Northern Ireland Assembly, 10 February 2026

344 contributions from 55 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I take this opportunity to speak about the incredible work of the Spirit of Paul McGirr charity and its most recent mission to Lusaka, Zambia, when four young students from the Dean Maguirc College in Carrickmore went out for 12 days, along with Clíodhna and Anthony, and gave their energy and hearts to help others.

Paul McGirr was a young Tyrone footballer who, tragically, died in 1997. In death, through the dedication of his family and the work of the Spirit of Paul McGirr, Paul's legacy has lived on in the most meaningful way. The charity is Tyrone-based and was founded in 2007 in Paul's memory. It works in close partnership with deprived communities in Lusaka in Zambia to design, fund and construct safe spaces that enable people to realise their potential. Over the years, that has included the construction and maintenance of schools for children with special educational needs, a preschool for orphaned children, primary and secondary schools and essential maternity and health facilities.

My daughter, Ríoghnach, was part of the most recent group, which returned home on Sunday after spending 12 days in Zambia with the charity. Through a partnership between Anamore and the Dean Maguirc students, the focus of their mission was a roof-repair project at a rural maternity and health centre. The existing roof was leaking rainwater into the treatment rooms, threatening the structure and the continuity of care for women and newborn babies. Repairing the roof was critical to ensuring that the centre remained safe, weather resistant and fit for purpose.

In preparation for their mission, the girls had a successful fundraising campaign here through activities such as a 12-hour handball marathon, a coffee morning and a sponsored cold-water plunge into the freezing waters of Lough Macrory on New Year's Day morning.

At its heart, the mission reflects the simple but powerful belief that safe, sustainable buildings can help to protect families and support livelihoods. Every project undertaken by the Spirit of Paul McGirr charity reflects that belief, building bridges between communities and empowering young people, families and volunteers to be part of lasting change.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the opportunity to address an issue that is central to public confidence, community safety and the long-term stability of policing in Northern Ireland: the urgent need to restore and strengthen police recruitment and our collective responsibility in that. I am a member of the Policing Board. At many Policing Board meetings, concerns are raised about the decline in officer numbers and the pressure that that places on the PSNI. Those concerns reflect what communities across Northern Ireland already know: our police service is being stretched beyond what is sustainable. We want to build a society in which people feel safe in their homes, confident in their communities and supported by a visible, responsive and representative police service.

Every section of society and every political representative in the Chamber has a responsibility to encourage and support recruitment into the PSNI. We cannot call for better policing while failing to promote policing as a respected, viable and valued career. We cannot demand improved response times, greater neighbourhood visibility or enhanced community engagement if we are not prepared to champion the very people who deliver those services.

The deadline for recruitment passed last Wednesday. In past recruitment campaigns, including those in my constituency of Mid Ulster, the number of applications has remained lower than average. That should concern every one of us. If we want a police service that is representative, resilient and rooted in the communities that it serves, those communities must feel encouraged and supported to step forward. Let me be absolutely clear: encouragement cannot be left solely to local officers or neighbourhood policing teams, because they already carry enough on their shoulders. The responsibility belongs to us all: community leaders, public representatives and politicians.

I have done my part. I have used social media, community forums and my public engagements to say openly and without hesitation that I support the PSNI and encourage young people in Mid Ulster and further afield to consider a career in policing, but I must ask this: where is the leadership from other political representatives across Northern Ireland? Where are their social media posts, their statements and their public encouragement? Where is their willingness to stand up and say clearly and confidently that policing is a noble profession of which the community should be part? Their voices are silent.

Leaving the burden of promoting recruitment to local officers certainly is not leadership. If we want to see change, we must all be prepared to stand up, speak out and actively promote policing as a valued and vital profession. If we want a safe, stable and confident Northern Ireland, we must invest in the people who protect it. That means predictable, long-term recruitment and ensuring that policing remains an attractive career. It means each of us using our voice and our platform to encourage that, and not all of us in the Chamber are doing that.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

In the first instance, I pay the utmost respect and give thanks to the Ambulance Service. Its staff are highly trained men and women who answer the call to a ream of incidents across the country, often coming across the most challenging and distressing of incidents. The figures that I will highlight do not reflect on their commitment or their work but rather on the wider systemic issues facing our health service. Too often, those staff spend their time dealing with the challenges of handovers at hospitals, rather than responding to calls in the community.

The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service has set a target of responding to category 1 calls within an average of eight minutes and responding to 90% of calls within 15 minutes. Those targets are regularly missed across South Down. In the Mournes district electoral area (DEA), there was no calendar month in which an average response time was recorded that was within the 15-minute target, and, in Slieve Croob, there was only one month in which the average response time was within 15 minutes. The Mournes and Slieve Croob are rural in nature, but, even in Downpatrick DEA, where the county town lies, there were only two months in which response times were within the 15-minute target. For one of those months, the time was 14 minutes and 59 seconds. Crotlieve had seven months in which the average response time was over the 15-minute target.

Those were just the average response times to category 1 calls. The maximum response times are extremely worrying. A response time of four hours and 38 minutes was recorded in Slieve Croob.

In the Mournes, there were four months in which response times of over one hour were recorded. One of those was two hours and 34 minutes, and another was three hours and 15 minutes.

A category 1 call is defined as dealing with a life-threatening condition, such as cardiac arrest, severe bleeding, unconsciousness, convulsions and fitting. When those are taken into consideration, the waiting times are extremely concerning, not just for the casualty but for those who are generally attending to them. As is so often the case when there is an issue in the statutory sector, the voluntary and community sector steps in. In that regard, I must mention agencies such as Slieve Croob Community First Responders, Mourne Mountain Rescue Team and the RNLI, which very often attends to a casualty if the Ambulance Service cannot.

We need to increase the workforce capacity in the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service, finalise the ambulance handover protocol for Northern Ireland, improve measures to ensure better flow of patients through A&E departments and out of our hospitals, and improve capacity in our communities and care system.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I want to make a statement on Victor Hamilton, and I do so with the permission of his family.

Victor Hamilton was originally from Carrickfergus. In 2022, he was murdered in Ballymena. Four people were involved in his murder, three of whom were foreign nationals. The chief suspect in that murder escaped justice by going back to Portugal. A second man was given six years for manslaughter — three behind bars and three on licence. After being behind bars for three years, he should have been deported. He was not, and he is now back out in the community. The other foreign national was given two years for withholding information. Due to time served, however, after one year's sentence, which should have been behind bars, he was released. He also should have been deported, but, again, he was allowed back into society. We have failed the victim's family in that regard.

A bit of good news, however, is that the individual who escaped to Portugal has been arrested and faces extradition. How does the family know that? They read it in a newspaper. There has been no victims' care whatsoever. Nobody went to them and said, "This is what is happening". Nobody went to them and said, "This is what is happening to the individual who got six years behind bars", or "This is what is happening to the individual who got two years and should have been deported but was not". Nobody has been to the family whatsoever.

I have long called for changes to the victim information scheme. I will continue to do so because it is letting people down. The family read about the perpetrators in a newspaper. The way in which we treat victims of crime and their families is absolutely scandalous. That is not a one-off. Victor Hamilton is another male who is largely forgotten and not spoken about in the Chamber or anywhere else. He joins the likes of Jim McFadden, whose family were let down by the system, and Michael and Marjorie Cawdery, whose family were also let down. We really need to deal with how we look after victims of crime in Northern Ireland. Right now, we are not doing that.

What is this statement about? Is it about foreign nationals not receiving the full weight of our criminal justice system? Is it about victims' care? It is about both because you cannot have one without the other. First, the criminal justice system is there for a reason. It should act for a reason. Deportation is the responsibility of the Home Office — we know that — but our criminal justice system must trigger it. Secondly, victims deserve to be treated with care. They should not have to read in the newspaper about the arrest of somebody who may have murdered their loved one. That is what is happening. The system is failing. We are failing. We need to deal with that.

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

It is an honour for me to speak in celebration of a hugely significant milestone: the 30th anniversary of Aware, an organisation that has played a crucial role in improving mental health awareness and understanding, and providing support, education and hope across the North.

Thirty years ago, the landscape around mental health looked very different. Conversations about depression, anxiety and bipolar disorder were avoided. People who were suffering faced stigma, isolation and a lack of support. In 1996, at a time when services were underdeveloped and public understanding was limited, a small group gathered in a living room in Derry with a shared determination to help and support people living with mental illness. From that conversation grew an organisation built on a simple but powerful purpose: no one should have to face mental ill health alone. From humble beginnings, Aware was established as a charity grounded in lived experience, peer support and hope. Over the past three decades, Aware has grown to host 24 weekly volunteer-led support groups, alongside education and early intervention programmes that now reach thousands of people every year.

It is impossible to mark this anniversary without paying tribute to the volunteers who are at the heart of Aware. Individuals give their time in the evenings and at weekends and listen without judgement. They create safe spaces for people at some of the most difficult moments in their lives. Many bring their lived experience. The fuel for their fire is often the personal challenges that they have overcome that enable them to be compassionate, empathetic and supportive and to be bringers of light for others. I also acknowledge the staff, trustees, supporters and partners who have ensured that Aware has continued to grow and respond to changing needs, particularly in recent years when demand for mental health support has increased significantly. Their work has helped to ensure that mental health remains not just a health issue but a societal priority.

While progress has been made, challenges remain in ensuring timely access to services and in continuing to break down the stigma. Organisations such as Aware are essential partners in that journey, strengthening communities through prevention, education and support and providing a lifeline and a lighted path in a safe and welcoming non-clinical environment. Today, I place on record my sincere thanks and those of my party, and, I am sure, of every Member in the House, to everyone who has contributed to Aware's journey: its volunteers, its staff and all those who have had the courage to seek —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Time is up.

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

— help and, in doing so, have helped others to do the same.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

How many times have we heard the phrase, "The magic of the cup" about football over the years? That certainly was true at Coleraine Showgrounds on Friday evening when Limavady United defeated the current premiership champions, Linfield Football Club, 1-0 to progress to the quarter-finals of the Irish Cup.

I have watched Limavady play on several occasions in the Playr-Fit Championship this season. Going into the game, I had a quiet confidence that they would give Linfield a serious contest, and that they did. I watched Limavady do similar last year when they knocked out the league champions, Larne, in the fifth round, winning again by a single goal. Linfield have won the Irish Cup a record 44 times, whereas Limavady never have, which makes this one all the more stunning. I offer congratulations from the House to the Limavady team, manager and backroom team and to the Limavady board, who have invested really well in recent seasons. It sets the team up against their neighbours Coleraine, which is only 13 miles away, in what will be a mouth-watering game that will draw a large crowd from both towns.

I am what they call a cross-breed. I have a Limavady-born father and a Coleraine-born mum. I was schooled in Limavady but lived in Coleraine for decades. I have a Coleraine-born wife, but I have an office in Limavady. My late grandfather took me to my first Coleraine match as a boy. I have a great affinity with both towns. I could go on and on. Given my ties to both towns and the fact that I watch both teams and want to see them do well, I find myself saying this: may the best team on the night win.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

Today is Safer Internet Day. The risk that children and young people face online is something that I think about every day. The latest research from CyberSafeKids in the Republic of Ireland shows how children are navigating digital platforms with limited safeguards, limited parental oversight and limited privacy protections. Those findings sit within a wider societal reality. The one thing that I keep thinking is that, every day, there is more news about the Epstein files and more discussion of the abuse and the salaciousness around it. It is really awful, dark content. It is such a reminder that, when power goes unchecked and children are not protected, the darkest side of humanity really flourishes.

History has taught us time and time again that abuse is enabled by silence, by environments where those with influence go unchecked and by deference. I worry that, while it is good that we are having these conversations and things are coming out more into the open about child abuse that has been happening, what is happening online is being monetised, and that is increasing. There are certain things that we can do; my party leader is doing what she can on deepfakes, and I plan to bring forward an amendment to the Justice Bill to ban nudification apps. However, there is so much more that we have to do as a society, and that means empowering families and having difficult conversations about the reality of power and the reality of child abuse that exists. We need to strengthen digital literacy and promote existing tools to keep children safe.

There are two things that I want to highlight today, which I previously was not aware of. The first is a really important tool that every parent, teacher, youth worker and politician needs to know about. Childline and the Internet Watch Foundation have created the Report Remove tool, which allows any child or young person to request the secure removal of an online image of themselves that they are worried about or did not consent to. That is a really practical and accessible safeguard that every parent, teacher and youth worker should be aware of.

