Northern Ireland Assembly, 3 February 2026

381 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to address factually inaccurate remarks that were levelled at me following yesterday's vote on the motion from the Committee on Standards and Privileges. For the avoidance of doubt, I first became aware of the contents of yesterday's Order Paper when it was published by the Business Office last Tuesday. I first became aware of the existence of a complaint against Mr Gaston when the Committee sent out its report last Wednesday. The first time that I discussed with colleagues the business that was before the Assembly and the contents of that report, which was available to all MLAs, was yesterday. I reject, in the strongest possible terms, the allegations that I broke any confidences or embargoes, and I invite any Member to repeat those false allegations outside the Chamber.

Members' Statements

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Last week, I listened attentively to an emotional discussion on the radio about fatal road traffic collisions in border areas. I commend those who spoke up about their experiences, including Laura Radcliffe, who spoke about the tragic loss of her sister Kathryn, and Debbie Mullan from Road Victim Support NI-Donegal.

The heartbreaking stories that were shared about the experiences of families who have had to contend with two separate police services, one on each side of the border, are harrowing. Laura Radcliffe talked about the current arrangements between Garda and PSNI officers, which make the sharing of information about road traffic collisions harder, because the family hears everything twice. That impacts not only on information-sharing, which should be done in a way that is sensitive towards a grieving family, but on the giving back of the victims' belongings.

In the case of Kathryn Jones, her sister said, during the interview last week, that a family member had to go to the border to meet the gardaí. It was not done in a station; it was very exposed and out in the open. That compounds the grief that families face.

There is currently no agreement in place that allows officers to cross the border to deliver messages regarding road deaths, which is a very practical and insensitive effect of partition in border communities. My colleague Pádraig Mac Lochlainn TD has submitted a question to the Justice Minister in the South about enhanced cooperation between both services to explore whether there are opportunities for exemptions to the current arrangements that would allow a more sensitive approach to be taken. Similarly, I have raised the matter with the Justice Minister here through an Assembly question for written answer. Furthermore, the way in which information is shared and the format by which personal belongings are returned are areas that also need attention.

If we can work to improve communication between the authorities and bereaved families so that it is in person where possible, we should. If we can explore a better way of returning personal belongings to families, we absolutely must. Importantly, common sense and sensitivity should be the cornerstone of the approach in those circumstances. I commend the good work that is done through cross-border cooperation, but the lived experiences of families need to be reflected on, and change needs to happen to best support the loved ones of those who lose their lives on our roads.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I was incredibly disappointed to watch last week's Communities Committee meeting, especially when I heard my fellow South Down MLA Sinn Féin's Cathy Mason shamefully refer to the Minister's support for Ulster Scots and the marching bands community as "vanity projects". That is incredibly offensive, especially to those of us in the minority unionist community in South Down. The Member went on to lambast the Minister for not providing enough funding for the Irish language or the GAA and called him "sectarian". The mask truly slipped. To her, the Irish language and the GAA are legitimate, but Ulster Scots and Ulster-British identity and culture are simply deemed to be vanity projects.

There are 30,000 members of the marching bands community and over 700 bands in Northern Ireland. In the previous census in 2021, 190,000 people stated an affinity with the Ulster-Scots language. While Sinn Féin demands a £300 million GAA stadium in west Belfast, it cannot accept the pennies in comparison that go to marching bands or the Ulster-Scots community. In our South Down constituency, the Ulster-Scots community is thriving in spite of Sinn Féin. Our bands are outstanding and award-winning. The Schomberg Society in Mourne is incredible at organising cultural events and opportunities for our children and young people to learn Highland dancing, drum majoring and many other skills. People travel across the world to visit here and learn about our local Ulster-Scots culture and heritage.

In reality, I am not that surprised about what the Member said, because, in my constituency, with a Sinn Féin-dominated council, we are well used to being swept the crumbs off the table. Money is pumped into Irish festivals, signs and Irish funding streams, all of which are billed to our local ratepayers, whilst we are cast aside. That is how they treat our culture at a local level, and that is clear now to all in the Assembly. To Sinn Féin, our Ulster-Scots culture is just a vanity project; it is not real. That is the true face of the so-called party of equality and respect.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

Arthritis UK has issued a landmark warning that Northern Ireland's musculoskeletal (MSK) health system has moved beyond breaking point, with more than 550,000 people — nearly a third of the population — now living with arthritis or another MSK condition. Its new report, 'From Breaking Point to Recovery: Prioritising Musculoskeletal Healthcare in Northern Ireland' brings together insights from over 200 clinicians, patients and policymakers to paint a picture of a system that is struggling to meet demand.

The report outlines a series of stark findings, including that 37% of adults and 5% of children and young people are now affected by MSK conditions.

Most people live with persistent pain, with 79% reporting pain most or all of the time. The impact on work and daily life is profound, with 67% of respondents saying that their condition affects their ability to work. Long waiting lists for rheumatology appointments, which stretch for up to eight years, contribute to worsening physical and mental health. Some 76% say that delays have harmed their mental well-being. Clinicians who contributed to the report described the deep frustration, burnout and what some call "vicarious trauma" as they watch patients deteriorate while they await treatment. The charity also highlights the serious impacts that MSK conditions can have on the economy, as 43% of people with an MSK condition are economically inactive.

Despite the seriousness of the situation, the report offers a pathway to recovery. Arthritis UK Northern Ireland is calling for four major reforms over the next five years: establishing a strategic, region-wide approach to MSK care; improving diagnosis and care pathways; addressing extreme waiting times with expanded capacity; and increasing public awareness and patient education. Key recommendations include appointing a clinical lead for MSK health, enhancing GP training, improving transitions for young people, integrating mental health support and accelerating the Department of Health's Support While Waiting policy.

Arthritis UK emphasises that, while short-term fixes are insufficient, meaningful change is achievable with coordinated leadership and smarter service design. With the right actions, the region could move from crisis to recovery and ensure that people with MSK conditions receive the timely, compassionate care that they deserve.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I will address an issue that goes to the heart of fairness, social cohesion and economic common sense in Northern Ireland. As many Members know — they have already spoken about it — from April of this year, Northern Ireland faces a funding cliff edge that is avoidable and totally unjustifiable. The funding to address economic inactivity will fall by 64%, from £25 million to just £9·2 million, as the UK's Shared Prosperity Fund ends and is replaced by the new local growth fund. Let me be clear that that is not because need has been reduced: far from it. It will be devastating for our community and voluntary sector and our charities, which already punch far above their weight.

Northern Ireland has the highest rate of economic inactivity in the United Kingdom at 26·5% and the lowest employment rate for disabled people, yet we are being forced into a capital-heavy, 70:30 funding model that simply does not work for a region where the challenges are fundamentally people-based, not infrastructure-based. The consequences will be stark. It will put dozens of charities and organisations in the community and voluntary sector out of work, place hundreds of highly skilled front-line jobs in jeopardy, remove vital routes into work and take away specialised support for thousands of people each year across Northern Ireland.

Those are not abstract statistics; they are real people — disabled people, carers, women and young people not in education or employment — many of whom are already on the margins of our economy and society. Sadly, no alternative services are waiting in the wings. If those community-based programmes collapse in 2026-27, the infrastructure, the organisations and the people will be gone, and no amount of future codesign will resurrect them. The situation is compounded by the injustice of the way in which it has been handled. There was no consultation or published impact assessment, and organisations were informed days before Christmas and then forced into a rushed, closed competition with a January deadline. It is hard to imagine any other sector being forced into that situation.

I thank organisations such as the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, the YouthStart consortium and the many hundreds of charities and organisations that have campaigned to highlight the injustice. They came to Stormont last week, and I know that they have engaged with many Members across the House. It is not just about protecting those organisations but about protecting people, services and the future.

Thankfully, through my colleague Robin Swann, we have secured a meeting at Westminster tomorrow. I will attend along with representatives from charities and the community and voluntary sector and meet the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, who has overall control of the budget and who made the decision. We will not be found wanting in making the case for Northern Ireland to secure the necessary funding. I ask that the Executive Office do all that it can to work with His Majesty's Government to secure the funding to keep those vital organisations and front-line services being delivered.

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

Today marks two years since the return of the Assembly and the Executive to power-sharing. It has been two years since the institutions were restored after being collapsed not because of crisis or necessity but because of political self-interest. People were told that stability would bring delivery, that restoring the Executive would mean progress and that ordinary families would finally see positive change. Two years on, that promise has not been kept. Across our communities, people are struggling, and the Executive have failed to deliver for them on their basic needs.

Let us be clear about what failure from the Executive looks like.

Waiting lists remain among the worst anywhere in these islands. People wait years for appointments for surgery and even basic assessments. Lives are put on hold while the Executive dither.

Social care is stretched to breaking point. Carers are exhausted, families are left without support and skilled staff are walking away from a system in crisis.

Housing is a scandal. Families are trapped in temporary accommodation and young people cannot afford to pay rent. Homelessness levels continue to rise because the Executive have failed to act.

Childcare is still unaffordable and inaccessible, locking parents, especially women, out of work and opportunities.

The cost of living continues to hammer households. Energy bills, food prices and everyday costs rise while wages and support lag behind.

Schools are being pushed to the brink. Principals are cutting essential services, special educational needs provision is failing children, and classroom assistants are undervalued and ignored.

Our infrastructure is crumbling. Roads, water systems and public transport are neglected because long-term planning has been replaced with short-term fixes.

Economic ambition is lacking. Small businesses are closing, regional investment is stalling, and there is no coherent plan to grow our economy or create good, well-paid jobs.

Public-sector workers remain underpaid and demoralised. Pay disputes are dragging on, morale has collapsed across our public services, and people are losing patience.

Trust in politics has been completely eroded. People see delay, dysfunction and drift, and they are losing all faith. When delivery fails, what do we get instead? This Executive, particularly the two senior parties, retreat into rows, rehearsed outrage and party point-scoring, picking fights with one another to distract from the fact that they are not fixing a single problem that ordinary people face.

Those are real consequences for real people, felt every day in hospital waiting rooms and overcrowded homes, in struggling classrooms and in household budgets stretched to breaking point.

Two years on, the Executive can no longer hide behind excuses, past collapses or institutional fragility: it is not good enough. People did not wait years for power-sharing to return just to get stagnation, distraction and division. They want delivery; they want leadership; and they want the Government here to work. Until that happens, the Executive deserve to be called out loudly, clearly and without apology.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Beidh Lá na Cainte ann an Déardaoin seo chugainn. Lá é a spreagann muid le dul chun comhrá faoinár meabhairshláinte. Cuidíonn comhrá carad. Tá an féinmharú agus an dúlagar ina ngéarchéim dhomhanda. Níl aon chúis amháin leo: is féidir leo teacht chun cinn mar gheall ar strus airgeadais, cliseadh teaghlaigh, an t-uaigneas, nó fiú oícheanta fada geimhridh agus barraíocht de bhrú an tsaoil.

Tuairiscítear gur chuir 290 duine lámh ina mbás féin anseo sa bhliain 2024. Is scanrúil an staitistic é sin. Is féidir teacht roimh na básanna sin, ach daoine an tacaíocht agus an cuidiú cuí a fháil. Meastar nach raibh thart ar 70% de na daoine a chuir lámh ina mbás féin ag baint úsáid ghníomhach as seirbhísí meabhairshláinte. Is é an chéad chéim le leas a bhaint as na seirbhísí sin ná labhairt faoinár meabhairshláinte, cúnamh a iarraidh, agus ár smaointe agus ár mothúcháin a ligean le duine. Cuirim fáilte roimh an fhógra go mbeidh fiosrúchán traspháirtí ann ar an dóigh a ndéantar maoiniú ar sheirbhísí um fhéinmharú a chosc sa Tuaisceart. Tá súil agam go gcuideoidh torthaí an fhiosrúcháin linn ár n-aird agus ár n-iarrachtaí a dhíriú d’fhonn torthaí dearfacha meabhairshláinte a bhaint amach feasta. Ní ar an Roinn Sláinte amháin atá an cúram an féinmharú a chosc; tá cur chuige uile-rialtais de dhíth.

Bheadh obair agat duine a aimsiú sa Tuaisceart nár theagmhaigh an féinmharú leis nó le duine dá lucht aitheantais: comhghleacaí, comhimreoir, comharsa, nó duine muinteartha. Níl aon aicme saor ó ghéarchéim na meabhairshláinte. Níl aon chúis amháin léi, ach má táimid le dul i ngleic le fadhbanna meabhairshláinte, caithfimid labhairt fúthu. Sin an chéad chéim. Mar sin de, abraimis arís go bhfuil muid tiomanta deireadh a chur leis an náire a bhaineas le fadhbanna meabhairshláinte, go labhróimid amach, go nglacfaimid an t-am le bheith ag caint.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Last month, the deputy First Minister exposed the fact that the Home Office was withholding hundreds of empty homes across Northern Ireland for use in the claiming of asylum. We are in the middle of a housing crisis. That is not rhetoric; it is the lived experience and reality for thousands of families in my North Belfast constituency. Families are stuck in temporary accommodation; young people struggle to get a first home; parents and grandparents are sharing overcrowded houses; and many are left in properties that are simply not fit for purpose. That is reality and fact. However, at the same time, hundreds of homes are being held empty on behalf of the Home Office. That is completely unacceptable and, frankly, disgraceful.

The Home Office has contracted Mears to secure those properties as the Labour Government continue to fail with their immigration policy. In doing so, Mears has made significant profits that have exceeded the permitted margins, but, more shockingly, hundreds of homes sit empty and unavailable to my constituents, who desperately need them. That equates to just over 1,000 empty bed spaces across Northern Ireland. Let that sink in: over 1,000 bed spaces are lying unused while families in North Belfast languish on waiting lists. That is not inefficiency; it is a moral failure, and taxpayers' money is being used to keep those homes empty.

I want to be clear that this is not about pitting communities against one another. It is about accountability, transparency and common sense. At a time of severe housing shortage, no public authority should be allowed to warehouse empty homes while people are left without a roof over their head.

The Home Office must explain why those properties are not being released back into the housing system immediately. Mears must explain how the situation has been allowed to develop and why it has put profit before people. There have been talks of discussions, reviews and looking at the processes, but families in North Belfast do not have time for talk; they need action, and that is what I am demanding. It goes far beyond one company or one contract, but it speaks to the lack of transparency in the Home Office and how it operates in Northern Ireland. It cannot continue.

