Northern Ireland Assembly, 8 December 2025

351 contributions from 58 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I have received correspondence from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in relation to my referral to the Executive of the decision of the Minister for the Economy to instruct officials to prepare additional measures to eliminate any risk of public funds being used to support the manufacture of arms or components that are used for genocide. The advice was that no consensus was reached on whether the Minister for the Economy's decision contravenes section 28A(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as to whether that decision related to a significant or controversial matter, or regarding any actions. I will arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Assembly Library.

Members' Statements

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

While the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) was making its mind up as to whether 20,000 dead Palestinian children was quite enough to remove Israel from the Eurovision Song Contest, Ireland, Spain, Slovenia and the Netherlands acted under the weight of their own conscience and took the morally correct decision to withdraw from Eurovision and not allow themselves to be used to normalise and sanitise Israel and its crimes. It is wholly unconscionable that it has been left to national broadcasters to be the moral compass of the competition in the face of the abject cowardice and hypocrisy shown by the EBU.

In 2022, Russia was, rightly, expelled from the competition following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The EBU said at the time that Russia had brought the contest into disrepute. No such consensus was reached about Israel on the genocide in Gaza. Somehow, the starvation, the mass graves, the 70,000 dead Palestinians — 25,000 of them children — the bombed-out hospitals, the dozens of murdered journalists, the flattened neighbourhoods and the live-streamed horror of a people being annihilated does not bring the contest into disrepute. That death toll continues to rise by an average of seven people a day, despite a ceasefire.

We know, because it has been documented, that Israel uses Eurovision as a soft-power tool to sanitise its image and to deflect from its atrocities in Gaza. Eurovision is, essentially, a branding exercise to repackage its apartheid reality as progressive, LGBTQ-friendly, multicultural and fun. When it hosted Eurovision in 2019, Israel erased Palestinians entirely, fined a contestant for holding a Palestinian flag and, much like the Education Minister, showcased illegally occupied territories as Israeli land. Audiences are no longer buying it, however, and broadcasters, artists and viewers across Europe are confronting the obvious fact that Eurovision has become a platform for laundering Israeli state crimes.

I read over the weekend that the deputy First Minister thinks that boycotts do not work. Deputy First Minister, they do work, and I am quite sure that Emma Little-Pengelly is familiar with South Africa. If she does not believe me that boycotts work, maybe she will listen to a South African caller to LBC radio on Friday, who, when asked whether boycotts work, said:

"The boycotts worked. Every one of us ... knew that we were not accepted ... because our laws and our actions were unacceptable from a global perspective."

The withdrawal of the Irish, Spanish, Dutch, Slovenian and now Flemish broadcasters was a human response and an act of resistance, and I call on the BBC to follow their example. If the contest is to survive, we, the fans, need to stop it being used as an apartheid talent show. We cannot be complicit in the cultural artwashing that exists to distract from a genocide that Europe continues to arm, fund, excuse and sanitise.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

The date of 6 December is one that is ingrained in my mind, as it was a dark day in my childhood in 1982. However, it was an even darker day for so many other others. It was the date on which evil descended upon the village of Ballykelly, when republican terrorists decided that they would plant a bomb in the Droppin' Well nightclub, killing 17 young people who were having a night out three weeks before Christmas. Protestants and Catholics, the terrorists did not care who they killed. They could not care less who they injured, some with terrible, lifelong injuries. As I said last year, the bombing was an act of evil republican terrorist violence that served no purpose and advanced no cause other than to rob families of loved ones and remove good and decent human beings from this world. While it is a dark date for me from my childhood — I can clearly remember the wail of emergency vehicles — it is an even darker day for those who are left with an empty chair at this time of year and for those who have the mental and physical scars to this day.

Again, I thank the Cheshire Regiment Association, which ensures that, every year, those who suffered by the evil that was inflicted upon that village and its people are remembered by an annual solemn event in Tamlaght Finlagan. While others wish to stand on the side of evil and terror, I am always proud to stand, every year, shoulder to shoulder with the innocent to show them that we support them and that we still, and always will, care after the passing of all those years. It truly sickens me to the core that gullible young people are brainwashed to believe that individuals who sneak in and plant a 5 kg bomb in a pillar to bring a roof down upon young people having a night out at Christmastime and who then scurry away are heroes and so-called brave defenders of their bloody, filthy terrorist cause. Let us call it as it is: only murdering psychopaths, blinded by hatred, would do such a thing. Parents and those with responsibility must tell young people that there is nothing to celebrate in terrorism, that it was as wrong then as it is today and that it should never be repeated and can never be justified. I tell that to my child, who is the same age that I was when that dastardly evil was brought on the people of the beautiful and peaceful village of Ballykelly.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I rise to congratulate two amazing organisations from our community, the Live Life Well-Being Centre and Ballymacash Sports Academy, on being awarded the prestigious King's Award for voluntary service. That is the highest honour that a volunteer-led group can receive in the UK and is often described as the MBE for organisations. To see not one but two groups from our area recognised in that way is an exceptional achievement and a testament to the incredible work that is happening on the ground in Lagan Valley.

The Live Life Well-Being Centre's recognition marks an important first because it is the first time that a group of disabled young people has received that award.

Live Life director of services, Philip Reain-Adair, recently highlighted the type of contribution that the young people make, which includes knitting hundreds of small woollen hats for neonatal unit at the Belfast Royal Children's Hospital, bucket collecting for local charities, supporting local food banks and providing entertainment to nursing home residents.

The dedicated volunteers at Ballymacash Sports Academy show what community-led sports can achieve by giving opportunities to all regardless of age, gender or ability, improving people's mental and physical health. They have demonstrated a genuine commitment to inclusion and are focused on meeting the needs of the local community. What they have built is pretty remarkable and a credit to everyone involved. Commenting on the award, the chairman of Ballymacash Sports Academy, Philip Trimble, said:

"This is a tremendous achievement and honour for all of those connected with Ballymacash Sports Academy. From our BRFC coaches to our fantastic craft club members, school and club partnerships, we are simply delighted to have our vision and hard work recognised by His Majesty The King."

As an MLA, I have been warmly welcomed by both groups, and I know that their volunteers do what they do not for recognition or applause but because they care and genuinely want to improve the lives of people in our community. It is inspiring and appreciated. Congratulations to you all.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I address a matter of immense public interest. There are no outstanding criminal proceedings in relation to this matter.

The office of Police Ombudsman is one of the most significant in Northern Ireland. The ombudsman exercises vast powers, is paid a vast salary, has ongoing access to top-secret material, investigates the most serious complaints against police officers and issues legacy reports to this day.

Following an incident at Marie Anderson's house on the 22 to 23 September, the West Midlands Police Service conducted a lengthy police investigation. It submitted a file to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) for the offences of perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office. On 9 October this year, the PPS determined that there was insufficient evidence to proceed, and Ms Anderson is, as a matter of law, innocent. However, serious questions about conduct remain.

Shortly after the incident, the media asked the Department of Justice and the ombudsman organisation whether Ms Anderson had tendered her resignation after the incident. They refused to answer. I can now report that Ms Anderson tendered her resignation on 24 September 2023 at 9.38 pm to the permanent secretary at the Department of Justice. Within one hour, the DOJ permanent secretary had said that the resignation would be parked and no action would be taken. I want to know who was involved in making that decision. Was there any political involvement? Why was such a decision made in such rushed way on a Sunday night? That decision is hugely consequential, because the Police Ombudsman has been, off and on, absent from work for a significant period. There has been much speculation about the inability to suspend the Police Ombudsman, yet there was an opportunity to take that resignation right at the outset of the incident.

There are further concerns. There is clear and unchallenged evidence that the Police Ombudsman, during the incident at her home and in the days after, discouraged a member of her own staff from providing a statement to the Police Service about a live criminal investigation and that she divulged confidential information about an ombudsman investigation to a family member, who then confronted a third party with that information. Those are serious issues, which pose serious concerns about the integrity, fitness for office and security clearance of the Police Ombudsman, but we cannot get any answers.

Last year, I revealed that there were no powers to suspend an ombudsman, even if they were charged with murder. If they were out on bail, they could walk into their office. Too many people have been asleep at the wheel for too long in relation to the ombudsman's office. I call on the Executive Office and the Justice Minister to urgently clarify the position of the Police Ombudsman and update the House.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will speak briefly about the severe challenges facing Nazareth House Primary School and St Eugene's Primary School in Derry. Both schools are dealing with unacceptable, unsafe structural issues and huge uncertainty. Our children and families are feeling the impact.

Even in the midst of the disruption, the dedication of the staff in both schools has been exceptional. Their professionalism, compassion and resilience are keeping the school communities together.

They have adapted at speed, reassured pupils and continued to deliver high-quality learning under immense pressure. I pay sincere tribute to every teacher, classroom assistant, principal and member of support staff, as well as to the wider community, which has rallied to support them.

Let me be clear: the roofs did not fall in overnight. Issues had been flagged for almost two decades. If appropriate action had been taken earlier, those crises could — would — have been avoided. Timely investment and appropriate intervention would have spared families, staff and pupils the huge inconvenience and uncertainty that they are now forced to endure. It is beyond time for the Department of Education and the Education Authority (EA) to act decisively to provide immediate and safe learning spaces and to put in place and communicate a firm, funded plan to address long-overdue repairs and rebuilds.

While the leaders of those schools ask, "What next?", others who are fighting similar, seemingly endless battles for funding to address similar structural issues will be asking, "Where next?". Without a proper review of and investment in the maintenance of our crumbling school estate, we will see more forced closures of schools and the chaos that comes with that.

To the staff of Nazareth House Primary School and St Eugene's Primary School and to all those other schools out there, I say this: thank you. We will continue to stand with you and fight for the facilities and investment that our children deserve.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I will speak on a matter that will come as no shock to Members, because, for around a week, my party has been clear about the situation at Nazareth House Primary School and the fact that children in my constituency are being denied the opportunity to go to school. Last week, I requested an urgent meeting with the Minister of Education. I got a holding response and have received nothing since. Clearly, the Department of Education's definition of "urgent" is different from mine.

No proper solutions have been put in place. Temporary use of a community facility for a time-bound period — until only Christmas — for some children, in confined circumstances, does not cut it. It is not the job of the principal, school staff or parents to do the job of the Education Authority or the Department of Education. In the run-up to Christmas, when schools are thriving and children are excited to be in school, it is particularly bad. While many local people have stepped in to provide some facilities, children are still being denied their fundamental right to teaching, learning and a proper education.

The situation should come as no surprise to the Department of Education, because a business case for the roof was submitted in 2017. Over eight years on, nothing has happened. For maintenance work, the first of the EA's own criteria prioritises:

"Projects that meet inescapable statutory requirements such as health and safety, fire protection and statutory obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act",

yet a recent report by the Public Accounts Committee, on which I sit, showed clearly that there has been poor prioritisation by the Education Authority, and I can think of no clearer example than Nazareth House. In Derry, within a mile of each other, there is one school whose roof has collapsed and another that has had to close because its roof is about to collapse. That will not be lost on the people of Derry, particularly when, in the past year, another school in Derry received a fourth pitch despite not having made a bid for it and despite already being awash with other sporting facilities.

The people of Derry have been failed by successive DUP Education Ministers. The work should be a ministerial priority. The Minister should meet us, as local elected representatives, and go to Derry to meet school leaders and to give parents answers and certainty about what happens next for the children of Nazareth House Primary School.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

On 16 April 2025, For Women Scotland secured a landmark victory for common sense and for women across the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the word "woman" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex and does not include men who self-identify as women. It concluded that basic terms such as "man" and "woman" are defined by biological sex, not by someone's preferred gender. That has meant a great deal to women in protecting their personal space, their sport and their safety. It is not hard, Mr Speaker. It has never been hard for the vast majority of our common-sense constituents. They know, despite First Minister Michelle O'Neill not knowing, that men should never be able to enter female toilets, that men should never be allowed to compete in women-only sports and that men self-identifying as women should never be able to compromise the privacy rights of biological females.

We thought that, finally, balance was being restored, only to find out in the past week that that common-sense ruling is being challenged by those with ulterior motives. In order to undermine that historic ruling, the argument is that a biological man can somehow magically become a female while on a ferry from Stranraer to Larne. It is literally ridiculous. I have heard of seasickness, but promoting such a narrative really is sick indeed. It is none other than the chief defender of woke causes in Northern Ireland — the Equality Commission — that is taking the case. It is attempting to claim that the Windsor framework's article 2 rights have supremacy over our Supreme Court's ruling. Guess who is paying, Members? The taxpayer.

Make no mistake: this has come about as a result of weak, far-left lily-livered politicians in this place from parties such as Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party, who cannot state basic facts such as that a man is a man and a woman is a woman. It will have consequences. The voters are no fools. They understand what is means to be a man and a woman, and it is high time that Members in the Chamber caught on too.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I draw attention today to the findings of Marie Curie's report entitled 'Dying in Poverty in Northern Ireland 2025'. I recently attended and took part in a discussion on the report launch with the Marie Curie team. It was an incredibly powerful event that highlighted the desperate and inhumane situations that those in their final days face at a time when they need the most support. No one deserves to die in poverty.