Secondly, I am conscious that, while we talk about historical clerical abuse and look at what is happening now, many people who were perhaps abused as children are living in silence now. I want to say to them that there is a victims-led charity called the National Association for People Abused in Childhood. So much of the issue is about the silence that people live with, and them then coming forward to talk about what they experienced but not being treated in the way that they should be. There is a charity there to help those people.

Safer Internet Day is more than just a reminder about screens and apps; it is a reminder of our collective duty to challenge the systems that are in place —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Time is up.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

— for children who are at risk.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Today, I want to recognise and welcome the establishment of the Controlled Schools Unit within the Education Authority (EA). At its heart, that is about equality for our controlled schools, and we should be honest about that. Controlled schools educate almost half of all pupils in Northern Ireland and comprise the largest sector in our system; yet, for years, they have been the least-coherently supported. I do not make that claim lightly, but it is the clear finding of the independent review of education and reflects the lived experience of many of our controlled-school leaders.

The review could not have been clearer. The current system is failing our controlled schools and the Education Authority, which is spread across every sector, has been unable to give them the focused and consistent support that they need. That is a criticism not of EA staff but of the structure that asks one body to be everything to everyone but succeeds for some sectors better than others. The new unit is a direct response to that inequality. It is a modest but practical proposal for a dedicated unit within the EA to provide tailored support, clear accountability and strategic focus for our controlled schools. There will be no more being an afterthought, and no more being treated as the default sector that can simply be asked to make do.

I struggle to understand the opposition to the policy. Critics on the Sinn Féin and Alliance Benches hide behind the review's aspiration for a single managing authority, but they know that that is making the perfect the certain enemy of the good. They know that the chances of that in the short to medium term are slim to none, yet they are happy that the controlled system will live with inequality in the meantime. Let us be frank: were any other sector in that position — were Catholic maintained, Irish-medium or integrated schools shown by independent evidence to be systematically under-supported — the Assembly would not hesitate to act. No one would tell them to wait nor would anyone suggest that equality could be deferred for the sake of administrative neatness. Yet, when it comes to controlled schools, some suddenly argue that targeted support is unnecessary, inconvenient or even unfair. That position is not neutral, nor is it technical; it is a choice to tolerate inequality in the largest sector in our education system in a way that would not be tolerated if it were elsewhere.

The Controlled Schools Unit does not take support away from anyone, nor does it undermine collaboration. It simply recognises the reality that equity sometimes requires different structures, not identical ones. The Minister's approach is staged and sensible. It offers immediate improvement through the unit, while preparing the ground for a future managing authority. It puts children and school leaders first, rather than asking them to wait years for perfection.

Opposing the proposal is not about protecting the system; it is about defending a status quo that has already been judged to be failing our controlled schools. If we are serious about fairness, consistency and equal respect across our education system, we cannot ask controlled schools to accept a level of support that no other sector would be asked to accept.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

In answer to my question yesterday, the Health Minister confirmed that he would not legislate in this mandate to provide a statutory basis for the support provided to our young people with SEN and disabilities when they leave school. His answer was direct and honest but came as hugely disappointing news to parents across Northern Ireland desperately hoping for change in this mandate. Campaigners such as Alma White, who has spearheaded the Caleb's Cause campaign since the institutions returned and has done so much to raise awareness of the cliff edge facing our young people with additional needs when they leave school, will be understandably devastated by the news yesterday. I know that their campaign will continue and that Alma and parents like her will keep fighting for legislation to ensure that our young people continue to receive services and support that meet their needs when they leave school, but I urge the Health Minister to look again at what can be done in this mandate.

We all know the challenges in the Minister's Department. They are well understood and should not be minimised. However, work needs to be done to address the issue now. We should not forget that it is a Programme for Government commitment. It states:

"The Department of Education (DE) will work with the Department for the Economy (DfE), the Department of Health (DoH) and others, including the voluntary and community sector, to improve pathways to appropriate opportunities and"

— crucially —

"improve protections for young people with Special Educational Needs when they leave school."

The work done so far to deliver that has not been enough. It has tinkered, and it has largely been warm words, not tangible action. I have asked many questions to the First Minister and deputy First Minister to establish what they are doing to ensure that there is focus and commitment in all the relevant Departments to deliver on that promise to improve protections for young people with SEN when they leave school. So far, I can identify no clear ambition on their part to take hold of the issue and ensure that the coordination needed across Departments happens. We need to see leadership from them on the issue.

Our young people need a plan. Time was against us on so many issues due to the irresponsible collapse of our institutions that lost us two years of the mandate, two years when the big issues in Northern Ireland were left with no interventions. In the time that we have left, all steps necessary must be taken. Can there not even be a commitment for the legislation to at least be drafted, ready to land on the desk of the next Health Minister? To simply kick it into the next mandate with no work delivered now would be to profoundly let parents down and let down young people who have campaigned so hard for change. We must not let that happen.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Now that the nationalist and republican alliance sanction to exclude me from the Chamber has been served, I take the opportunity to put on record a number of things about breathegate. First, I want the House to know that, when the First Minister of no alternative appeared before the Executive Office Committee last Wednesday, I again covered a number of the same questions that the Chairperson and her mates in Sinn Féin and the SDLP took great exception to and silenced me on these Benches for. To be crystal clear, it was never out of scope to ask questions at the Executive Office Committee on behalf of victims about the sexual abuse that they suffered at the hands of IRA men. For as long as Sinn Féin jointly heads that Department, it will never be out of scope of the Committee whose flagship is ending violence against women and girls. Scrutiny does not suddenly become misconduct simply because it makes a few in the Chamber feel uncomfortable.

Secondly, I turn to the public reaction to last Monday's vote. On 12 June last year, I wrote to the Committee on Standards and Privileges stating:

"Should the committee agree with the report and publish the same I look forward to being vindicated by the only body which really matters - public opinion."

Looking at the response online and in print, any objective observer must recognise that those words have proved to be prophetic. The supporting emails, the many messages, the phone calls and well over 1,000 new followers on Facebook in the past seven days show me whom the public support on the issue.

More concerning is that the truth of what lies behind the continuing refusal to release the contemporaneous note has not yet fully emerged. A step towards that truth would be the publication of the note taken during the private meeting between the First Minister and the Committee Chair — a meeting of which the Executive Office Committee has no independent record; a meeting of which the only minute was produced by the First Minister's office; and a meeting the note of which remains withheld from the public to this day. I welcome the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party has now called for the note to be published. I ask this simple question: will the Alliance Party and the SDLP follow? If Members have confidence in the standards process and in the vote that was taken last week —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— transparency should not frighten them.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I rise with regrets to lament the loss of McKillens department store on Church Street, Ballymena, straight after the loss of Wyse Byse, another family-run business in the heart of the town. These are serious times. I feel shock but also gratitude to the McKillen family for serving the people not only of the town of Ballymena but of the wider County Antrim hinterland for so long. I am grateful to the staff, some of whom have worked in McKillens all their working life. It will be such a blow to that family-run business that those loyal staff members will now lose their jobs in the heart of a town that they love so much.

The Assembly and, more so, the Executive need to take a good look at the cost of doing business, especially in the retail world. I warned, back in 2020-21, about the damage that lockdown philosophy would do to businesses and employment. Alas, that has now come true. Lockdown philosophy caused inflation. It caused prices and the cost of stock to go up; it meant that people shopped more online because they could not get out to the shops; and people were paid 80% of their wages for doing nothing and staying at home. There is a price to pay for that, and, unfortunately, the Ballymena folk, the McKillens store and Wyse Byse, along with all the staff who will now have to look for other employment, have had to pay it.

Opposition Business

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes that the recent investigation report by the Assembly Commissioner for Standards found that the Minister for Communities breached the ministerial code of conduct; acknowledges that that is the second occasion on which the Minister has been found to be in breach of the ministerial code; believes that, as a result of that repeated failure to uphold the standards expected of public office holders, the Minister no longer commands the confidence of the Assembly; agrees that his refusal to accept responsibility for his actions represents a wider crisis of accountability in the Executive and a deeper cultural problem in our politics; recognises that the current arrangements for ministerial accountability, standards enforcement and institutional safeguards are inadequate and in need of reform; endorses a programme of institutional reform, co-facilitated by the UK and Irish Governments, to strengthen stability, improve accountability and restore public confidence in the institutions; and further agrees that the Assembly will write to the UK Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Tánaiste outlining that position.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

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

Please open the debate on the motion.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We are just over two years on from the restoration of the institutions, and it is fair to say that the public have not been overwhelmed by the performance of our restored Executive. It is also true that part of that lack of trust comes from a sense that people who take office here, particularly those in ministerial office, feel that they are immune to or insulated from accountability. However, in those two years, there has been a step change: an improvement in accountability through the establishment of an official Opposition. We have consistently used our time constructively but robustly to put Ministers on notice that accountability starts here. I see that the Minister for Communities is already laughing, which is an indication of how seriously he — a man found twice in breach of the ministerial code — takes the matter that is before the Assembly today.

As part of the opposition role, we have consistently put Ministers on notice that we will hold them to account, but we will also try to effect a broader improvement in our political culture and in trust in politics in Northern Ireland. Revelations in recent weeks, far beyond Northern Ireland, have illustrated that there is broad crisis in trust in politics here and around the democratic world. Nearly everywhere, trust in politics and politicians is at a dangerous low. Some, perhaps much, of that derives from misinformation and outright disinformation stirred up online on social media by malign and ill-intentioned actors at home and abroad with the connivance of social media platforms that have no interest in defending healthy democracy and democratic structures. Some of the crisis is legitimately borne of deep and widespread frustration with growing inequality, with wages simply not delivering a decent life for so many in our society and with a political system that has not or will not respond to that frustration.

There is also a real sense that too many politicians give the impression that they believe themselves to be above accountability. We in Northern Ireland often act as if our specific history and specific institutions mean that we are insulated from broader changes in democratic attitudes, as if our divided society and communal voting patterns rendered objective accountability and standards processes trivial and secondary. That has certainly been the DUP's response in recent years. Elections are, of course, the ultimate form of accountability, but we are also — at least ,we should be — accountable between elections. That is particularly the case for Ministers, who have legal powers to spend public money and instruct public servants. That is why the contentious attitude of Minister Gordon Lyons to two separate findings of standards breaches — breaches of the ministerial code — is so disappointing and extraordinary. It comes after the contemptuous response of his party colleague Paul Givan to a vote of no confidence that was brought to the Chamber under the relevant section of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 following his indefensible use of official departmental resources in his visit to the occupied territories.

It is no exaggeration to say that those matters have been among a handful of top issues on which my constituents have corresponded with me in my time in politics. Those two separate breaches and the public outrage not just at the initial actions but at the failure of those Ministers even to express any self-awareness, let alone contrition, have, as I said, been among the most intense and overwhelming things that my constituents have communicated with me about — outraged.

In June last year, at a time when migrants and vulnerable groups feared for their lives, Minister Lyons posted a notorious Facebook message in which he confirmed — this is important: I acknowledge that he confirmed it, as he will, no doubt, say in response, as he has before, that it had been revealed elsewhere — that migrants had been moved to Larne Leisure Centre, which, at that point, was a site of growing protest. I repeat: that was at a time when migrant communities just up the road in Ballymena had been experiencing something approaching a pogrom. The standards commissioner felt that Minister Lyons, who was not only the MLA for East Antrim but the serving housing Minister, had likely:

"heightened tensions and contributed to further unrest".

A plain reading of the post suggests that the Minister's priority was not to strongly urge protesters to stay away from Larne Leisure Centre but to distance himself and his party from knowledge of the location of the vulnerable people who had been rehoused. There was not one word of empathy or concern for the well-being of those families, who had reason to fear for their safety and perhaps even their lives.

It is no surprise, then, that the standards commissioner found that the Minister had breached two different rules under the ministerial code. We know what Minister Lyon's response has been. Broadly speaking, it is fair to say that he has shown contempt towards the findings and has been dismissive of accountability, which is not entirely unlike his attitude in 2024, when he was found to have breached the code in relation to non-attendance at North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meetings. Of course, on that occasion, as with the vote of no confidence in Minister Givan before Christmas, his party colleagues were able to nullify any accountability because the current rules give the DUP and, indeed, Sinn Féin an effective veto over votes of no confidence and censure motions of any kind. That is unlike the situation faced by Mr Gaston, who has been treated somewhat differently. I assume that he will be outraged by the difference between his treatment under the rules and that of Ministers, because no sanction can be effected for a serving DUP Minister.