It is appalling that people face homelessness and housing stress through this winter while hundreds of properties are left empty. That is an insult to my constituents and every person across Northern Ireland. Today, I call on the Home Office to urgently release those homes back into the housing stock so that they can house my constituents and others. Others may remain silent on the issue, but the Democratic Unionist Party will not.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

I take the opportunity to recognise the contribution of the Centre for Democracy and Peace fellowship programme to peace and prosperity, as it celebrates five years of building political, business and civic leadership in Northern Ireland. Supported by leading businesses, the fellowship programme gives leaders from politics, business and civic society a unique opportunity to develop the skills needed to address the social, economic and political challenges of today. In its fifth year and with over 120 alumni, including more than 10 MLAs, the fellowship programme equips fellows with decision-making, design thinking, collaboration skills and the opportunity to gain experience in global best practice.

Guided by an advisory board of senior business leaders from across Northern Ireland who bring strategic insight, operational expertise and a deep understanding of leadership in complex environments, the fellowship embodies their commitment to investing in sustainable peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland.

Together, they help shape a learning experience grounded in real-world challenges, empowering participants with the adaptive thinking and systems leadership needed to drive cooperation and innovation. The focus on entrepreneurial leadership aligns closely with the key Programme for Government priorities and offers unique value to Northern Ireland by supporting the development of collaborative, forward-thinking leaders. My taking part in the fellowship programme was a transformative experience, enhancing my collaboration across sectors and strengthening my ability to serve and lead with purpose.

The Centre for Democracy and Peace fellowship programme is not just an investment in leaders; it is an investment in the future success of Northern Ireland. The fellowship empowers thoughtful leadership that listens and seeks to understand, unafraid to imagine boldly, collaborate bravely and act with integrity, helping to meet the challenges of today and shaping a better future for everyone in the place that we all call "home". I wish everyone involved with the Centre for Democracy and Peace fellowship programme well for the 5th anniversary celebrations this week and wish them many more years of success to come.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I welcome the publication of the Department for the Economy's two-year progress report, which provides a clear overview of delivery across the North in the last two years. There are many things contained in that report, mainly around supporting economic growth, increasing skills provision, promoting regional balance, increasing apprenticeships and skills programmes and supporting local businesses to grow and innovate. An important strand of the work has been the Department's focus on regional balance, including delivery through initiatives such as Hidden Heartlands that recognise the economic potential of rural and border communities and support economic development beyond urban centres.

The approach taken by Minister Murphy and Minister Archibald is about supporting communities and ensuring that ordinary people and ordinary communities feel the benefit of economic growth in the North. It is about putting people and communities first. In my city, in the last two years, we have seen a 22% growth in the number of students studying at Magee. That benefits those students, but it also benefits our entire city, because we are now creating an educational ecosystem in which people can study in Derry, live in Derry, work in Derry and build a life in Derry. That is true transformation, and it is the true meaning of regional balance, because, when we create better opportunities for people across our society, it benefits everybody.

Over the next two years, the Department will look at eight pieces of legislation, compared with one in the last 10 years. The most significant legislation is the 'good jobs' Bill, which has the opportunity to transform the lives of workers across the North. This is about fair pay, fair conditions, better union representation and a raft of other positive legislation for ordinary people. I commend the work that is being done in the Department, and I look forward to seeing much more over the coming years.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

During Sexual Abuse and Sexual Violence Awareness Week, we reflect not only on the scale of harm caused by sexual violence but on how our system responds or, too often, fails to respond to those brave enough to come forward. One of the most powerful and stark reminders of why the awareness week matters is the story of Máiría Cahill, a woman who spoke out about sexual abuse that she experienced as a teenager at the hands of an IRA member. Máiría was just 16 years old when the abuse began, and, instead of receiving support and protection, she was subjected to a secretive internal investigation by the IRA and forced into confrontations with her alleged attacker.

When Máiría eventually took the courageous step of reporting the abuse to the statutory authorities, what followed was a series of legal proceedings that collapsed, not because her claims were unfounded but because the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) failed to handle the cases in a way that gave her confidence to pursue them through the justice system. A subsequent independent review found multiple failings by the PPS in how her case and two others linked to it were managed. They included delays, poor communication and a lack of focus on the experience of the complainant. The review concluded that the victims were let down by the service. That conclusion was a stark rebuke of how a young woman's trust in the justice system was eroded, and it forced the PPS to reckon with the system and its obligations to victims.

What the case laid bare and what Sexual Abuse and Sexual Violence Awareness Week compels us to confront is that survivors of sexual violence must feel supported, not abandoned, by every layer of the institutions. A failure at any stage, whether through policing, prosecution or community support, risks silencing victims and denying them justice.

Máiría's determination to speak publicly, despite the intense personal and public backlash that she faced, sparked a wider discussion in our society. Her voice has helped to spur on scrutiny of how sexual violence cases are managed, including how prosecutors communicate with victims, handle delays and provide support to complainants to feel safe when participating in the justice system. Her story is not just about one individual. It has become a catalyst for change and for pushing for continual improvements in how the PPS engages with survivors, how we educate people on consent and respect and how we build a system that does not re-traumatise those who report abuse.

We will continue to respect Máiría's courage and that of the many other survivors who share their experiences at significant personal cost. Sexual violence can happen to anyone. We will continue with our commitment to strengthen our legal and support systems so that victims are heard, believed and supported, every step of the way.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I speak today to highlight the continued failure by the Department of Health and the trusts across Northern Ireland to provide proper respite provision for families and children in need. Just last week, the Health Committee received confirmation that Lindsay House in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust had not reopened for short breaks. That is despite repeated promises that the registration and opening of the Redwood residential facility would enable Lindsay House to resume respite services. Promises were made by the trust and departmental officials at Committee, by the Minister in the Chamber, in written correspondence and in many questions for written answer signed off by the Minister.

I speak on the issue today because it has been ongoing for many years. However, Members will recall that it was brought to light in the 'I Am Not Okay' 'Spotlight' documentary, which aired in September 2024 and shone a significant light on the struggles that face families with a child with severe complex needs. That led to the Minister announcing investment in respite services, alongside a number of promises to families, including those at the centre of the documentary, that they would receive access to the support that they needed. However, despite repeated concerns having been raised since June 2024 to the then Minister Robin Swann about the delayed opening of the Redwood residential facility, it was officially opened only in January 2026. Families have been waiting since 2024 for the facilities to be made ready, all the time with the light at the end of the tunnel being access to respite in Lindsay House.

Last week, those repeated promises were broken yet again. Redwood is open, but no short breaks can be provided at Lindsay House, and there is no foreseeable timeline for that. Families are at breaking point, and time is of the essence. Too many have been left to wait until they have no option but to put their child in residential care. That is something that no parent should have to do. When will the Minister, the Department and the trusts finally get a handle on the children's social care crisis and ensure that families can access the support that they need? No more broken promises.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

OK, Members. We must move —.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will the Speaker rule on whether the Member's statement made by the DUP Member for South Down was in breach of Standing Order 24A(6)(d), as it was a direct attack on another Member of the Assembly?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We had that conversation during the Member's statement. The Member mentioned Mrs Mason at one point, but it was largely a statement about culture, so, on that basis, I did not intervene. I sought advice from officials, and that is the conclusion that we came to.

Ministerial Statement

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On 19 November 2025, the United Kingdom Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the case of JR87 concerning religious education and collective worship in a Northern Ireland school. On 24 November 2025, I gave the Assembly my commitment that I would return at the earliest opportunity to set out my response. Today, I honour that commitment.

As Members will be aware, religious education and collective worship are legally compulsory in all publicly funded schools in Northern Ireland except nursery schools. The JR87 case examined whether, in one school, the teaching of RE and the arrangements for collective worship complied with the rights guaranteed under article 2 of protocol No 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read alongside article 9, as incorporated through the Human Rights Act 1998. The Supreme Court upheld the original case judge's declaration that, in that case, the pupil's rights had been breached and the current core syllabus did not in itself ensure that religious education was delivered in a manner that was objective, critical and pluralistic. It should be noted that the court's findings related specifically to the circumstances of the pupil involved and to delivery at the applicant's school.

It is essential to be clear about what the court determined and, equally, what it did not. The court did not strike down the legislation that governs RE and collective worship. That legal framework remains firmly and intentionally in place. Schools therefore must lawfully continue to teach RE and provide collective worship. The judgment does, however, identify areas of concern in which action is now required. Three issues in particular demand attention: ensuring that the core syllabus for religious education is objective, critical and pluralistic; ensuring that the right of withdrawal from RE and collective worship is practical and effective and does not place an undue burden on parents; and ensuring that a robust inspection regime is in place to monitor and uphold standards in RE.

I will address each issue in turn, starting with revision of the core syllabus for RE. Religious education in all schools must include the core syllabus specified in article 11 of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. The syllabus sets out core matters, skills and processes to be taught. The court found that the Department of Education, having assumed responsibility for setting the core syllabus:

"must take care that information or knowledge ... is conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner."

I have therefore decided that it is necessary for the Department to revise the core syllabus. While the court recognised that schools can deliver RE lawfully, where they incorporate broader material beyond the core syllabus, I do not believe that it is reasonable to leave schools to interpret the judgment alone. Different approaches in different settings lead to a heavy burden for schools. The absence of nationally agreed core content standards would also ultimately lead to significant disparities in the nature and quality of RE across schools.

The time is now right for a review of the syllabus. It has been nearly 20 years since it was last revised, and a wider curriculum review is already under way. Further, a wide range of stakeholders, including the Transferor Representatives' Council (TRC), have indicated their support for revision of the syllabus, and there is wide recognition of the need for clarity, consistency and modernisation, reinforcing the need for change.

In addition, I am especially mindful of the need to safeguard religious education as an important academic discipline in the curriculum. A useful and enriching knowledge of Christianity and, more widely, the world's main religious and philosophical traditions, studied with academic rigour, will be the ambition of the new syllabus. In that way, we will equip young people with the essential knowledge to understand a vital phenomenon that continues to shape today's world: religious tradition, belief and practice.

All subjects across the curriculum should introduce pupils to disciplines of thought that provide powerful knowledge beyond their immediate experience. RE should exemplify that principle. RE is also about engaging pupils with profound questions of meaning, identity and ethics. It develops analytical skills through interpreting texts, evaluating arguments and understanding historical and cultural contexts. In doing so, RE prepares young people for life in modern society and cultivates qualities that are essential for democratic citizenship. A revised syllabus will reflect those ambitions, ensuring that RE is taught objectively, critically and pluralistically. The revision of the syllabus will therefore, above all, strengthen RE as an academic discipline.

Let me be clear, however: as upheld by the court, Christianity will remain central to the revised syllabus. The reality of Northern Ireland’s historical, cultural and legal context means that Christianity should and will continue to be the primary focus of the revised syllabus. It will give continued recognition to the historical role of Christianity in Northern Ireland’s education system and society. While religious diversity is increasing, Christianity continues to shape our cultural norms, public holidays and civic life. A curriculum that ignores that reality would fail to prepare pupils for the social and historical context in which they live. Subjects should introduce pupils to powerful knowledge that helps them to understand the world. In Northern Ireland, that includes understanding the Christian tradition, which has profoundly influenced literature, art, law, ethics and political history.

Today, I have published terms of reference for the review of the RE syllabus. That review is separate from the review of the wider curriculum, which is now well under way. To take the work forward, I am appointing Professor Noel Purdy OBE, director of research and scholarship at Stranmillis University College, to chair the new syllabus drafting group. Professor Purdy is a leading educational expert in Northern Ireland and has contributed extensively to educational policy, research and public discourse. I am confident that he will bring academic rigour and significant experience to the process. Mrs Joyce Logue, a former principal of Long Tower Primary School, will serve as the vice-chair of the group. Joyce is a long-serving and deeply respected educationalist and will ensure strong professional leadership and practitioner voice.

My officials will invite an open call for applications to join the drafting group from experienced primary school teachers and RE subject specialists in schools across Northern Ireland, who will contribute their expertise to this important task. There will be representation from every school sector. That approach reflects my commitment to transparency, professionalism and broad educational input. I also want to emphasise that extensive engagement with a consultative group of the main Churches will be a central element of the process. Their historical role in education and their continued contribution to school ethos and community life means that their voices must be heard and respected. There will also be extensive wider public engagement through an open call for evidence and focus group discussions with key stakeholders including children, young people and parents.

I hope that the drafting group will provide me with a new draft syllabus that is consistent with existing statutory obligations and the recent judgement by the summer of 2026. I anticipate that the new religious education curriculum will subsequently be consulted on, with the new regulations being made in the autumn and the new syllabus implemented from September 2027. In the meantime, my officials have written to schools today to remind them that, in delivering RE and using the current core syllabus, they should include additional objective, critical and pluralistic material to ensure that there is no breach of European Convention rights. My Department will also issue interim guidance for the 2026-27 academic year before the summer.

The current legislation provides for an unqualified right of withdrawal from religious education and collective worship. I have concluded that it is neither desirable nor easily achievable to bring about fundamental changes to collective worship. Therefore, I believe that meeting the requirements of the judgement will involve ensuring that the right of withdrawal is consistent with all necessary requirements. In this case, exercising the right of withdrawal was not considered straightforward either for the parent or the school, as no pre-existing alternative arrangements were in place and the parents had to negotiate with the school before withdrawal, which created complexity and risk.

The court concluded that the right of withdrawal must be practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory. Exercising that right should be simple and frictionless. There should be pre-existing arrangements that are ready to be implemented to avoid the need for discussions with parents that risk them feeling that they need to disclose their own religious or philosophical convictions. Today, I am publishing guidance to support schools to meet those requirements and to ensure clarity and consistency across all schools. Parents must be informed about the right of and arrangements for withdrawal when their child is admitted to the school and again annually.

There must be no undue burden on parents. In short, withdrawal must be straightforward, stigma-free and supported.

The right to withdrawal will involve a simple and confidential procedure via a standard form, without parents needing to provide reasons, justifications or declarations of their own beliefs. The school must grant the request promptly, without negotiation, approval processes or delays. Partial withdrawal from specific topics or activities is permitted. There must be no stigmatisation of the child. Children should participate in meaningful, supervised alternative activity such as independent study, reading or play, integrated discreetly to avoid singling them out. In circumstances where an effective right of withdrawal is in place, schools will be able to continue with their existing practices and routine in regard to collective worship.