The report sets out a stark and deeply troubling reality for people in Northern Ireland and discusses the rise in poverty, specifically fuel poverty, for those at the end of life. Dying in poverty is not inevitable, but, for too many people, it has become their expected reality. The testimonies in the report make for harrowing reading. Extremely sick people have been forced to choose between heat and food, using credit cards to keep the lights on while undergoing chemotherapy. Individuals too unwell to work have been forced to because they lack the income that they need to survive. Those stories highlight a deeply inhumane crisis affecting people when they are at their most vulnerable.

The report states that being in the last year of life is a significant risk factor for falling into poverty, and the rates are getting worse: 20% of people in their last year of life are estimated to be in poverty, rising to 27% if we look at fuel poverty specifically. Council areas in Northern Ireland such as Derry City and Strabane; Belfast; Newry, Mourne and Down; and Causeway Coast and Glens are in the top 20 in the UK for the highest fuel poverty rates during the last year of life. We need to recognise that rising levels of poverty at the end of life do not occur in isolation; they mirror structural inequalities that have gone unaddressed for too long, including gaps in income support, limited access to specialist palliative care services and the absence of coordinated planning across Departments. People receive support only when they reach crisis point or, in some cases, not at all. A more coherent approach, grounded in early intervention, predictable financial assistance and reliable data-sharing, would reduce hardship and strengthen public confidence that government is willing to meet its responsibilities to those who are least able to navigate complex systems at a time of profound vulnerability.

Marie Curie has set out recommendations, such as better identification and information-sharing to ensure that people with a terminal illness are reached quickly with support; a minimum income guarantee that includes early access to the state pension for those of working age and reforms to income support; and measures to address energy costs and to support the most vulnerable in our society in their final days. The report makes it clear that it is an issue for all levels of government, including the Assembly.

People in the last year of life deserve security and dignity, not financial crisis. The evidence that Marie Curie has presented demands a serious and coordinated response, and I urge the Executive and all parties to give the recommendations the consideration that they deserve.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the announcement by the Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, that the Ireland's Hidden Heartlands tourism branding will be extended into Fermanagh. It is incredibly positive news for our county. The Hidden Heartlands initiative has been a major success only a few miles down the road, drawing visitors, investment and new opportunities. Its expansion into Fermanagh will provide a real boost for our local tourism and hospitality sectors.

We are blessed with world-class attractions from Belleek Pottery to the Stairway to Heaven and the stunning waters of Lough Erne. The branding extension gives us the platform to showcase all that we have to offer. At a time when the all-island economy continues to strengthen, it is only sensible that we work together to unlock the full potential of tourism across our island. The campaign is set to begin next year, and I have no doubt that it will attract more visitors to Fermanagh, support jobs and grow our local economy.

I also commend Minister Caoimhe Archibald for her leadership and steadfast commitment to driving that exciting project forward since taking up office.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

As we move towards Christmas and the focus of many turns to the Christmas story of the Christ child of Bethlehem's manger, I pause to remember the many babes conceived in recent months whose lives have been cut short as a result of the practice of abortion. I was saddened to see that, between April 2024 and March 2025, some 2,899 abortions were carried out in Northern Ireland, legislated for by the previous Westminster Government through the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020. This year's figure represented an increase of 3·7% on the 2023-24 reporting period, which equated to 2,795 souls.

In total, 11,192 abortions have been carried out in Northern Ireland since the new legislation came into effect and to the period ending 31 March 2025. For me, my party and countless thousands across Northern Ireland, that figure represents a mark of collective shame on our society. There are, of course, instances where compassion and medical necessity require such a course of action, but the overwhelming majority of the 2,899 abortions conducted over the past reported year were actions of convenience in which the life of the unborn was unvalued by the individuals involved and, sadly, is now unprotected by the law of the land.

The current legislative framework is far more expansive than the people of Northern Ireland were ever consulted on or wanted. The 2020 regulations were an example of how not to do government. Imposed, as it was, over the heads of democratically elected representatives in this House, it stands as the gravest of warnings to those who would advocate the virtues of London rule in preference to devolution. The injustice of that legislation, which is the most liberal to be found across these islands, continues to be an issue that those of us on these Benches will highlight and fight to overthrow. It is often stated in the discourse around the subject that both lives matter. Every life carries inherent dignity and worth. Human rights belong to everyone equally and without exception or, at least, they should.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I rise to speak about something that matters deeply to the people of south Armagh. I will say it plainly so that there is no confusion: for the first time in over 6,000 years, the South Cairn on the summit of Slieve Gullion is closed. It is the highest surviving Neolithic passage tomb in Ireland, older than the Pyramids, aligned with the winter solstice and a place where families, walkers, tourists and schoolchildren have gathered for generations to witness sunlight travel through a stone chamber that was hand-built by our ancestors. However, this winter, for the first time in its history, they will meet a locked gate.

The Department for Communities closed the South Cairn due to safety concerns. No one disputes that safety matters, but it was closed without funding being in place to fix the issues, a clear plan or a timeline for reopening. That is the core of the problem. A monument that has survived invasion, weather, famine, plantation and conflict now has access to it stalled by bureaucracy. That tells us something that many in south Armagh already know all too well: too often, heritage is the first to be restricted and the last to be prioritised. The mountain is not geography; it is identity, memory and story. Tradition tells us that St Oliver Plunkett, Primate of All Ireland, once hid in that cairn, sheltered by the people of south Armagh, as the Crown hunted and sought to arrest him. A community that risked itself to protect its faith and culture now stands behind a fence at the very site that it safeguarded.

That history of resistance, endurance and defiance is written into the stone of Gullion. It is who we are. Yet, despite its importance, tourism and cultural value and international archaeological significance, our council area does not even carry the name south Armagh. We sit inside the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, even though south Armagh makes up more than one third of the district. Slieve Gullion is routinely marketed under the Visit Mourne brand, despite its not being in the Mourne region.

Slieve Gullion is in south Armagh, which is a region of unique heritage, mythology, language, landscape and creative energy, and we deserve to be recognised, respected and invested in. Our people should not be locked out of their own history, and our children should not grow up being told that their identity is the footnote to someone else's brand. We want transparency, clarity and a commitment to reopen access to the South Cairn, not some day or when budgets appear, but with purpose, because heritage delayed is heritage denied. As a wise woman once said, we are women of south Armagh; born of granite, we endure.

We will keep speaking up for that place, the mountain and the story until the cairn, Cailleach Berra’s house, is reopened.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Kate Nicholl. I ask that you confine your remarks to two minutes.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. If anyone is feeling a bit low about politics and needs a dose of inspiration, I have the answer. At the end of November, I had the privilege of meeting with Girlguiding Ulster in Parliament Buildings. I was grilled by them to a level of which no journalist would be capable. It was wonderful to spend time with those young women and talk about the Girls’ Attitudes Survey. This year, the 17th year of the survey, they surveyed over 2,500 girls and young women aged between seven and 21 to hear about the challenges that girls and young women right across the UK face. The survey highlights a lot of the challenges, including key concerns around sexism, misogyny in schools and challenges to mental health. It found:

"In the past year, 68% of girls have changed their everyday behaviour to avoid sexual harassment."

It also found:

"More than 1 in 4 young girls feel sad most days or every day compared to 1 in 10 in 2015."

It also found that 36% of 11 to 21-year-olds say that they feel depressed after spending time on social media. Those are sobering and powerful statistics. Even more powerful is the hope and optimism in the survey report, and the action that Girlguiding is taking to turn those statistics around. The survey found:

"More than 2 in 3 supported another girl who may have experienced sexism or misogyny."

It also found:

"80% of girls and young women aged 7-21 agree that ‘being outdoors and in nature helps me to feel happy’."

Of the respondents, 72% said that they want more of those opportunities. Another finding was:

"Almost two-thirds ... of girls and young women aged 7-21 want to be leaders in their chosen job, compared to 53% in 2018."

I encourage all Members to read the report, engage with young people and, together, take the action that is required to support all young people in our society to develop, grow and flourish.

Private Members' Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I inform Members that a valid petition of concern (POC) has been presented today in relation to the motion. The debate can still proceed, as can the vote on the amendment, which has not been petitioned and, therefore, requires a simple majority. However, the vote on the motion, whether it is amended or not, will not be taken today, as section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires that there must now be a 14-day consideration period. The consideration period for this petition ends on 21 December 2025.

Following that, on 22 December only, the petition may be confirmed. If the petition is confirmed by 30 Members on that day, the vote on the motion, whether or not amended, will require cross-community support. If it is not confirmed by 30 Members, the vote will require simple majority support. In either case, the vote will not take place until a date after 22 December.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I will take points of order in a moment.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I beg to move

That this Assembly recalls that the majority of people here voted to remain in the European Union; acknowledges that our long-term future would be best served by rejoining the European Union; recognises the democratic deficit as a result of Brexit; supports the request made by Irish MEPs in a recent letter to the President of the European Parliament for observer status in the European Parliament for our locally elected political representatives; and agrees to write to the European Parliament to express the Assembly’s position with regards to the observer status.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting my point of order, which is pursuant to the ruling that you just gave us on the petition of concern. What import does a petition of concern have on what is a non-binding private Member's motion? Further, will you confirm that, even if the petition of concern were successful after the cooling-off period, it would not negative an almost verbatim motion that was moved by the official Opposition some months ago and that was not the subject of a petition of concern by any party? Will you provide clarity on those two points?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The petition of concern will apply to only the motion that is before us. It is a valid petition of concern that can be presented. I explained the new rules that apply — because we have not had a petition of concern in about 10 years: there is to be a period of 14 days before it can be reconfirmed; after that reconfirmation, we can organise to have a vote on it; if it is not reconfirmed, it will be a simple majority vote.

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. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agree to add 15 minutes to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion, Ms Ferguson.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The motion goes to the very heart of the unique position of the North of Ireland as a region that remains in the EU single market and where over one third of our people retain European citizenship as Irish passport holders and where that birthright is enshrined through our peace agreement. The motion seeks, once again, to address the democratic deficit that Brexit created and give us a stronger voice in Europe. No one has anything to fear from that.

Almost a decade ago, the majority of our citizens voted to remain within the European Union, recognising the significant social and economic benefits to our island as a whole. Those benefits include, but are not limited to, receipt of significant funding towards peace and regional development; enablement of free movement and educational opportunities for workers and students; protection of international human rights agreements; and unfettered trade. Whilst Britain ignored our democratic mandate, our Derry-based MEP at the time, Martina Anderson, got to work, carrying out a dedicated campaign alongside the wider all-Ireland Sinn Féin MEP team. That campaign fought to secure key commitments on no diminution of hard-won rights and protections as outlined in the Good Friday Agreement. The call from the Sinn Féin team in the wake of Brexit was for EU observer status for elected representatives from the North, something that the majority of Irish MEPs has now endorsed and that, I believe, the Assembly would also endorse.

Notably, as of 2022, over one third of this region's population had an Irish passport, and, therefore, Irish and European citizenship. That birthright is protected in the Good Friday Agreement, an international treaty registered with the United Nations, the provisions of which are binding under international law.

Article 3 of the Treaty on the European Union confirms that the European Union shall:

"contribute to the protection of its citizens."

I make the case clearly today that offering observer status to our locally elected representatives will assist in upholding that duty and protecting our peace process. EU observer status enables a formal but limited form of voice and participation in Europe that includes attendance at plenary sessions and the strengthening of lines of communication. It is a practical and constructive step that we can take to strengthen our voice on the European stage.

I am confident that the public see the DUP petition of concern for what it is: a political stunt that, like the DUP's position on Brexit, is not representative of the views of the majority of people in the North and on this island, who oppose Brexit and want us to return to the EU. Only two weeks ago, DUP Members bemoaned the fact that there is a democratic deficit and a lack of representation for people here on Brexit and trading arrangements. It is therefore, in my opinion, hypocritical of DUP Members to attempt to block the motion and its practical call to give our communities greater representation.

As a Derry-based MLA, I am only too aware of the continued impacts of Brexit, which are particularly felt in border constituencies such as mine, on students, workers and the wider community. Those impacts include the continued risk to so many voluntary and community sector jobs and life-saving projects that, without adequate replacement of the funding from Europe that has been lost, will disappear. It is our families, people and communities who will suffer.

I will give one example of the ridiculous implications of Brexit. Some of our councillors recently met the North West Academy of English, which, through ERASMUS, has always hosted European students in Derry. Due to electronic travel authorisation (ETA) regulations, those students now have to stay in Donegal, limiting the potential for tourism and cultural enrichment in Derry city. The context is this: if an MEP were to try to meet students at the North West Academy of English, which is based in Derry, they would not be able to meet them there.