It is worth saying that, in a healthy political culture, repeated breaches of the ministerial code would engage a sense of honour or shame. Sadly, not only has the Minister not resigned but he has not seen fit to apologise or offer even one word of reflection or learning. I genuinely think that lots of people would have viewed the Minister's reaction and his position differently had he, at least, acknowledged that things could have been done differently or that his words could have been used more appropriately. It is that failure to even acknowledge why others might have had difficulty with his post that has infuriated so many. This is the same Minister who yesterday called other people "petty" for refusing to indulge the criminal, authoritarian President Donald Trump. It is no wonder that people from all political backgrounds frequently say to me, "You could not redden their necks".

Today we are doing more than simply tabling a vote of no confidence under the Northern Ireland Act, because we know that the DUP would be able to nullify that; we are giving the Assembly an opportunity to register its condemnation of Minister Lyons's breach, vote no confidence in him as a result of that and take positive action. I can almost predict how Minister Lyons will respond, though I will keep my fingers crossed. I want the Assembly to take positive action, because it is clear that our standards system is not fit for purpose and needs to be improved. I assume that Mr Gaston, who, just a few moments ago, was lambasting the standards system, agrees with that point.

The outgoing standards commissioner outlined a range of ways by which the standards system could be improved, but the motion is part of a broader effort to reform our politics, because one thing is clear to every Member in the Chamber: the public have had enough of the way that we do business. We cannot go on like this, with the Executive collapsing at the drop of a hat; Ministers who feel immune to any kind of accountability; public services that are getting worse, not better; and an approach to government that simply treats the public with contempt when they ask for clear targets and delivery in a Programme for Government. We cannot go on like this.

We ask the Assembly to collectively endorse not just an improvement in the standards processes — we have specific proposals on that, including changing the threshold for a veto when it comes to censure — but a broader programme of reform that makes it harder to collapse the institutions, ensures that we do not have a vacuum in governance in this place and that neither the DUP nor Sinn Féin can take advantage of that and, more broadly, improves the culture. It is about saying to the British and Irish Governments, "We know that we cannot go on like this, and we want to work with you to improve and change it". We think that that is doable and essential.

A final word — we hear laughs across the Chamber from Mr Burrows, who has talked a lot in recent weeks about improving accountability. If the Ulster Unionist Party is serious about improving accountability, there is no reason at all that it cannot vote for the motion.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will not, because I do not have time. I will respond to the Member later in the debate. I will be happy to give way later on.

The Member has talked a lot in broadcast outlets across Northern Ireland about the need to improve accountability: I agree with him. That starts now. Let us vote for the motion.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the proposer of the motion. We support it. I am sure that we all remember the disgraceful hate-filled violence that erupted in towns and villages across the North last year. Shamefully, in Ballymena, a number of homes were attacked, and families were forced to flee the area, eventually finding shelter and safety in Larne Leisure Centre. The next day, Minister Lyons posted on Facebook, complaining that neither he nor any of his East Antrim DUP colleagues had been consulted about the decision to bring those families to the leisure centre the night before. The Commissioner for Standards ruled that Minister Lyons breached the code in two separate ways with his poorly judged Facebook post: first, by failing to demonstrate leadership in a sensitive and volatile situation, and, secondly, by failing to operate in a way that was conducive to promoting good community relations and equality of treatment.

At no point in his post did the Minister show any compassion or empathy for the victims of that hateful violence, nor did he use his platform to encourage the protesters to stay at home. The commissioner's report states that Minister Lyons's message:

"included no expression of empathy for those who had been harmed or forced to flee their homes. This was an omission that, whether intentional or not, carries real weight. Ministers are expected to lead with compassion, particularly in times of crisis. Demonstrating empathy is not a courtesy; it is a fundamental part of responsible leadership. In moments of distress, the public looks to those in authority for reassurance and humanity."

As a Minister, his words carry significant weight. At a time when there was a need for clear political leadership, the Minister failed to show it.

In addition to failing to show empathy, the Minister appeared to criticise the decision by the Housing Executive to use the leisure centre in an attempt to distance himself from the decision and, seemingly, to deflect any anger from protesters away from him and his party. The commissioner's report states:

"By speaking as a Minister, a local MLA, and a party representative all at once, the post blurred the line between public duty and party politics. This can make public statements appear politically motivated rather than focused on community welfare ... Minister Lyons’ blending of personal, political, and official roles raises questions about the integrity of his actions."

The Minister put his party political interests ahead of the public interest and of what was expected of him as a Minister.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I will not.

To add insult to injury, the Minister has failed to show any regret or remorse for his actions; instead, he has attempted to deflect and evade responsibility by seeking to undermine the integrity of the office of the Commissioner for Standards and by painting himself as a victim of a political pile on. In the aftermath of the Minister's post relating to Larne Leisure Centre's being used as a temporary refuge for those fleeing their homes last year, the Communities Committee passed a vote of no confidence in Minister Lyons. That position has been fully vindicated.

As I have said, we support the motion. We fully support institutional reform as we try to make our unusual political structures work better.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes. Go ahead.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Does the Member agree that the economic consequences of Brexit and the underfunding of our public services are the major difficulties facing the Assembly and Executive? Does he also agree that, although institutional reform is necessary, constitutional reform and the ending of partition are absolutely essential if we want to effectively address the fundamental financial, political and constitutional issues that these institutions face?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I am not sure what that intervention had to do with the debate, but it is done now.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I fully agree with my party colleague: that is the fundamental reform that is needed.

To be clear, the commissioner's findings are only the latest in a long line of poor decisions and failures by the Communities Minister. To date, he has failed to develop an anti-poverty strategy; failed to deliver important social inclusion strategies, including gender and LGBTQ strategies; and failed to introduce an Irish language strategy. As with those who were forced from their homes in Ballymena and sought refuge in Larne leisure centre, it seems that, in the eyes of the Minister, those often marginalised people are invisible. However, make no mistake: the public saw what Minister Lyons was doing with his social media post, and they see what he continues to do by ignoring the needs of so many often vulnerable sections of our community in the North.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I rise to oppose the motion and to place on record my support for the Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons.

Let me begin with something on which there should be agreement across the House: the scenes at Larne Leisure Centre on the night in question were unacceptable. Racism, intimidation and violence against anyone have no place in our society, and the Minister has been clear and consistent in condemning that behaviour from the outset. However, the motion is not about addressing racism: it is about political opportunism. At a time when people across Northern Ireland struggle to access healthcare, waiting lists continue to grow and public services are under real strain, the official Opposition have chosen to use valuable Assembly time on a motion that they know will go nowhere. They know that it will not remove a Minister or improve a single public service. Therefore, this question must be asked: why bring it forward at all? The answer, we know, is that they do so because it is easier to attack than to deliver.

The finding against the Minister relates not to corruption, misuse of office or dishonesty but to an alleged failure to demonstrate a sufficient level of empathy in a social media post. That alone should concern Members across the Chamber. Serious questions remain about the commissioner's report, in particular the failure to properly consider whether the Minister was acting in his ministerial capacity at all. It was a constituency matter. Had that been correctly assessed, the complaint would never have been deemed admissible. The report also makes claims that the post may have heightened tensions, yet it provides no evidence to support that assertion; no investigation and no factual assessment, just conjecture. If elected representatives can be sanctioned on the basis of subjective interpretation rather than evidence, we risk creating a chilling effect on legitimate political speech and constituency representation.

What makes the motion even more difficult to take seriously is the absolute hypocrisy around it. Some of those who have been loudest in lecturing the House about empathy have attended the funerals of convicted terrorists —

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

— or defended decades of violence by saying that there was no alternative. The hypocrisy in the Chamber is stark, but the public can see the double standards that are at play.

A Member

Will the Member take an intervention?

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I will not, thank you.

The latter part of the motion is equally troubling. It calls for so-called institutional reform involving the Irish Government. Let me be clear: reform of these institutions is the responsibility of this Northern Ireland Assembly, not external actors. The appropriate forum for such a discussion already exists through the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. Constantly running down these institutions does not "restore public confidence"; it undermines it.

The motion is disproportionate, politically motivated and, ultimately, damaging to the credibility of the House. For those reasons, I oppose it.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

I had a speech ready about the lack of ability for us to hold Ministers to account, but I received a text asking me to humanise the crux of the issue as it was for those who were involved in the events in Ballymena.

I have heard the terms "political opportunism", "political point-scoring" and "politically motivated" being mentioned in the Chamber already. I can honestly, hand on heart, say that there is not one bit of me that is politically motivated when I talk about this, because, on the night of the Ballymena riots, I talked on the phone to people who were terrified. I received videos of children in attics and a text message that said, "If they set fire to this house, Sian, the people in the attic will die". That is the reality of what we faced on the Monday and Tuesday night. That is not politically motivated for me. I think — I hope — that most people in the Chamber know that there is nothing in what we did and in what we tried to do at that time that was politically motivated.

At the heart of this were five women, four men and six children aged between one and 14. Those children, once we were able to get them out of their house, were vomiting on the floor of the police station at 2.00 am. A meeting was then set up to try to take them to wherever they would be safe. Ballymena leisure centre was ruled out as it was too close, so Mid and East Antrim Borough Council went to its nearest council provision, and that is where they were sent. At 4.00 am, that is where they were given shelter, with police offering the children yoghurts from their own lunchboxes to try to settle them. That was the reality and the human element of the situation.

When I support the motion, for me, it is not about a Minister or a Department. It is about the politics of empathy and the politics of compassion. Regardless of the intent, I do not think that the intent of the Minister — I have talked to him about it — was to create any more tension. I hope that it was not. I really do. However, the lasting impact of what happened will be from how it was read and perceived by people. I use the words of a young Filipino man, whom I met on the Friday with the UK's ambassador to the Philippines:

"Does the Communities Minister not want us in our community? Because that is what it felt like".

Again, that is not political opportunism or me point-scoring: those are the words of someone who was deeply impacted by the events on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in Ballymena and Larne. They are still feeling the impacts. They are still frightened to walk down the street because of the colour of their skin or because of their perceived nature. That still goes on. That is still reverberating through the town. Those people are genuinely frightened that it will happen all over again and that all it will take is a match to relight it. That is where the fear was on the Wednesday when that post went out. The Minister said, "I was not consulted". I asked at the time whether, had the Minister been consulted, there would have been a different response. That question was not answered.

When accountability fails again and again, it exposes the current shape of our institutions. Yes, they were set up at a time when we were greatly divided. The overriding priority, post Good Friday Agreement, was managing division, but I hope that we have moved on as a society and as a Chamber. However, all too often in this place, compassion is misread for weakness or niceness or not being strong enough. People are told to get a thicker skin. Do you know what? There are plenty of us who do not want to have to have a thicker skin to be in politics. People out there want the politics of empathy. They want to see their representatives in this Chamber representing their best interests. They want to see that people care, but so often in this place empathy is sacrificed for sound bites and playing to the crowd. That has to stop because it does not serve anybody.

Ultimately, the debate is about whether our standards framework has practical authority or symbolic value alone. For me, a system that identifies failures but cannot respond to them is not fair or consistent, and it does not provide and protect integrity. All it does is expose its own vulnerability. Supporting the motion is not about political point-scoring and it is not about punishment: it is about reaffirming the fact that we need a politics of empathy that is clear, compassionate and unequivocal in coming out straight away and standing with those who are most impacted.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

This motion is wasteful self-indulgence on the part of the Opposition and reeks of double standards by those who support it. It also makes a case for some cultural reforms, but not the sorts that are being envisaged, nor for the same motive, as Mr O'Toole pointed out.

Of course, it is wasteful when we have so many things to deal with in Northern Ireland. The standards commissioner costs £600 a day. That is why I would not complain about being told to "shut up" on the radio. Frankly, I would rather that £600 a day be spent on fixing potholes than on litigating words that have been said. It is wasteful because of the pressing issues that we have in Northern Ireland. The issues that my colleague has in Health and those that exist in Justice, Infrastructure and across the board are huge, and we are spending more time debating motions like this one. If we are not dealing with non-binding motions, it seems that we are dealing with litigating and arbitrating over words or posts. People in the real world will be wondering what on earth we are doing.