The Supreme Court also criticised the current lack of inspection of religious education and collective worship. To address that gap, I intend to introduce legislation in the current Assembly term to ensure robust, transparent and accountable inspection arrangements for religious education and arrangements for withdrawal. I will bring a paper to the Executive over the coming weeks and will ask for their full support in taking forward that important legislation. That will support the implementation of effective processes for withdrawal and the further enhancement of religious education as an important and high-quality element of the curriculum.

This is a measured and responsible response to the Supreme Court judgement. I am taking three key steps. The first is a new religious education curriculum, developed under the leadership of Professor Noel Purdy, supported by Joyce Logue and experienced subject specialists. That process will involve extensive consultation, including with the Churches. The second is guidance ensuring that the right of withdrawal is meaningful, straightforward and fully compliant with legal obligations. The third is legislation to introduce inspection of religious education and arrangements for withdrawal, ensuring transparency and building public confidence.

Finally, the court made clear that this case was not about secularism or removing religion from our education system, nor was it about whether Christianity should be the main or primary faith that pupils learn about in schools in Northern Ireland. Historically and today, Christianity is the most important religion in Northern Ireland, and that reality will continue to be reflected in our curriculum. There was also no challenge in this case to the principle that collective worship in schools in Northern Ireland may focus on the Christian religion or that, in Catholic maintained schools, the focus of collective worship may reflect the distinctive character of the Catholic tradition. This statement and the changes proposed are a product of a judgement of the Supreme Court. It is not my intention to bring about changes to the arrangements for religious education and collective worship beyond the terms of that judgement. I know that there are others who would take a different approach and would seek more far-reaching changes. There will, no doubt, be those who seek a mandate for such changes at the next election. That is the place for such changes to be determined. However, if such changes are to be introduced at some point in the future, they will be for another Minister and another term of the Assembly.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We move to questions. I remind Members that it is a period for questions, not statements.

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Minister, thank you for your detailed statement and for giving the House so much clarity around the issue. Can you outline how you and your Department will ensure that a reformed RE curriculum could be used to strengthen mutual understanding and enhance community relations to end the division and the mistrust that exists in our society? Will you be extending your consultation to non-Christian faiths and to those without a faith?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I addressed some of those points in the early commentary, but the Member highlights the issue of how we address division. Key to Christianity is respect, tolerance and greater understanding. That is why it has enriched our society for many, many years. It is why those within Church leadership have often been to the fore of seeking to get peace and reconciliation in our communities. The Member is right about how we should take forward religious education and the way that it should foster that spirit of respect in our society.

I am confident that, under Professor Noel Purdy and Joyce Logue, and when we appoint the subject specialists, we will be able to enhance the religious education curriculum. It has been over 20 years since such an exercise was carried out, and I welcome the opportunity that it presents.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement. It should be acknowledged that, although you could have kicked this into the long grass and had an endless review process, you chose to act quickly, which is welcome.

The Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 requires RE teaching to be based on the Holy Scriptures. Given that we are moving into a space in which we need an RE syllabus that is objective, critical and pluralistic, does that requirement in the legislation allow such a curriculum to be delivered? If not, is there a need to look at legislative change to ensure that we can deliver the ambition in the statement?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The reference in RE to Holy Scriptures will not be changing. It is not required to change. When we talk about objectivity, the key point that came through in the court judgement is that schools, in order to provide the necessary level of objectivity, should be indicating what Christians believe in the same way that they indicate what followers of Judaism and Islam believe. That came through in the court judgement, and it will be reflected in the approach.

Ultimately, however, when you are teaching what Christianity teaches, it is based upon —. I do not use the term "Holy Scriptures". It is a matter of terminology. People refer to "the scriptures", "the Bible" or whatever term they want to use. However, that will be retained because, obviously, the fundamental underpinning of Christian teaching comes from the Bible.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

As the previous Member to ask a question said, the Supreme Court was clear that religious education must be objective, critical and pluralistic. Will the Minister explain in clear terms how his approach will ensure that every child feels included and respected, regardless of their faith or beliefs?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Obviously, we want every child to be able to attend religious education. It is beneficial. When I was at school, I was able to learn about other religious beliefs, which helped to enrich my understanding, particularly of other countries because you get a better grip of the historical and cultural influences that religious teachings have had in them. The key issue is objectivity and how the learning is presented in schools. That will be reflected on as part of the development of the curriculum.

We can now get on with establishing the subject working group. I have identified who will lead that group, and we will make the relevant appointments to it. That will then be developed. There will be an opportunity to engage on that. Specifically, the Churches will retain a unique role in their aspects of the curriculum. However, there will then be a public consultation, and everybody across society will be able to have an input into what that curriculum should contain. It will then be for the Department to take that forward, and, subject to the normal processes, give it statutory underpinning.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for the clarity that he has brought this morning on the way forward. He, like me, will have received a petition last week, which was signed by over 90,000 people and outlined their concern at the Supreme Court judgement. He spoke about the unique role of the Churches in drafting the curriculum. Will he outline that role?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his question. He is right that the way in which the Supreme Court was misrepresented by those who take a hostile view towards Christianity caused unnecessary concern. I sought to allay those fears as quickly as I could, but they have continued with those who have engaged with the process. I trust that what I have said today will continue to allay those fears. There are those who wish to pursue a secular, humanist-type approach to religious education, but that will not be happening in Northern Ireland.

The Churches will continue to have a role. Extensive engagement with a consultative group of the main Churches will be a central element of the process. The group will contain nominees from the Catholic Church and the Transferor Representatives' Council, which has representatives from the three Protestant Churches that transferred their schools to the state. The historic role of the Churches in education, and their continued contribution to school ethos and community life, means that their voices must be heard and respected. The consultative group will contain nominees from those bodies. They will be able to engage as the subject working group develops the curriculum.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that a lot of the Churches that are thriving at the minute are outside of the four main Churches, and that it is important that they have input into how RE is taught in schools?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member is right: there is considerable growth outside of the three main Protestant denominations in various different evangelical churches and denominations. They will have an opportunity, as will everybody, to participate in the public consultation. There is a unique historical context in that the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Church of Ireland and the Methodist Church led on education. They recognised the value of having children educated. They developed schools, and then, when Northern Ireland came into being, they transferred those schools to the state. The Catholic Church equally valued education, and it retains its specific role in education. It is right that we not only acknowledge that but celebrate it. They should have a role. However, that is not to the exclusion of other Churches; they will be able to have input into the process.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The court warned that withdrawal must not be theoretical or burdensome. How will the Minister ensure that children who are withdrawn will not be singled out or made to feel different?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am very clear about how that should be handled. As I outlined in the statement, it should be a very clear and simple process. It should not be subject to negotiation if parents do not want to go into it or have a discussion; they have an unqualified right to withdrawal. However, if children are not taking part in collective worship, they need to have a meaningful purpose. I have been in school assemblies where some children have participated in certain elements and have then withdrawn from a religious aspect. That is where you have a partial withdrawal arrangement. The withdrawal mechanism has to be effective. Ultimately, the right of parents should be facilitated by the school. The process will be much clearer and simpler, and it will be done in a way that does not stigmatise.

The other issue is that, in addition to the legal requirement on schools to ensure that collective worship takes place, I have asked them to hold an assembly without a religious component at least once a month that celebrates other aspects of the school in which everyone can participate.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for bringing this important statement to the House today. The developments caused concern for many across Northern Ireland who value the Christian ethos in many of our schools. Will the Minister confirm whether schools can continue to organise nativity plays and other celebrations throughout the academic year?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

They absolutely can. Indeed, they are legally required to do so. That should be taking place. All publicly funded schools, with the exception of nursery schools, have a legal requirement to provide daily collective worship. That legislation was not set aside by the courts. That is why I welcome the opportunity to provide an inspection process that will make sure that all schools provide collective worship. People have had some concern about Christianity's being taken out of our schools. Far from it; this ensures that Christianity remains central to our schools and collective worship. However, we also need to make sure that all schools comply with the law when it comes to collective worship. The inspectorate will be able to monitor that and provide information to us in that respect.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for the statement. Minister, how will you avoid repeating the mistakes of previous RE syllabus design processes and ensure that, as well as Churches, other faiths and non-faith perspectives are involved in the development from the outset?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Members will have read the court judgement. It has helped to inform the creation of the subject working group. That is why it is being led by Professor Noel Purdy and Joyce Logue, and we are appointing subject specialist professionals from within the education sector. Churches will have a key role in that, but the court was also critical of the previous way in which the curriculum was drafted: it was drafted directly by Churches. Therefore, I have sought to find a way to make sure that we respect what the court said whilst respecting the important role that the Churches have. That will ensure that there is due recognition, and then there will be wider public consultation.

I do not anticipate any circumstance in which the curriculum would be drafted by the subject working group and the Churches — we have engaged with the TRC and the Catholic Church — would not have a role. I do not envisage any circumstance in which I would put out a curriculum for wider public consultation without having the support of the Churches for what is contained in it. Then, when we put it out for public consultation, everybody will be able to participate in the consultation process.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Minister, you appear to be heavily reliant on the opt-out system under the new guidance. Do you not agree that the best possible scenario is one where all children are supported in an inclusive curriculum?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have outlined how the religious education aspect of the curriculum will be taken forward. In regards to collective worship, I made it clear in the opening statement to the House that you cannot change that collective worship approach whereby a Christian minister or priest participates in a school assembly. We cannot expect them to say that what they believe is, however, somehow disagreed with by other religious beliefs. It is not practical or, in my view, desirable for that to take place in a collective worship scenario.

That is why there will be no change to collective worship. When I look at the Catholic Church and see what happens in Catholic schools, I see that they have to have the Catholic ethos respected, whether or not I agree with it. Parents have a right to choose the school in which they want to have their children brought up. That is protected under European Convention rights. Therefore, we are striking, in my view, the right balance: we will develop the religious education curriculum appropriately, but, when it comes to collective worship, there will be no change. However, that is where we have to have an effective withdrawal mechanism that does not stigmatise and that respects the unqualified rights of the parents without negotiation or discussion. There should be meaningful purpose for the children in those cases. We have then, at least once a term, a wider celebration of an aspect of school life where no child should feel that they need to withdraw.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for making the statement to the House. Minister, will you explain the rationale for legislating for inspection?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There was some criticism in the court judgement that, for inspection of religious education to be carried out, it required the express approval of boards of governors. That is not the case for other subjects, and, therefore, we seek to correct that. When we develop the curriculum for religious education, we need to ensure that it is academic and powerful. In order for us to monitor that, some form of inspection must take place. Historically, under the law, there was a responsibility on the Churches to carry out the inspection of RE. In practice, that was not happening, or, if it was, it was happening very much on the periphery. It is therefore right that an element of the inspection process should incorporate religious education. Inspection of religious education would also mean being able to monitor the effective application of the withdrawal policies that would operate in schools. It would also mean being able to report that schools were complying with the law and making sure that collective worship was taking place in our schools.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for coming to the House and for the speed with which he has made the statement. I also take the opportunity to congratulate Noel and Joyce on their appointments. Minister, you will know that there has been concern amongst principals and boards of governors about a dilution of the Christian ethos in schools in the controlled and maintained sectors. I therefore ask for clarity on whether schools can continue to provide daily Christian worship and on whether Christianity will remain a key part of the curriculum and the syllabus.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The answer is an emphatic yes. They can. I gave those assurances very quickly after the UK Supreme Court judgement. Today, I have outlined in further detail the way in which we are responding legally and proportionately to that judgement. It is absolutely the case that schools can continue with the practice of collective worship, as has been the case. We now need to have an effective right of withdrawal in place, however. That is the way in which we are responding to that court judgement.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the clarity in it. My son will not thank him, however, because he enjoys having wee jobs to do about the school instead of attending learning in religious classes.

It is important for our children to be critical thinkers and that they be allowed to ask questions. I therefore seek greater clarity from the Minister. How will he ensure that the new school syllabus will allow children to ask questions, that the teaching of Christianity in our schools will not be based on objective truth and that children's questions are answered in a respectful manner?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Without having to rely on a UK Supreme Court judgement, I hope that all children feel empowered to be able to engage. I certainly was. My RE teacher would tell you that RE was probably one of the subjects in which I was most participative. Young people should feel that they can engage. That should be happening irrespective of the court judgement. I have outlined how we will take forward the curriculum review and have addressed the issue of collective worship. That is a proportionate way in which to do it, but it does ensure and will ensure that Christianity remains the central tenet of religious education in Northern Ireland. That will continue to be the case.

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

Minister, I do not think that Christianity is under assault in schools in Northern Ireland. I am not sure that any serious or objective scrutiny of our education system would bear that out. Lots of parents who either are not particularly religious or are non-religious entirely feel that it is often quite difficult for them or their children to make the choice not to participate in RE and collective worship. That having been said, I was educated in a Catholic school and taught to think critically.

What you have said is that there will be no change to collective worship, other than potentially some legislation on inspection. There will be a new RE curriculum, however, over which, you said earlier, the four main denominations will effectively have a veto. You said that you would not proceed with it if they were to dissent. Where precisely will the voice of people who are not religious or who choose to raise their children in a non-religious setting be? It is important that, first, you say that you respect their input and, secondly, tell us how you expect their input to be represented.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I respect the fact that Mr O'Toole does not seek an assault on Christianity in our schools, but he is wrong to suggest that there are not those in our society who are engaged in an assault on Christianity being taught in our schools and on collective worship. I have spoken to numerous principals who have told me that parents have demanded that there should not be collective worship practices in schools and that there should not even be nativity plays put on. Those principals often feel the pressure that is being put on them by a very small but very vocal minority. I am ensuring that that noisy minority will not be the determinant factor. The majority of people support the current practice of collective worship and of Christianity being at the core of religious education, and I will ensure that that continues. I will ensure that the Churches continue to have a specific role in that process.

All people will be able to engage with the public consultation and provide feedback, but I do not want to create the impression that those who would seek to have a secularist, non-religious aspect to religious education will be able to sway me to a different outcome in the matter, because they will not.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his statement and for confirming that Christianity will remain the central tenet of collective worship in schools. Will the Minister outline the process for bringing forward legislation on inspection?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that question. I propose to bring proposals to the Executive over the coming weeks and to ask them to agree to removing the exemption from the inspection process for RE. That would allow for a Bill to be drafted, introduced to the Assembly and enacted before the end of the Assembly term.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

Minister, will you advise whether the new syllabus will provide guidance to ensure that, when schools bring third parties in to deliver religious education and collective worship, they do so in a way that is objective, critical and pluralistic?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Schools will continue to be able to bring in third parties for religious education and acts of collective worship. I trust very much that, when our school leaders and principals bring people into a school, they will ensure that those individuals act responsibly. Indeed, that is the case. If there is evidence of someone having been brought into a school and having said something inappropriate or acted inappropriately, that should be reported through the normal processes, and I would anticipate the school taking the appropriate actions.

