivery?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I look forward to continuing to deliver for Upper Bann and constituencies right across Northern Ireland. SDLP members are laughing, along with some in the Alliance Party. I remember when the leader of the Opposition came to the House to ask me when I would publish my housing supply strategy. I had published it six months previously. Other SDLP Members asked when the Executive Office would publish its integration strategy. It had already been published. Mr McCrossan came to the House and told everyone that the vesting orders for the A5 still stood, when they had in fact been quashed by a High Court judgement. The SDLP gets it wrong again and again.

I am happy to deliver, and I will deliver more that will benefit people in Upper Bann. Funding from the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund will come forward, and it can help organisations in the Member's constituency. There will be more money for Your School Your Club. Its budget will rise from £500,000 to £3 million this year. We will be bringing forward a fuel poverty strategy that will help her constituents. There will be significant investment in the new employability programme. Antisocial behaviour legislation will be introduced. We will crack down further on fraud and error. Of course, we have announced the Olympic legacy fund, which will deliver in her constituency as well.

I am more than happy to stand by my record of achievement and stand over the things that will make a difference. The SDLP and Alliance can scoff, but those measures have made and will continue to make a real difference to the lives of people in Upper Bann and across Northern Ireland.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

That rolled off your tongue wonderfully, Minister; it did not sound as though you prepared it at all.

[Laughter.]

I raise this again: the historic environment division and Knock Iveagh. Are you looking at that, or is it dead in the water? The council needs to move on it.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

We can take responsibility only for what is within our gift and what is our responsibility. Decisions were made by the council, and those decisions stand. I am always happy to meet and see what alternative pathways there are, but I have to operate within the law. I am happy to do anything further that we can do, because I understand the public concern.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Minister, that is a new one for us: you answer the Member for Upper Bann by directing your reply to the SDLP. It is a bit strange, but you are the Minister.

How can you ensure regional fairness and balance in investment decisions in your Department? Has the Department for Communities not adopted that policy priority? What measures do you use when you make investment decisions?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I will refer to the SDLP when it scoffs and laughs at what we have been able to deliver through the Department.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Sorry. I would like to —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

There are no points of order during Question Time.