I will come to the conduct of Mr Lyons in a moment, but the motion reeks of double standards. Matthew O'Toole stood up and talked about accountability. In 2024, one of the senior members of the SDLP wilfully and knowingly took part in an illegal parade through the middle of Londonderry. The SDLP took no disciplinary action. That was a breach of criminal law that was sent to court. He has now accepted effectively a caution. No action was taken. I see that Mr O'Toole does not want to look me in the eye, and I am not surprised.

As we talk about standards and breaking the law, we turn to the Alliance Party. In 2018, an Alliance councillor was caught drink-driving. The party rewarded Mr Patrick Brown with promotion to the position of MLA.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

He was suspended.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Yes, but since. He was a councillor then, and he was an MLA later.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I come to Sinn Féin. We have seen Mr Sheehan's conduct. Sinn Féin is the party that took part in Bobby Storey's funeral and still says that it was OK to murder people in the past but wants to litigate a post. One of my colleagues said that the post was clumsy. Could it have been drafted better? Did it leave some people wondering, 'What is the meaning of that?". That is for learning after the incident. No one is seriously suggesting that the Minister wilfully tried to whip up tension; it was about looking at something that happened in the heat of the moment in a difficult situation and asking, "Can we collectively learn from how we communicate during a very difficult situation?". That was the reasonable and proportionate thing to do.

When I read the Assembly Commissioner for Standards' reports, I am deeply concerned. I used to give expert evidence on reports, one of which proved that Sinn Féin had politically directed the former Chief Constable, who lost his job as a result. However, there are significant things about this report. First, conduct and misconduct reports are supposed to look at wilful and dishonest behaviour, not innocent errors — if you call it an error.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

No, I will not give way.

The issue is that the report polices omissions, which is difficult. Yes, we should be empathetic, but should every post be interpreted on the basis that you should follow factual information with empathy? If I posted tonight, "A road in my constituency is closed because of a fatal road traffic collision", could I be policed for not also saying, "and I have empathy with the family affected"? We are going down a dangerous road. There is confirmation bias throughout the Commissioner's report. She makes the classic error of saying, "X was said, and my interpretation of X is the following" without giving objective supporting evidence. For example, when the Minister said that he was not consulted about the decision, she says that that is a criticism of not being consulted and that the party would not have gone along with the decision that was made. There is no evidence for that.

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

Will the Member give way?

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

No, I will not give way.

We have a situation in which the standards commissioner, who has been subject to at least two pieces of legal advice since, litigated a Facebook post that was sent at the request of the police. We come back to the issue of whether the post could have been drafted better and been more precise and whether there is any learning. I am sure that there is learning. However, here is the reality: those who tabled the motion have done a lot worse.

I note that the Alliance Party now supports reform of this place with a role for the Irish Government. That was a strand one issue even during the 1998 negotiations. The Alliance Party is now going down the line of saying that it is a strand two issue, which reveals where its politics have drifted to.

There are many things for us to do in this place, and driving up standards is one of them, but this is wasteful, self-indulgent and unnecessary.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I oppose the motion, because it is absolutely nothing but political posturing. This has been a hypocritical debate. Like Sian Mulholland, I was on the ground in that period, along with other elected representatives from most parties. We saw the damage that was being done. We witnessed the violence and the pain, the hurt and the suffering of the victims as they fled their homes, with many of them concerned for their safety and lives. I know what it was like in that pressurised period. Most of the elected representatives who were on the ground got little sleep. Gordon Lyons would also have known that. The PSNI contacted his constituency office and told one of his staff members that it was really concerned about intelligence about a riot, a protest and violence at Larne Leisure Centre. I would have expected Gordon Lyons to sit up and take notice of that and to try to do all that he could to prevent damage to life, limb and the built form. That is exactly what Gordon Lyons did that day when, two hours later, he put out a factual post to say that the people who had been sheltering there the night before were no longer there, so there would be no need to have a protest at the focal point — the leisure centre — which was being occupied by people from Larne and other areas who were utilising the facilities that Larne has to offer. What is wrong with that?

Gordon Lyons was acting as MLA for East Antrim and even stated that in his post. The first issue that we need to deal with is why the commissioner decided to investigate him under the ministerial code. There are two fundamental questions. When is a Minister acting in his professional capacity as a Minister with regard to his ministerial office and duties? And when is he acting as an MLA in his constituency office, helping his constituents, working for the people of East Antrim, working to provide facilities to keep people safe, working with the local police commander —?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes, I will.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Does the Member accept that it is also a gross hypocrisy that the same commissioner ruled that the Sinn Féin ministerial team that attended Bobby Storey's funeral did so in its capacity as MLAs, not as Ministers?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member has an extra minute.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member makes a valid point. That means that the commissioner has been inconsistent on those issues. That is why we need reform of the standards process. We also need to ensure that Ministers are afforded the same protection as MLAs and are adjudicated on by a panel of their peers, as every MLA can be. Not having that is a loss. It is a slight that we need to rectify. We have a commissioner — one person, no matter who they are — who produces a deeply flawed report, and the only other place it can be aired is the Chamber, which is a political arena. That is wrong and unfair and is not natural justice.

We hear from people who line up hypocritically to take a dig at Gordon Lyons for doing what the police asked him to do: to try to calm people down and to put out factual information about there being nobody sheltering in that facility. Here we have a commissioner who believed Michelle O'Neill when she said that she did not see the sex offender in the Great Hall but did not believe Gordon Lyons. Gerry Carroll was investigated as an MLA. As an MLA, he stated, "Victory to the Palestinian resistance", with two clenched fists. When did he do that? On the day of the Hamas attacks. The commissioner believed Gerry Carroll when he said, "Oh, I just woke up; I was rubbing my eyes". In 2021,the SDLP called for the sacking of nurses and healthcare workers in a complete breach of their human rights, yet nothing was done. The SDLP's former leader breached the law when he walked down a street illegally and has accepted a caution for that. Of course, the only Minister in this place who has been found guilty in a court of law for religious discrimination against a Protestant — or anyone, for that matter — is Conor Murphy of Sinn Féin. Listen to the hypocrisy, and people will know who in this place is wasting time —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

— when we should be fixing potholes, our health service and everything that goes with it.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

What we witnessed last June was a festival of wanton racist violence, with members of our ethnic minority communities subjected to a race-based pogrom on our streets. I take great exception to Members, including the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, who come to the Chamber and say, effectively, that it is a trivial matter and that there are more important things that we should be getting on with. Tell that to the families who were hiding in their attic, fearful of being killed. Tell that to the pregnant mother who had to be removed from her home in the middle of the night. Tell that to the children in my constituency who were going into school and telling their teachers that their mummy and daddy were fearful that they would be killed when they went to bed that night.

I am sick, sore and tired of Members traipsing into the Chamber and engaging in culture wars and scapegoating minorities for their failures. That includes the Communities Minister, who, in the run-up to that festival of violence, when asked a question by me about the housing crisis, blamed migrants, because he was so fearful of taking responsibility for the housing targets that he had missed and so fearful of taking responsibility for the rent controls and regulation that he had not introduced.

Our ethnic minority communities — all our minority communities — deserve better. When community tensions were at such a febrile level and at such fever pitch and when families were displaced from their homes, the Minister's response, as housing Minister, was not to put his arm round those families and to work to get them appropriate accommodation or to call on protesters not to attend protests that, we all knew, would inevitably turn violent — far from it, his response was to distance himself and his party from the decision to place those people in that accommodation. His response was to amplify the location of that temporary accommodation even though he knew the risks, and his response since has been nothing more than arrogance and contempt, blaming the standards commissioner, blaming the police and blaming the politicians who dared to call him to order or to question his motives. It is disgraceful and shameful.

If the public are to have any trust and confidence in these institutions, we must show that there is integrity in this Building. I have to say that I do not see much integrity around me in the Chamber. We see dizzying levels of hypocrisy and whataboutery and no culture of accountability, no humility and no preparedness to admit that you got it wrong. The people whom we represent deserve so much better than what goes on in this toytown Parliament. It is disgraceful.

There are solutions, and that is why we will support the motion. I believe in moving towards a culture of accountability and showing the public that, when there are breaches of the rules, there are consequences and Ministers will be held to account, rather than the circus of sectarian vetoes and mechanisms of the Assembly being used to protect party political interests and shield people from accountability.

It was said that the Minister's comment was made in the heat of the moment: the test of leadership is how you respond in the heat of the moment and when you are under pressure. The Minister has utterly failed that test. The standards process that we have at the moment is a race to the bottom. It is a lowest common denominator approach whereby Ministers are held only to the standards that their leader can muster. History tells us that the bar is pretty low for the DUP in that respect, so we will support the motion. I ask the Minister again to take the opportunity, even if he is not going to resign and even if he is going to treat with utter contempt Members of the Assembly who are holding him to account, to at least apologise to the families who were so heavily affected by his failure to stand up and show leadership. It is the least that those people deserve, Minister.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

Before I say anything more, I welcome the North Antrim representative back to his proper place.

Let me be absolutely clear: the motion is not just flawed; it is selective, and that selectivity matters. When it comes to standards in the House, some parties appear to be judged on what they did and others on how someone might feel about what they said. During COVID, Sinn Féin breaches were ignored and latitude was granted. Ministers attended large funerals, appeared at mass gatherings and participated in events that plainly breached public health regulations. Those are objective facts, yet, when those cases were examined, the commissioner focused on capacity and context. Party political settings were treated as non-ministerial, and Ministers were given latitude for uncertainty involving guidance and judgement calls. No one was found in breach because the public "might" have lost confidence, a photograph or video clip "could" have sent the wrong signal, or someone felt that the tone was inadequate.

Evidence mattered, but was glossed over.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

In Mr Lyons's case, evidence disappears, and perception takes over. Now, suddenly, the test has changed. Here, a DUP Minister issues a statement condemning violence and acknowledging lawful protest, and does so following contact from the PSNI. Instead of asking what rules were broken or what evidence proves harm, we are told that someone "could" reasonably conclude that tensions "may" have been heightened or there "may" have been a risk. That is not a standards regime; that is a woke vibes test.

There are different rules for different parties. Let us be honest about what the public see. Sinn Féin Ministers break COVID rules, explanations are accepted, mitigation is applied and there are no invented standards. A DUP Minister issues a lawful statement, hindsight is applied, empathy is graded and a breach is found. That is not consistency: it is imbalance. It gives the unavoidable impression that, when Sinn Féin Ministers act improperly, the bar is high, but, when a unionist Minister speaks imperfectly, the bar is suddenly very low. I ask the House this: when Sinn Féin Ministers attended events that breached COVID regulations, were they assessed on emotional tone? Were they disciplined for not expressing sufficient remorse or empathy? Were they judged on compassion rather than compliance? No, they were judged on rules and evidence. Now, we have a new elastic standard that applies only when convenient and a chilling effect. Let me be clear on one point: neither Minister Lyons nor any DUP Minister will take lectures on empathy from Sinn Féin, Alliance or the SDLP.

If the motion passes, the lesson to Ministers from all parties is simple: do not reassure the public, relay police requests or speak clearly in volatile situations. Silence becomes the safest option. Let us be honest: that silence benefits those who thrive in chaos and grievance politics. It is not good governance. The House cannot defend a standards system in which Sinn Féin Ministers receive latitude for actions while DUP Ministers are punished for interpretations, evidence is demanded in some cases but speculation will suffice in others and the rules appear to be tightened or loosened depending on who is in the dock, so to speak. It is not about defending one Minister; it is about defending fairness, consistency and credibility, because, if the standards system loses those, it loses the confidence of the public and rightly so.

At a time when people across Northern Ireland are waiting years for hospital treatment, struggling to see a GP and driving on roads that are falling apart, the Opposition have chosen to use their limited time in the Chamber on yet another political stunt. The SDLP knows that the motion will reform nothing, so the only plausible explanation is that it is about headlines and press releases, not about helping people. Once again, a DUP Minister is criticised not for breaking a rule or causing harm but for how a post might have been interpreted, even though the commissioner found no evidence linking it to violence. The double standard will be obvious to the public. Sinn Féin, Alliance and the SDLP are using the motion to distract from their failures in health, infrastructure, justice and economic confidence. While they shout from the sidelines, DUP Ministers are getting on with business and the job of delivering for the people whom we represent. The people of Northern Ireland do not want theatre; they want leadership, stability and delivery. That is what DUP Ministers are focused on.