Additionally, vital projects are funded by the European PEACE PLUS programme, including the Cooperation and Working Together (CAWT) cross-border health and social care partnership, representatives of which I met last week. It was set up to improve all-Ireland health outcomes, yet concerns exist about its continuing post 2028. Derry, Donegal and other border counties have benefited enormously from that fund. It has, quite literally, transformed communities across the region.

Whilst we know that, in the event of Irish reunification, automatic re-entry to the European Union is guaranteed, we have a duty in the interim to enhance all-Ireland mobility, to provide businesses and workers with stability and trade continuity and to mitigate the very worst excesses of Britain's failed agenda on Ireland and its people, which include risks to health outcomes and vital support services for some of our most vulnerable people.

Additionally, we support the call for the opening of an EU Commission office in Belfast. Such an official local presence will help to support our position, which has been recognised to be unique, offering an enhanced communication channel and better support for people and small businesses that have been left bewildered.

I will finish with this: we were dragged out of Europe against our wishes, and nothing has come from Brexit for our economy and our people. There are huge opportunities ahead to continue to build momentum for a stronger and fairer Ireland and to realise our full potential as an island and a people. In the interim, in recognition of our unique, at present, position as a region, the fulfilment of observer status is a reasonable, sensible and practical step forward.

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

I beg to move the following amendment:

At end insert: "and its support for the establishment of a European Commission office in Belfast."

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

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

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to speak to the motion, with which we enthusiastically agree. We are so much in agreement with it that we pre-empted it by six months by putting down basically the same motion, albeit today's motion is updated with the reference to a letter calling for observer status — Sinn Féin MEPs had a part in that — which I strongly welcome.

We, obviously, have engaged with our Irish MEPs on that.

I will not hold it up, because I know that we are not supposed to brandish props, but, in front of me, I have a paper that we produced a year ago called 'Our European Future'. In it, we in the SDLP set out in detail our vision for our European future in the short term, meaning how we will achieve the like of European Parliament observer status in order to improve our responses to some of the questions and dilemmas that people have raised about our post-Brexit arrangements and to build for a European future back inside the European Union.

To be clear, those who are not in favour of our rejoining the European Union via a new Ireland should be, because they have said repeatedly, "You should be in favour of us addressing some of the issues to do with the democratic deficit that have arisen as a result of our being bound by a corpus of EU law on the single market for goods and a couple of other discrete areas". One does not guarantee the other, but we are clear that our vision is for a new Ireland that is back inside the European Union.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

We are also clear that the only way for Northern Ireland to rejoin the European Union is via a new Ireland. That is because we have the unique right of automatic re-entry. It is also because British politics looks strikingly and infinitesimally unlikely to move in the direction of a full-blown rejoining of the European Union, even if, although I hope it that does, there is progress towards greater alignment and membership of the single market and the customs union. Even that currently looks unlikely. Therefore, having moved an almost identical motion six months ago, I am more than happy to support this one. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so, obviously, we are keen and delighted to debate this motion today.

I am, however, slightly surprised at the DUP pulling the stunt today of tabling a petition of concern on a non-binding motion when it did not do so six months ago on our motion. Even if the petition of concern is successful after a cooling-off period, not only will it have no effect, because it is giving an indication of the Assembly's will, but it will not matter, because the Assembly voted in favour of the topic only six months ago. The DUP did not table a petition of concern then. This is about two things: first, Sinn Féin imitating our policy, which I am happy about — it has been happening for years, we are flattered by it and that is grand; we are all on the same page on that — and, secondly, the absurdity of the DUP tabling a petition of concern on a motion that is not only non-binding but that has already been given the will of the Assembly. Regardless of whether you like it or not, a majority of Members has already supported the thrust of the motion.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will give way to the Education Minister in one minute. Further to what I was saying, the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voted for us to remain.

I will come back to that point, because it is germane to our amendment. I give way.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Obviously, I am not intervening as Education Minister, hence my sitting on these Benches for the debate. He makes a valid point and asks a valid question about the SDLP motion that was tabled around six months ago. For the record, the DUP does not have within its gift the ability to secure a petition of concern. I welcome those in the Ulster Unionist Party and the TUV who joined the DUP in securing the petition of concern.

The Member has talked a lot about majoritarianism.

[Interruption.]

He ought to know that we operate on consensus, and nationalists, along with Alliance, need to realise that cross-community consensus is the way forward, which will not be to the exclusion of unionists in the House.

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

He has made a —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Sorry, but I advise Members that if they take an intervention, it is up to the Member who intervened to decide when the intervention has ended, and, when Members make an intervention, it needs to be short.

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

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. That was not a short intervention. Clearly nothing is happening in the Northern Ireland education system if the Education Minister can afford to come in here to debate our European motion. That is fine.

I will respond, because I believe in responding in debates. There were two points from the Education Minister. He said that this place proceeds on "consensus". It proceeds on the basis of our having inclusive, pluralist government respect for one another. It does not proceed on the basis that our constitutional future is decided by cross-community consensus. That would not work, because, right now, we are still part of the UK. I do not consent to that, because I want a new Ireland. That is not how the Good Friday Agreement or, indeed, the St Andrews Agreement works, so that is a factual fallacy that pro-Brexit politicians have constantly pushed.

To come back to the point, a majority of people in Northern Ireland supported us, that is, the UK, remaining part of the EU. We were dragged out against our will. I will not go through all that history, but it is why I am a politician here, and I am sure that the DUP is delighted by that. Our best future is not in the UK as it is currently constituted but in a new Ireland inside the EU, and I will relentlessly make that case.

However, in the here and now, — as Ciara Ferguson said — there are a number of specific reasons why Northern Ireland deserves and should have EU observer status. First, as noted in the ‘Our European Future’ paper, we are distinct within the EU. First, by dint of birthright, even before Brexit, the protocol, the awful Windsor framework and all the stuff that the Members opposite hate so much, people here had an automatic right of citizenship in this part of Ireland. In fact, I should say in this part of the UK, because it is the only part of the UK where people, by birthright, have EU citizenship.

My second point is consistently made by the DUP members opposite: we are bound by EU law. They keep telling us about how we are bound by EU law, and how awful that is, specifically in relation to goods. While I do not think that it is awful, by all means, we need the opportunity to scrutinise, lobby and test, and what better opportunity could we have than through observer status? The best thing that we could have is full-blown EU membership via a new Ireland. They do not want to go there. That is fair enough — it is their position — but EU observer status in the new Parliament would at least give us that opportunity —.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

It is servile.

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

Members across the Chamber say, "It is servile", as if we want to be in the service of the EU. Those are the same people who, last week, moaned and groaned about everything that the UK Government were doing to them — "the awful British Government that forced an awful Budget on us. Isn't it terrible, but we have to stay inside the UK as it is currently constituted.". It is the worst thing in the world to even talk about leaving the UK. They are silent now, because it is awful for me to aspire to rejoining the EU, and a united Ireland would have exactly the same vote at the European Council as every other EU member state, but we have to stay in the UK as it is currently constituted, where we, in the Chamber, can huff and puff about how much we hate the UK's Budget but can do very little about it. That is their preference, not mine. They can answer for it. Mr Frew laughs. He laughs because his position is indefensible.

Let us go back to the main thrust of the motion and the amendment: better representation for Northern Ireland's farmers and businesses on how EU law affects us. Why not? Even if you are a unionist, that makes sense.

The final point is that I aspire to full membership of the European Union, and I acknowledge that unionists do not. We are guaranteed automatic re-entry into the EU after a referendum on a new Ireland; that is guaranteed to the people of Northern Ireland. We can take that power into our hands, and that is unique. The people of Scotland cannot do that, and Ukraine, which has been bombarded by Vladimir Putin, does not have that power, and many of those people want to join the EU. That right is not automatic. The only place where it is automatic is right here. Therefore, for all those reasons, we have specific rights.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will not give way because your colleague's intervention took up so much time that I do not have enough time.

Specifically, in the here and now — I am very flattered to debate a very similar motion to the one that stood in my name a few months ago — our amendment adds something very practical: a European Commission office. What could be wrong with that? I want business groups, farmers and others who are affected by the consequences of Brexit to be able to say to the European Commission, "Actually, lads, can we engage on how that is being implemented? Can we have a bit of a conversation about that?" A European Commission office in Belfast would not jeopardise anybody's constitutional position; it would be rational and it would be a protection.

The Members opposite are not fans of this UK Government; they do not seem to be fans of any UK Government, which is ironic, because they do not want us to leave the UK. The position of the DUP appears to be that —

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

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

Point of order?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Point of order.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

No, I will not give way. If the Education Minister had not pushed his luck in taking so much time, I would be able to give way to more people.

The best future for Northern Ireland is in a new Ireland, back inside the EU. The SDLP is the most consistently pro-European party in the Chamber and will keep making that case. I welcome today's motion, and we have added our amendment to it, which seeks to support an European Commission office in Belfast. I only wish that the DUP would finally face up to the consequences of its actions, the consequences of the Brexit that it supported and the consequences of everything that it has done over the past decade. We are looking for practical solutions to improve things for people in the here and now, and that could include EU observer status in the European Parliament and, yes, a European Commission office in Belfast. In the future, I want us to be back in the European Union, and there is no reason why we cannot have better representation and accountability in the here and now. I support the motion and commend our amendment to the Assembly.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Today's motion is but yet another attempt to rewrite the Brexit referendum. It is as if Christmas has come early for the European Union. The motion is a present that is wrapped in sparkling Sinn Féin wrapping paper, because it is viewed through the lens of a united Ireland and through the lens of majoritarianism.

It will come as no surprise that the Alliance Party is falling in behind that type of proposal. The party has been on record as doing just that in many votes in the Assembly. The approach of the leader of the Opposition, Mr O'Toole, is reminiscent of that of the spoilt, crying toddler on Christmas evening who has lost his Christmas present to a cousin. He has moaned and groaned during the debate so far because other people have the same opinion as him, but — guess what? — no unionist will support the motion today. Unionists did not support such a motion when he brought one to the House, and they will not support Sinn Féin's motion today. That goes to the very heart of why a petition of concern was tabled today.

We want to talk about democratic deficits. That term was alien to those on the Benches opposite from the very genesis of the Brexit negotiations. They did not want to admit that a problem existed. They wanted hard and radical forms of protocols that would damage our businesses and destroy industry. Rigorous implementation has been mentioned. That is the approach that they adopted time and time again, but the white rabbit has now been pulled out of the hat: having observer-status MEPs will sort it all out. Sinn Féin is rather used to being an observer when it comes to parliamentary debate. Observer status is something that comes quite naturally to its MPs. In fact, observer-status MEPs would have more legitimacy than its current MPs at Westminster.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. Is it not a bit rich for Sinn Féin to have tabled such a motion, which is divisive and couched in the language of majoritarianism, when it does not even take its seats at Westminster?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Member makes a valid point, because, and let us get real, the motion is about misrepresenting views in Northern Ireland. Yes, some constituencies in Northern Ireland voted to remain, but some voted to leave. That was part of the democratic vote. For people to try to rewrite the outcome of the vote here time and time again further undermines trust in these institutions and, indeed, in democracy right across the United Kingdom.

I have not heard one single time when Members on the Benches opposite have been prepared to acknowledge the huge hurt that the Windsor framework and other agreements have caused to our businesses. We import some £16 billion worth of goods from GB. Full customs codes are applied, courtesy of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. We import £7 billion from the EU, yet we are hammered with bureaucracy because of the arrangements that those parties have tried to impose on the people of Northern Ireland.

Observer-status MEPs have no right to vote. They therefore have no right to influence the vote. You are so keen to talk about the issue, yet when 300 areas of law came before the Assembly, resulting in six hours of debate, the vast majority of you did not even speak. You come here, however, to howl in the wind about observer-status MEPs. It is utter hypocrisy.

The DUP tabled the petition of concern for very legitimate reasons. There is a serious attempt, via the motion, to misrepresent the views of the House, just as they were misrepresented by the EU when cross-community voting in this place was discarded to serve its agenda. It is happening again.

It was therefore right to table the petition of concern, which will stop the vote, and I pay tribute to the UUP Members and the TUV Member who signed the petition, because it is important that we ensure that those institutions that are foreign to this one understand that there is no democratic legitimacy to the arrangements that they have put in place. There is no support from one single elected unionist in this place, so it is entirely legitimate for us to use such a mechanism, and we will ensure that the voice of unionism is represented.

I want to see the issues resolved. I want to see the democratic deficit reduced. The way to do it is through votes in this place. Mr O'Toole had no care or concern when over 300 areas of law went through. He spoke for a pitiful 10 minutes on 300 areas of law, yet he wants to throw his toys out of the pram because Sinn Féin stole his motion today. Utter hypocrisy. Businesses know exactly that Mr O'Toole is all about sound bites. He is all about trying to throw around his EU credentials. Mr O'Toole was at the heart of the Downing Street team when these things were being talked about. He has been very quiet about his time there. I mean —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Excuse me. Can you get back to the substance of the motion, please?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Absolutely. I will, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

It is rich from the SDLP. We have seen again and again the nationalist front of the Alliance Party, propped up by the SDLP and Sinn Féin —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— bringing motions that do not —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— bear out reality.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

We will vote against.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up. Time is up.