That is very different from somebody saying that they disagree with a Christian minister coming into a school and putting forward their Christian beliefs. There are those who do not agree with that. If a parent complains that a Christian minister has done that, the school should not empower that parent by having that Christian minister or other organisation removed. That would be to have that minority — that vocal individual — dictate to the majority in the school, and we should not facilitate that.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Christian-based collective worship and RE were an integral part of my school upbringing, and, indeed, that of many of my constituents, and we deeply value its meaning, purpose and worth. We would be deluding ourselves, Minister, to think that there is not an attempt by some in the Assembly and by activist organisations to undermine the principle of Christian collective worship. In that context, Minister, will you give assurances to the House that, under your leadership as Education Minister, you will ensure that there is no demeaning, undermining or banishment of Christian collective worship in our schools?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am happy to give the Member that assurance. I agree with what he said. The number of people who engage in such hostile activity is small, but that small number can, nevertheless, have a disproportionate impact. We need to be able to withstand that. This approach strikes the right balance in respect of the Supreme Court judgement. It properly respects the Christian ethos in our schools and reflects, historically and culturally, the Northern Ireland of today. I believe that it is the right way to take things forward. Let the working group get on with the job, and let us appoint the specialists to draft the curriculum. We will engage with stakeholders and the wider public through the proper processes and get to a point at which we can bring forward a revised curriculum. Collective worship, as it is currently practised in our schools, can continue. It is legal; indeed, it is a requirement in law.

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

Minister, how will you guarantee consistency and legal compliance in the delivery of RE across all schools prior to the new syllabus and inspection processes being in place, given the Supreme Court's finding that the existing framework on its own is insufficient?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Part of the issue is that RE has not been subject to wider inspection. We will correct that, and that will help to ensure consistency in the application of the curriculum. We are addressing that. I have provided schools with interim guidance and information to which they can refer. The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has material that, in the interim period, addresses the issues that the Supreme Court highlighted around objectivity. Material is available. I encourage schools to access that material in relation to the religious education that they currently deliver. We will put the guidance on a firm foundation when we work through the process of establishing the curriculum.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Minister, revising the core syllabus is welcome, but many will be concerned that Christianity will remain central to our education system. There should be the right to religious freedom for everybody, but, in my view and that of many others, we should have separation of Church and state.

Minister, your proposals do not take into account falling church numbers and the fact that people are generally moving away from religious ideas and Churches for a range of reasons. Will your Department monitor the number of pupils who opt out? If a large number of pupils want to opt out of collective worship, does he agree that that would indicate that a more radical rethink of the role of religion in education would be required?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am happy to look at the information and collect the data on withdrawal, because that information would be helpful. I suspect that it would point to the very small numbers who engage on the matter. In the Member's other comments, he highlighted that religious education should be open to all, but, if the solution to making it open to everybody is that we must accommodate those who do not want religious education or collective worship in our schools, it would not be open to all. That would deny it to the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and their children. I do not support what the Member presents, and I do not believe that the wider population would support the position that he has adopted.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That concludes questions to the Minister. I ask Members to take their ease before we move on to the next item of business.

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

Private Members' Business

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes with concern the continued use of academic selection and transfer tests as a means of determining post-primary school transfer within our education system; recognises the extensive body of evidence from educational experts, including the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which highlights the negative impact of academic selection on children's well-being, educational outcomes and social mobility; further notes that research consistently shows that transfer tests cause undue stress and anxiety for young people and disproportionately disadvantage those from lower-income and working-class backgrounds, deepening educational inequalities; affirms its commitment to an education system based on equality, inclusion and the principle that all children, regardless of background or ability, should have the opportunity to reach their full potential in a supportive and non-selective environment; calls on the Minister of Education to take steps to phase out the use of academic selection and transfer tests in post-primary admissions and to develop and implement a fair, inclusive and non-selective system of post-primary education that ensures equality of opportunity for all children; and further calls on the Minister to prioritise action to tackle educational underachievement and close the attainment gap, particularly for children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Please open the debate on the motion.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

For many 10- and 11-year-old children across the North, the type of school that they attend after primary school is determined by a high-stakes exam. At a time when children are preparing for the daunting transition to post-primary school and the move into a new environment in which they will no longer the big fish in a small pond, many face the added pressure of sitting a selection exam. The very thought of the test causes undue stress for children and their families. For many, the pressure begins the moment they enter primary 7, and, often, it begins much earlier, all because of a brutal system in which a child's educational pathway is effectively decided at just 11 years of age.

That pressure is driven by a persistent narrative that children will receive a higher-quality education if they attend a selective school. Yet, despite those claims, research shows selective systems have no clear overall advantage over non-selective systems. As a result of those claims, many families feel obliged, in the interests of their children, to put them through a non-statutory, unregulated and privately run transfer system that operates without proper oversight, evaluation or safeguards. That is unfair on parents, and it is unjust for children. How can it be right that an exam taken at 11 years of age continues to determine the educational future of so many of our young people?

We know that academic selection has a damaging impact on children's self-esteem and mental health. That cannot be denied. We have heard that straight from the mental health champion, Siobhán O'Neill. Preparation for transfer tests often comes at the expense of key areas of the curriculum, including art, play and physical education, which are all required for development and well-being. We have heard from families that intensive preparation continues in classrooms in which not all the children are sitting the exams. What does that do? It creates a two-tier classroom environment in which some children are prioritised and others are implicitly sidelined. That division alone clearly undermines confidence and self-worth.

The harm deepens when the results are issued, effectively sorting children into two groups: those who are deemed to be suitable for grammar school and those who are not. At 11 years old, children are told explicitly or implicitly that they are less capable than their peers and should, therefore, be educated elsewhere. That is not fair, and it is not acceptable.

Research consistently shows that academic performance is closely linked to family income and background. Children from working-class and lower-income families are far more likely to attend non-selective schools, while children from more affluent backgrounds are disproportionately represented in grammar schools. In reality, the system pressures parents into paying for private tuition simply to give their child a chance in the test, and many families cannot afford to do so. When access to opportunity depends on a family's ability to pay, it cannot be credibly described as fair. It reinforces a two-tier education system.

Free school meals entitlement is a widely accepted measurement of disadvantage and shows that the most disadvantaged pupils in the North overwhelmingly attend non-grammar schools. Pupils are also less likely to attend a grammar school if their primary school serves a community with higher levels of deprivation. Children with special educational needs (SEN) and those from disadvantaged backgrounds are significantly under-represented in those schools. That is not inclusion; it is an elitist system that is reinforced through selection.

Despite what the Minister has said before, this is not a debate about a lack of political consensus. There may not be political consensus in the Chamber, but there is clear evidence of consensus on the harm caused by academic selection and its failure to improve the outcomes for all children. The inconsistency in the Minister's position is striking. We are told that he cannot act on academic selection because consensus does not exist, yet he is pushing ahead at extreme pace with the TransformED programme, which closely mirrors reforms in England, including the promotion of a so-called knowledge-rich curriculum, one of the core claims for which is that it will tackle educational underachievement and place all children on a level playing field. The Minister cannot credibly argue for a level playing field on the one hand while, on the other, continuing to support an archaic system of academic selection that sorts children at 11 years of age and entrenches inequality from the outset.

Ministers are elected not to wait for consensus but to lead on the basis of solid evidence and the aim of giving every child the best opportunities in life. We are repeatedly told by the Minister that the focus should be on making every school a good school. Of course every school should be a good school — nobody disputes that — but, at its core, it should be about raising standards for all, which does not sit with academic selection. We cannot build equality on a system that ranks children and schools from the outset and creates winners and losers. An unequal admissions system will always undermine efforts to raise standards across the system. Doing nothing is a choice; in this case, it is a choice that leaves some children paying the price.

Crucially, despite repeated claims about the effectiveness of grammar schools, most studies show no clear advantages to selective education once family income and background have been taken into account. Outcomes are no better overall than in non-selective systems. We must ask ourselves this: if academic selection does not deliver better results, what is the justification for putting children through such pressure and harm? If the stress is real, the inequality is clear and the outcomes are no better, we must confront a simple truth: academic selection has failed our children not because change is impossible but because it is being avoided. It is time for that to end.

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I beg to move the following amendment:

Leave out all after "environment;" and insert: "expresses concern that the Minister of Education’s programme of educational reform will be unsuccessful in addressing educational disadvantage without an end to academic selection; acknowledges the progress made in the Republic of Ireland in addressing educational disadvantage; calls on the Minister of Education to produce a time-bound plan to end academic selection and transfer tests in post-primary admissions and to develop and implement a fair, inclusive and non-selective system of primary education that ensures equality of opportunity for all children; and further calls on the Minister to work with the Minister for Communities to deliver action to tackle educational underachievement and close the attainment gap, particularly for children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds."

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak to our amendment and to talk further about the impact of academic selection on the health and well-being of children in Northern Ireland. I thank the Members who tabled the motion. It rightly expresses concern that the Minister's programme of educational reform will be unsuccessful in tackling educational disadvantage unless we confront the reality of academic selection in the North. That concern is well founded and well researched.

Minister, I acknowledge what you said in the Chamber yesterday about academic selection. It is one of those things on which we cannot find common ground. That is sad, but I understand it. One thing that, hopefully, we can agree on is the motion's recognition that the education of our children is shaped both inside and outside the classroom and highlighting the importance of working closely with your colleague the Minister for Communities:

"to deliver action to tackle educational underachievement and close the attainment gap, particularly for children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds."

We know that the home that a child returns to matters. How the family operates matters. We all know that our children do not grow up equally. Some children grow up in rich or middle-class homes; some grow up not knowing where their next meal is coming from. Some grow up in dysfunctional homes, while others do so in complete stability. The system is not fair.

As Members have rightly said, the fact that we ask 10- or 11-year-old children to sit high-stakes exams that tell them whether they are a success or a failure — as Cathy said, a winner or a loser — is really hard on them. I have spoken to children after they got their results, and some were so disappointed in themselves. That is really hard to see. We then move on to organise the rest of their education around one exam at one moment in time with no chance to resit. That is why I asked you that question yesterday, Minister. It is really important that, if children are given one moment to prove themselves in what might be in an unfamiliar environment, which I find very cruel, we at least grant them the opportunity to resit.

I can cast my mind back to my experience in 2006, when I sat my 11-plus. Before going into the exam hall, we did breathing exercises, in a circle, and played relaxing music before going to sit the exam. As an adult looking back, I think that it is bizarre that that was normalised. It is depressing that, to this day, we still force our young people to sit those exams.

Evidence has shown that, during the transfer process, around half of pupils report feeling anxious or stressed; one in six struggles with sleep; and one in eight says that the experience has had a long-lasting negative impact on their confidence and well-being. That is terribly sad. The transfer test is not an opportunity for resilience-building. It is a way for young people to feel boxed into whatever grade they come out with; it is a way of understanding that they are one of two things: a smart kid or a not-so-smart kid. Parents are feeling stuck between a rock and a hard place. They want their child to do well and feel obligated to have their child sit the exam while they struggle with the morality of not wanting them to. Teachers to whom I have spoken see that every year. In fact, over 90% of teachers surveyed believe that the transfer test has had a negative impact on children's mental health. When the professionals who are closest to our children tell us that it is causing damage, it is important that, certainly, the Committee and we, as elected representatives, listen.

This is the importance of our amendment: academic selection doubles down on disadvantage. It simply does not identify ability: it reflects the advantage of the child, the home in which the child is growing up and the child's access to resources. Only 14% of pupils in selective schools are entitled to free school meals, compared with over one third in non-selective schools. That shows the divide between working-class children and children who come from middle-class homes and are more likely to have access to tutoring, familiarity with exams and, of course, parental resources to help shape the outcomes that their parents desire. We are sorting our children along socio-economic lines by the time that they are 11, and then we act surprised when the attainment gap later in life persists. That will go on to shape their lives and, as the Health Minister has said, even their health outcomes. The whole thing feels grossly unfair.

Today is an opportunity to learn from other areas. Our amendment speaks of the importance of the steps that the Republic has taken. The motion acknowledges —.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Yes, certainly.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Did the Member enjoy a grammar-school education? Can she give any insight?

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I have to be frank: I did. I benefited from a grammar setting. I went to Loreto College, Coleraine, and the Dominican College in Portstewart. I am well aware of the privilege. I come from what I describe as a middle-class home, and I had access to tutoring and opportunities. I returned from America just before I sat my exam and, thanks to my parents' paying for tutoring, spent my entire summer preparing for it. Yes, I acknowledge the privilege that I had, the home that I come from and how I benefited from the transfer test. I am lucky to have parents who supported me and my well-being throughout that time. Other children are not so lucky, Mr Burrows. I am here to speak to that.

The Republic ended widespread academic selection decades ago. In its place, it invested in universal access to school-based supports. Recently, the Committee learned about some of the steps that the South is taking to tackle educational disadvantage through targeted disadvantage programmes, such as delivering equality of opportunity in schools (DEIS). I found that very interesting, Minister. The result is a system that values excellence but does not label children as "failures" before they become adolescents or rely on selection to drive improvement.

We tabled the amendment to highlight how disadvantaged children feel that they are not being given a fair chance to flourish. The motion asks us to be honest about what evidence already tells us. We have to be brave enough to learn from elsewhere and be serious about building an education system that works for every child, regardless of their background. Ending academic selection is not the whole answer, but, without it, there is no credible route to true educational equality. I commend the amendment to the House.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

We all recognise that this issue is one that raises strong opinions and passions; one on which views can be polarised. Education shapes not only the future of our children but the economic, cultural and civic health of Northern Ireland. Individuals and families will have different but equally valid experiences — positive and negative — of our system: experiences and views that cross political and religious divides. That is why passions are so strong.

Let us be honest, however, about what academic selection is and is not. It is not a judgement on a child's worth. It is not a declaration of lifelong success or failure. It is not a denial of opportunity. At best, academic selection is about matching children to the educational environment in which they are most likely to thrive at a particular stage in their development. Of course, it can be stressful, and not everyone is successful, even within their own expectations, but such is the nature of exams throughout children's education.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. He said that it is about sorting children into the appropriate school environment for them. Is he saying that he stands over our current system of testing as being an accurate, objective and reliable measure for assessing a child's ability and that that ability is innately fixed at age 11?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

There are many aspects of the current system that are not optimal, but I do not think that the Member would be willing to facilitate the system that I believe to be optimal. There is therefore an understanding that we have an issue with getting consensus on the best way forward, but I absolutely believe in the principle of academic selection.