This is a nonsense debate on a nonsense report, designed to attack a Minister because he aided the PSNI by making a public statement on social media —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up, Maurice.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

— as a constituency MLA.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up. Thank you.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

The scope of the SDLP motion is astonishing and, indeed, absurd. It is no surprise that the leader of the SDLP Opposition wants to criticise the DUP Minister for Communities, seeing as he put out a public press release when he referred the Minister to the Commissioner for Standards, whereas making any such complaint is meant to be a confidential process akin to a workplace complaint. Perhaps something will come from that.

The motion travels from a complaint about a Minister to calling for an entire renegotiation of our political arrangements, co-facilitated by the British and Irish Governments. That is quite a leap of logic —

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I will give way shortly. Let me finish the sentence.

That is quite a leap of logic, and it would be a fundamental violation of previous agreements. We have heard further political deviations from Sinn Féin during the debate, making it clear that it is an entirely political matter. Somehow, I cannot see the Secretary of State or his Irish equivalent rushing to the SDLP cry that our institutions are in crisis.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. He rightly states that the motion has consequences and actions, one of which is that the Assembly should write to the UK Secretary of State and the Irish Republic Government. Should it be reflected in that letter that the House was divided when it voted on the motion?

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I agree that, if there is to be action from the outcome, it should reflect the reality of the divided wishes of the Assembly and that it is not unanimous in the outcome.

The complaints raised with the Commissioner for Standards against Gordon Lyons last summer were treated by the commissioner as potential breaches of the ministerial code of conduct. We see no reason why they should have been dealt with under the ministerial code. The relevance of that is that the Committee for Standards and Privileges, of which my colleague Paul Frew and I are members, has no role in considering the commissioner's reports on breaches of the ministerial code. The report is just published without comment from the Committee. If it had been treated as a complaint of a breach of the MLA code of conduct, we would have deliberated on the report at the Committee. However, given that the Committee has no further role in the matter, I wish to make it clear that we disagree with the former commissioner's findings in her report.

At a time of widespread disorder, raised tension and violence on the streets, Gordon Lyons responded to a PSNI request to clarify that evacuated families were no longer in Larne Leisure Centre by making that factual point in his social media post. It is disgraceful that some people engaged in an arson attack on the leisure centre. They should be brought to justice for their thuggish behaviour, and I hope that that will happen. Clearly, information on the leisure centre's having been used as an evacuation centre was already circulating, otherwise the police would not have made their request to elected representatives. Therefore, there is no justification for linking Gordon's factual post to the attack that occurred. That is entirely conjecture and would not stand up in a court of law. Indeed, in his post, Gordon stated:

"Protesting is of course a legitimate right but violence is not and I would encourage everyone to remain peaceful."

To be clear, we consider the scale of complaints against Gordon to amount to a politically motivated pile-on, and we reject the conclusion of the former commissioner that his conduct in the matter was a breach of any code of conduct. Needless to say, we will vote against the motion.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Last June was a particularly difficult time for many people across Northern Ireland. There was never any justification for harm to any individual; I want to make that clear from these Benches. There was no justified or warranted attack on anybody who lives in Northern Ireland.

My thoughts and concerns at that time and those of the vast majority of people were with the young girl who had just been subject to a most brutal attack. Across the country, there is huge concern about the wave of uncontrolled and illegal immigration and the impact that it has had on the people in our society.

A Member

[Inaudible.]

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I hear gnashing of teeth from the Alliance Party, but that is a statement of fact. People such as those in the Alliance Party who have continued to bury their head in the sand on the issue have given rise to a sinister and nasty element that must be called out. Like the Member for North Antrim, I was on the ground during those days, trying to bring peace, calm and stability to my community in difficult times, as was the Minister for Communities. Some of the political opportunism that has gone on in the Chamber today is nothing short of disgraceful.

It is clear that you want to accept the commissioner's ruling when it suits your political school of thought, but you do not want to be consistent in ensuring that we, as elected representatives, can do our best to make sure that our citizens are protected, catered for and have a voice. When they do not have a voice, when you exclude them from political life to give air to genuine and legitimate concerns in our community, you give rise to more sinister elements.

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

Will the Member give way?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I will not. I have heard quite a bit from the leader of the Opposition.

A lot of hypocrisy has been called out in the Chamber. On numerous occasions, it has come from the Sinn Fein Benches, whether it is to do with the personal anguish that it has caused genuine victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland or because it has continually attended vigils to commemorate and celebrate those who took the lives of innocent people. One day recently, I spoke to Mr Alan Black, the sole survivor at Kingsmills. To this day, when he gets on a bus, he still has comments made to him, such as "It would have taken only one bullet had it been me". Those are the types of comments that continue to hurt members of our community. How does it make people feel when a Sinn Féin Member glorifies a particular individual or attends a commemoration? Where is the commissioner's report and consistency on that level of empathy? I would argue that it does not exist.

It is the same when we look at the SDLP. There has been no answer to the charge levelled against Mr Eastwood, nor have there been calls for a commissioner's investigation or, indeed, discipline. What about Claire Hanna, the current leader of the SDLP? That lady put out commentary about political violence during the Brexit negotiations. She said that we could expect civil disobedience at the very minimum. Is that not an incitement to hatred? Is that not a double standard from the leader of the Opposition? There is a consultation going on right now about reforming the Assembly. The reform that the SDLP wants, however, is a reform of exclusion. It is a reform of silencing, a reform of the very safeguards that nationalists put into the Belfast Agreement to ensure that there was no ganging-up on a political Member, only now to see them washed away because it is convenient to do so.

I am sick, sore and tired of the jumped-up theatrics of the Alliance deputy leader, who talks people engaging in culture wars, and him a chief architect of culture wars. Perhaps he should look in the mirror. When he talks about the actions and the discourse of members of my party, I need not go too far to remind him that there is a video of him circulating that does not show him —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— in a positive light —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— when it comes to conduct —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— in public life.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

When I say, "Order", take your seat, right? This has gone well beyond the scope of the debate, OK? You are talking about MPs —

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Yes.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

— for whom the Standards Commissioner has no responsibility, OK?

Now, I am letting it go as far as I can, but I encourage everyone to stick to the scope of the motion. If you will not, you will take your seat.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

The hypocrisy is clear. Let me be clear: if you are intent on going down the road of trying to censor and indulge in cancel culture, be sure that the Members on these Benches will put your record up in lights for all to see. I welcome it that anybody can come into the Chamber and debate, but there should be no ability to cancel a Member who rightly acted as any MLA would do —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— in the interests of his constituents.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up. Thank you, Jonathan.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

From the get-go, there are several major problems with the motion. The first, surprisingly, given those who tabled it, goes to the heart of the Belfast Agreement. It does not simply call on the United Kingdom Government to act but demands that a programme of institutional reform be co-facilitated by the UK and Irish Governments. Furthermore, it proposes that the Assembly write not only to the Secretary of State but to the Tánaiste, who has no business in Northern Ireland's internal affairs. I remind the SDLP that the three-strand approach was never intended to give Dublin a role in the internal government of Northern Ireland. No thank you.

No one who respects the Belfast Agreement or the principle of consent could support this motion.

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

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The very wording of the motion has ensured that no unionist in the Chamber could ever vote for it, regardless of the ministerial breach in question.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am happy to give way to Mr O'Toole first of all.

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

Thank you, Mr Gaston, for giving way. I appreciate that. Since you are now a defender of the Good Friday Agreement, which is the most remarkable development that we have seen in some time, I presume that you are also disappointed and will agree that Minister Lyons was in breach of the ministerial code in 2024 when he refused to attend North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meetings.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Absolutely not, and —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— I congratulate the Minister for the stand that he took. He still should not be going to North/South Ministerial Council meetings. Let us be very clear: you talk about the Good Friday Agreement, but you were happy to ride roughshod over the principle of consent in December when you gave away governance over 300 areas of law to the EU.

Let us look at what the motion rests upon. It attacks Minister Lyons on the basis of a report written by the former Commissioner for Standards, Melissa McCullough. That is the same commissioner who refused to investigate a complaint that I lodged regarding the Michael McMonagle scandal. I remind the House: Michael McMonagle was a convicted paedophile, who was on the payroll of the First Minister, supposedly for constituency work, when, in reality, he was operating as a Sinn Féin press officer. Was that ever properly investigated? No. Instead, it was left to a so-called report that was produced by the head of Legal Services. The Assembly passed judgement on that affair by agreeing a motion, tabled by me, that either the report was fundamentally flawed or the First Minister misled the House. Yet, Dr McCullough was not interested, and the SDLP, it seems, is quite content to look the other way when it becomes uncomfortable for the Executive.

That is the same commissioner who found no sanction for the First Minister of no alternative when she attended the Bobby Storey funeral in west Belfast during the height of the COVID lockdown regulations. It is the same commissioner who found there to be no breach when Mr Carroll tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance" on 7 October in the aftermath of the biggest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. It is the same commissioner who found Dr Steve Aiken to be in breach of the MLA code of conduct when chairing a Committee but dismissed the complaint that I lodged against the Chairperson of the Committee for the Executive Office, stating that she could not investigate Committee Chairs. The SDLP, once again, was happy to look the other way.

Indeed, we saw it in the Chamber again last week. Mr O'Toole was very keen to name-drop me in his opening gambit, but where was he last Monday? Where was he to stand up for scrutiny? Where was he to stand up for the victims when Members tried to stop this MLA speaking out in Committees? My goodness, his party was happy to censure this MLA over breathegate. It appears that, in this House, accountability is demanded only of unionists. I trust, Mr O'Toole, that you have had a word with your councillor Mr de Faoite for trying to belittle unionists last week, given that you are the custodians and the guardians of standards in public life.

Let us put the SDLP's position on standards in government to the test. Does it believe that Committee Chairs should not hold private meetings with Ministers before evidence sessions? Does it believe that, when a Member seeks the handwritten note of such a meeting, the author of that note — in this case, the First Minister's principal private secretary — should then take control of the freedom of information process in the Department? I have not heard the SDLP pass any judgement or make any comment on that issue. Is that accountability, Mr O'Toole?

My goodness, we will not take any lectures from the SDLP. Last week, it was all about hurty words. Oh dear goodness, we cannot have hurty words. It was also about asking too many uncomfortable questions. We cannot ask too many uncomfortable questions that would cause unease on the Sinn Féin Benches. This week, it is about what the Minister did not say and his not showing empathy. That is what the public see.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

That is why the public are laughing at this place.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

This place needs to catch itself on.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Gerry Carroll.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank and commend the Members for tabling the motion. Almost three months ago, in November, we debated a question for urgent oral answer that, similarly, was an attempt to hold a Minister to account. That time it was Paul Givan: different Minister, same party. Today, we are talking about the same shameless refusal of people to take responsibility.

The commissioner found that the Communities Minister was in breach of the ministerial code not once but twice, yet he still clings to office, protected by a party that values tribal loyalty over public standards. The Labour Party's defence of Keir Starmer in the past few days has been nauseating, but the DUP takes the biscuit in its defence of Gordon Lyons and Paul Givan.

There is a clear pattern here of Ministers shrinking from responsibility because their parties shield them from accountability. They close ranks, deflect criticism and wait for the news cycle to move on. They have made a cynical but, unfortunately, entirely correct calculation that there are no consequences for breaking the rules, which may be the case today. That has resulted in astounding arrogance from Paul Givan and Gordon Lyons: an arrogance that Ministers can breach the ministerial code repeatedly, but, if they just sit tight, the public will forget. People will not forget, Minister. They see through the circus, and many are asking what the Executive have actually delivered. The big parties have delivered absolutely nothing for struggling working-class communities.

In the debate, former junior Minister Cameron said that there was no evidence that the Minister for Communities's post increased tensions. I remind the Member that, after the Minister's social media post, a leisure centre housing people who were fleeing racial violence was burned to the ground. If that does not meet the threshold of increasing tension, I do not know what does.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

There speaks Hamas's cheerleader.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

What are you saying?

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

There speaks Hamas's cheerleader.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Ministers have a duty to act responsibly and to be careful of the impact of their words at all times, but especially at a time of heightened racial violence.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Go ahead.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

On reflection, and having had time to breathe, would you say that your comments about the 7 October attack were right or wrong?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Member has an extra minute.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

You need to get a new playbook, mate.