I just want to give Members a wee warning. When I say, "Time is up", time is up, OK? It is just courtesy.

[Interruption.]

Yes, good courtesy. It is also courtesy, when you are talking, to talk through the Chair and not point at other Members. I am just reminding everyone of that.

[Interruption.]

Yes. OK. Much appreciated. I do not need you to agree; I am just telling you how it is.

I call Stewart Dickson.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. Maybe we will try to calm things down after the foot-stamping, screaming and shouting that we have just had.

The Alliance Party will support the motion today, but, before anything else, let me be clear about what the motion is and is not about. This is not a constitutional matter. Nothing in the motion alters the principle of consent or our status within the United Kingdom. What is before us today is how Northern Ireland secures a level of listening and input into processes that already shape parts of our economy by being able to simply observe. That is not a threat to anyone's identity. It is all about good governance, and it really does beg this question: why do the DUP and their colleagues in the UUP want to use a petition of concern on something that is just as easy as our ability to observe?

Our economy, supply chains and regulatory environment remain closely connected to the EU single market. That was the practical outcome of Brexit and the arrangements required to protect the unique circumstances of this region. The Windsor framework and the withdrawal agreement are how those issues are managed on a day-to-day reality. We have an Executive office in Brussels: I hear no calls to have it closed at the same time as there is refusal to have an EU office in Belfast. Those evolving arrangements have created a democratic deficit whereby we continue to be affected by EU law but no longer have a say in the institutions where that law is shaped. We are not on that Commission, and our voice is not heard in the committees that make consequential decisions. We no longer elect Members to the European Parliament.

The idea of observer status in the European Parliament speaks to a real desire for Northern Ireland to be seen and heard within the EU's democratic institutions. We need our listening ear and want our perspective in the room, and that is why the Alliance Party supports the motion and the amendment. Until we return to the EU — I am passionate about that and believe that we will return one day — it is important that we continue to have engagement.

Observer status is far short of where I and the Alliance Party want to be in Europe. We are proud Europeans. Today's motion is about what might be possible and focuses on what could make progress for us right now. Let us look at the reality. Observer status is reserved for countries in the accession process and has never been offered to a region or third country. Creating a unique category for Northern Ireland would set a precedent for others, with far closer ties to the EU. There is no intention or indication that the European Parliament is considering such a move, and, even if it changed, it would almost certainly require UK Government initiation and European Parliament agreement. However, that does not mean that we should stop aspiring to have those close ties; it simply means that we should put energy into trying to push open a door that is currently closed. If we are serious about addressing the democratic deficit, we need to walk through the doors that are already open to us and work to widen them.

One such door is the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly (PPA). It is not only the formal forum where MPs, Lords and MEPs meet to scrutinise how the post-Brexit relationship is functioning but —.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

No, I want to get through.

Northern Ireland already has observer status in the PPA, which is a useful starting point, but there is a catch: the PPA is permitted to discuss only the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, yet so much of what matters to us around the Windsor framework and the practicalities of trade regulation and market access falls under the auspices of the separate withdrawal agreement. Therefore, it makes little sense to keep those issues in silos; in fact, in 2021, the European Parliament suggested that the PPA should oversee both agreements. Let us push for that. Let us get the Windsor framework properly on the PPA's agenda. That would give us a regular, structured opportunity to raise concerns directly with MEPs at the stage when influence is still possible. We can also take other practical steps.

The people whom we represent deserve politics that engage seriously with the world as it is. They deserve influence, clarity and a seat at the table —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

— where it counts.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Ulster Unionist Party opposes this unconstitutional motion and the amendment. I shall outline our reasons for doing so.

There is no doubt that the decision by all the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union has had far-ranging and highly disruptive consequences not only here but across Europe. The predictions of slower growth, loss of global influence, the undermining of our existing treaties and the potential large-scale impact on Northern Ireland and our unique position, as laid out by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, that our party made as part of our case to remain — the only unionist party to have done so — have been borne out. Indeed, we are on the record as saying that our wish was for the United Kingdom to stay and give leadership to Europe, as we all faced the multiple challenges of Putin's war in Europe, the growth of China and an increasingly disengaged United States. Rather than it being the best of both worlds, with the UK-USA tariff agreement, the EU single market and the UK internal market, even the most myopic can see that we are suffering the worst of at least two of those three worlds.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

No.

The unattainable chimera of EU observer status will not change that. We already have a report before us from Lord Murphy that makes it clear that we need to beef up our capacity, including giving more staff to the Northern Ireland Office in Brussels, our Departments and the Assembly. The Ulster Unionist Party made those recommendations on page 16 of his report. If we act on those, we would at least improve awareness and be able to try to intervene earlier.

The motion calls for us to apply for accession state observer status in the EU, because, bizarrely, some believe that a united Ireland within the next few years is credible or even possible. That is precisely what the motion implies. As a party, however, we welcome moves by our Government to develop ever-closer relationships with the European Union, not because we believe that we are heading back to full EU membership — that is not going to happen — but primarily because we need to deal with the absurdity of the self-imposed Irish Sea border. On the back of the actions of those who would rather rigorously implement decisions that most other EU nations privately ignore, that border is increasingly morphing into a trade, regulation, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS), digital and, should the ridiculous idea of digital ID cards come to fruition, identity border. However, the motion does not seek to address those issues. It is a farcical attempt by Sinn Féin to undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and further the united Ireland agenda.

As the Connolly House drafters know full well, the EU is very legalistic. The European Parliament observer status is granted only to accession states. That rule is clearly laid out in rule 13 of the rules of procedure of the European Parliament. The Irish MEPs made a particularly clumsy attempt to have the EU follow on behind in recognising that the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom should be changed. This will come as no surprise, but, on the basis of a calculation made in Brussels between keeping the most capable military power in Europe engaged in European security or throwing a Bonio to the biggest freeloaders and tax evaders on the continent, that is not going to happen.

The motion and the amendment are, therefore, a farce. We will not support them in any way, and neither should any party that believes in the peace settlement that was laid out in 1998. Unconstitutional and majoritarian stunts will achieve absolutely nothing — not here, not in London and definitely not in Brussels.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

No. I have just finished my remarks.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The majority of people in the North voted to remain in the European Union. That democratic choice was overturned, and our communities have been living with the consequences ever since. The loss of EU programmes, reduced study and work opportunities and weakened international links have had a real and lasting impact on an entire generation who see themselves as European and want the same freedoms as their peers across the continent. This is about young people who have lost access to ERASMUS. Although an alternative has been put in place, we are continuing to punish all generations for a decision that the majority of people in the North voted against. Restoring access to study, work, cultural exchange and mobility across Europe must be a priority. Our young people deserve nothing less.

Despite those challenges, our economy has shown resilience. The Windsor framework has protected our unique dual market access. Businesses here retain the ability to trade freely with the EU and Britain, an advantage that no other region enjoys. That access is drawing investment, supporting jobs and giving firms confidence about the future. If we look at NISRA figures from 2023, we see that sales between the North and Britain rose in that year by 12·4%. Similarly, purchases between the North and Britain rose by 16·2% in that time. When we look back as far as 2001, we see that cross-border trade then was valued at £1·9 billion, and it was at a similar level in 2015. However, that has grown dramatically since the Windsor framework regulations were put in place. In 2022, that trade was valued at over £7 billion a year.

The evidence is clear: the Windsor framework is helping our businesses to grow, protecting our jobs and strengthening our economy. Businesses tell us that they want certainty and that they want to grow by using both markets. At the Economy Committee last week, Invest NI was clear that having dual market access leads to higher exports, more jobs and more skills. Invest NI also highlighted that some companies here will continue to work hard under the current system but will not celebrate that success, because the issue has been politicised by some. We all want our economy to grow. We want opportunities for businesses to develop and for our skilled workforce to expand. That should be a priority for everyone in the Chamber.

As the European Parliament considers establishing an observer mechanism for the North, this is an important moment. It recognises that we did not choose Brexit but had it imposed on us; acknowledges our unique position; and gives locally elected representatives a direct voice on decisions that affect our economy, rights and young people's futures.

Our message is clear: Ireland belongs in Europe. We should not be disadvantaged because of decisions made in London that have been forced on us. Our businesses thrive through having European access. Our young people need European opportunities, and we will continue working for a future in which those connections are strengthened and fully restored.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

The motion is not harmless, as has been articulated, not only by my colleague Mr Buckley but by Dr Aiken and in the previous speech from the Benches opposite. It wishes to strike at the very foundation of Northern Ireland's constitutional position. The Belfast and St Andrews Agreements were crystal clear: on issues of this magnitude, cross-community consent is essential. Yet, today, those opposite would have that safeguard cast aside. Why? Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party know that they cannot achieve consensus on the issue and therefore seek to impose their will by simple majority.

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

Will the Member give way?

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Not at the moment, thank you.

During the Brexit process, unionists were lectured about protecting the agreement in all its parts — every jot and tittle, we were told — but here we are again, faced with a proposal that seeks to trample on those very principles. While working in the European Parliament, I heard not only Sinn Féin MEPs but those from other nations wax lyrical about the deified Good Friday Agreement, when I am sure that many of them had not set eyes on much of it, much less on all its parts. Some of them had expansive and fantastical ideas about what it said.

The motion is not about political engagement. It is a Sinn Féin a ploy. As has been outlined, it is a stepping stone to its wish to break up the United Kingdom. If the motion is passed, it will lead to a letter being sent to Brussels claiming that the Assembly supports observer status, despite there being fierce opposition from all on the unionist Benches. No legitimacy will be given to the motion in this place today. Those in Brussels will not have the opportunity afforded to them to ignore and ride roughshod over the concerns of the unionist population of Northern Ireland, against the principles of the Good Friday Agreement, as they did when the protocol was imposed following the acquiescing of the UK Government of the day.

Today, the Democratic Unionist Party, along with unionist colleagues, has, rightly, had no hesitation in using the petition of concern to ensure that unionist voices are not silenced or misrepresented. What, after all, does observer status offer? It offers no vote, no influence and no power. It would do nothing to fix the democratic deficit that has been created by the protocol. Instead, it would be an attempt to signal Northern Ireland's willingness to join the EU, a message that those who tabled the motion hope that Brussels would seize upon, entrenching the flawed arrangements that have already damaged our economy. We are still battling threats to veterinary medicine supplies and restrictions on car dealers registering UK-approved vehicles. Those are the real consequences of surrendering control.

In many ways, perhaps having the privileges of partial membership that were outlined by my colleague, without the responsibilities or costs, would suit Sinn Féin well. Is that not the arrangement that they have at Westminster, where they are free to travel to London and live the London lifestyle without having any of the responsibility of the work of the House of Commons or any voice for those whom they represent? Perhaps the plan is for John Finucane to add "EU observer" to the jobs that he has but does not do, while he continues his legal career.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Yes.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I am interested in the fact that the Member rails against all those things in his speech but is nevertheless quite happy to represent the Assembly on the reference group for the Committee of the Regions, which is the only listening ear that we currently have there.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I assure the Member that I would not give up my seat for it to be filled by one of the Europhiles on the other side of the House. Yes, we will listen intently, but we will respect the vote of the United Kingdom. I know that the Member would like to reduce the referendum to one that is at a more local level, so perhaps he would look at how East Antrim voted in that referendum.

I will give the SDLP its dues: it has, at least, been consistent in its Europhile position, whereas Sinn Féin, as we know, has flip-flopped on the issue. Even now, with its relatively new-found passion and enthusiasm for fighting for freedom of sovereignty from the existing Union so that it can hand over power to Brussels, it criticises the Irish Government for not being neutral enough. It wishes to speak about European values and be part of the European system, but it does not want Ireland to contribute in any way to the defence of those values and people. It seems that Sinn Féin's position is no different now than Ireland's was in the 1940s, which is: "We're all right, Jack: you can pay for our defence while we sit on the edge of Europe". It wants to continue to take the benefits of that system, whilst the UK stands with those in Ukraine, as my colleague said, to ensure that defences are maintained across Europe.

The protocol was imposed over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland, without the support of a single unionist representative. Checks resulting from the border in the Irish Sea undermine our economy and constitutional integrity. If passed, today's motion would compound that harm by further eroding the principle of consent — the cornerstone of our settlement, which it championed when it suited it and at national behest. Some claim that this would give us a voice, but the truth is that Northern Ireland has already had negligible influence over EU laws. Engagement has been tokenistic: merely communicative and not participatory. Goods regulations will still be dictated by Brussels, without the UK's input. The SDLP's answer is not to take back control of our laws but to have an EU office in Belfast.