Northern Ireland is often described as having one of the more unequal societies on these islands, and that has been said today. Paradoxically, we also have a record of social and occupational mobility that matches or, in some ways, outperforms that in other parts of the UK. For generations, children from working-class families, many without an academic tradition at home, have used grammar schools as a ladder of opportunity. I, as the son of a fitter in Shorts and an entry-grade civil servant, was able to attend one of the best academic schools in the country.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member take an intervention?

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Not at the moment, thank you.

In my year, my school was one of the most in demand, yet that demand was dictated, at that stage, by academic ability, not by whether my parents could afford to pay private fees or buy a house in the right catchment area. At my school, I was not in a minority either. At Grosvenor, I went to school with friends from Ballybeen, Tullycarnet, Cregagh and the Newtownards Road. I know that the Members opposite, particularly those with whom I sit on the Education Committee, believe that the system is elitist and somehow keeps the working classes down. My ideals are far from their Marxist or socialist ideals, but I do care that people from backgrounds such as mine have the chances that I did, and that makes me want to defend opportunities for others from working-class backgrounds.

I support academic selection because I believe that it is a vehicle for social mobility, but I am not blind to the inequalities that exist or their impact on skewing selection. As we have heard today and will hear again, critics claim that academic selection entrenches inequality. We must note — I am sure that we will hear about it today — that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the OECD did not explicitly rule out academic selection. Rather, they talked about the inequalities and how they affect the system. Inequality does not begin at age 11, however. We know that it begins much earlier, as a result of poverty, housing insecurity, poor health outcomes and a lack of access to early years support. Blaming selection for an inequality that it did not create is inaccurate and counterproductive. Inequality does not exist because a middle-class parent can pay for their child to have tutoring. That may exacerbate inequality, but, by then, the die has already been cast. That is what we must address.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Yes.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Does the Member not agree that the same schools are doing all the heavy lifting? If some schools take on all the children from lower socio-economic backgrounds, those who face inequalities, those with special educational needs and newcomer children, that is really unfair and makes it difficult for those children to get on the same education pathways.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I certainly agree that some schools face more challenges than others, but that is a reason that the answer, if we are serious about having equality, is not to level down aspiration but to level up support, particularly in early years education and childcare, in primary schools that serve disadvantaged communities and in community-based educational supports. That is a long-term objective and commitment, but I believe that this Minister has done more than anyone to develop and underpin those supports in a challenging financial climate.

Another argument that we will hear is that selection damages children's confidence. Any assessment system must, of course, be handled with care, but the solution is not to abandon assessment altogether. In life, young people will face exams, interviews and competitions. Our responsibility is to ensure that those experiences are fair, proportionate and humane, not to pretend that they do not exist. We already hear frustrations from private industry, public services and emergency services that they find many in today's generation of recruits to be lacking in resilience. The solution is not for children never to experience adversity.

I recognise that children develop at different rates. Academic selection at the age of 11 is not perfect, but nor is a single, one-size-fits-all comprehensive model. No system will ever achieve the eradication of families seeing some schools as being better than others, and there will always be a measure of those with more money being able to ensure that they get what they need. To me, an exam seems to be a fair —.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

I am happy to confirm at the outset that the Alliance Party supports the motion and the amendment, and we thank the Members who tabled the motion. I will address the comments that Mr Burrows made to Cara Hunter during her contribution. I will clear it up before he engages in that again: I am the product of a grammar-school education. I will not pretend that I have a story about going to a school of hard knocks. I am the son of a GP, and I went to the local grammar school. The system worked perfectly for me, but I do not think that we should make educational policy based on one Member or another's anecdotal experience of the education system. That is a very lazy way to make policy. We need to make policy based on the evidence of the outcomes that it delivers for children across the system.

Before getting into the detail, I also want to address the phrase "academic selection". It is a phrase that I am not really comfortable with. It creates an impression that we have a system that is able to select children based on innate ability that is identified at the age of 11. I am not sure that the current system of testing with SEAG is robust or provides objective measures of ability, nor do I think that it is desirable to try to fix a child's ability and potential at that stage of their educational journey. That seems to me to be completely at odds with the ambitions that we should have for all our children and young people.

While many will argue, as Mr Brooks has done today, that our process of academic selection promotes social mobility, the evidence concludes otherwise.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I appreciate the Member taking an intervention, particularly so early in your speech. Do you agree that that is a very unhelpful conversation? It almost alludes to an idea that, if you have gone to a high school, you are not socially mobile. That is simply not true. I will namecheck my former school, St Paul's High School, Bessbrook, which is one of the best schools in the statelet. Also, I represent St Joseph's College, Coalisland, and many of its former pupils come from socially deprived areas and have done very well in their lives. Academic selection and grammar schools do not guarantee social mobility.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for her intervention. Absolutely, I agree. In these types of debates, so many lazy assumptions are made that one thing equals success and another does not. We should simply look for success for all our children and young people. We should aspire to the notion that every school should be a good school, rather than try to siphon children off according to some preconceived notions of academic ability.

I will probably be up against time now. With regard to social mobility, Ulster University research recently highlighted that about 37% of pupils in non-selective schools are entitled to free school meals compared with 13% of pupils who attend grammar schools. Therefore, any idea that we are not segregating children to some degree based on their economic background does not hold water.

I want to bring in an element that other Members have not touched on, which is the financial and budgetary element. The demographics are changing, and we are seeing a decline in pupil numbers. We anticipate potentially a 25% reduction in primary-school numbers in the next 10 to 15 years. That connects to academic selection in a profound way, because, while there is a cultural assumption that grammar school should be prioritised and that that is where you should seek to send your child, ultimately, grammar schools and selective schools could just lower the threshold every year and simply become full schools. Then, the non-selective sector would have a smaller pool of pupils that it is trying to attract to their schools. In a system where money follows the pupil, that could have profound impacts on a non-selective school's budget. We have to be serious about that, if we are serious about tackling the financial crisis in education.

When announcing the TransformED proposals last year, the Minister said very clearly, in a statement that I agree with:

"The message is simple but powerful: more time for deeper learning and less pressure to teach to the test." — [Official Report (Hansard), 9 September 2025, p11, col 1].

I cannot disagree with that. However, I also cannot connect that to the approach that we take at primary school, when sometimes from P5 and certainly from P6 and P7 onwards, there is almost an exclusive focus on teaching to the SEAG test — an exclusive focus on numeracy and literacy — to the exclusion of other areas of the curriculum. If we want to have more time for deeper learning, we need to put our money where our mouth is and do that at all stages of the education system; indeed, Lucy Crehan, when carrying out her review of the Northern Ireland curriculum, spoke to that directly. She acknowledged that, while it was not in her remit to deal with academic selection, it has an impact on the curriculum in primary school and it is not a positive one: in fact, it is quite the opposite.

As a party, Alliance has a vision for the future of our education system, one where pupils can succeed when they receive high-quality teaching in a supportive learning environment where there are high expectations of all pupils no matter what their economic background is and where that is combined with a nurturing and caring environment where there is a focus on pupils' mental well-being. That vision of success for our young people, regardless of their economic context, where they were born or the postcode area in which they grew up does not require us to engage in any form of testing of children in a high-stakes test at age 10 or 11 to somehow identify a sense of innate academic ability. Children should learn together with children from a diverse range of backgrounds in their community, where they can learn from one another and truly be prepared to live rich and fulfilled lives in society.

Back at St Andrews, agreements were made that have effectively allowed academic selection in by the back door in Northern Ireland. We had the opportunity —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

— to reform, and we missed it. It is now time to —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member's time is up.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

— grasp the nettle.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I oppose the motion not because I defend only grammar schools but because I defend all schools and the right of everyone in Northern Ireland to have choice. That is number one. The bedrock of our democracy is that people can choose. That, of course, is ideologically inconsistent with much of what the Members who tabled the motion believe in. They would admire many communist and Marxist states. Choice is important.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I will not give way at the moment to the Member who told me to "Shut up" on the radio this morning.

Let me talk about choice. Recently, I was in primary schools in Bangor, where many people told me —

[Interruption.]

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Sorry, Mr Burrows.

Members will not engage in debate across the Chamber. Interventions will be sought and agreed to, not assumed.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

The principals had great pride in telling me that many of the parents choose not to send their children to a grammar school, even if they have passed the selection, but to Bangor Academy and Sixth Form College, because it is an outstanding school that is bucking the trend and the perceptions of non-selective schools.

The party opposite talks about choice and the right of girls to choose to wear trousers, which is one that I agree with.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. Before he moves on from the point about choice, will he agree that, if you do not achieve the requisite score in your transfer test, a range of schools is immediately ruled out and you do not have choice? If the nearest non-selective school says that you must put it down as your first choice, once you have done that, you are ruled out from applying to other schools with the same criteria, and your choice is, in fact, limited.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

There are various pathways. I will come back to that in a moment.

This man will not tell girls in my constituency that they cannot choose to attend St Louis Grammar School or Dalriada School. That is their choice. If they want to aspire to that, I will support it.

I will champion Catholic grammar schools, which have been let down by political representatives who do not champion them. I served in Derry/Londonderry — whatever you want to call it — for many years. I saw the social mobility of people who went to the excellent Catholic grammar schools in that city. Look at what St Columb's College has produced: Seamus Heaney, John Hume and Phil Coulter.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member take an intervention?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I will not give way any further.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

No, I will not give way any further.

In West Belfast, Mr Sheehan's constituency, St Dominic's Grammar School has produced wonderful pupils who have been some of the brightest minds of our country.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

No, I will not give way.

They include Mary McAleese and, of course, Ms Flynn

[Interruption.]

If I may, I will make my points.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

There will be no debate across the Chamber, please.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Those schools feel that they need someone to champion them, and, as a unionist representative, I am happy to do that.

We also need to talk about the stigmatisation that we bring about by having this discussion on selection. The notion that selection is bad reinforces the fear that, if you do not pass the 11-plus, you are somehow lesser than the people who pass it. Many non-selective schools in systems around the world still have streaming. That can involve a degree of informal selection that lacks the objectivity and fairness of a selection process.

It also comes down to choices. We are spending our time debating selection. Whenever I speak to parents and pupils in schools around the country, that is not what they talk about. They talk about the state of their schools. They talk about the buildings and the crisis that we have due to the number of pupils with special educational needs. They talk about the fact that we cannot attract males into the teaching profession. You talk about stress: the biggest stress that children face these days is from social media and screen time. That is what we should be discussing today, not this false debate on academic selection.

We should give people maximum choice: levelling up, not levelling down. This debate is, at its heart, an ideological one. It looks down on schools that are not grammar schools, instead of saying that all schools can be excellent schools and there are many different pathways through life that give people the choice and the opportunity to reach their full potential. We need to better support children who go through selection, offer them more pastoral support and destigmatise the issue of passing or failing. It is not about that; it is just a different pathway in your life.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

No — yes, I will give way.

[Laughter.]

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I thought that I recognised the voice.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he recognise the value of continued assessment when approaching the transfer from primary to post-primary education?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Yes, absolutely. Anything that we can do to remove the cliff edge on selection will remove the stress. That is why I have concerns about removing AS levels, which come later in secondary schools. The cliff edge can be detrimental to well-being in the school.

For all those reasons, I oppose the motion. I support choice. We can better serve all our pupils and their parents across Northern Ireland and give them that choice.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I do not know how to follow that. Maybe the Ulster Unionist Party need a more robust leadership content.

Academic selection warps our whole education system. You do not want any child to feel like a failure. You want to give them all the best opportunities in life. However, the reality is that this is not about grammar schools or comprehensive schools; it is about a process that makes you feel like a failure. I do not have to go too far to find that, because it made me feel like a failure when I did the 11-plus back in 1993. It took a long process for me to get to where I am today. Some might say, "He is talking nonsense. That is about privilege: he is an MLA and a former mayor". I got lucky, but not everybody gets lucky; they really do not. That luck did not come from one particular thing. It was because I went to school that had teachers who looked out for all the kids. That is why I intervened earlier to say that the same schools are doing the heavy lifting.

There were a lot of challenges in my school. It was not simply about getting the books out and getting your GCSEs: there was so much more going on. Grammar schools probably do not have to face that. It is great that their school leaders get those grades, but many of our schools are getting young people from a grade E or F to a grade C. That is how it was with me. I went from the prospect of having no GCSEs, except for maybe the practical ones — art and PE — that I was good at, to getting the rest of them by the skin of my teeth. That is what I meant about having a bit of luck. You build confidence with that bit of luck.

We took part in the Speaker's Book Week event, and I remembered reading 'The Lord of the Rings' one summer back in the 1990s. That was the first book — it was a big book — that I read from start to finish. It engulfed me and made me believe that I could do A levels. I went on and did really well in my A levels. Some of my friends whom I grew up with went to grammar schools but did not come out with the same A levels as I did. I went on to get a degree and then to do a trade, and then I found my way here.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Yes. Go ahead.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Does the Member recognise that the story that he is telling us is one that I recognise from schools such as Ashfield in my constituency and proves the point that it is not condemning young people to failure if they do not do well in their 11-plus, because there are schools that bring them on, just as your school did for you?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

That is why I said that I got lucky. I could easily have fallen through the cracks like many young boys whom I went to school with. Some of them, sadly, are no longer with us. No, I do not recognise that. I really do not.

I did not have the opportunities that other ones might have had who took the different pathway of grammar school. It is how you feel. It is that feeling of failure, and that stays with many young people throughout their whole educational career or pathway or whatever you want to call it. That has a knock-on effect. The evidence shows all of that. The Children's Commissioner and the Children's Law Centre will tell you that. All of the evidence will tell you that it fails all of our young people. It works for some, yes, absolutely.

I have shared my story before, and I am proud to share it, because it inspires other young people. When I was Mayor of Belfast, I made a wee video. I set my phone down afterwards, and it went viral. A family reached out to me to say that their young lad had failed and had not left his room for three days. That is what the test does. The child had not left his room. I invited the family down to the parlour and said, "If I can get here, anyone can get here". Last year, the young lad wrote to me to say that he had got all of his GCSEs. You may take that as a success story, and it is, but, again, he got lucky. It should not be like that. We should all be able to get the same education and the same pathway, and the exam does not do that because it makes us feel like failures.