It is also worth remembering that, in that period in which unionist MLAs —.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I will come to you in a second, Mr Frew. It is also worth remembering that, last summer, many unionist MLAs were taking part in a strategy of whipping up anti-migrant sentiment —.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

What are you talking about?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

You might not like it, but I am going to say it. In particular, there were anti-Roma comments. Sexual harassment and misogyny are always wrong and have to be condemned, but it is worth remembering that, after last summer's events, the two charges against two Romanian teenagers, which sparked the riots, were dropped. There were no apologies from any of the Members who gave a wink and a nod or stirred the pot.

Mr Frew gave a blazing defence of his Minister. Maybe he will be rewarded with a ministerial position in the next mandate. Let us remember what he said last year. He, disgracefully, tried to tie sexual assault to immigration. That needs to be called out and challenged. He talked about the problem of HMOs, not because the people in them are stuck in damp, mouldy and unsuitable housing but because there might be a tiny increase in the number of black and brown faces in Larne, Ballymena or elsewhere. Did he backtrack? Has he apologised? Absolutely not.

Some Members said that the debate is a waste of time. If holding Ministers to account is considered to be a waste of time, that shows the depth of arrogance and entitlement that DUP Ministers in particular have.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. It was the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party who made that assertion. Does he agree that, given that the Ulster Unionist Party has a councillor on Derry City and Strabane District Council who has three drink-driving convictions, perhaps that Member should get his own house in order before casting aspersions on other parties?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I do not know the circumstances that the Member is talking about.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

It is quite obvious that practically everybody is straying from the scope of the motion. The standards commissioner here has no jurisdiction or remit over councillors and MPs. I accept the point that you are making, and you have put it on the record, but I want people to return to the motion. Also, when people have the Floor, they need to be heard. OK, Gerry, go ahead.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

A lot of derision and scorn has been poured on the fact that the commissioner challenged the Communities Minister for not showing empathy. It is beyond farcical that the Minister and his backers think that empathy is a bad thing and something that Ministers should not have while they are in office. It should be a bare minimum for Ministers, MLAs and anybody in elected politics. Frankly, I do not care whether it is written down in the ministerial code: Ministers should have empathy as a basic requirement of office, and, if they do not think that they should have empathy, they should not be in office. The Oxford Dictionary says that empathy is:

"the ability to understand and share the feelings of another".

Last year, at the time, I said that either the Communities Minister knew what he was doing when he posted about the migrants' location at Larne Leisure Centre and distanced his party from that decision with an unsubtle wink and a nod to far right and racist agitators in the town or he was so clueless that he did not think that mentioning the location of migrants, who had been driven out of their homes in the context of racial violence, would lead to racial violence. One of those statements is true, and both of them, in my view and that of many people, are reason enough for him to be out of office.

The debate exposes the fundamental hypocrisy of our institutions. Stormont cannot deliver housing while thousands of families are homeless; it cannot deliver healthcare while waiting lists are the worst on these islands; it cannot deliver educational reform while children are still segregated at 11; and, apparently, it cannot even deliver basic ministerial accountability.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up, Gerry.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Thank you.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Will you make a ruling on whether the Member who has just spoken was in order when he directly accused a Member of being racist towards those with "black and brown faces"?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I will certainly pass that on to the Speaker. A lot has been thrown here, however. I encourage us all to look at Hansard and reflect on what has been said.

Without further ado, I call the Minister for Communities to respond to the debate. You have 15 minutes.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

The motion proposed by the leader of the Opposition is nothing more than a charade dressed up as a debate on standards in public life. Let me be clear: the report from the former standards commissioner was an attempt to denigrate my standing and it was straight from the playbook of the woke brigade. I engaged in good faith and fully cooperated with the process, yet the commissioner, Melissa McCullough, blatantly disregarded much of my evidence. As I will set out, the former commissioner produced a ragbag report that failed to clear any objective threshold in its findings. I have to say that the former commissioner sits well with the increasing number of people who want to cancel those with whom they disagree. Liberty, free speech and the exchange of views should never be cancelled, and I will never be afraid to give leadership, regardless of whether that comes at a cost.

I reject the report and believe that all objective people should do the same. Ultimately, this is not about whether you like me or agree with what I posted after the events that disgracefully unfolded at Larne Leisure Centre that night; it should be about whether my actions constituted a breach of the ministerial code. Had I revealed in real time where those migrant families had been sheltering, that would have been a failure of leadership. Had I encouraged protests, my actions might have been called into question. However, I did neither. The report is based not on evidence but on conjecture, and opinion has triumphed over fact.

What we have is the introduction of new standards, falsehoods and contradictions. In fact, the former commissioner does a number of somersaults in the report. She finds that there was coordination between my office and the PSNI and later laments the lack of coordination. She states that the post required "more thoughtful communication" but also states that it was "deliberate and considered". She states that I blended personal, political and official roles but later states that I cannot step in and out of those roles. She states that I did not prioritise public safety but later concedes that it was my intention to "calm tensions". Her report is a bucketful of biased contradictions. When the evidence did not support her predetermined position, it was inevitable that she would tie herself up in knots.

Not only is the report laced with contradictions, but it contains falsehoods. For example, while the commissioner makes many outrageous comments, I highlight and utterly reject her completely false allegation that I endorsed or encouraged protests: at no time did I do that. The former commissioner also said that I criticised public bodies: at no time did I do that. There is no evidence to support her claim. Even in the event that I had done so, that would not have been a breach of the ministerial code. With such shoddy work, it is little wonder that she got so much else wrong. The report is based on what she thinks happened rather than what actually happened. She made no effort to conduct a proper investigation or speak to a wide range of witnesses. It is, therefore, no surprise that she uses words such as "may have", "appears" and "could reasonably conclude", because she cannot be categorical. Worse, though, is the former commissioner's presumption of the positions held by the people whom I represent in how she used the line:

"aware of the views of many of Minister Lyons’ constituents"

to justify the conclusions in her report. That is as unprofessional as it is inaccurate, and she should know better than to indulge in such innuendo.

I will address the comments that have been made about my supposed lack of empathy. Although I have explained clearly that the vulnerable families who were affected had been moved away from the leisure centre and were therefore not at risk from the awful events that later unfolded, I had then and have now a deep compassion for them and for anyone who might find themselves in such a position. What they experienced was wrong, and I have always stood against violence and intimidation. My record is not one of justifying or excusing violence, and I have consistently advocated support for the police, the courts and the rule of law. I have no truck with anyone who seeks to harm others, and it is particularly abhorrent when that is done because of the colour of someone's skin or their nationality.

I never set out to hurt or offend anyone. Anyone who knows me knows that I would never want to do that. However, the omission of empathy cannot be sufficient cause for finding a breach of the ministerial code. If that were applied consistently, it would set an alarming precedent that would threaten our public discourse. If Ministers are now required to infuse every statement with empathy — a term so subjective that it could mean anything to anyone — we are entering dangerous and anti-democratic territory. Here is the key question: who determines whether something is empathetic enough or carries the requisite emotion? Who becomes the arbiter of such behaviour? It would be unelected commissioners, who would dictate not just what we say but how we say it under the guise of enforcing standards that chime with their attitudes and personal bias. That would crush robust debate and discourage politicians from engaging directly with the public during crises. Ultimately, it would harm the communities that we serve. If the same standard were applied, we would have a future in which every tweet, post and speech was parsed for emotional content rather than factual accuracy. That is not accountability; that is political correctness and cancel culture masquerading as virtue.

I note what else the commissioner had to say for herself:

"Minister Lyons’ post appears to have been shaped by personal or political considerations, rather than a fully objective assessment of the situation."

Look at the new test that she introduces: our posts and commentary should not be influenced by political considerations. My post on that day as a local MLA was shaped by neither personal nor political considerations, yet here we have the former commissioner stating that we cannot allow our personal or political convictions to shape our views and how we communicate. What an incredible statement to make.

I have a further point. The commissioner said that it was her view that stating that the migrant families had been in the leisure centre:

"increased the likelihood of further ... unrest, regardless of whether that group ... had already moved on."

The PSNI, which was present on the ground and is trained in managing protests, asked that we let people know that the families were no longer there. Let us play that out. The alternative option open to me — it appears that it is the view of the commissioner and Members on the other side of the House that I should have taken it — was, on receipt of that request from the police, not to comply. That would have been the wrong thing to do. A refusal to assist the police could well be construed as a breach of the Pledge of Office. When it comes to managing protests that have the potential to turn violent and the police take the view that getting the word out is likely to be helpful, while the commissioner takes the view that getting the word out may lead to further unrest, I think that most people would place more weight on the assessment based on operational policing judgement than on the musings of a commissioner far removed from the events on the ground. Most would assume that that would be far outside her area of expertise, and they would be right. Therein lies the problem with the former commissioner: she thinks that she knows better than the people on the ground, including the police, and that she knows better than I do about what I meant and about the capacity in which I was acting.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Minister take an intervention?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

No, I will not.

This goes to the heart of the problem with the report: she believed that it was her job not just to investigate and produce a report but to police the words and behaviour of Members — well, some Members. It is hard to fathom how the commissioner did not think it appropriate to investigate the conduct thoroughly of Mr Gerry Carroll, when he posted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance" as Israelis were being murdered, raped and kidnapped in their hundreds by Hamas.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Minister give way?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I will not give way.

She took at face value his ludicrous assertions that he was not aware of what was really going on. She meekly —

[Interruption.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order. There have been comments back and forth, but, when Members are speaking, at least have the manners to let them be heard.

Go ahead.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

She took at face value his ludicrous assertions that he was not aware of what was going on. She meekly accepted his pathetic excuse that he was simply referring to Palestinians destroying fences in an act of civil disobedience. Nobody believes that for a second. By her actions and judgements in that moment, the former commissioner demonstrated the two-tier imbalance in the standards regime governing our arrangements: for unionists, a different — higher — standard applies.

The reaction of some Members has been completely over the top. It has not been grounded in reality. It is political pantomime. Some Members have repeated falsehoods with glee. Some simply read out attack lines given to them by their party leadership. However, I doubt that there has been a more ludicrous response than that from some members of the Committee for Communities, who, led by Kellie Armstrong, resolved to write to the Secretary of State to get his opinion as to whether I may have been in breach of section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act. The Committee thinks that the report could mean that I am not committed to pursuing my political goals by purely peaceful and democratic means. Those Members claim to act in defence of democracy and accountability but disregard the facts and cuddle up together as so-called progressives.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for giving way. Is he aware of any time when the Alliance Party has written to the Secretary of State about Sinn Féin's conduct in public office?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am sure that that is something that we could find out, but, rather than taking the time to write letters, I assure him that that is probably a grand total of zero.

I remind the Committee that there was nothing progressive and democratic about the Sinn Féin movement when it was murdering and maiming people across Northern Ireland.

You can disagree with me. Say what you want about how you would have taken a different approach: that is fine. However, the idea that I am in some way not a democrat or that I believe that there is a role for violence in this society is so ludicrous that it is laughable.

We all know what way the vote will go today. Let me be unequivocal: my intent in posting was to de-escalate. It was done in an attempt to avert a repeat of what we had seen in Ballymena. It was done in the hope of a better outcome for everyone involved. It was done in good faith. The outcome of today's vote will be immaterial. It will not change the approach that I take in this job or as a public representative for East Antrim. I will be guided by what is in the best interests of those who elected me and work for them. They elected me, and they know that I am here because I have a genuine desire to make things better for the people of Northern Ireland. My job is to serve them, represent them and get things done for the people of Northern Ireland. That is what I will keep doing.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Matthew O'Toole to conclude and make a winding up speech in the debate. You have 10 minutes.

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

I am afraid that today's debate has been something of a festival of whataboutery and deflection from the real issues. It has been a challenge at times, for you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, not just to keep order but to remind people of the terms of the debate.

Let me say first of all, in relation to what the Minister said, that the motion is about more than Gordon Lyons, more than the breach found in relation to the events and the Facebook post of June last year. It is about a broader question of accountability in our politics, improving our standards process and overhauling the way we do politics, seeking to find some consensus. That needs to change and improve. I genuinely do not know how any elected representative in Northern Ireland who presumably walks around the streets of this jurisdiction, goes into shops and engages with constituents could find anything other than that public trust in our politics is strikingly and remarkably low.

Further to that, the Minister is entitled to make a response. Part of the purpose of today's debate is to get Minister Lyons to give his response on the record to the points put in the standards report. He had the opportunity to do that and did it, even if I disagree with him. He outlined an entire indictment, from his perspective, of the process that he was subject to.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member take an intervention?