For what? So that we can go to that office to beg, after the fact, after those regulations have been imposed —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

— on our businesses?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

As a passionately pro-European party, Alliance supports the motion to secure observer status for Northern Ireland in the European Parliament and, indeed, a European Commission office in Belfast. The debate has highlighted the fact that, despite having campaigned for Brexit 10 years ago, the DUP is still not able to name one solitary benefit of leaving the European Union. You cannot come to the Chamber, having campaigned for Brexit, and pin all its inevitable consequences on the Windsor framework. That is the political equivalent of driving your car into a brick wall and then blaming the airbag for your broken nose.

The DUP was warned pre referendum that Brexit would inevitably mean increased friction and barriers and that that would impact on the UK's ability to influence the European Union, to make rules and to contribute on matters of peace and security, poverty, migration and the global economy. That is exactly what has happened. Despite not causing that mess, Alliance has consistently come to the Chamber and other forums with practical and pragmatic solutions that would address the situation in the best interests of people in Northern Ireland. We believe that, by having observer status, we would be able to influence upstream EU law that has an impact on Northern Ireland.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. Would he suggest that his party's position of rigorous implementation of the protocol was in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

It was through faithful implementation that we were able to secure trust and confidence for many of the changes that followed in the Windsor framework. Unlike the Member, we are not in the business of championing breaches of international law. In his contribution, Mr Buckley said that the debate was about rewriting the Brexit referendum and misrepresenting the views of the House. Of course, that is exactly what the DUP did when it held the balance of power at Westminster between 2017 and 2019, when it was only the voices of members of the DUP that were heard in the room. They are the architects of their own misfortune in all of that.

Mr Brooks cannot claim that there must be cross-community support for how we Brexit but not for whether we Brexit in the first place; you cannot have it both ways. That principle needs to be applied consistently and fairly, but, more important than that, Northern Ireland has evolved and changed since 1998. There is no majority and minority in the House. We are all minorities: those who are unionist, those who are nationalist and those of us on these Benches who do not designate as nationalist or unionist. Our voters deserve better than to be treated as second-class citizens.

The deployment of a petition of concern on this vote is a shameful perversion of democracy and an abuse of process. Prior to the debate, the Members opposite complained in their press statement of a rigged debate. There is no clearer way of rigging of a debate than the deployment of a petition of concern, because nobody's vote matters now except for that of the DUP, which wishes to govern by diktat.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

No, I will not give way. I gently say to the Members opposite that we have seen where this has led in the past. In previous mandates, the petition of concern was deployed and abused to deprive LGBTQ+ people of their rights, to prevent Members from being held to account and to derail bread-and-butter politics. That directly led to a breakdown in relationships and a collapse of the institutions. That is simply not good enough. No one should play fast and loose with the operation of the institutions.

I also gently say to the Members opposite that there has been an awful lot of sneering and laughing in the debate. This is not a game; this is not debate club. We come here to work together in a spirit of respect and cooperation to deliver for the people who elected us, not to knock lumps out of one another and trade insults across the Chamber every day. The politics of distraction, fear and division is what upended the institutions in the past. The people whom we represent deserve better.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I am a little surprised by the Member's criticism of, I assume, Members over here for student politics and sneering. Often, when I watch across to the Alliance Benches, I see him laughing at some of our Members when they are speaking. He is angry, and he can be angry if he wants.

My colleagues have covered a range of points, and I have no intention of going over them again. The United Kingdom has, contrary to what the motion suggests, a democratic mandate to remain outside the European Union. Therefore, there is no need or requirement for observer status. In fact, EU observer status in the European Parliament would bring with it no right to vote. It would do nothing to address the democratic deficit that we have with the protocol or the deprivation of locally elected representatives' ability to make laws.

I have said before in this place that many countries in Europe are incredible. They have interesting cultures, many of which I love, and I have very much enjoyed travelling to many of them. However, there is no dichotomy between valuing European countries and culture and being wholly opposed to an economic lock-in with them. The motion suggests that we would be:

"best served by rejoining the European Union".

That is the same nirvana that many in the Chamber suggested when they said, "If only the Assembly was back up and running, everything would be great. All our problems would be solved". I certainly was not in the Assembly — I was not elected at that time — but I remember watching many of the Members who have spoken today going to the gates at Hillsborough saying, "If only we could get this place back up, all our problems will be solved". We all knew then — I certainly did — that that was never going to be the case. It was never going to be the nirvana that people said it would, and telling the electorate that or, in the context of the motion, telling them that rejoining the EU will somehow solve all our problems is simply dishonest.

It is also worth looking at some of the economics underlying that premise, particularly the economic performance of some big EU countries. Data that the OECD released last week states that UK GDP growth outstripped that of eurozone countries in quarter 1 of 2025. It is particularly noticeable that we will continue to grow faster than Germany through all three quarters of 2025.

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

Will the Member give way?

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I will give way to the leader of the Opposition.

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

I appreciate the Member's giving way, and, in the spirit of debate, I will be brief. He points out that the UK is outperforming some eurozone countries, and that is true. Will he also acknowledge that Northern Ireland is outperforming the UK, despite what his party would deem to be the imposition of the appalling sea border?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

That is very kind. I always welcome the leader of the Opposition's comments. A lot of that is about diversion, and we have heard some of the diversionary arguments. Trade is going down South that we would like to see going to and coming back from GB, and that is a consequence of the operation of the protocol.

Germany, of course, is the economic powerhouse of the EU, yet it is suffering and struggling financially. In fact, France has stagnated all the way through 2025 and is struggling still. Data from the World Bank this year confirms that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the sixth largest economy in the world and is ahead of all eurozone countries except Germany. Therefore, why would we want to leave the strength of the United Kingdom for a united Ireland or, for that matter, to rejoin the EU?

I will move on to the letter that spawned the private Member's motion. I think that it did, but there has been some debate on the other side of the House over who exactly is responsible for the motion or whose idea it was. I will not get into that, but I checked who signed the letter, and I found that one of the people was a lady called Lynn Boylan, who is a Sinn Féin MEP. Many in the Chamber will not have heard of that lady, but she was in the news recently for one particular reason, which was that she abstained from a resolution in the European Parliament that called for EU support for Ukraine. After three years of Russia's war and aggression, there was a proposal for a 30-day ceasefire and an expectation that Russia would agree to it and would cease all attacks on Ukraine. Ms Boylan could not even support that.

I do not believe that it is in our best interests to rejoin the EU. I also note that, in their letter to President Metsola, the MEPs who signed the letter even admitted that the granting of observer status would in fact, and I quote directly:

"require a request from the UK government"

Therefore, to be honest, I am not even sure why the motion refers to writing to the EU Parliament, unless the policy wonks on the other Benches have got it so badly wrong at the drafting stage.

Regardless, I will not support the motion, and nor will my party.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I have all of 10 seconds, and you can have it.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I appreciate the Member giving way. I find the complete lack of self-awareness on the part of the DUP almost comical. Your colleague Jonathan Buckley said that the way to demonstrate the will of the people was through votes in the House —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— yet you misuse a petition of concern to block a vote in this place. What are you afraid of?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

My time is up.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

We all gather that. Thank you, Peter.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I oppose the motion. It is divisive, negative, fails to learn the lessons of Brexit or our past and wastes time dealing with matters that we have no authority over. Frankly, if we are building something in Northern Ireland, it should not be an office for bureaucrats in Belfast but homes for young people. We are short of homes in Northern Ireland. This shows that our focus is entirely on the wrong thing.

Brexit was divisive and negative, and I say that as a lifelong Eurosceptic. The EU is an organisation that was committed to ever closer union, was not very democratic and was tin-eared to reform. David Cameron tried to strike a deal but got nowhere. However, the Ulster Unionist Party, to its credit, before I was in it, thought through the implications of Brexit with its head and not its heart and realised that it was going to be particularly difficult for Northern Ireland, as it came to pass. I credit my colleagues, before I came into the party, for that.

Majoritarianism is worrying. A signal is being sent by many in nationalism and now Alliance that majoritarianism suits when they are in the majority, otherwise we have to exercise cross-community consent.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I am not going to give way. I will towards the end.

Ms Ferguson, I think, said that people in Northern Ireland did not endorse Brexit. However, people in Northern Ireland have not supported this stunt. This is a constitutional change, yet it has no support from the people of Northern Ireland, only the arrogance to think that we in the Chamber can make a decision that is constitutional and rests squarely with the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is a constitutional issue.

Let me deal with this. Frankly, for MEPs to write to the president of the European Parliament to say that we should have observer status is little different from me writing to Catherine Connolly and saying, "Dear President, I think that Ireland should join NATO. It should join the Commonwealth". Members of the Dáil, who sometimes have more sense, would not waste their time debating it. They would realise that they have more important things to do, like build infrastructure for young people like those from Friends' School Lisburn, if I recognise the uniform, who are watching from the Gallery.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. He talks about issues that are more important. At the moment, a cliff edge for veterinary and pet medicines is impending because of the obstinacy of the European Union. Should we not be talking about that issue today, rather than fantasy school politics?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Thank you. We will come back to that in a moment.

The motion is about supporting a united Ireland. The Alliance Party has fallen into a trap. I do not want to paint them green, white and gold; they never got over me painting them yellow on Facebook

[Laughter.]

I have committed that I will not paint any of their faces again. However, that is a trap that they fall into.

Let me deal with the democratic deficit. The biggest democratic deficit in Northern Ireland is —

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

You

[Interruption.]

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Thank you.

The biggest democratic deficit is that people in eight out of 19 constituencies in Northern Ireland are represented by Sinn Féin MPs who do not go to Westminster. It is all right for the ones who voted for Sinn Féin but not for the rest of the electorate, who only get one choice of MP. Here is the thing: what could they be doing at Westminster? Making a contribution to the assisted dying Bill, lobbying about the family farm tax, making representations about veterinary medicines or, like our party, putting amendments down to the Legacy Bill — the Troubles Bill — that mean that those who committed sexual crimes in the name of the IRA can be investigated by the Legacy Commission.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Sorry, Mr Burrows. I really do not mean to interrupt your flow, but can you return to the substantive —.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I am dealing with the democratic deficit: the real one.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I know where you are going, but it is not relevant to the motion.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

It seems as though we have failed to learn the lessons from our past and from Brexit. In this place we should be joining together and asking, "What can we agree on, so that we can lobby to change the invidious and iniquitous Irish sea border? On what issues can we can come to a consensus as a body so that we can then go and make representations?". We do not do that, however. The motion is a divisive stunt and party politicking by a party that wants to cause endless problems in Northern Ireland.

When we deal with economic issues, we should welcome investment such as the Bank of America investment, but we do not. That is the reality. Alliance has made a mistake here. It has fallen into a trap set by Sinn Féin. We in the Ulster Unionist Party have thought with our heads and not our hearts throughout. The motion is dangerous and unconstitutional, and we are right to oppose it forthrightly.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

We have heard a great deal today about democratic deficits and observer status in Brussels. Once again, we have witnessed the republican and nationalist alliance in the House fall over itself to see which party can stand up and say, "We are the biggest Europhiles". My goodness, we even got a Christmas card from the SDLP with its list of priorities. Matthew, I think that the SDLP takes the prize today for being the biggest Europhiles, having outdone Alliance very marginally.

When we strip away all of that, however, we need to remind ourselves of the simple democratic reality. In 2016, the people of the United Kingdom were asked a straightforward question: should the UK leave the European Union? The answer that came back from the British people was equally straightforward: "Yes, leave". That democratic decision should have been honoured.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It should have been implemented in full. It should have restored the sovereignty of the nation.

I am happy to give way to Mr Dickson. Let me hear you.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am just interested in knowing whether you and your party believed the lies that were printed on the side of a bus.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

There were have the Alliance Party. The SDLP, Sinn Féin and Alliance were able to come together to cook up the fudges that were the protocol and the Windsor framework. When any business has problems in Northern Ireland, blame those three parties. They were the chief makers, pushers, movers and shakers.

What we now have is an arrangement that leaves Northern Ireland governed by laws that we do not make, that we cannot change and that are interpreted by a foreign court. If we want to talk about a democratic deficit, why not start there? That does not suit the narrative of the nationalist and republican alliance, however. The idea that the solution to Northern Ireland's problems and to the democratic deficit is somehow more EU involvement, more EU buildings or EU observer roles is frankly nonsense. The deficit comes from the EU's continued grip on Northern Ireland. It will not be remedied by allowing the EU to tighten its grip even more.

We then have the SDLP amendment and its proposal on:

"support for the establishment of a European Commission office in Belfast."

That sounds very official. Let me be clear to the SDLP: Northern Ireland does not need a European Commission office; it needs full restoration of its place within the United Kingdom. What is an EU office in Belfast supposed to achieve? Is its purpose to normalise EU oversight of laws that we do not make? Is it to entrench a system in which Northern Ireland is treated differently from the rest of the country and the Union to which we belong?