Despite all the evidence and research on the impact that it has on our young people, I have no faith that the Minister will address it, because he picks and chooses evidence to suit his narrative. In recent months, the Minister has outlined his plans to make substantial changes to A levels and GCSEs, and he is on record saying that pupils are being over-tested in schools and that he plans to remove teaching to the test. He said at our Education Committee:

"So much time is being spent in preparation for exams, time off school when it comes to even your mocks, being coached as to the technique when it comes to answer questions. All of that is taking away from the ability to actually sit in the class, engage in the subject matter and to learn about it. Parents who have the money will pay for tutors to get children caught up. My approach will benefit the working class more than the current system."

Children being tutored to that test flies in the face of academic selection. The Chair of the Education Committee said the same thing. We need to stop chasing league tables. We need to start looking at the future of our young people, and that means every one of them. We need to support all of our school leaders, because, as I said at the start, too many schools are doing the heavy lifting, and it is just not fair. It breeds inequality, and we have to stamp it out because that is what we are here to do. We are meant to be leaders in doing that, and we need to support all of our children.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I was not planning to speak in the debate, but I am passionate about tackling educational underachievement.

I will start off with Danny's comments. To a degree, I agree with him on some of his points that it is a stressful test. There is no doubt about that. I suppose all tests are stressful, and children will face tests at some point in their lives. However, I disagree with him in that, if we are looking at negative impacts on children in schools today, the transfer test does not stack up against, for example, mobile phones or social media. Those things roll on every day for children. I honestly believe that they have more impact on children than the transfer test. I have a couple of kids who have gone through the test and one who is facing into it.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for giving way. The issue of mobile phones is a fairly recent phenomenon, and we have not seen all the evidence around that yet. There is, however, plenty of evidence that academic selection is harming children and that it does not create or promote the social mobility that we are talking about. How many kids from the Shankill get to grammar school or university? How many of their parents can afford £35 or £40 a week for private tuition?

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. I do not have figures on the latter part of his question, but what I say about the former is that I am simply making the point that any testing is stressful. We are talking about emotional impacts on children, and phones and social media have greater emotional impacts than the transfer test.

Some of the debate has been framed in a way that says that ending academic selection will somehow deal with educational underachievement or, as the motion suggests, it frames it in terms of educational disadvantage. I want to address that. Many Members will be aware of the 'A Fair Start' report, and I believe that Noel Purdy and Joyce Logue were on the panel that the Minister mentioned earlier. I looked at the research that was commissioned for 'A Fair Start'. They were tasked to look at that. They did research with a large sample of 1,500 parents on the main causes of educational underachievement in Northern Ireland, and number one was the level of family and parental support. Out of 14 causes, academic selection came twelfth, with only 3·5% of parents saying that it was the main cause of educational disadvantage or underachievement in Northern Ireland. Those are the views of parents, and I accept that, but that is a ranking.

Some of the things that they cited are the things that the Assembly should be looking at. In dealing with educational disadvantage, the Minister is addressing poverty. I agree with the Members opposite that poverty is a driver. All the research suggests that, so we have to address that.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

To the Chair of the Education Committee, of course, I will.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. I will be brief. The same 'A Fair Start' report stated that academic selection was a "systemic inequality". Should we not be trying to tackle that?

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for his question. The 'A Fair Start' report cited a whole range of causes. I am simply making the point that, in how we deal with educational underachievement or disadvantage, academic selection is not the key driver. It is things such as poverty, parental aspiration and the level of parental support. If we want to close a long tail of underachievement, that is what we address. This might be a sound bite, and it might be covered today in terms of academic selection being a contentious issue, but, if we are serious about tackling educational underachievement across our sectors for Protestant and Catholic kids in Northern Ireland, those are the things that we should be focusing on.

I have one and a half minutes left. I will give the Floor to the Members opposite. When I read the motion, I thought, "OK, so we're going to end academic selection". What do we do after that? How do kids choose which schools to go to? We will have the same schools; they will just be called different things, so what is that process? It is OK to say, "End academic selection", but how does a school that was previously a grammar school choose its intake for the following year? Does it do it on the basis of where the school is, as with primary schools, in which case house prices will rise? Do you want to create a situation in which, instead of there being maybe one or two private schools in Northern Ireland, there will be a proliferation to eight, where you can be assured that the only kids who will get to those schools are the ones whose parents can pay? That cuts off social mobility. It is OK to have a sound bite, but what happens next is significantly more complex. A problem that the Assembly would not have to deal with but the Education Minister certainly would have to is how those schools then select. That could increase the level of disadvantage based on wealth more than leaving the current system in place.

The Chair of the Committee said the right thing — you can frame my having said that later, Nick — when he quoted the DE policy, Every School a Good School, from way back in 2009. That is what the Assembly needs to do. It needs to create the conditions that mean that every school should be a good school or an excellent school or a brilliant school. This Education Minister is doing all that he can to achieve that.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

There is so much to say about the transfer system here. There are ideological points, statistics and research findings, but, at the heart of the system, there are 10- and 11-year-old primary-school children. To be honest, if I were to look at it through that lens, the system would break my heart. To illustrate that, I go back to my daughter's first practice test, which she did in our kitchen during lockdown. One of the comprehension questions was on a topic that she loved. She wrote an answer that was expressive, thoughtful and full of detail. As we went through the marking scheme, I had to explain to her that, although I loved her answer, and the extra thought that she had put into it, it did not matter. It would not earn her any more marks. As such, I told her that she would have to restrict her answers. For me, that moment felt like an affront to the very idea of education, because it was now about teaching to the test — sterile, regimented and repetitive — at 10 years old.

Let me be absolutely clear that participation in the process is not endorsement. Parents do not engage with academic selection because they believe that it is right but because they have no real choice. We navigate the system that we have, not the system that we wish that we had, because, as parents, we want our children to be happy, settled and able to attend the same school as their friends. As politicians, however, we have a different responsibility. We cannot simply ask, "What works for us or for people like us?". We have to be more ambitious than that. We have to want the best outcomes for all children. The current system does not deliver those outcomes. Far from being a ladder of opportunity, academic selection entrenches inequality and underachievement.

The independent review of education was clear about that. Grammar-school intakes differ significantly in socio-economic profile from those of non-selective schools. Just over 12% of grammar-school pupils are entitled to free school meals, compared with around 35% in non-selective schools. The same disparities exist for pupils with additional needs and for newcomer children. Members will be quick to speak about how they personally benefited from a grammar-school education, and I do not doubt that they did. I do not doubt the quality of the education that is delivered by grammar schools or the commitment of their staff, but that is not the point. The debate is not about trashing grammar schools but about whether a single high-stakes test at 11 years old is fair, effective and evidence-based. It is not.

The independent review of education cited research showing that the old, state-run system had the potential to misclassify up to two thirds of pupils by as many as three grades. That is not a small margin of error but a fundamental flaw. It dispels the argument that selection ensures that those with academic promise can fulfil that promise while others can pursue vocational opportunities. That argument might be more defensible if we had genuinely strong vocational and technical pathways, with parity of esteem, but we do not. There has been no meaningful reform in that space. Strengthening vocational pathways appears to be largely absent from the Minister's curriculum review. That should concern us all, particularly given the skills shortages that we face.

Testing children at 11 on a narrow range of subjects under intense pressure is simply not a reliable predictor of future academic success. We know that because the evidence tells us that. That is why the independent review of education's recommendation to move away from a one-off test towards a broader pupil profile that is informed by statutory assessment and adaptive testing deserves serious consideration from the Minister and the Department as a way in which to phase out selection at 11.

It is important that we also highlight the system's emotional cost. The mental health champion has described the transfer test as a "failure experience", one that damages self-esteem and self-worth. I saw that reality up close on Friday, when a parent came to my home after her child had underperformed in the SEAG test owing to anxiety. That child now has to carry not only anxiety but the label of failure. She is unlikely to attend the same school as her siblings and will likely be separated from her friends. I ask Members this: whose interest does that serve? Not the child's, not the family's and certainly not the education system's. If we truly believe that every child deserves to thrive, we cannot defend a system that sorts children so early, so crudely and at such personal cost.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

As a former long-term member of the Education Committee, at which this topic raised its head on numerous occasions, I am delighted to take part in the debate today. I say that for a reason, to which I will come back in a minute or two. I also declare a number of interests. Like Mr Baker, I did the 11-plus — I do not know whether it was called the 11-plus in your day, Danny — but did not pass the test. I did not get to go to Wallace High School or Friends' School, but I thank God that I went to Lisnagarvey High School, because it turned me into the man that I am today. I did not enjoy the day that I got my result. Based on my personal experience, I think that we should always be up for reform and improvement of any system that we have, particularly for children and young people

I also declare an interest in that the third of my five children recently navigated the test. My two older children did the AQE test, and, this year, our P7 pupil sat the SEAG test. My young daughter did not suffer mental distress. She was not overanxious. I do not diminish the fact that some pupils are, but is it really the test that causes the problem?

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I will, if you are brief, Pat.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Thanks very much for giving way, Robbie. I hear what you say, and I understand it. There are kids who sail through the test and have no problem, but there are other children who do not: that is the problem. The mental health champion, who was appointed by your Minister, Robin Swann, stated clearly that academic selection is "unethical and harmful".

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has an extra minute.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you for being brief. I go back to a point that was raised about me personally when we had this debate in around 2020. I was accused of not caring about the mental health of young people, which I took personally. If your accusation, Pat, is that I do not care about the mental health of my daughter and the young people of Northern Ireland, I will go toe to toe with anyone on that. I have the highest regard for the mental health champion, who is the best person for that job, but it is OK to disagree even with professionals.

It is about how we address academic selection and attach a value to it. What do I mean by that? There have been missed opportunities, one of which was in the review of education. When I, as the education spokesperson for this party, had my first meeting with the wonderful group of people who led that review, there was a missed opportunity. In the first meeting, I asked the group whether it would look at the Dickson plan as an alternative to the P7 test. The answer at that meeting was, "No, that is not on the table". That may have been because of the terms of reference set by the Minister at that time, but it signalled to me that there is a bit of a glass ceiling. I am not afraid, and the Ulster Unionist Party will not be afraid, to talk about the glass ceiling, but we will not take away a pathway that parents and children can understand and that the system supports.

I accept that there may be some disadvantage. However, the party that tabled the motion, the party that tabled the amendment and the Alliance Party have never brought an alternative solution to the Assembly. That is what brought me down to the Chamber for the debate. We get private Members' Bills and motions on academic selection, and we talk about the issue. However, only one party in the Chamber has brought a workable solution, and that is the Ulster Unionist Party. We recognise that some of the points raised by Members are absolutely valid. Is this the best that we can do? No, it is not. However, we have all inherited a system that has served the majority of people well. Can we improve it? We absolutely can.

I go back to a point that was discussed a few minutes ago. If we removed academic selection, there would be a postcode lottery. Parental choice really matters. It matters to the SDLP, Sinn Féin and Alliance. Guess what? It matters on this issue too. Parental choice exists in every aspect of children's education, including transport, special educational needs —

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

— free school meals and which school your child wants to go to. I will take a question.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

In my speech, I did offer an alternative. The independent review of education offered an alternative — a way in which to phase out academic selection by bringing together a different pupil profile, informed by statutory assessment and adaptive testing. Would you give consideration to what the independent review has said is an alternative to the current system?

A Member

That is still selection.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes, that is still selection. To be fair to the Alliance Party, it is the only party that supported the Ulster Unionist Party's suggestion back in 2021, which, I think, is a better suggestion than that which the independent review body brought forward. Whilst we put a lot of store by what professionals say, most people here are parents and have lived experience. In fact, lived experience is one of the best tools that we can use.

To finish, if you have been talking about an issue for years, when you bring such a motion to the Floor, come with solutions.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

We are constantly told that the North has a world-class education system. In my view, that is only true if you ignore the tens of thousands of working-class children who constantly get left behind every single year. The teachers, education workers, classroom assistants and the people who work in the canteens are all working in a Trojan manner, but the system is clearly broken, failing pupils every single year.

The 11-plus, as it is being referred to, was abolished in 2002, with the last government-run test taking place in 2008. Since then, private companies have ensured that academic selection continues, and it is totally unregulated.

Today's motion recognises what countless studies have proven: academic selection is a tool of social division that entrenches educational inequality. That cannot be disputed. I support the SDLP amendment that rightly notes that any programme to address educational disadvantage will be extremely limited without an end to academic selection.

The evidence is damning: research consistently shows that transfer tests do cause unnecessary stress and anxiety for young people, regardless of whether one or two or five children did not feel stressed or anxious. The transfer tests disproportionately disadvantage children from lower-income and working-class backgrounds. Academic selection in communities such as mine and that of my colleague from West Belfast opposite means that children can be branded as failures — I do not think that they are failures — at 10 or 11 years old, when they have barely started their education. I do not know how anybody can defend that system. It also means that working-class parents, who do not have the money, spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on private tutors, getting money from family, a credit union or, in some cases, other nefarious ways.

I speak as somebody who went to a Catholic grammar school, but grammar schools, in many cases, have become the preserve of the middle classes, while our children are funnelled into under-resourced, non-selective schools. I do not know how anybody can support that system. The facts speak for themselves: only 11% of children attending grammar schools are entitled to free school meals compared with 32% in non-selective schools. That is a huge indicator of poverty and class. The system does not identify talent; it identifies wealth. It perpetuates the myth that, if you have not passed a test by the age of 10 or 11, you are somehow a failure and your future is predetermined. How can anybody stand over that system?

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Sure, I will.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I do have to say that the only people whom I hear routinely talking about those children as "failures" or being labelled "failures" are those arguing against the system. The system puts children into non-selective but often very good schools, but you do not hear us describing that as failure. It is only from those on the other side of the argument that we keep hearing that those children are labelled again and again as "failures".

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

You have an extra minute.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Thank you. I would say this to the Member: you do not really listen to the people who have been through that system and who feel like a failure because society has branded them as such. You need to reach out to those people and listen to them a bit more and not make it about yourself. Many children who do not make it to grammar school carry that stigma for life. We have heard that today, so the Member needs to listen to other Members and other points of view in the debate. I do not know what he is chuntering —. I will give way again. Do you want to come in?

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

[Inaudible.]