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

I will in one second.

The Minister outlined his own indictment of that standards process, but I presume that he and his colleagues will vote against a motion that is about improving and overhauling how we do standards here. That is ironic. It is ironic that Members, including Mr Gaston, lambast the way we do standards in this place but then say, "No: it would be terrible to support any change."

I give way briefly to the Minister and then to Mrs Dillon.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

We may want to see change in that, but we also disagree with some of the other insinuations and accusations that are made about me. There is also the fact that the Irish Government have no role in the process and should not be involved in it. Yes, we will against it for those reasons.

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

Well, if the purpose is to say that the Irish Government have no role in these institutions, I am afraid that I do not agree with that. Of course we know about the previous standards breach that the Minister was subject to because he refused to engage in the NSMC.

I give way briefly to Mrs Dillon because I want to be generous in interventions where I can be.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you very much for giving way. Do you agree that it is one thing to criticise the report but an entirely different thing to personally attack the previous commissioner or any independent commissioner, for that matter, because that entirely undermines the standards process and the standards themselves.

[Interruption.]

I should be allowed to speak. You did not give an intervention: would you like to be quiet now?

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

It is reasonable for any Member who is subject —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order. I gave you, Minister, the respect to be heard: I ask that you and your colleagues give others that respect.

Go ahead, Matthew.

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

It is, of course, reasonable for any Member who is subject to a standards process and the outcome of a report, including Mr Gaston, to respond to it, disagree and challenge it. That is an entirely legitimate part of the process. However, Linda Dillon is right when she says that simply questioning the motivations of the standards commissioner and dismissing them as "woke" is not an appropriate thing to do.

In his response, the Minister — I thought it was interesting — at least did something that he did not do last June. I think I quote him correctly when he said:

"I never set out to hurt or offend anyone."

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I said that before.

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

OK. I acknowledge that the Minister says that he said that before. Today, he is saying, "Trust me and my intentions when I did that post, but the Standards Commissioner? No, that is woke nonsense. That is woke nonsense from the SDLP, the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin". The Minister nods to confirm that that is his position, which gets right to the crux of the problem: rather than engage seriously and respectfully in the debate, the DUP consistently seeks to dismiss any criticism, any challenge and any accountability. That is not acceptable, I am afraid.

I have held the Minister to the same standard that I and my party, as the official Opposition, have held every other Minister in the Assembly and Executive.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

You have not.

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

Yes, we have.

[Interruption.]

Yes, we have. I dismiss utterly the idea that we have not. Go online, and look at the challenges that I get from supporters of all parties, including Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party, for the robust challenge that —

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

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

No, I will not right now; I will in a second.

— my colleagues and I give to all Ministers — all Ministers — whether they are DUP, Ulster Unionist, Alliance or Sinn Féin.

I need to make some progress in responding to comments made by others.

The motion is not just about Gordon Lyons; it is about building a culture of accountability in our politics, improving the way that the institutions work and rebuilding trust in the public that we can deliver services for them. It is deeply disappointing when Mr Jon Burrows dismisses as "wasteful" an entire debate that is fundamentally about accountability. Lots of people who have heard lots of words from Mr Burrows in recent weeks will wonder whether he is serious. A man who came in promising to be the new sheriff in town turns out to be Deputy Dawg to the DUP. He will not utter one syllable of criticism of the DUP.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will give way in a second.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

One second.

I will consistently call out and criticise Sinn Féin Ministers. Often, I have to put up with more than glares in the Chamber; I have to put up with responses online. I and my SDLP colleagues will challenge the Justice Minister and the AERA Minister: that is what opposition is about. Mr Burrows, in his office, has not uttered one syllable of criticism of the DUP. He reinforces the opinion that lots of people have that the mission in unionist politics is simply to create three versions of the DUP.

I will give way briefly to Ms Ennis briefly and then Mr Burrows.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that Mr Burrows, the now leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, who spent the first weeks of his time in the Chamber talking about koi carp and pandas falling out of trees, has no credibility when he lectures others on wasting time in the Chamber?

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

I will give way briefly to Mr Burrows, and then I will finish my remarks.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

A lot of the opponents are rattled by some of my contributions. I have criticised every party in the Chamber, which you would know if you had listened to the interviews that, you say, you have. I have pointed out issues that I have had with the Democratic Unionist Party's judgement at times. I will go where the facts are and where the evidence is. It is entirely possible to oppose the motion but also support high standards and condemn unequivocally the disgusting rioting that took place in my constituency and elsewhere. I called for the police to be firmer and to release images more quickly —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Excuse me: interventions are meant to be —.

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

I think that —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No, no, Matthew.

As soon as you to take to your feet, you are meant to sit down. Interventions are meant to be short.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way briefly?

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

I cannot. I am afraid. I have only got three minutes left.

There has been a festival of whataboutery today. The core of the motion is about standards in public life, building a culture of accountability and reforming the way that our politics works. It is disappointing to see that so many people have ignored that and fallen into the whataboutery trap, simply saying, "What about yousuns this? What about yousuns that?".

Multiple Members opposite mentioned the Bobby Storey funeral: at the time and subsequently, my colleagues on these Benches and I were robust in challenging Sinn Féin Members —

[Interruption.]

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

Yes, we were. The Minister of Education, I am afraid, is a man who has ignored and spurned any form of accountability.

I have held Sinn Féin robustly to account on the Bobby Storey funeral. I have held the Alliance Party robustly to account. I will do that to the DUP. The fact that your party believes itself to be immune to any criticism is, ultimately, what is damaging trust in our politics. Your party, as the leader of unionism, should, more than anybody else, care about trust in politics here, but you seem completely indifferent to generating contempt for our politics.

I will briefly mention some of the comments that were made. Pam Cameron asked, "Why bring the motion forward at all?". It is about accountability, I am afraid. She went on to criticise other parties for actions that they had taken. Accountability matters. Yes, we are all politicians, and, of course, everything that we do is political. There is nothing wrong with that; we are democratically elected people. However, we have, without fear or favour, challenged different parties.

Sian Mulholland mentioned her experience of being an elected representative in North Antrim last June, and I think that that was sincere. We should not forget the gravity of the situation. That is why the report was made in the first place. I believe that Mr Kingston is a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee: he should be mindful of some of his utterances in the Chamber during the debate. The reason why it was a matter of such concern to the public was the gravity of the situation, with people sheltering in fear for their safety. Minister, your responsibility —.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Where?

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

Where? In County Antrim.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

In the leisure centre? That is a lie.

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

Here is the point, Minister. We were in an extraordinarily serious situation, and you, as a holder of ministerial office, were expected to reflect —.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

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

I am afraid that I do not have time, Mr Buckley. I am generally generous in conceding time, as I have shown.

There has been a consistent desire to talk up the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement. We passionately believe in the Good Friday Agreement, but we also believe that it can be reformed and improved. It was funny to hear Mr Lyons talk about the Good Friday Agreement. He was previously found to be in breach of the ministerial code because he refused to participate in strand two of the agreement by attending the North/South Ministerial Council.

Our motion is not simply about Minister Lyons; he has said his piece. I hope that today's motion will pass. More generally, the public will continue to lose trust in our politics and in all of us, whoever we are — unionist, nationalist or other, socialist or green — because they do not believe that we can do politics properly and deliver accountability. We have an opportunity to pass the motion today to continue the process of pushing for reform and improvement in our politics. If Members think that the public think that it is all grand and we can go on like this, I genuinely wonder what planet they are living on.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

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

We cannot go on like this. I commend the motion.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

OK. Time is up.

Question put.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 51; Noes 29

AYES

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

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath

NOES

Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Wilson

Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Cameron, Mr Givan

Ms Ennis acted as a proxy for Miss Brogan.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes that the recent investigation report by the Assembly Commissioner for Standards found that the Minister for Communities breached the ministerial code of conduct; acknowledges that that is the second occasion on which the Minister has been found to be in breach of the ministerial code; believes that, as a result of that repeated failure to uphold the standards expected of public office holders, the Minister no longer commands the confidence of the Assembly; agrees that his refusal to accept responsibility for his actions represents a wider crisis of accountability in the Executive and a deeper cultural problem in our politics; recognises that the current arrangements for ministerial accountability, standards enforcement and institutional safeguards are inadequate and in need of reform; endorses a programme of institutional reform, co-facilitated by the UK and Irish Governments, to strengthen stability, improve accountability and restore public confidence in the institutions; and further agrees that the Assembly will write to the UK Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Tánaiste outlining that position.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Will the Speaker please rule on whether it is in order for personal attacks to be made on an independent commissioner in this place? I think that it is entirely out of order, but I would like a ruling on that.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I will pass that on to the Speaker.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 12.50 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Questions 1 and 2 have been withdrawn.

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

3. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the steps that she has taken to resolve the dispute with members of the Criminal Bar Association over Crown Court legal aid fees. (AQO 3083/22-27)

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

10. Mrs Dodds asked the Minister of Justice to outline the number of cases that have been added to the backlog due to the ongoing industrial action by the Criminal Bar Association. (AQO 3090/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will address questions 3 and 10 together, as they speak to the same issue.

I want to resolve the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) dispute. We have been engaged with the CBA since before the outset of its action in 2024, and I continue to engage with it. I made commitments and delivered, including on the 16% uplift in fees, which reached bank accounts at the start of the year, and on backdating that uplift to December 2024, at an overall cost of £6·15 million, £1·8 million of which went directly to barristers. I reprioritised my delivery plan, established a working group to consider other fees and appointed Judge Burgess to lead that work because that was what the professions wanted. We agreed a road map on 8 December to address the remaining issues, but the CBA withdrew its services, notwithstanding the fact that it had signed up to that agreement.

It was in the CBA's interests that I proposed the accelerated independent review, investing additional funding and resources once again to address the CBA's remaining concerns at pace. The proposed review was conditional on a full return to service to remove the intolerable impact on victims and witnesses. That was to ensure that additional unwarranted pressure was not brought to bear on those leading the review, so that they could proceed without fear or favour and without the added injection of victim suffering. Unfortunately, the CBA rejected that proposal, suggesting instead that an additional derogation to the service withdrawal, unclarified in number and scope, might be offered on a week-to-week basis, subject to its assessment of progress. That proposal was obviously untenable. It offered no certainty to victims and witnesses and no clarity on the criteria that would be used in determining which cases could go ahead and which would be delayed.

With the CBA rejecting the review, I am moving on and have asked officials to consider other options. That work is ongoing, so I cannot say more at this stage, but please be assured that efforts and intensive progress are maintaining pace. I believe that it is time for the CBA to start acting in good faith to deliver an end to the impasse. In the interim, I am working at pace to increase tailored support for victims and witnesses who have been affected by the withdrawal and to ensure that that support is provided at the greatest possible speed. I will, of course, keep the Chamber updated.

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin.

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

As we know, the dispute has been going on for 14 months without resolution, and we know and accept the difficulties that it is causing for victims. I want to tease something out: has mediation been brought to a close? Is that option not there?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Mediation has not been brought to a close; it has not started. There is no mediation in the process. It is about an evidence base, openness and transparency. The dispute is not between an employer and employees; it is a dispute about the rates that the Government will pay, out of public money, for particular services that are delivered through the legal aid system. In my view, there is no room for mediation in the dispute. Mediation was suggested, but, given that we were already quite far down the road in the work that Judge Burgess had done and on resolution of the issues — in fact, further progress has been made in the interim — I do not believe that it provides an opportunity to move it forward.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Minister. It appears that the dispute is escalating in its intolerance and intransigence. In the meantime, victims are suffering. I am ever so glad that the McNally family will be able to see the justice process starting for their daughter. There is huge trauma for families in not knowing whether a trial will go ahead. Will you confirm for the Mitchell family in Ballymena whether there will be a derogation for their case? When might they hope to see justice for their daughter?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I concur with everything that the Member has said, and I am sure that she will agree with me that there is something fundamentally distasteful and unethical about leveraging people's trauma for personal benefit. I believe that it is wrong to do that. I do not want victims to become bargaining chips in this exchange. That is why I said that any suggestion that a derogation would be turned on and off like a tap as a means of moving this forward is not acceptable to me. I cannot have a situation where, for example, the defence counsel in some of those cases makes decisions on whether or not a case will proceed to court. The derogations were sought by the Public Prosecution Service on the basis of its professional assessment of the urgency of the situation. It took into account the feedback that it got from victims' and witnesses' services. I believe that those derogations should happen: they will mitigate the ongoing strike, not provide a resolution to it.