After all the talk about democratic deficit, I remind the House of what happened when the Assembly was asked to vote on the continuation of the protocol — the very arrangement that means that we have no say on vast swathes of the economic laws that govern us. What did it do? Ah, it did not want to know. The Members who support the motion today are the very ones who supported the motion on the protocol. You cannot complain about democratic deficits if you support the very arrangements that led to our colonial status. Why did they do that? Some claim that it was to protect the sacred Belfast Agreement, but their protocol destroys the basis of that agreement. The Belfast Agreement states that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom until the people of Northern Ireland say otherwise. If that promise means anything, it means that I have the same rights as anyone else in the UK to take part in national referendums and have the result respected. The agreement says that no significant or controversial decision can be taken without the buy-in of both communities.

We have the petition of concern; that is good. Let us work together for unionism. The DUP brought this place back on the basis of the dodgy Donaldson deal. For that, you will pay the price. To the SDLP and Alliance I say this: all your cuddly relationship is doing is pushing you down and down in the polls, sitting behind the TUV. Let that sink in. You are cuddling up to Sinn Féin as part of your pan-nationalist and republican alliance. Whatever you want to tell yourself, come 2027, the people in this country will cast their views on everything that has taken place since the restoration of Stormont. Those who gave away their principles to become implementers will have to face the electorate, as will the Alliance Party and the SDLP, which have cuddled up to Sinn Féin over the past number of years.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The next Member to speak will be Sinéad McLaughlin to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Sinéad, you have five minutes.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking the proposers of the motion for bringing the SDLP's former proposal back to the Assembly. It is really good. I also thank Timothy Gaston for giving the SDLP the prize for being the most European party here. That is almost as good, sincere and heart-warming as FIFA's peace prize for Trump at the weekend.

[Laughter.]

As many contributors to the debate have said, we cannot ignore the simple truth that Brexit has not delivered what people were promised. The DUP petition of concern is just a farce. There was no cross-community consent for Brexit. That was not on the agenda. Cross-community consent is also not required for the constitutional status of this place.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way on that point. Does she agree that there are different methods of measuring cross-community support, such as a weighted majority vote? In fact, there was cross-community support for Remain in 2016.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you.

I agree, Eóin. It is just wheeled out when Members want to put wedge issues into this place to create bad politics and a bad environment.

Brexit has held back our economic growth, caused real pressures for businesses and affected social and political cohesion here and across these islands. The Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, said in a recent podcast that it was self-evident that Brexit had damaged the British economy. He is right, because that is what the evidence tells us. According to information collated by Best for Britain, the cost of Brexit to the UK economy is now estimated at £240 billion. An estimated 1·8 million jobs have been lost in the UK, and households pay over £250 more a year for food as a direct result of Brexit-related pressures.

We cannot plan for the future unless we are honest about where we are. However, today's debate is not about running old arguments. Well, I suppose that it precisely is about running old arguments, because today's debate is like a copy or cut and paste from previous, pointless debates that have taken place in the Assembly.

We should be prioritising limiting the damage and creating better opportunities for people here. The majority on this island voted to remain in the European Union. They deserve a serious, practical route back towards closer partnerships with our largest trading partner. We are already seeing the UK Government take steps in that direction — small steps, but steps nonetheless. The recent UK-EU agreement on areas that include trade, fishing and defence shows that cooperation works. The expectation that the UK will rejoin ERASMUS, for example, is hugely positive for our students, universities and local industries. Northern Ireland should not be left behind as that relationship improves. That is why the SDLP consistently proposes ways that we can rebuild our European links.

Observer status in the European Parliament, the central idea of the motion, was set out in the SDLP's 'Our European Future' paper. That idea has now gained strong international support. Just last month, 13 Irish MEPs and an Italian MEP wrote to the President of the European Parliament arguing that Northern Ireland representatives should be granted observer status. There is nothing to fear from that. That is a significant endorsement, reflecting the unique position that we are currently in. However, if we truly want to support businesses — the party opposite often says this — strengthen democracy and maximise the benefits of dual market access, observer status alone is not enough. That is why the SDLP amendment calls for the establishment of an EU Commission office in Belfast. To put it plainly, it makes no sense that we do not already have one. Every week, businesses tell us the same thing: they are trying to navigate the Windsor framework; they want to trade confidently but do not know where to go to get reliable guidance.

Mr Buckley, I totally refute your assertion that we do not raise issues in relation to barriers to the economy. I have raised it in the Committee, and you are in the Committee with me, so do not play that game with me. You will go nowhere with it, OK?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

No, I will not.

[Interruption.]

I raise it regularly on behalf of my constituents.

[Interruption.]

I have raised it regularly in the past on behalf of my constituents. I have been in contact with the Northern Ireland chamber; I have been in contact with the FSB. The office would give clarity, improve communications and act as a point of support for traders who simply want to get on with their work. Many businesses were pushing for that during Lord Murphy's review of the Windsor framework. Unfortunately, it was seen as politically unacceptable for unionists.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Sinéad, your time is up.

[Interruption.]

Sorry, I was getting a lecture from Mr Buckley on Standing Orders in the middle of all that.

[Interruption.]

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I did not know who was talking: was it me or Mr Buckley?

[Inaudible.]

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Sorry, do you want to give way?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No. Time is up. Apologies about that.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to reference directly another Member across the Chamber rather than engage in the debate through you? I ask because Mr Buckley needs to cool his jets.

[Interruption.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

A lot of Members in the Chamber need to cool their jets, Eóin

[Interruption]

but I also think that the lack of courtesy from certain Members, at least, is consistent, and I ask them to reflect on that.

We move to the winding-up speech on the substantive motion. I call Declan Kearney. Declan, I advise that you have 10 minutes.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

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

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

Every party in the Assembly agrees on one thing: Brexit has left us all with a democratic deficit. The difference, of course, is in how that democratic deficit is defined and then addressed.

Some carp about that deficit without facing up to realities, still refusing to acknowledge that they themselves bought them and us all a pig in a poke. Then there are the rest of us: the representatives elected to this place who represent the citizens in the North who voted against Brexit — the majority. The POC attempt by unionism overshadows the DUP approach to the debate. Let me briefly deal with the fake news narrative that the motion is somehow a constitutional stalking horse. It is divisive and inflammatory to say that, because the constitutional future of this place will be addressed and resolved under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. That is a settled matter. This is a case of back to the future, with the abuse and misuse of POCs to subvert democracy. You could say that unionism appears to be resolved to undermining the democracy of the institutions with negative politics in one hand, and the misuse of a POC in the other.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree, as I said previously, that it is disgraceful for the DUP to talk about votes in this place while using the petition of concern — a mechanism that was designed to protect minority rights — to block a vote that would give voice to people's views? That would be democracy, so why are they afraid of it?

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat as sin.

[Translation: Thank you for that.]

I would go further; it is a subversion of democracy. It is a classic case of cutting your nose off to spite your face. Why would you not look for increased access and maximum engagement with the European Union and the British Government on how we navigate the post-Brexit realities? By contrast, there have been reasoned contributions in the debate from others, which are predicated upon the logic of maximising democratic engagement with the European Commission. In my remarks, I will touch on the importance of that.

Brexit has been an economic, political and social disaster for citizens and businesses here and in Britain. Since its imposition, Sinn Féin, other parties here, the Irish Government and the EU have sought to mitigate its worst impacts, and the mechanisms now exist to do just that through the protocol and the Windsor framework. While our regional economy is showing growth because of the dual market access that is available under the Windsor framework, our voice is silenced in the European institutions because Brexit removed our ability to directly input in them. Unsurprisingly, British Governments have been focused on the democratic deficit that their approach provoked. They have failed to address how that can be best remedied.

The good news is this: the damage caused by right-wing Tory and DUP recklessness does not have to be a permanent condition for people in the North. Practical and pragmatic approaches are available to us, and I agree with many of our local businesses, and with the report of the Murphy review, that a one-stop shop mechanism to simplify administrative processes would, indeed, be an advantage to us. The British Government need to listen and take on board the need for those reforms.

On maximising our input to EU processes, a decision to confer observer status representation for the North at the European Parliament and the opening of a European Commission office in Belfast would be good starting points. Maximising our democratic input in the post-Brexit systems, for which the British Government and the EU are responsible, makes sense. Brexit has swept away all the constitutional, political and economic assumptions about this place, but the North of the island also enjoys distinct advantages over other regions that have been directly harmed by Brexit. In 2017, as colleagues have mentioned, the European Council stated that in the event of Irish reunification, the entire territory of Ireland would become part of the European Union. We, in the North, therefore have an automatic legal route to rejoining the EU via constitutional change and a referendum on a new Ireland. The reunification of our island is no longer just an aspiration; it is a viable project that should be pursued in earnest by the British and Irish Governments. Irish unity has become the defining issue of our generation. The case for constitutional change is being made across this island and further afield by people from all walks of life. It is time that the British and Irish Governments began to plan and prepare for the constitutional change that is allowed for under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. The Dublin Government should do so through the appointment of a Minister of State for reunification, the immediate publication of a Green Paper on constitutional change, and the convening of a citizens' assembly on our constitutional future.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

In a moment.

The British Government should set a date for a unity referendum before the end of this decade. The EU played a strategically important role in helping to develop and consolidate our peace process through political, diplomatic, economic and financial support. Twenty-seven years after our peace settlement, it is time for us to open up the next phase of the peace process based on national reconciliation and reunification.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. In the first part of his contribution, he told us that this is not about constitutional change. He then went on to talk a lot about constitutional change. Which is it? Is the motion, tabled by Sinn Féin, a tool for constitutional change?

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Did you read the motion?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I did.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

You did. Did you understand the motion

[Interruption]

because it appears that, characteristically,

[Interruption]

having —? Listen, the pantomime season has not even begun. It will start, but we are not going to start it here today. Thanks for your intervention.

The proposals advanced in the motion will help to address the current democratic deficit and navigate the new post-Brexit trading realities. At the same time, they will create pragmatic interim arrangements to facilitate a smooth reintegration of the North within the European Union, and in the context of constitutional change and Irish unity. Therefore, supporting the motion is not about the fake news narrative being purported by some on the other side of the House. It is, in fact, about pragmatically addressing the practical realities and challenges that we face in the immediate term — in the here and now — and how we can sensibly prepare for the democratic transformations and opportunities that lie ahead, instead of, as some would prefer, sticking our heads in the sand.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. I propose, therefore, to put the Question on the amendment after Question Time, and, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The business stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 1.58 pm and resumed at 2.00 pm.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

1. Mr Donnelly asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister how their Department will ensure that the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is adequately funded to carry out its statutory duties, including for any obligations under evolving equality standards. (AQO 2833/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Executive Office is committed to ensuring that the Equality Commission has the resources required to fulfil its statutory responsibilities, including those that it has under evolving equality standards. The commission has been allocated £4·7 million in resource and capital budget from the Executive Office for the financial year 2025-26. We engage regularly with the commission, including through quarterly partnership meetings and attendance at its audit and risk assurance committee. That engagement helps to align resources with responsibilities and supports the identification of emerging needs. As an arm’s-length body of the Executive Office, the commission participates in the required forecasting and monitoring budgetary processes.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for that answer. Earlier this year, the Equality Commission published a research paper entitled 'Funding for Equality Groups in NI: The impact of the transition from EU funding to UK Shared Prosperity Fund'. Which recommendations from that research has the Department considered, and which, if any, is it taking forward?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. We want to ensure that there is adequate funding for community groups across all areas, including those in the equality space that work with older people, younger people, people with disabilities and many more. It is important that they are properly funded and that they know well in advance what funding they will get for the coming year. There is no doubt that the three-year Budget will help with that process.