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Do you want to come in? OK, fair enough.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has called for an end to academic selection. The OECD and others have criticised it. The Equality Commission has highlighted how it deepens educational inequalities. International evidence is clear. Even if the Member to my right will not listen to me, he should note that international evidence is clear that education systems that segregate pupils by ability at an early age exacerbate inequality rather than reduce it. The Minister may claim that —

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Sure, I will.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member accept that all schools segregate children based on ability, whether it is a high school or grammar school, because the children are streamed as soon as they go into year 8, so there is streaming and segregation anyway?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I will come back to that in a second.

The Minister may claim, as he did in a previous debate, that there is no public consensus on ending selection, despite growing calls to actually end it. I can tell you what there is consensus on: working-class communities across the North, from all communities, from all backgrounds, on both sides of the divide or from all sorts of corners, are sick of seeing their children being written off at 11 years of age. It is time that we put aside the tired defence of, quite often, middle-class privilege and build an education system that serves all our children, not just the fortunate few.

The motion calls for exactly that. It calls for:

"a fair, inclusive and non-selective system"

that gives every child the opportunity to "reach their full potential". Our children deserve better, and, for that reason, I support the motion.

Does anybody else want to come in? Go ahead. There are two of you. Take your pick.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I am interested to know who the Member thinks better reflects working-class communities: the parties that sit on the Executive or the party with one Member.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I do not understand your point.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I call the Minister of Education to respond to the debate. Minister, you have 15 minutes in which to respond. I am mindful of the break for the Business Committee at 1.00 pm, but we will see how we get on.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will declare the same interest that seemingly everybody else who spoke in the debate declared: I did not pass the 11-plus. However, my father and mother never once said to me, "Son, you're a failure".

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Not once did they ever say, "You're a failure", and I suspect that the parents of Mr Baker and Mr Butler did not either, yet people who advocate for abolishing academic selection label those who did not pass the 11-plus as failures. Do they realise the impact that their words have on those who are listening? Do they realise the impact that that terminology has on children who did not get the result that they wanted? They should reflect on that.

The issue has been discussed for many years, and the reality remains unchanged: there is no societal consensus on academic selection. This debate has confirmed that. There is no agreement on the best path forward among schools, principals, teachers, parents or young people. It would be interesting to know how many of those who advocate for change have gone into the grammar schools in their constituencies and said to the principals, "Remove academic selection from your criteria". Has Michelle Guy gone into Wallace High School and Friends' School, or written to their boards of governors, to demand that they remove selection from their access criteria? Have Sinn Féin or SDLP representatives done that? Schools choose to include academic selection in their criteria. They can abolish academic selection. How many of the advocates of change in here have gone into schools and said, "You're wrong. Change your process". None of them, bar, I suspect, Mr Carroll. If there was honesty in the debate, we would have seen it in the way in which Members engage with schools in their constituencies.

The independent review of education in Northern Ireland described academic selection, alongside community division, as being:

"the most controversial educational issue in Northern Ireland."

It stressed that "most controversial" does not mean "most important", but stated that meaningful and lasting change cannot be delivered without broad consensus. That lack of agreement is not new. As far back as 2001, the Burns report recommended ending state transfer tests. The subsequent public consultation clearly demonstrated that there was no consensus on the way forward in either political or public discourse. Society was, and still is, deeply divided on the issue. Every year, thousands of parents choose to enter their children into the SEAG transfer procedure. Of course, it is not, now, a state test. Entry is a matter of individual choice.

In the absence of consensus on the issue, we face a choice. We can continue to expend time and energy on a debate that polarises parents, divides schools and entrenches public disagreement, or we can focus our collective efforts in areas in which they will have the greatest impact, thereby improving outcomes for children. That means focusing on what happens every day in classrooms and having reforms that strengthen teaching and learning; modernise the curriculum, assessment and qualifications; and build a system that supports every child to thrive. It means investing in high-quality professional development for teachers and ensuring that schools have the resources that they need to raise standards and tackle educational disadvantage. That is where we can make the most meaningful difference to children's well-being and life chances, and to the overall performance of our education system.

The debate on selective versus non-selective systems is the wrong debate to have. Across the world, we see high-performing and low-performing selective systems and high-performing and low-performing non-selective systems. It is easy for Members to cherry-pick examples of either model. The Netherlands, Switzerland and Singapore have selective systems with very strong educational outcomes. The Republic of Ireland, which is rightly mentioned in the motion, has a predominantly non-selective system, and it performs strongly. In contrast, Wales, which has a fully non-selective comprehensive system, performs below Northern Ireland and below the OECD average in reading, maths and science. Members, what does that tell us? It tells us that structures alone do not determine educational outcomes. The evidence on whether selective systems improve academic outcomes is mixed and heavily shaped by context. The same is true of non-selective systems. No system is successful because it is or is not selective. Systems succeed because the fundamentals are right. The real question is not, "Does the system select?" The real question is whether the curriculum and assessment are right; the governance is effective and coherent; the teaching and learning are of the highest quality; and all pathways offer genuine high-quality routes into the economy. Those are the factors that raise standards, those are the levers that improve outcomes for children, and those are the areas where our energy and focus will make the greatest difference.

The motion focuses on the negative impact of academic selection on children, outcomes and social mobility. It calls for a fully non-selective post-primary system that provides equality of opportunity for all. Equality of opportunity is a critical aspiration, but we must ask: is that actually what happens in non-selective systems? Do comprehensive systems create the utopia of perfect social mixing and equal opportunity and schools that are free from concentrations of disadvantage? Quite the opposite. When formal academic selection is removed, selection often reappears in other ways that are less visible, less accountable and harder to address. In many non-selective systems, high-performing comprehensive schools draw overwhelmingly from affluent neighbourhoods. Access to quality education becomes shaped by the ability to afford a house in the right postcode. It becomes a postcode lottery, not a meritocracy.

Research also shows that, even in fully comprehensive systems, pupils are usually streamed within the schools themselves: banding, setting, tracking, reinforcing social and economic differences, and replicating the very inequalities that the system is designed to remove. I attended Laurelhill Community College, where I sat exams and was streamed into upper, middle and lower streams. I witnessed the very same issues that people talk about — stigmatisation and failure — at Laurelhill. It depended on the band for which you were selected, based on your academic results in a comprehensive non-selective school.

Geography continues to reproduce advantage and disadvantage, regardless of whether formal academic selection exists. Community patterns and housing markets shape which children end up in which schools. At the same time, in many non-selective systems, private schooling expands significantly. Families with the means to do so opt out of the state system in pursuit of perceived quality or social advantage. Across OECD countries, nearly one in five students now attends a private school. Contrast that with Northern Ireland, where private schooling barely features. In the Republic of Ireland, which is mentioned in the motion, there are around 75 fee-paying private schools. In Northern Ireland, there is, of course, no academic selection at primary level, yet we still see significant variations in social composition between schools due to housing and community patterns. Some primary schools have no pupils who are entitled to free school meals; others have more than 80%. Of our 781 primary schools, 75, around 9%, have free school meal levels above 50%. That compares with just 7% of post-primary schools. The social composition of schools reflects the social geography of our wider society.

In practice, comprehensive systems often replace academic selection with social selection. Academic selection may disappear on paper, but selection reappears through postcodes, parental choice, private schooling, internal streaming and housing patterns. That does not move us forward; it simply changes the rhetoric.

The motion refers to the OECD, but we should be clear about what OECD research consistently tells us. It is not that structural arrangements determine outcomes but that teaching quality matters more than any structural design of a school system. Its major 2025 report, 'Unlocking High-Quality Teaching', makes that point unequivocally. It states that refining and improving teaching practices is the most powerful lever for better student outcomes. The central drivers of improvement are teacher practice, pedagogical skill and supportive school environments. That is what matters, not whether a system is comprehensive or selective. OECD research consistently positions teaching and learning, rather than system design, as the key determinant of educational improvement. Again and again, international evidence shows that the strongest predictor of student achievement is the quality of teaching and instruction. That relationship holds across countries, contexts and time.

I will keep moving, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I want to conclude the speech.

Let us look honestly at the outcomes in Northern Ireland. The independent review of education highlighted something deeply important: there are significant variations in pupil outcomes between schools that, on paper, appear to be very similar, including schools with comparable levels of disadvantage. The review found that the highest concentration of underperformance is in schools where free school meal entitlement sits at around 30% to 40%. In those schools, the gap between the highest and lowest performing schools was staggering: around 72 percentage points at GCSE and nearly 70 at A level. That is an extraordinary variation between schools that serve broadly similar communities.

One of the aspects that I want to get to is how we improve our schools. For eight years, we had action short of strike by the main teaching unions, and that fundamentally weakened the inspection system. It made it harder to identify issues early, harder to support schools properly and harder to secure improvement for pupils. What happened when I brought forward a Bill to safeguard inspection and put in place the same basic arrangements that operate across the UK and Ireland? Did Sinn Féin support the Bill? Did it stand behind the principle that every child has the right to attend a good school and receive a high-quality education, or did it prioritise the rights of adults above the rights of the children whom our system exists to serve? Those are the real questions. Those are the issues that determine whether we genuinely improve outcomes for young people. Structures matter far less than what actually happens in classrooms and less than the accountability and support mechanisms that keep standards high.

That is why I have been taking forward TransformED. That is why we are addressing issues to do with curriculum, assessment and qualifications, and that is why we will be able to address educational underachievement and disadvantage. The work of TransformED will make the most impact when it comes to addressing the issues that concern Members. I appeal to Members not to be distracted by the arguments about academic selection, which go over old ground where there is no consensus, but to focus on tackling the key issues that I am taking forward through TransformED, which has the support of our professionals across Northern Ireland and is reflected in all the working groups that I am taking forward. Members, when we determine whether children thrive, what drives that achievement, opportunity and social mobility? My aim is simple and unwavering: it is that every school in Northern Ireland is a centre of excellence with high expectations and that every child, whatever their background and wherever they live —

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Minister finish?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

— learns in a positive, ambitious and supportive environment. That is fairness, inclusivity and equity in practice, not just in principle. Those are reforms that will benefit all children, change lives and raise standards and that will give every child in Northern Ireland the opportunity to succeed. That is the path to a fairer system and a stronger society, and it is the path that my Department is committed to delivering.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you for the response, Minister.

Members, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after the question for urgent oral answer, when the first Member to be called will be Mark Durkan to make a winding-up speech on the amendment.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 1.03 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Finance

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

1. Mrs Dodds asked the Minister of Finance to outline any action that his Department is taking to ensure that capital budgets are spent and not recycled year after year. (AQO 3038/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Executive apply a zero-based approach to allocating capital in Budgets. That means that Departments must justify their capital requirements for each Budget period. Departmental budget allocations include earmarked funding that must be used for the purpose provided and general capital allocations over which Departments have discretion in how they are used.

Departments then have flexibility to move funding in-year between capital projects within their general allocation. Any reduced requirements relating to earmarked funding must be returned for allocation by the Executive. Departments should also surrender, at the earliest opportunity, any general capital allocations that cannot be used in the financial year.

Individual Departments cannot carry forward unspent capital into the next financial year. The amount that the Executive can carry forward under the Budget exchange scheme is limited to 1·5% of the final capital budget for that year. For 2025-26, that limit will be approximately £31 million. To reduce the risk of capital funding being lost, Departments were asked, as part of the January in-year technical exercise this year, to confirm any further capital easements that had arisen since December monitoring.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

That is all very interesting, Minister. I note that, in your statement to the House on 12 January, you referenced the delivery of the maternity hospital: are you aware that the maternity hospital is now two years late in that it cannot be used? It is unsafe — signs tell people not to drink the water — and remedial work will start at a cost of £6 million and involve another delay of about 28 months. That will be four and a half years after the handover of the hospital. As Minister of Finance, what are you doing about that scandalous waste of public money?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I presume that the Member is referring to the allocation in my statement on the draft Budget. I was responding to bids from the Department of Health in that instance, and it will be a matter for that Department to acknowledge why and for what purpose those bids were made.

The objective remains to deliver the children's hospital. I am fully aware of the commentary on that. The Minister of Health has addressed the Chamber on the matter on a number of occasions. To deliver the hospital will require further investment. It remains an Executive priority, so it is only right and proper that we make allocations to it. The proper use of that money is down to the Department of Health, and the Minister of Health will have to stand over its use, as will his accounting officer.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, what happens if any late easements arise before year end?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Departments are aware that they must surrender all reduced requirements immediately and certainly before the final monitoring round of the year. To avoid capital being lost to the Executive, however, Departments have been advised to inform DOF immediately of any emerging easements. If further easements arise, I will consider bringing to the Executive recommendations for their reallocation. As I said, we carried out a further exercise this year as a result of Barnett consequentials and capital easements from Departments. I hope to make an announcement on that in the near future.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Minister, have you undertaken any assessment of the cost of the redesign of any capital projects that have been delayed?

Mr O'Dowd: That is a matter for the sponsor Departments. Any further increase in costs that is met will have to be matched by a business case to support the increase in spend on the project. Again, those are matters for individual Departments, their Ministers and their accounting officers.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

3. Mr Dickson asked the Minister of Finance how his Department ensures a consistent approach to social value in the public sector. (AQO 3040/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Mr Speaker, may I have an extra minute to answer the question?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Certainly.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The procurement policy note (PPN) 01/21 on social value in procurement was revised in February 2025 following reviews by the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) and key stakeholders, including the voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors, Departments and centres of procurement expertise (COPEs). The reviews identified the policy as having made a real difference to how contractors incorporate social value into their business models. However, they also identified some unintended consequences for small and microbusinesses that were finding it more difficult to compete with larger companies for contracts where social value was a scored criterion. Key changes were made to remove barriers for those businesses.

The policy ensures a consistent approach to social value in the public sector and mandates that, for services contracts above £500,000 and work contracts over the UK threshold, at least 10% of the total award criteria must be allocated to social value. The PPN further outlines requirements to incorporate social value in procurements under four themes: increasing secure employment and skills; building ethical and resilient supply chains; delivering climate action; and promoting well-being. To help maintain consistency in the scoring of social value, model criteria have been developed. That consistency also helps with reporting social value outcomes, which are monitored through the SIB portal.

The social value procurement policy also requires Departments to develop a social value strategy to align social value objectives with their procurement pipelines and to look for other opportunities across their operational and policy responsibilities to improve social and economic outcomes. My Department is the first to publish its social value strategy and recently published its first progress report on the implementation of that strategy.