I am due to meet Chloe Mitchell's family, shortly, on the specific implications for her case of the withdrawal of service. Unfortunately, I cannot give them the certainty that they want. Neither, indeed, would the idea of derogations being turned on and off like a tap give that family certainty. That is why my proposals were that they return, initially, to the situation prior to 5 January, and then return to full service while negotiations continue. Only that will give victims the certainty that they need on when their cases will be scheduled. That is the point that I want to get to. I still believe that it is possible to do that, but it will require the CBA being willing to meet me halfway.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Minister, will you please clarify the Solicitors' Criminal Bar Association's (SCBA) position on the accelerated review?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Given that the Solicitors' Criminal Bar Association has, in contrast to the Criminal Bar Association, been very proactive in its engagement with the Burgess road map and the ongoing review, and without detriment to the service that was provided to its clients, I have been clear that any accelerated review would also have to take account of the SCBA's outstanding issues with the road map. I wrote to the SCBA, at the same time as I wrote to the CBA, to ask for a list of issues that it would like to be included in an accelerated review. The SCBA wrote back on 23 January with a number of asks. Clearly, now that the CBA has rejected the terms of that offer, we are in a different space. I am sure that, like me, SCBA members are incredibly disappointed, because, ultimately, it is its clients who are not getting a service from the criminal Bar. We will set that disappointment aside and pick up the pieces. We will continue with the road map process that is already in place, and we will continue to resolve issues for the SCBA based on the evidence that it has willingly and helpfully provided.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Minister, following on from the Member for Upper Bann's question, there is concern across the board — the Committee had a discussion about this last week — about the impact that the situation is having on victims. None of us take that lightly.

I am also concerned about the public discussions and conversations on the matter, some of which you have engaged in, and the coverage of those in the media. There is a feeling that one cohort in society is being pitted against another, and I do not know how appropriate that is. What are you doing to ensure that victims, barristers and others who work in legal services have confidence in the justice system?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There are a few things to say on that. First, when I am asked questions about the situation, which is a matter of public interest, I will answer them. I will not be curtailed by any of the legal professions, or, indeed, by Members, when answering public interest questions. In the same way, you are asking me questions here that are leading me into having a public conversation about the issue. You cannot have it both ways. I am answering the questions openly and honestly, but Members will note that, when we made the offer at the start of January 2026, I did not make any public comment. I did not speak to the House other than to say that an offer had been made. I did not go into the detail of it: I did not say anything further.

If others are going to engage in misrepresentation of what my Department and I have been doing over the past 14 months, I will, of course, refute that and provide the evidence to show otherwise. It is not about pitting one group of people against another. To be clear, it is in the interests of justice and of the Northern Ireland public that all those cases proceed to conclusion. That is also in the interests of those who are accused, many of whom are being held on remand and have not been sentenced, and of others in the community who have been grievously wounded and are not seeing justice for their loved ones in the courts. That has to be dealt with. I am not the one who is suggesting that those people should become pawns in a game about how much people get paid.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

4. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister of Justice to outline the current time frame for delivering legislative changes to the PSNI ill-health retirement scheme. (AQO 3084/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Police Pensions Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 — the regulations — set out the PSNI ill-health retirement process. Officials will continue to work with colleagues from the PSNI and the Policing Board to determine whether amendments to the ill-health retirement scheme are required. However, a statutory rule effective from 1 February 2026 amended the regulations to permit the retrospective removal of ill-health retirement exclusions from the 2015 police pension scheme. That statutory rule provides for police officers who were active members of the 2015 police pension scheme on 1 April 2024, who were previously excluded from accessing ill-health retirement for the period from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2024, with the option to elect to retire under ill-health retirement if they satisfy the requirements for those benefits, subject to the full employee payment contributions for that period having been paid.

It may be helpful to note that the prospective element of that reform was introduced through the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024, which removed ill-health eligibility exclusions and reduced contribution rates for active members of the 2015 police pension scheme with effect from 1 April 2024. It is unlikely that further amendments will be made during the current mandate.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, no doubt you are aware that ill-health retirement figures are continuing to climb. Does the issue that ill-health retirement is causing to the PSNI budget worry you? In your opinion, could some people be misrepresenting their ill health? Might there be a degree of fraud?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am aware of the concerns that the Chief Constable raised at the Policing Board about the steady growth over recent years in the numbers of people who are retiring under ill-health retirement. The numbers fell fairly consistently during the mid-2000s but started to rise again from around 2020, with the highest figure being recorded in the past year. That is of concern because it is a significant pressure on public funds at a time when, I am sure, the Chief Constable will want those resources to pay for officers who are active. It is also important that those who are genuinely injured and do need to retire on ill-health grounds have recourse to that option. We do not want to be in a situation in which those who gave dedicated public service and are too ill to continue are forced into a situation in which they are at financial disadvantage or, indeed, are forced to take on other work that they are not capable of doing.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I agree with the Minister's last comments. Those who need to get injury-on-duty and ill-health retirement should absolutely be able to do so. However, there are, clearly, many people who are taking advantage of the unique circumstances and legislation around ill-health retirement and injury-on-duty retirement for PSNI officers. In no other service across these islands can people avail themselves of that. Nobody else in the public service can avail themselves of it. It is absolutely unsustainable. I have been raising the issue for a number of years now. The Policing Board has written to you on a number of occasions about it.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Have you a question as opposed to a speech, Mrs Dillon?

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is time that we saw legislation around ill-health retirement and this issue being addressed once and for all.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I accept what the Member says. I am also aware that the Policing Board has received a complaint concerning PSNI ill-health retirement. It would be inappropriate for me to discuss those matters at this juncture. It is under consideration by the Policing Board, as the appropriate authority, and I am certainly happy, on representation from the board, to act.

One must also bear in mind that this matter was brought to my attention, and concerns were raised about it, when policing numbers were at an all-time low and we had no certainty about the ability to stabilise and increase policing numbers. Therefore, it is important, as we move through these things, that we first try to ensure that we have a Police Service that is the right size, avoids undue stress on those who work in the service and allows for people to be reprofiled and, indeed, repositioned in the service where that allows them to continue in the police without seeking ill-health retirement. It is, I have to say, sad that we are having a conversation about those who may seek to abuse a system that is there, ultimately, to protect those who are there to protect us.

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

Notwithstanding her previous answers, can the Minister fully explain the reasons for the delay in delivering the legislative changes to the police ill-health retirement scheme, which, hopefully, will prevent abuse of the system?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

In fairness, we have delivered changes to the regulations, but primary legislation would be required to deal with some of the areas that the Chief Constable believes may be being exploited. He raised that with me, and, obviously, we are not the body that is responsible for determining ill-health retirement. That falls to the Chief Constable and to the board. Therefore, we are working hard with the board and the Chief Constable to determine solutions to that.

Once those solutions have been determined, we will have to consult, because these are statutory entitlements that people gained when they got their contracts. We will have to engage in a consultation to make sure that we are able to make those changes. Given how little of the mandate remains, the opportunity to bring forward primary legislation in this space is limited. However, changes are required in a number of areas around the frameworks for policing. My officials are working on that with a view to drafting a policing Bill in the next mandate, which would allow us to bring those matters together and resolve them in one piece of legislation.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

I declare my membership of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Will the Minister confirm whether the Chief Constable of the PSNI is willing to accept responsibility for completely administering the ill-health retirement scheme?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I believe, from the news reports, that he did indicate that to the board last week. Again, that will need to be considered, first of all by the board and then by my Department, to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest in the administration of the scheme. One needs to bear in mind that a Chief Constable themselves may be due for ill-health retirement, so that could be an issue. Also, I would not want any perception, certainly not with rank-and-file members, that a Chief Constable would be making those decisions based potentially on the cost to the organisation. Therefore, we would have to bottom all that out in a proper consultation and make sure that the right tramlines are in place to ensure that, when this is administered, it is administered fairly; those who benefit from it are able to justify that benefit; and, crucially, if somebody goes on to make a full recovery, they are obligated to inform of a change of circumstance rather than being simply advised that they may do so.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Minister, this morning I met members of Blue Lights, which assists officers who are going through the ill-health retirement scheme. Will the Minister acknowledge that, for any legislative changes, it will be Members who are advocating for restrictions on officers who currently seek ill-health retirement who will have to vote to change the legislation and restrict it for those who are in need?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

That is absolutely correct. At the end of the day, I cannot legislate by myself. I will require input from the Justice Committee, the various people who are impacted by any changes, the Chief Constable and his senior management team, and the Policing Board. Ultimately, however, the final decision will be taken in the House, so those who are suggesting that there should be significant changes, be they prospective or retrospective, will ultimately have to decide on whether that scheme is appropriate or not.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

5. Mr Tennyson asked the Minister of Justice to outline the policy goals that she has been unable to progress through the Executive since the Assembly was restored in 2024. (AQO 3085/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I have been unable to progress an increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) despite considerable support for that in a public consultation. That would bring Northern Ireland in line with the international standards, including directives from the UN's Committee on the Rights of the Child. At 10 years of age, our current minimum is the lowest in Europe along with England and Wales. I shared a paper with Executive colleagues that highlighted strong public support for an increase — 83·5% of respondents — and it was clear from the limited number of responses that I received that there continues to be insufficient support to enable the necessary legislative change to be progressed. That is why it was not included in the Justice Bill: I did not want to hold up its introduction through a lack of agreement on content.

I am fully supportive of removing the defence of reasonable chastisement from the law here as the effects of physical punishment of children are consistently associated with a wide variety of negative health and developmental consequences for children. As any such amendment will require Executive agreement, which, again, has not been forthcoming, I circulated a draft Executive paper in October 2024, but, despite my efforts, I was not able to secure Executive agreement to deliver change in the law in the current Justice Bill. I will continue to work with ministerial colleagues to seek their approval to repeal the defence of reasonable chastisement and move towards a position of equal protection for children in Northern Ireland.

In a draft paper to Executive colleagues in November 2025, I sought agreement on the drafting and inclusion of vagrancy repeal provisions in the Justice Bill. That too was unsuccessful, so it has been paused to allow for further consideration.

Finally, I sought the agreement of colleagues to include "transgender" in the list of protected groups under the hate crime provisions in the sentencing Bill. Regrettably, there has been a lack of consensus on that measure, so I have had to remove "transgender" from the list of protected groups identified in the Bill. I will proceed to seek Executive agreement to introduce the Bill with that omitted.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her answer. She referred to the minimum age of criminal responsibility. If that was changed, how would children's offending behaviour be dealt with?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

In seeking to raise MACR, we are not saying that children's offending behaviour should be ignored or that they should get away with it. Changes would need to be accompanied by the development of new arrangements to identify the underlying causes of concerning behaviour in younger children and to provide support, guidance and help to those children and their families. Often, children who display challenging behaviour have themselves been victims or experienced multiple levels of adversity and trauma and have multiple unmet needs. Some have been groomed, some have been coerced and some have been exploited. We know, however, that the provision of targeted support to address the underlying issues at the earliest opportunity is an effective way of addressing offending behaviour, reducing the number of future victims and preventing lives being blighted by a criminal record.

Currently, if there is concern over a child's offending behaviour, they can be referred to multi-agency panels called children's diversion forums. Those or similar partnerships could be considered as a model to work with under the new age of criminal responsibility if we increase the minimum age. That would reinforce the message that young children who offend need help and support to desist.

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

Minister, our party agrees with you about many of the issues that you have raised, and we want to work with you on them. However, it is clear that, before you took office — an office that, in effect, you and your party campaigned for you to have before the Executive were restored — you were on the record about the track record of your Executive partners. Why, then, did you not seek explicit guarantees in writing before you went into the Executive about what you could deliver as Justice Minister? To be clear, that would not have prevented an Executive being formed, so it is an entirely different position from that of the First Minister and deputy First Minister's parties. Why did you go in without those guarantees, and is it not a bit rich to complain about it now?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I find it a bit rich that the Member whose party sat in the Executive for many years and never had any written guarantees about anything now holds others to a different standard of accountability. He says that we campaigned for me to be Justice Minister, but let us be clear: the reason that I stand here as Justice Minister — I am under no illusions about this — is that nobody else could get the required cross-community support to do the job.

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

We were blocked from it.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

No one is blocked from doing the job.