As the Member is, no doubt, aware, however, there is a particular issue with the ending of the Shared Prosperity Fund and its transition into the local growth fund. I have corresponded with and spoken directly to the Finance Minister on that issue. I have worked with a number of groups throughout Northern Ireland that are very concerned about that transition. We are actively looking at options to support those groups. The fact that we, as an Executive, had such late notice of the replacement of that funding with the local growth fund is unacceptable, as is the impact of that on employees in the organisations that are still in a position of uncertainty.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Can the deputy First Minister confirm that the budget figure that she read out will not impact on the work that the Equality Commission does, particularly for vulnerable groups, on equality, inclusion and, indeed, respect?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her supplementary question. From speaking to groups, including our arm's-length bodies, we know that they could always do more with more — there is no doubt about that — and, indeed, we have to make difficult decisions in order to balance that with the budget that we are allocated. I have no doubt that the Equality Commission wants to do more and that it could do more if it had a bigger budget, but it has a sizeable budget of almost £5 million. In this case, that budget is very much for the commission itself, because the groups on the ground are funded through a range of Departments, agencies, councils etc. We always want to work in a collaborative way to ensure, as far as possible, that those groups get sufficient funding and, as I said, sufficient notice of the funding that they will get; hopefully, the three-year Budget process will really help with that.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Has any assessment been done of what the Equality Commission spends its budget on and, in particular, how much it has spent on the legal cases that it has taken recently?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. The Equality Commission has operational independence from the Executive Office. There is, of course, concern among many people out there about the commission's prioritising. Just this week, we have seen further action being launched in relation to the Supreme Court judgement on the definition of "sex" and the biological definition of "man" and "woman". I do not believe that that is necessary expenditure; however, the commission is operationally independent, and that is a decision that it can make. However, the question is about whether it should make that decision. Should it prioritise it? I advise the Member that the commission has a full-time equivalent staff cohort of just over 100 and is carrying a significant number of vacancies. Just under 50 staff are in place. That is not uncommon across the system, because we are carrying a significant number of vacancies. Part of that is because of the challenges within our budget and trying to ensure efficiency across our system.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Does the deputy First Minister agree that it is a disgrace that the Equality Commission has enough money to take an action against the Supreme Court to try to get men into girls' bathrooms? Does that not suggest that her Department is giving the commission far too much money if it can waste it on a futile challenge such as that?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That aligns with my answers to the substantive and supplementary questions. At this difficult time of fiscal constraint, people should be looking at what they are doing and making decisions that are based on what best serves people. I do not believe that that legal action is necessary at all. It is more legal action, more cost and more delay, but on what? It is about common sense, and common sense must prevail. I think that most people find the issue to be completely bonkers, not because they want to hate on anyone but because it is common sense that the definition of a man or a woman is related to biological sex. More important is the reality that there should be, and must be, safe spaces and female-only spaces, be they in changing rooms, toilets or places of sanctuary. It is also about fairness. We have seen that play out in sport. As a woman, I never consented to my rights being diminished by that definition being changed or by evolving attempts to change it. However, what we see now is an Equality Commission that is arguing that to reset that to a common-sense definition of biological male or female is somehow a diminution of somebody else's rights. That is wrong. It is absolutely bonkers; we need to get back to common sense and to stop wasting money on that type of thing.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

2. Mr Baker asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the impact of the work undertaken by their Department through the Urban Villages initiative in West Belfast. (AQO 2834/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Urban Villages initiative has had a positive impact on communities in Belfast and Londonderry. In the Colin area of West Belfast, a total of £12·7 million has been invested — £10·4 million to support 11 capital projects and over £2·3 million in revenue funding. Capital investment has included a £5·6 million transformation of 15 acres of derelict land into a new park, as well as new community centres, a football and community club, a healthy living centre and a transport hub. Revenue funding has supported 275 events and 575 workshops, engaging more than 24,500 participants.

Support that Urban Villages provides will ensure the sustainability of investment and support local community organisations to create a lasting, positive legacy for the community. Urban Villages helps to drive regeneration and community development across the area, providing much-needed physical regeneration, creating safer communities and making a positive difference to people's lives.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. The Colin area is the wee part of the world that I live in and represent. We benefited greatly from Urban Villages, especially after we came into the Belfast City Council area after decades of neglect when we were under the Lisburn council. Will the deputy First Minister provide an update on phase 2 of the initiative?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. As he will be aware, I was very much involved in the creation of Urban Villages. The junior Minister at the time, who represented the area, and I engaged with people in the Colin area. I felt very strongly that there were significant gaps in service provision. I very passionately supported Colin's inclusion in a programme that I created and helped to develop. The programme is a commitment to work with communities — that means all communities — right across Northern Ireland. I am really pleased to see that the local community's hard work has contributed to the collaborative design, the actions that are being taken and the investment from the Executive Office, which has transformed the Colin area, as he is well aware.

As we move to phase 2 of Urban Villages, we should reflect on its huge success. It has been a success in many areas. There have been lots of nuances and differences in the schemes. The First Minister and I are actively looking at phase 2. The programme should absolutely roll forward, because it has provided much support. We are looking at areas to see where we can maximise that type of investment through the Executive Office.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

As the deputy First Minister knows, Urban Villages funding has been allocated in North Belfast to the much-needed replacement of the Sunningdale community centre.

There have been issues with securing planning permission. Will the deputy First Minister advise the House on her commitment to delivering that much-needed project?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his hard work for the community, and both our North Belfast representatives have been heavily involved in the North Belfast Urban Villages scheme. I know that because I get actively lobbied on their constituents' behalf to ensure that those schemes move forward. There is an absolute commitment from the Executive Office for the Sunningdale project. There have been difficulties with the planning system, but we remain committed to the scheme. We will work with the local community to navigate the changes and, importantly, to ensure that we deliver the outcome, which is a facility and services for the Sunningdale community.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I very much welcomed the announcement made earlier in the year that the School of Music in Donegal Pass was going to be included in the Urban Villages programme in that area. Can you give an update on the arts creative hub? Have any collaborative arrangements been put in place with other arts groups?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her supplementary question. I was pleased to see those additional projects come through, not least the tunnel project, which has been on the go since before my involvement in South Belfast. I am pleased that we were able to include some additional projects, including the Westland community centre. I met representatives from the Westland community, maybe 10 years ago, and they needed that service. I am pleased to see its inclusion, both the political commitment and the flexibility in the scheme. I am also pleased that the School of Music has been included. There have been a number of Urban Villages projects there, which demonstrates the delivery of everything from play parks to re-imaging to the exciting project at the police station, and the School of Music coming on board is a welcome development.

The Member is absolutely right, we are working with local community groups on collaboration because we want to make sure that not only the local community benefits from the scheme but other organisations can come in to complement and supplement the arts offering in that area, which has a rich history, heritage and diversity.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

3. Ms Mulholland asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any actions that their Department is taking to ensure rural and semi-rural communities in North Antrim, which are impacted on by paramilitarism and drugs, benefit from equivalent investment and support. (AQO 2835/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We are aware that many of our communities continue to be impacted on by paramilitarism and drugs, including those in rural and semi-rural areas. Communities in Transition (CIT), which is part of the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, delivers support across the eight designated areas identified as those most impacted on by paramilitarism and organised crime, with a key focus on paramilitarism and drugs.

Although North Antrim is not formally included in CIT, it is part of the planned interventions programme, which funds community activity to engage young people most at risk of entering the youth justice system and/or at risk of paramilitary recruitment. By providing positive alternatives for our young people, the programme mitigates the impacts that antisocial behaviour can have on community tensions.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Deputy First Minister, I appreciate your answer. There is a real fear about hidden harm, especially in rural and semi-rural communities. You mentioned the planned interventions, but can there be an evaluation of whether an extension to the existing programmes, such as Urban Villages and Communities in Transition, would prevent those rural and semi-rural communities from being left behind?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her important question because that is an issue that is very close to my heart. Very often, the challenges that a community faces can be hidden because of its location, whether in a rural area or in a city or town, where it is surrounded by relative wealth. That is why, over the years, I have supported schemes that are nuanced enough to pick up on those challenges. The reality is that if you have a need, it does not matter where you are living, and your ability to access the services can be very different depending on whether you live in a rural area or one that does not score under neighbourhood renewal or other schemes.

We have asked the Department to pick up on that, and Urban Villages is good at picking up on those needs, but we are conscious that it does not have a rural aspect — the clue is in the name "Urban Villages". We want to extend the scheme and take the learning on co-designing a series of interventions to increase community resilience and community social capital to ensure that all communities are able to engage in enduring cross-community work with confidence. We can spread the work outside the urban areas into the rural areas.

We are trying to integrate more flexibility into the planned interventions programme. In the aftermath of what happened in the summer and the previous summer, we need to have programmes that can commence really quickly and work with young people. The idea of having a lengthy application process, where it is six or 12 months before the outcome is found out, is not fit for purpose. We are actively looking at that, and we want to work with all communities to make sure that programmes are fit for purpose.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Minister, you will know that the Communities in Transition programme made a significant contribution to building communities that are equipped to deal with paramilitarism and organised crime. Can you set out how the Communities in Transition programme is currently being delivered to achieve that outcome?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There has been huge investment made under the programme, with £29 million invested across the eight CIT areas. The real focus has been on tackling some of the root causes that can create the vulnerability through which people are dragged into antisocial behaviour, paramilitarism or crime. We are looking at community resilience, prevention and support for addiction and mental health. We are looking at trying to provide better opportunities, with ambition for the young people who live in those communities. There has been a huge amount of success. Yes, there is frustration that it has been limited to some geographical locations, but there is lots of really good practice that we can roll out.

One of the issues that I am passionate about is making sure that we get better collaboration. If something works in a particular scheme, let us look at expanding it and mainstreaming it into other interventions that we have. We need better collaboration and cooperation. There is so much to work with, because there have been examples of really good practice here.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

What assessment has the deputy First Minister made of Communities in Transition, specifically on how it has tackled paramilitary coercive control in communities across Northern Ireland?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

With such projects, it can be difficult to drill down into them, because a lot of what they are trying to do involves stopping things happening. They are trying to stop young people being dragged into antisocial behaviour. They are trying to stop young people being pulled into paramilitary organisations and criminal gangs, and they are trying to provide better opportunities and outcomes for young people. It can therefore be difficult to determine some of the outcomes, but I am really pleased to say that, since the beginning of the programme — not that programme alone, because there are communities working together across so many interventions — we have seen a 60% reduction in paramilitary-style attacks. There has been a 70% reduction in the number of households reporting homelessness due to paramilitary intimidation. The number of convictions for paramilitary-related and criminal gang-related offences has increased sevenfold since the beginning of the programme.

That is evidence that it is working, but we should stand together and say clearly that criminal gangs and paramilitarism are absolutely wrong and that there is no place for them in our society. They need to go away. They should never have been there in the first place. I really support all such interventions to support communities to be resilient against such organisations.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

4. Mr Clarke asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any correspondence that their Department received in relation to an event in Belfast City Hall on 19 October 2024. (AQO 2836/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Executive Office received one item of correspondence regarding the event at Belfast City Hall on 19 October 2024, which was an invitation dated 9 September 2024 forwarded by junior Minister Aisling Reilly from her constituency office to the Ministers' mailbox.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for that answer. During the question for urgent oral answer last week, the First Minister — or the Sinn Féin vice president; I am not sure which she was on the day — was at pains to talk about the invitation. Can the deputy First Minister confirm or otherwise whether there was an invitation issued to others or whether tickets were available for the event?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

As is common from time to time, when we receive invitations to our constituency office accounts, we will forward them to the Department to ask for them to be considered as ministerial invitations. Understandably, people who are out and about do not necessarily make a distinction between a consistency office email and the departmental account.

In this case, junior Minister Reilly had received an invitation with, I think, four other Sinn Féin MLAs copied into it, offering five tickets to the event. That is what was forwarded to the Department, and junior Minister Reilly had requested to attend the event as a junior Minister. I can only assume — I do not know, because the junior Minister did not attend the event as a junior Minister — that it was not accepted as a junior Minister event. She therefore attended it in her capacity as a constituency MLA.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The First Minister has indicated that she has signed off on a letter to the Committee dealing with misinformation around this issue. Can the deputy First Minister explain the reason for the delay in that letter issuing?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The letter is currently under consideration, but it will say what I have just said to the House. The junior Minister and four other Sinn Féin MLAs received an invitation to the event. The junior Minister wanted to go as junior Minister, but it was not agreed for her to attend in that capacity. The letter clearly offered five tickets to Sinn Féin Members, whether those Members were named in that email or whether they went to other people.

I want to be very clear: the events of that night were disgraceful. There were plenty of people there, including, it appears, a number of Sinn Féin MLAs and other people. While it is absolutely right to say that people have a right under the law not to cooperate with a police investigation, not to incriminate themselves and not to cooperate with whatever investigations are happening, it is not the right thing to do, not to cooperate. I appeal to Sinn Féin Members who were at that event — clearly, they were at that event — to say what they saw when they were there, to come forward and cooperate with all investigations and to tell the truth about what happened in what looks like an appalling sectarian attack that happened at that event that night.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

5. Mr Brett asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any assessment that has been made of the effectiveness of the North Belfast strategic good relations programme. (AQO 2837/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The North Belfast strategic good relations programme is managed by the Community Relations Council and delivered as part of the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy. In 2024-25, 40 projects were delivered, engaging approximately 14,000 people, with local solutions being provided to local issues. The programme has been independently reviewed, most recently in 2022, and was found to be successful in meeting its intended aims. It is currently being considered as part of the T:BUC review, and we are currently working with officials on the development of a refreshed approach to good relations, including how to meet the ongoing needs of North Belfast.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the deputy First Minister for that update. Can the deputy First Minister confirm that the fresh look at the scheme will take into consideration the geographical changes that have happened in North Belfast since the scheme was first introduced? Will she also confirm that the groups that currently benefit from that funding are representative of the entire community and not just one section of the North Belfast community?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. I also thank him for being a relentless champion for the groups in North Belfast and ensuring that the issues remain actively discussed and on the table. I am pleased to say that, just in this financial year, there are over 120 funding awards to North Belfast totalling somewhere around £2·6 million. That is a significant amount of support.