The public procurement policy statement (PPPS) published in June 2025 sets out the Executive's priorities for a more streamlined, simplified and accessible procurement environment. It has four principles, including social value. The social value principle has six objectives, each of which is accompanied by a specific action and descriptor to ensure clarity and consistency in the delivery of the objectives.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for your comprehensive response; it is greatly valued. Do you agree that, in the absence of a statutory duty on public authorities to consider social value in their spending decisions, the current policy-based approach risks inconsistency and could be changed at ministerial direction? Will you consider supporting legislation that would place such a duty alongside a duty on your Department to provide guidance and training on a statutory footing?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Member will have heard me set out the comprehensive criteria that are used. As a result of the work that has been carried out, there has been success not only in my Department, with its role in procurement, but in other Departments. We are seeing success. As legislators, we will say that legislation has its uses, but it is not always necessary. If evidence is produced that statute is the best way forward, I will be more than happy to look at it.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Minister, you highlighted some of the challenges regarding social value in procurement in the PPN. Will you highlight some of the opportunities and benefits?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Policies and strategies have their value, but, unless they deliver, they are just documentation. In this instance, over 7,200 people who were long-term unemployed or disadvantaged in the labour market have gained employment and over 370 social enterprises have been part of the supply chain in public-sector contracts. There have been over 11,700 hours of volunteering with the voluntary and community and social enterprise sectors, 27,700 hours of health and well-being initiatives and 2,600 hours of digital inclusion initiatives, and almost 700 environmental action plans have been delivered. It is making a significant difference in our society.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

The voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland delivers huge social value through excellent front-line services in the hearts of our communities. Has the Finance Minister an assessment of how much value that sector delivers in Northern Ireland?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I do not have an assessment in front of me, but the voluntary and community sector has proven its worth time and time again; indeed, I will meet the sector again tomorrow in relation to the local growth fund and the challenges that that will bring. I think that all Members can agree that the voluntary and community sector makes a huge difference across our communities.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

4. Mr Brooks asked the Minister of Finance how his Department is addressing the ongoing budgetary pressures facing the Department of Education in the delivery of the special educational needs reform agenda. (AQO 3041/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The proposals that I have brought forward for consultation follow political engagement and have been developed against the backdrop of an exceptionally constrained financial position. They do not provide the level of funding that I would wish to see directed at our public services; instead, they reflect what is possible with the funding available. In that context, it has not been possible to provide any Department with the funding that it has requested.

The proposals set out in the draft Budget that I have brought forward provide over £9·7 billion in resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) funding for the Department of Education over the period 2026-27 to 2028-29 that has not been earmarked for specific purposes. That will enable the Education Minister to determine how much of that funding he wishes to direct towards the delivery of the special educational needs reform agenda. The draft Budget also provides a general capital allocation of over £1 billion in funding for the Department of Education over four years until 2029-2030. Again, that will enable the Education Minister to determine how much of the allocation he wishes to put towards special educational needs provision.

There is also a £24 million allocation in earmarked capital DEL funding in the Budget specifically for special educational needs. The Department of Education was also successful in securing a total of £27·5 million in funding for special educational needs from the public-sector transformation fund, as announced in March 2025. In total, the Education Minister’s return to the Budget exercise included resource DEL bids of over £860 million for 2026-27. Compared with a baseline figure for his Department of around £3·1 billion, that represents a very significant uplift.

I acknowledge the increasing pressures on DE as a result of growth in demand for SEN support and other pressures on schools, and I will continue to work with the Education Minister and other Executive colleagues to find solutions.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer, but the continued stress on the Education budget, especially when it comes to capital need and increasing SEN demand, is very real, and the sector has been shocked and stressed by the Finance Minister's draft multi-year Budget cuts to Education. Does the Minister agree that the Budget needs to prioritise front-line services? If he will not listen to the Education Minister, will he listen to our school leaders?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is not a case of me not listening to the Education Minister; in fact, I had a constructive meeting with the Education Minister last week. I am doing a round of bilaterals with all Ministers in preparation for, I hope, agreement of a three-year Budget. The Education Minister set out his pressures to me.

Let me put it in this context for you and others. The Education budget is currently £3·1 billion. The Education Minister has stated that he has pressures of £800 million next year. That is a 28% uplift. It is a huge uplift. When you look at the scale of that, you will see that it is the totality of the budget for the Department for the Economy. That is the scale of the challenge that the Education Minister, I, as Finance Minister, and the Executive face in trying to balance a Budget that does not have enough funding in it as a result of decades of austerity and in trying to deliver public services moving forward. If we continue with positive engagement at Executive level and the Executive continue to make their voice heard to the British Government on the need to properly fund this place, we can make progress.

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

5. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Finance for an update on any actions that his Department is taking in relation to Civil Service reform. (AQO 3042/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Civil Service reform must be embraced not just by me, as Finance Minister, but by every Executive Minister and senior leader across the Civil Service. If responsibility for transformation is left to just one Minister, one Department or one permanent secretary, the opportunities that it offers will not be realised. It has to be a collective responsibility, with all Ministers and Civil Service leaders working together to deliver the changes that, we all agree, are necessary.

For my part, I am fully committed to the reform of the Civil Service, and the people strategy 2025-2030 is my Department’s key programme in that regard. The interventions in that strategy will strengthen NICS capacity and capability through the job families and professions framework; strategic workforce planning; streamlined recruitment and HR operations; updated HR policies; enhanced line manager capability; and accelerated digital upskilling. Furthermore, my Department also leads a number of other wider reform programmes and initiatives that will support Departments to deliver more effectively.

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

Go raibh maith agat, a Aire.

[Translation: Thank you, Minister.]

More staff than five years ago, more expensive than five years ago and poorer delivery than five years ago: that is the Northern Ireland Audit Office's damning verdict on our Civil Service's value for money. Can the Minister explain why three quarters of the reform recommendations that the NI Audit Office made in 2020 have not been implemented? How many will be implemented before the end of the mandate?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am conscious that we are going to have a debate on the subject later. I will be able to go into more detail on my response to the Audit Office report. I am also acutely conscious of the protocols with Audit Office reports. When an Audit Office report is published, it goes to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which publishes its report. That report comes to me, as Minister of Finance, and I then collate responses to it and respond to the PAC. I have to be conscious of those protocols and get the balance right, because Member has every right to ask such questions.

There are huge challenges in transforming an organisation of the scale of the Civil Service. It employs over 25,000 people; it has been operating with and without political leadership for a number of years; it has come through COVID; and it is operating in a very constrained budgetary framework. All that works against its ability to transform. However, the strategies that I have outlined to you today, which I will detail further in the debate later this afternoon, give us the opportunity to put momentum into the programme of change in the Civil Service that everybody accepts is needed.

We also have to acknowledge that the vast majority of civil servants are here to deliver and make change and want to play their part in making this a better place for everyone in which to live and work.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

How does the Finance Minister intend to provide the political leadership that has been called for by the Auditor General and Senior Civil Service unions to urgently reform workforce planning in the Civil Service, given its rising vacancies, increasing sickness, growing reliance on agency staff and overtime and, as outlined in the Audit Office report, continued failure to deliver the scale and pace of reform that is required to demonstrate value for money. As of last week, the Audit Office's report is publicly available.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On the Member's last comment: there are protocols in place that I, as Finance Minister, have to follow in relation to Audit Office reports.

My reading of the Audit Office report is that there needs to be collective political leadership around the Executive table. Clearly, I have a role in that, as do other Ministers. As Finance Minister, I have a role in providing the strategies that other Departments should be implementing, particularly in relation to the people strategy, which I launched earlier this year. Sorry, it was last year — we are only in February. That is a significant step forward and will take time to bed in, along with other strategies that have been developed around it. Integr8, when we move to it, will be a great tool for helping to transform our Civil Service.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Minister, you have outlined some of the key work that you have already done on the issue, but improving skills and workforce planning are at the heart of any reform. What has your Department done, and what plans do you have, to reskill, upskill and make sure that the Civil Service is future-proofed?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As I said, each Minister and their accounting officer and senior team can and should review their workforce strategy and workforce complement and how they can deliver the services that they are required to deliver, as a Department, with their staff complement and budget. There is nothing to stop any Minister or accounting officer from making decisions now on the much-wanted efficiencies and strategies etc. They have the tools in front of them to do that, and I will continue to give them further tools in that regard.

My Department is taking a proactive and structured approach to ensuring that the Civil Service has the right people with the right skills for the future. We have published a new strategic workforce planning guide, which sets out a clear and consistent approach for all Departments, and we have established a monthly community of practice to support its implementation across organisations.

In addition, work on the job family framework is being advanced. A full draft has been completed, and it has undergone initial pilot validation. Together, those steps will help to plan the Civil Service workforce more effectively and build capability for the needs in the years ahead.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The transformation board has moved from being an interim transformation board to being a new quango with the NIO and NICS working together. What is your assessment of how well it is working, particularly bearing in mind that you used to be the responsible officer for it? Who knows who its responsible officer is now?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The fact that we have already started to spend that transformation money across a range of projects shows that the transformation board is delivering its side of the bargain. I hope to be in a position, in the near future, to bring a paper to the Executive on the second tranche of that funding after deliberations by the transformation board. I do not think that the transformation board is the problem; it is part of the solution. Obviously, the final accountable organisation in transformation is the Executive.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

6. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Finance to outline the processes in place to ensure that Construction and Procurement Delivery (CPD) delivers value for money. (AQO 3043/22-27)

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

CPD operates on a full cost-recovery basis for its procurement and project delivery services under an agreed memorandum of understanding with its clients. The hourly charges for its services are published on the website and are in line with 'Managing Public Money'. CPD's clients are provided with estimates of fees at the initiation of a project, and the estimates are monitored throughout the project. It operates under a range of published key performance indicators, and its performance against those is published annually. It is also subject to internal and external scrutiny to ensure that its functions are efficient and cost-effective. CPD meets Departments biannually to review service delivery and charges over the previous six months.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that answer. However, it did not really answer my question about value for money. It is not good enough to suggest that CPD is in full cost recovery. I have been a member of the Commission in this Building for some time, and I am not speaking on behalf of the Commission. My concern is that, between that and other public procurement, we can clearly evidence that we are not getting value for money in how those projects are costed. Indeed, a number of years ago, the PAC published a report criticising the CPD. What I am really trying to get from you, Minister, is this: will you carry out a review of CPD to determine whether it offers value for money to the taxpayer or to itself?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

If the Member wishes to share with me the clear evidence that he has in that regard, I am more than happy to take a look at that and examine it in closer detail. There is transparency around CPD's work. There are accountability mechanisms in place etc. However, if the Member has evidence that he wishes to bring to my attention, I will commit to looking at it.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Minister, can you tell us what CPD has delivered and give us an update on how that works for public services and those who deliver the services?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Each year, CPD publishes a report that details the procurement activity that is carried out by all nine centres of procurement. In the 2024-25 report, two CPD centres of procurement expertise awarded 330 contracts with a value of over £1·2 billion, which represents 24% of the total value of contracts awarded. In 2024-25, CPD's supplies and services division had the highest value for service contracts awarded, representing 33% of the total value of service contracts. The collaborative arrangements mechanise the potential for aggregation by CPD and its clients through category management on an agreed range of supplies. These include, for example, the supply of 100% renewable green electricity, banking services, IT equipment, property management, minor construction works and waste and recycling services.

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

7. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Finance to outline his Department’s position on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. (AQO 3044/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill and its principles are a positive step forward for public services. In ensuring transparency and enhancing public confidence and trust, it is important that the public sector here is held to the same high standards as its counterparts in Britain. However, I acknowledge the concern that has been expressed by families who were affected by the Manchester stadium attack. They have raised serious concerns about whether the Bill will be able to hold to account a number of agencies, including MI5. It is vital that there is full transparency and that the public have confidence in the Bill. As the Member will be aware, the Assembly and Executive do not have devolved powers with regard to those agencies. Therefore, decisions will have to be made about how we move forward with that Bill. Obviously, we want to have confidence in our public bodies through the Bill. There also has to be a clear indication, however, that agencies, including MI5 and others, can and will be held to account.

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

Thank you for that answer, Minister. I am slightly concerned that there is a motion in your name in the provisional Order Paper for next week, asking for legislative consent for the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. That is notwithstanding the fact that there are real concerns that there are carve-outs for MI5 and other state security agencies. That has prompted concern, as you have said, including for the Manchester Arena families. That is very troubling, frankly, given your Department's record in relation to other legislative consent motions (LCMs) and, indeed, the rates fiasco last week. Why have you put forward an LCM when there are still such outstanding concerns about the operability of the Bill, what it means for security agencies and, indeed, whether it is going to proceed at Westminster? It has been pulled by the UK Government, but we, apparently, are proceeding with an LCM next week.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I do not think that we are, but the Minister can answer that.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Ceann Comhairle has, helpfully, responded to you. We are not. We were working to time frames, and, throughout that period, I was scrutinising what was happening at Westminster and deliberating on the Bill here. That LCM has now been removed from the Order Paper.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, will you expand on the origin of the Bill?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Bill has its origins in the Hillsborough law, which was advocated for by campaigners after it was found by the Hillsborough Independent Panel that police officers lied and changed witness statements in order to protect reputations and that investigations were undermined by a lack of duty of candour. The Bill represents a package of measures to address those failings and others, such as those in the Grenfell tower fire, the infected blood and Horizon scandals and other examples over many years. The Executive agreed that the Bill should form part of our collective response to the infected blood inquiry. However, as I have said, growing concerns have been raised in recent times, in particular by the families of the victims of the Manchester Arena attack, who were concerned that organisations and agencies such as MI5 and their agents were not properly covered by the Bill. Given the history of those organisations here in particular, I believe that it is only right and proper that, if a nurse, a teacher or a social worker are to be held to higher standards, the same should apply to those who operate in the world of MI5.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

8. Mr McHugh asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the new online rates service. (AQO 3045/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The new Rates Online service, which was launched on 13 January 2026, represents an important step forward in how we provide services to the public. For the first time, ratepayers can create an online account to view and update their rates information, notify Land and Property Services (LPS) of any changes that affect their liability, and make payments with confidence through a modern and secure platform. Rates Online has been designed to improve the customer experience by expanding opportunities for people to self-serve, increasing transparency around their rating details and offering clearer digital channels for engaging with LPS. It modernises how individuals and businesses can access and manage their rating information and reduces the need for paper-based processes.

It may be of interest to the Member that it costs somewhere in the region of £600,000 annually to print and issue rates bills. Any reduction in that cost will be very welcome.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreaga sin.

[Translation: I thank the Minister for that answer.]

Do you intend to put in place plans that will increase the general public's awareness of the new service?