The Member is absolutely right: the scheme was developed some time ago, and it is fair to say that a number of the groups that historically benefited from the scheme are, for a range of reasons, no longer part of that scheme. That has meant that there is not a fair and equitable distribution of that funding in North Belfast, nor is it accurately and relevantly getting to the places that it needs to get to. The scheme needs to be reviewed, and it certainly needs to be revised with more groups coming into that, but we are also looking at that in the context of the T:BUC review to see how best we can support the communities in North Belfast that the Member champions.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Minister, do you agree that taking a fresh look at the good relations strategy in North Belfast should also include considering the reasons that keep communities apart? Some fantastic work goes on in my constituency of North Belfast, but, 25 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, we still have peace walls, with one in particular that runs through the park. Should peace walls also be part of that initiative, working alongside the Department of Justice and the council to bring communities together so that —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Minister.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

— we can address the reasons that divide them?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question. She will be aware that I was heavily involved in the creation of the first T:BUC strategy, and I look forward to T:BUC 2, which will be the refreshed and revised strategy. However, it is also fair to say that the core aspects of that strategy remain as relevant today as they were when we first launched it. It is all about community cohesion and community resilience but also, importantly, working with communities.

There was a signature project as part of the first T:BUC strategy that was about the reduction of the barriers between communities. There has been some success from that, but it has not been as fast as we would have hoped. We set ambitious targets to remove all peace walls. We worked closely with her then party colleague David Ford in the Department of Justice and others to push Departments to do everything that they could to remove them. Some really good work has been done in North Belfast to that end, but, importantly, it is about working with communities and ensuring that they feel safe and secure. It is not about doing things to communities but about working with them to make sure that there is community consensus.

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

6. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether their considerations of the findings set out in the UK COVID-19 inquiry module 2C report on core decision-making and political governance will include the need for Executive reform. (AQO 2838/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The module 2 report sets out 19 key recommendations concerning governance and decision-making that we will now carefully consider. Our priority is to ensure that the Executive can respond swiftly and cohesively in any future emergency and that the governance arrangements support collaboration rather than division.

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

Speaking of collaboration rather than division, deputy First Minister, the Hallett inquiry/COVID inquiry was scathing about the two big parties, particularly your party's use of cross-community vetoes to block public health measures. You were a special adviser in TEO at that point: were you involved? Did you support and advocate the use of those cross-community vetoes? Do you stand by them now? If not, do you agree that the inquiry has illustrated the need for fundamental reform of how this place works?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is an incredibly important but sensitive issue. We have worked with the Northern Ireland COVID Bereaved Families for Justice, and there is no doubt that that group wants to see improvements in how we handle and deal with such situations. I take that responsibility hugely seriously. We have been working through all the recommendations. We will go back to the families and will publish that report every six months. Serious consideration is being given to how we can make meaningful differences.

Ours is not an easy system of government to operate at the best of times, but it is particularly difficult in challenging circumstances because four parties are around that table. I was a special adviser at the time. I recognise how challenging it was, particularly because, as the report highlighted, there was no clear evidence to follow. Often, the mantra was "follow the evidence", but the evidence was not there. It was "follow the science", but the science was very unclear. In that sense, of course, there needs to be discussion, challenge and examination. I am pleased to say that we have already taken action on some of those recommendations, such as the appointment of the Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser (CSTA) and ensuring that we have by right a seat around the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) table, so that, if such things happen again, we are very much integrated with the medical and scientific evidence.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Deputy First Minister, how will Executive Office structures apply the lessons from what was an unprecedented global health emergency?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. Recently, we had Exercise Pegasus across the UK to see what improvements had been made to the systems. It was a mock exercise, but it was taken seriously. For example, there were a number of Executive meetings at which we considered the evidence that emerged. There is no doubt that, at the heart of it, there must be the right structure and the ability to get advice from the right people in a timely way. We in the Executive must ensure that we ask the right questions, take the advice and try to plot the way forward. Often, particularly with things such as pandemics, it will be an evolving situation when it comes to the issue itself and to the evidence and the scientific issues that come out about it. Should it happen again, we want and need to get it right. That is why we are taking time to improve the structures so that we have clear decision-making mechanisms and, importantly, get the right advice in a timely way.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

Does the deputy First Minister agree that the attendance of the First Minister at the funeral of Bobby Storey during the pandemic was hugely damaging to public confidence and the Executive's advice?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Personally speaking, I agree with the Member: it sent absolutely the wrong message. I spoke to many people about it. I have friends who lost loved ones during the COVID pandemic. They could not have a proper funeral, and, if they had a large family, they could not have all of their family at the funeral. They sat at a funeral and could not be comforted by family members. That was absolutely heartbreaking. So many families across Northern Ireland did not get that closure, but they abided by the rules. It was so offensive for them to see what played out when thousands of people turned out at that funeral.

Regardless of the technicalities around whether attendance was within the guidance, the people who set the rules ought to have abided by them, in detail and in spirit. That incident really let us all down. We need to learn from that and move on. The people whom we serve must be at the heart of everything that we do.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We move on to topical questions.

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

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after noting that panto season has begun with the Education Minister and the Finance Minister engaging in a "Oh no they didn't" episode over the Budget and that Budget dysfunction has been going on, frankly, nearly as long as May McFettridge at the Grand Opera House, the difference being that May is entertaining and, unlike the Assembly, provides value for money, to guarantee that there will be a multi-year Budget, which the people of the North deserve and have been promised, and that the deputy First Minister’s party will not block one. (AQT 1861/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That was a rather laboured metaphor. The Budget is a serious matter, and we will deal with it seriously. The exchange of letters between the Finance Minister and the Education Minister outlined starkly the challenges that we face in our core public services. Throughout this year, Health and Education in particular have made clear the pressure that they are under. That is not new; we know that there are big challenges in those areas. Until we can get transformation, we will continue to run inefficient services that cost too much of what we have. Those are big issues for the Executive to take on. We must tackle transformation and inefficiency and ensure that the money that goes to Departments for our public services is maximised. The Minister of Education and the Minister of Health are up for that, but it is an important discussion to have, because, again, the heart of the matter is that we want excellent public services for the people whom we serve.

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

Deputy First Minister, there is nothing laboured about holding you to account for what your party does. Today, you have failed to give me a commitment on a multi-year Budget and on institutional reform, both of which are essential. Your party claims to want to make Northern Ireland work, but your actions suggest anything but that. In sincerely wishing you and your colleagues a merry Christmas, may I say that, if a ghost appears before you or your colleagues on Christmas Eve — the ghost of Christmas yet to come — and shows you a vision of a new Ireland, you should reflect on whether your party's actions have helped to hasten the arrival of that day?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am absolutely committed to making Northern Ireland work. We must all work together constructively, drive forward transformation, drive forward efficiency and make sure that we deliver excellent public services.

We have a challenge at the moment in our big Departments. That is no laughing matter. It is not a joke. It is serious, and we will engage on that in the next days and weeks, because I fully support a multi-year Budget. There are challenges, looking across all the needs and demands in each Department, but I give an absolute commitment to work with everyone to drive forward the outcomes that we want to see.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I do not have any festive metaphors. I just have a simple question.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

T2. Mrs Guy asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in light of TEO's announcement in July that it would reconstitute the Civic Forum and its commitment to bringing forward detailed proposals by the end of 2025, whether they will still bring forward those proposals, given that it will be the Assembly’s final plenary session of 2025 on Tuesday. (AQT 1862/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question. We are actively looking at that. We have looked at a range of ideas and proposals for what a civic forum would look like. The reconstituted Civic Forum will be smaller. The idea behind it is that people with particular expertise on an issue can be brought in to produce a report. We are actively looking at a range of issues, in line with other developments that we have been pushing forward in the Executive Office, including the delivery unit. It is about finding a way of adding value to the work that happens in Departments and other places to ensure that it amounts to value for money, and, perhaps, to bring a different way of looking at those issues. The value of the likes of the Civic Forum is in bringing people in from the outside, partly as disruptor and partly to come with different ideas and new ways of doing things to try to better reach the outcome.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I will interpret that as a "No" to the question of getting those proposals by the end of 2025.

Staying with civic engagement, there is a commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' to bring forward one to two issues a year for civic engagement, including one citizens' assembly. We are halfway through that decade. Will TEO deliver a citizens' assembly next year? Does the deputy First Minister agree that reform of the institutions is the logical first topic of discussion at that citizens' assembly? Without the institutions, we cannot deliver for any of our people.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you. There is a tendency in this place, from the Ministers from the Member's party in particular, to try to devolve responsibility for decision-making from this place, should that be to arm's-length bodies, new bodies or new commissions. I do not know how many of those are coming through. Reform is an issue that should be discussed, but it should be discussed in this place, not put out to another body.

I also say to the Member that we need to be very careful when talking about 'New Decade, New Approach'. Members in this place talk, all the time, about so-called commitments in 'New Decade, New Approach'. I ask that everybody look at that document carefully. There are a number of annexes and attachments to it that indicate that such issues may be "considered" by the Assembly, but there were not political agreements across the parties on those. We have no plans to have a citizens' assembly.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

T3. Mr Donnelly asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister why the Executive have still not agreed an international relations strategy, particularly given that they should have done so many years ago? (AQT 1863/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you. As I indicated to the House previously, international relations is not a devolved issue, although we do, of course, engage internationally, which is why our international relations strategy will incorporate a range of work that we do through Invest NI and trade discussions, as well as through soft diplomacy of the type that we do around St Patrick's Day and incoming visits to Northern Ireland from a range of delegations. All those aspects of the strategy are very clear: we do that at the moment.

The Member will be aware, however, that a number of significant global issues have been happening. We have asked the international relations team to fully consider those, particularly how we engage on tariffs and the evolving nature of the UK-EU discussions on the substantive trade deal. There are a number of moving parts in our international relationships. We want to make sure that what we come out with is fit for purpose and takes into account not just the way that we have done things in the past but the challenges that we have seen evolving over the past 12 months.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

Without wishing to extend the seasonal metaphors, that is Christmas fudge. The Economy Minister is in China. Does the deputy First Minister accept that such overseas engagements are happening without an Executive-agreed framework and that the lack of strategy is potentially damaging to Northern Ireland at a time when clarity and agreement are urgently needed on the approach to handling issues such as human rights?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you. No, it does not impact on that at all. It does not take there to be a strategy for people to know that they need to go out and champion Northern Ireland and our businesses to try to attract inward investment. We have a strategic direction for that, which is set with Invest NI, in where our offices are. I support bringing forward a revised and refreshed international relations strategy that brings in all those threads, but I highlight the fact that, Michelle, the First Minister, and I raised the issue of human rights when we met the Chinese, and that I have asked for a look to be taken at what a human rights framework for the approach to international engagement would look like, particularly in our China office.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

T4. Mrs Dillon asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that observer status in the EU would help to strengthen relations with Europe and enable concerns with post-Brexit trading realities to be raised with MEPs and the Commission, whether they accept that it is entirely inappropriate to use the petition of concern mechanism, which is intended to protect minorities, in respect of a motion that calls for increased democratic representation through having observer status in the European Parliament? (AQT 1864/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question. The mechanisms set down by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and amended by the St Andrews Agreement recognised that significant sections in each community are represented in the Executive and in this place. In fact, it was her party and nationalist parties that pushed so hard to ensure that there were minority vetoes and consensus on the various voting blocs in this place. It is now the case that, every time that there is a majority, or there is a feeling that there may be a slight majority, on a particular issue, no matter how divisive that may be, that that should simply prevail. That is not how those mechanisms work. We have seen that play out in City Hall and in this place. There is no consensus on that issue.

From the point of view of a power-sharing Executive in a place where we are all here by consensus — we agreed on the terms of Executive formation and Assembly restoration — we need to be clear that, where there is no community consensus, the petition of concern is the mechanism to very clearly demonstrate that, and, on this issue, there is no community consensus.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is to protect minority rights. There was consensus from the people of the North that they did not want to be removed from the European Union; I just make that clear. Do you now accept that Brexit, with everything that has resulted from it, has been an economic and political disaster that is supported by a shrinking minority in Britain, in the North and, indeed, in the Assembly and that the people of the North voted to remain in Europe?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There was not consensus on the issue in Northern Ireland; there was a majority that voted in Northern Ireland, but there was also a majority across the United Kingdom that voted to leave. At the very heart of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was an acceptance that Northern Ireland would remain, in its entirety, part of the United Kingdom until such time as the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland separately voted otherwise: the Member's party accepted that. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. By democratic referendum, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Regardless of your view of it, that is a democratic decision that, of course, the UK Government ought to have abided by. It is not about how the constituent parts of the UK voted. The UK, as a whole, voted to leave, and the UK as a whole, of course, ought to have abided by that referendum and to have left.